Mike Roberts

That's funny.

Get your comments in by September 2nd!

The thing I hate about those headlines is the term "clean energy." There is no such thing. Even "renewable energy" is shorthand for non-renewable infrastructure for harnessing renewable energy" but now we're bombarded by the phrase "clean energy." It's not clean and even requires fossil fuels.

Why Electric Vehicles Can't Reduce Overall Oil Demand The harsh realities of a finite world

There is no way out.

open.substack.com/pub/thehones...

We can't build a new world that anyone wants to live in. But nature will take humans back to a sustainable world, eventually. And no-one alive today would want to live in that world.

I stopped at 3 (never knowingly had COVID-19) when the data in my country suggested that boosters appeared to remove the immunity that the primary course gave.

They're still supplying a lot of fossil fuels for the world to burn. Good government.

Unlikely, given that Trump still enjoys a surprisingly high minority approval rating, in the polls.

We don't yet know whether it will be possible to build infrastructure to harness renewable energy, and distribute it, without FFs. If it isn't, then if they result in a significant reduction in FF use the FF industry will contract/collapse and be unable to supply the FFs needed in future.

So get back to us when the data are in.

Looking into the future is never valid, only mildly interesting. I've seen so many projections go wrong that I wouldn't be surprised if it happened again.

Like Einstein said, motion is relative to the observer. From the psycho's point of view, you backed into him. From your point of view, he drove into you.

Is the Transition With Perfect Recycling the Solution? When confronted with certain collapse, humans counter with the energy transition and improving recycling. These will ensure civilisation can go on for ever. But there is no way that can be true. Le…

Is the Transition With Perfect Recycling the Solution?
mikerobertsblog.wordpress.com/2025/07/29/i...

Get back to us when you have actual data instead of imaginary data from the future.

"Expected to drop" ? Why not wait for actual data instead of presenting non-data as some kind of success?

There is no such thing as "clean energy"

I used to think so, too.

Give me a reliable MSM outlet.

We Are All In Denial Regardless of why humans seem to be capable of, and exhibit, denial of reality, we all are guilty of it. This is hardly surprising, since it is built into us, as it would be built into all species …

We are all in denial. mikerobertsblog.wordpress.com/2024/06/27/w...

To what end? More ecology destroying civilisation, for longer? And remember, not one solar panel, wind turbine or hydro-electric dam has been constructed without fossil fuels.

The Guardian is one of the better MSM outlets.

No way out. mikerobertsblog.wordpress.com/2024/05/26/n...

How can California have clean energy use? Do you mean foraged food? Every other form of energy has environmental impacts.

I suppose it's no worse than renewables advocates reclassifying non-renewable infrastructure for harnessing renewable energy as "clean energy."

It's difficult to die in two places! But, yes, I understand what you're saying.

Hmm. It may take a couple of reads but is reasonably clear. Modeling can't tell if more people died during the pandemic than would have died if the pandemic had never happened. David's alternative is a completely different meaning, though he thinks it would give the whole article a better feel.

Yeah, but you can bet his graph will be or has been reposted countless times by the deniers.

I doubt China's oil consumption has peaked. Unless oil production has peaked, which is possible.

"Less harm" isn't "no harm." Enough food for all, especially using industrial agriculture comes at a cost. If we all gave up eating meat (and we won't) it would only, at best, slow the destruction of nature.

I'll ignore your insults, they're unhelpful.

Because it won't solve anything about this unsustainable and destructive civilisation.