Posted on 02/24/2026 5:57:21 AM PST by MtnClimber
There it was on the front page of Saturday’s New York Times: with a small assist from the United States, the island nation of Cuba has almost entirely ended the use of fossil fuels. Finally, we have the first country in the world to achieve the climate movement’s Holy Grail and nirvana — Net Zero! Or at least a very close approximation. This should be cause for a huge celebration.
You would think that the Times, which has been demanding the elimination of fossil fuels for at least a couple of decades, would be leading the celebrations. But weirdly, now that Cuba has finally shown the way, the Times chooses to put a completely different spin on the achievement. The headline and subheadline are (print edition): “U.S. Choking Oil Deliveries To Cuba Ports; Military Action Brings a Nation to Its Knees.”
The piece reports that the Trump administration is helping Cuba to achieve Net Zero by preventing oil tankers from landing there. Somehow in this piece, that is spun as a bad thing. It has brought Cuba “to its knees.”
The funny thing is that here in the U.S., it was just over a year ago that we had President Biden and an administration full of zealous environmentalists who were using every governmental power at their disposal to force Americans to stop using fossil fuels. By Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021, Biden had directed all federal agencies to pursue an aggressive “all of government” operation to achieve “net zero” on an accelerated schedule. Goals number 1 and 2 from that EO are “100 percent carbon pollution-free electricity on a net annual basis by 2030,” and “100 percent zero-emission vehicle acquisitions by 2035.” In 2023, the Department of Transportation released a “Blueprint” for eliminating all carbon emissions from the transportation sector. In 2024 EPA released a plan to eliminate fossil fuels from electricity generation. Similar initiatives were everywhere in the government.
Did the Times ever suggest that government forcing an end to the use of fossil fuels was “bringing America to its knees”? Or even that forcing the end of fossil fuels was any sort of a problem? If they ever suggested anything like that, I never saw it. What I saw instead was that the Times was the biggest cheerleader for the use of government coercion to suppress the use of fossil fuels, at least if the use was by Americans.
And yet, if you believe yesterday’s article, the banishment of fossil fuels, which was to be such a boon to the United States, is somehow a problem in Cuba. From the Times article:
In Cuba, people are struggling with frequent blackouts, shortages of gasoline and cooking gas and dwindling supplies of diesel that power the nation’s water pumps. Trash is piling up, food prices are soaring, schools are canceling classes and hospitals are suspending surgeries.
Here is a picture from the Times of the “garbage piling up”:
What am I missing? Since when are fuels like oil, gasoline, natural gas, and diesel any longer necessary, or even useful or economic, for providing energy to the people? The Times for years has been pounding a relentless drumbeat emphasizing that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to produce energy, and all sane people are flocking to them as the best sources. For example, from August 17, 2023:
As the planet registers the highest temperatures on record, rising in some places to levels incompatible with human life, governments around the world are pouring trillions of dollars into clean energy to cut the carbon pollution that is broiling the planet. The cost of generating electricity from the sun and wind is falling fast and in many areas is now cheaper than gas, oil or coal. Private investment is flooding into companies that are jockeying for advantage in emerging green industries.
In other words, to eliminate use of fossil fuels all Cuba would have to do would be to slap up a few wind turbines and solar panels, and then it could run its economy on the abundant renewable electricity without need for any of those icky fossil fuels. And saving money too! Cuba actually has a bunch of wind farms. Why doesn’t it just crank them up to provide the power formerly supplied by the fossil fuels?
It seems like the people who are writing these pieces for the Times don’t read their own newspaper.
Meanwhile, let me be the first to congratulate the people of Cuba on being the first to achieve Net Zero.
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Congratulations Cuba!
Manhattan Contrarian ping
What’s net zero mean in Cuba? They executed zero political prisoners Monday?
I could live with the New York Times reaching Net Zero!
Somehow, I have the image in my mind of people pushing old cars through the streets of Havana. I imagine they’re not celebrating.
Congrats Cuba!
</smirk>
Someone did a takeoff on that with Fidel Castro saying "I got my job through The New York Times."
Have they started eating each other yet?
Maybe, they could burn all that garbage an generate lots of green electricity!
Welcome to disease.
Burning garbage isn’t very eco friendly.
Ha! GMTA.
Any comments, New York City?
What did Communists use to light their homes before candles? Electricity.
Net zero doesn’t exist. Nice pic of NYC trash. But, where’s the snow?
THEY RAN OUT.
There are several tribes in the Amazon that have reached that milestone as well.
A great Menton piece!
That's exactly what Singapore does. I think they have three electrical-generating trash incinerators. They filter the gases from the incinerators and dispose of the ash on one of their islands - they don't just dump it in the ocean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.