EDITORIAL: Eliminating fossil fuels would risk a descent into darkness

washingtontimes.com ^ | 6/10/2019 | editors

[rktman]

“Don’t ask or speak of the Wise Ones who rule us all.” Sort of like the other employees were ‘cautioned’ about shell-sea clintoon when she occupied that space at the exorbitant salary? (DON’T LOOK AT ME!) :-)

[rktman]

“but life beyond carbon — entirely dependent on sunshine and a breeze — would be insanity.” I know you must have seen some of the videos so may be familiar with the insanity that does exist among the ‘true believers’. If you look at nannie bloomers beyondcarbon. org site you’ll see it on display. He won’t suffer one iota though.

[rktman]

Most of the true believers have NO clue just how much of their daily lives are made awesome through products of ‘big oil’. Funny how the big enviro ‘trek companies’ provide apparel and equipment made of synthetics.

[Jim Noble]

Eliminating fossil fuels would risk a descent into darkness

The descent into darkness is the whole purpose of eliminating fossil fuels.

[roadcat]

The real reason is that storms involving wind and particularly ice cause our growing number of trees to bring down power lines.

Here in California, lots of the recent devastation from forest fires is man-caused... by government decree. They forbid landowners from clearing brush and debris, because government believes in a mistaken belief they're protecting tiny animals and insects. Even the utility companies have many restrictions against clearing flammable brush and trees, even though they are blamed and made to pay the costs of deadly fires. Government in California is not out to protect the public, they don't give a darn.