Russia Making War On Ukraine Is Just So Inconvenient For ‘Climate Change’

I’m pretty sure that the people of Ukraine have actual real world worries, but, to the climate cultists at places like the NY Times that’s secondary to dealing with the climate scam

Ukraine War’s Latest Victim? The Fight Against Climate Change.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine seemed like an unexpected opportunity for environmentalists, who had struggled to focus the world’s attention on the kind of energy independence that renewable resources can offer. With the West trying to wean itself from Russian oil and gas, the argument for solar and wind power seemed stronger than ever.

Right, right, an unexpected opportunity. A lot of people have to die, be hurt, lose their homes, have to flee the country, all so Warmists to have an opportunity. Sounds rather cold. Do these “journalists” even think about what they’re writing?

But four months into the war, the scramble to replace Russian fossil fuels has triggered the exact opposite. As the heads of the Group of 7 industrialized nations gather in the Bavarian Alps for a meeting that was supposed to cement their commitment to the fight against climate change, fossil fuels are having a wartime resurgence, with the leaders more focused on bringing down the price of oil and gas than immediately reducing their emissions.

Nations are reversing plans to stop burning coal. They are scrambling for more oil and are committing billions to building terminals for liquefied natural gas, known as L.N.G.

Fossil fuel companies, long on the defensive, are capitalizing on energy security anxieties and lobbying hard for long-term infrastructure investments that risk derailing international climate targets agreed to only last year.

“That’s the battle we’re in right now,” said Jennifer Morgan, the ambassador at large for climate change in the German Foreign Ministry and a former president of Greenpeace International. “We’re in a moment of massive disruption due to the invasion, and that’s either a big risk or it’s a big opening on the climate.”

I really hate these people, they’re as cultist and horrible as any of the worst cults.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “Russia Making War On Ukraine Is Just So Inconvenient For ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Dana says:

    Why is the war bad for weaning ourselves off fossil fuels? It’s simple: even if we could do that, even if we could power the entire world with solar panels and wind turbines and unicorn farts, the construction of those things would take decades. We need power between now and then, and the fossil fuel infrastructure is here, now, and in place. The warmunist geniuses out there seem to understand virtually nothing about logistics and construction, and that these things all take time.

  2. Facts Matter says:

    In the midst of a global meltdown. Nations starving and suffering from high inflation and a lack of energy to fuel their starving nations we get this bit of information from the G-7 meeting.

    Altogether the G7 leaders pledged to raise $600 billion in private and public funds over five years to finance needed infrastructure in developing countries.

    The U.S.’ $200 billion portion will come from grants, federal funds, and private investment over that time period to support projects are intended to tackle climate change, improve global health, gender equity and digital infrastructure.


    Digital infrastructure in Somalia is the first thing on their list. The second thing is GENDER EQUITY along with CLIMATE CHANGE.

    As we can see by the very talking point coming from Biden Admin we find that indeed the USA Government controls the narrative with DIGITAL MEDIA….aka social media. I do not know why the left refuses to admit this. It is no different than the Voice of America Radio broadcasts that continue to this day aimed at certain nations.

    Gender Equity in Muslim Countries while a noble cause is going to force these countries to choose and they will Choose the BELT AND ROAD INITIATIVE of CHINA who is not forcing them to go against their very culture and religion.

    So why I do applaud the Biden Admin for at least attempting to tackle China, it is obvious they cannot pass up the chance to WOKIFY these starving countries as a condition for taking our money. Our team is akin to waving pink pom-poms at the 250 Pound angry linebacker sacking the quarterback on every play our team tries to run. China is Dick Butkus, and Biden is the Rejected Cheerleader sitting on the bench making paper dolls with kindergarten scissors.

    • Professor Hale says:

      Besides 10% for the big guy, I wonder how much of that 200 Billion makes it way back into the pockets of Rich and politically connected Americans. That’s a whole lot of money to not stick to a few palms along the way.

  3. Hairy says:

    Dana you are correct the world can not and should not end the use of fossil fuels tomorrow.
    In the USA renewable electric use is at 21% and increasing at 1% per year but trending higher. In your lifetime it will be over 50%BIG OIL is quite happy with the gas price yku are willing to pay. Why should they build more refinerining capacity? To lower profits? Americans are always behind the curve on auto engineering we were amongst the last to get fuel I jettison or disc brakes.probably likewise with EVs
    Car builders (all) will stop building fossil cars around 2035, 20 years after there won’t be many gasoline powered cars

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      Sorry Hairy but in the US “renewable electric use” (Whatever the hell that is) I assume you mean electric generated in a renewable manner, is currently around 12% TOTAL. And if it’s increasing 1% per year it will take till 2104 to run our current needs. If our needs increase by then of course longer. Which they will.

      Fact is without nuclear power fossil fuels are the cheapest most reliable way to generate energy and will remain so for the foreseeable future. 15th century pin wheels and mirrors just ain’t gonna fill the need.

  4. Hairy says:

    Times change faster than people do
    We especially middle age (50) and older do have difficulty accepting that the past is not the future. It tends to force the reality of our own mortality on us.
    Maybe if Rev Kye was still I’ve he would agree

  5. […] that they had to buy it elsewhere, putting a large increase in demand on the remaining supply. Despite the pleas of the global warming climate change emergency activists, people need fossil fuels now, to the point where very, very green Germany is going to reopen coal […]

  6. James Lewis says:

    Here’s an interesting chart on energy use and source.

    • Professor Hale says:

      The really interesting thing about that chart is the amount of electricity lost. IT makes an obvious point that generating power by first creating electricity is a terribly inefficient expense. Imagine that petroleum to transportation line all having to pay that inefficiency tax before it “fills” your Tesla tank.

  7. Jl says:

    John-why should we use unreliable sources?
    If they’re so good why are mandates needed to force people to use them in many instances?

  8. […] that they had to buy it elsewhere, putting a large increase in demand on the remaining supply. Despite the pleas of the global warming climate change emergency activists, people need fossil fuels now, to the point where very, very green Germany is going to reopen coal […]

Pirate's Cove