Is it too risky?
It’s always seemed to me to be so rash and short sighted to push the world towards green energy so quickly.
What happens if they don’t get the desired results?
There’s already billions upon billions of dollars invested in this industry, and a huge portion of that taxpayer dollars.
There’s places where as far as the eye can see it’s just solar panels and windfarms, destroying natural ecosystems.
But what happens if the technology gets outdated?
What if the supply chain breaks somehow? Like a revolution in Argentina blocks spodumene concentrate mining or a series of natural disasters in the Congo stops the flow of cobalt or something.
One of the theories about the reason for fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan was because they blocked the sale of opium which is used in the highly lucrative medicine and narcotics industries.
Or maybe China monopolizes some vital component within the global supply chain but then cuts off that supply or increases the price to where renewables are then operating at a net loss?
Maybe those things won’t happen, but something unaccounted for could happen.
And then everyone’s stuck with failing green energy.
It just seems so risky.
Why not just let the market decide organically whether to invest in green energy or not?
Then the businessmen can take the brunt of any of the failures.
Instead they force it on citizens through green energy schemes and climate change policies.
It comes off as a very poorly thought out plan.
Like as if they’re blinded by their own hubris.
Or maybe they don’t care if it fails because they’ll make the people cover the cost of the losses?
Really it should be the market deciding what form of power to use.
Coal is everywhere, you mine it and burn it. And the sun and wind is everywhere too, but not the rare earth minerals used to construct the infrastructure to capture it.
They must be very overconfident that renewables will pay off.
Either that or they just don’t care if it doesn’t, because they’ll pass the costs on to you.
Alex James.