Try parsing this

Second, there’s a growing body of research showing that an aggressive transition to clean energy pays for itself even aside from its effects on climate. Reducing the use of fossil fuels will have enormous “co-benefits,” including better health, cleaner air and water, and a much lower fuel bill. And while renewable energy is still more expensive on average, its costs are rapidly falling, and most analysts expect it to outcompete most fossil fuels in most places within the next few decades. Cleantech industries are booming, offering great advantages to first movers. The transition is inevitable; only the speed is to be decided, and the winners and losers.

There’s benefits to not using fossil fuels over and above stopping climate change. And moving from fossil fuels to renewables will be cheaper in the future. This is evidence that we must act aggressively now.

Do the people at Vox even read their own stuff?

16 thoughts on “Try parsing this”

  1. So far the aggressive transfer has involved replacing nuclear energy in Germany with burning lignite, the dirtiest, most polluting fossil fuel and producing far more greenhouse gases than a natural-gas-fuelled power statiion, let alone than the zero produced by nuclear power.

  2. Stopping the use of fossil fuels, even if emerging nations agreed, would not stop climate change. Good ol’ natural variation would still account for that. The default state of Earth is as a ball of ice. Enjoy the warmth , however it’s caused, while it lasts. Winter is coming.

  3. Buy today, because it’s going to be cheap – some day. Wow! I think I saw this pitch on a solar companies website; this may be verbatim.

    “First, it’s not true that one nation can make no difference at all (0.018 is not 0.000).”

    Actually, 0.018 is 0.000. We have no way to differentiate. Beside 0.018 being purely speculative.

  4. “Cleantech industries are booming”

    Oh yeah – 2.7 jobs lost for every green one created, wasn’t it?

    Can’t actually be bothered parsing this stuff; it’s the same old same old.

  5. The Other Bloke in Italy

    Never, ever let the fornicators get away with the weasel phrase “climate change”. It is global warming and by the way, where is it?

  6. If the people at Vox ever read what they published, well, they wouldn’t be Vox. The fact that Matt Yglesias works there says it all.

    Vox does have value, though. It’s proof positive that the Ivy League is turning out a whole lot of graduates that have neither the intelligence nor the education to actually do anything worthwhile in the Real World.

  7. We’ve been building windmills for 2,000 years, but only building gas turbines for just over 200. So why does anybody think that wind turbine technology is going to improve to the point that it becomes competitive with a more recent technology?

  8. @ Alex
    Who cares whether it becomes competitive?
    Communist China burns roughly half of all coal and produces more than one-third of all greenhouse gas emissions in the world. It hjas increased its coal-burn by more than UK’s total fuel consumption.
    So, to offset that, the UK has to build windmills that drop down to 1% of capacity in January when we most need power generation.
    Today’s papers reveal that the latest Soviet spy to be unmasked was protected by *Kim Philby*
    Lefties care about their own, not about the rest of us.

  9. Unless things have changed significantly in the last few years, I’m not aware of ANY good reasons for moving away from reliable and cheap power and moving towards unreliable and expensive power. All these so-called benefits seem to be mostly hypothetical and future based.

  10. We’ve been building windmills for 2,000 years, but only building gas turbines for just over 200. So why does anybody think that wind turbine technology is going to improve to the point that it becomes competitive with a more recent technology?

    This is precisely why Total – which invests billions in green energy – pulled out of wind: they said there would be no step-change in the technology (unlike what they expect to see with solar) and the limitations on wind power today are pretty much the same as those faced by Dutchmen a couple of centuries ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *