Robbing Grandma to Pay Gaia


Energy has to come from somewhere.

This may come as a shock to some, but if one plans to eliminate fossil fuels from the production equation, that energy creation capacity must be replaced.

But there is a problem – a big one.  With the green energy movement eschewing clean natural gas, nuclear, and hydro and defining only wind, solar, wave, and geo-thermal as renewable – and therefore the only politically acceptable replacements for oil and coal - the cost of energy has skyrocketed, when it is available at all - high electricity prices slowing California's progress to clean energy future and Californians push back on order not to charge EVs during heatwave.

While California may have been the tip of spear, green-wise, that spear is now plunging directly into the hearts of millions of bank accounts around the globe - inflation really hurts older Americans and Prince Edward Island residents react to heating oil price increases.

This brings up one very simple question – why is society robbing Grandma to pay Gaia?

The leaders of the greenergy movement are not, it seems, too intellectually deficient to understand that the technology they say will alleviate the problem simply does not exist – nor will it exist any time soon.

Globally, the green movement has already inflicted utterly predictable suffering on millions of people. From energy to agriculture -

- to transportation to, well, everything.

Why, then, knowing the impossibilities of the future and the disasters of the present, has the movement gained so many adherents in the government, finance, media, and the social spheres?

The answer is rather simple – power. The movement is far more about justifying the well-renumerated continued existence of bureaucrats, think tanks, non-governmental organizations, professorships, pundits, and everyone else who has realized it is really comfortable to be part of unaccountable and – so far – unstoppable gravy train than it is about the “environment.”

Of course, if one is actually a Luddite that is less of a truism – when the point of a policy stance is to literally turn back the clock on civilization, the elimination of production capacity not only makes sense but is in fact a crucial aspect of the effort. As that would cause the death of literally billions of humans (the math is simple: less food + less warmth + less transportation + less knowledge + less of everything else = less people) it is not “toplined” in most green public relations messages.

Neither are the concomitant socio-political impact – the fewer people you have in a group the easier it is to control the group – nor the inevitable actual environmental destruction – for example, pre-abundant fossil fuel Vermont had a forest coverage of 20 percent, now it’s about 80 percent -  often mentioned, for obvious reasons.

Read the rest of this piece at The Point.

Thomas Buckley is the former Mayor of Lake Elsinore and a former newspaper reporter. He is currently the operator of a small communications and planning consultancy and can be reached directly at You can read more of his work at

Image: courtesy The Point.