https://nypost.com/2024/08/11/opinion/w ... fantasies/
Countless studies show that when societies add more renewable energy, most of it never replaces coal, gas or oil. It simply adds to energy consumption. Recent research shows that for every six units of new green energy, less than one unit displaces any fossil fuel. Analysis in the United States shows that renewable energy subsidies simply lead to more overall energy being used.
...
But on top of that, a true transition would also require politicians to impose massive taxes on fossil fuels to make them less desirable. McKinsey estimates the direct price tag to achieve a real transition at more than $5 trillion annually. This splurge would slow economic growth, making the real cost five times higher. Annual costs for people living in rich countries could be higher than $13,000 per person per year.
The implication is that using alternative energy sources will still take place because of a resource crunch, but the same crunch will affect those sources as well. Meanwhile, the global economy which relies on those sources will need more energy each time because it's capitalist (that means it's driven by competition and profit-making) and most of the world population that relies on it have not attained all basic needs plus have wants which the minority "haves" are counting on them to have via increased production and sales needed to guarantee more profits (hence, profit-making).
The transition cost for at least people living in the First World will be more than $10,000 a year, and will subsidize the Third World.
In short--and the writer doesn't realize making this argument--the $2 trillion waste is inevitable but not for purposes of going "green".
