Articles

The article above was published by the New York Times, which is consistently anti-fossil fuels. The feature describes an environmental catastrophe being caused by Western Europe’s runaway “green” mandates.

Europe sits on vast shale deposits which could supply its energy for centuries, but its green ideologues block development of cheap domestic fossil fuel and have outlawed nuclear power. Solar and wind, and yet-to-be-revealed miracle discoveries, are supposed to replace these reliable, time-tested energy sources.

As in the US, wind and solar energy have proven to be feel-good mirages. They are utterly incapable of supplying needed energy, and cost much more than the hydrocarbon alternatives even when compared to $100 per barrel oil.

To make the situation worse, Western Europe relies on Russia—its historic enemy—for natural gas and crude oil.

The combination of Western Europe’s feckless reliance on Russian energy, its refusal to develop its own vast shale reserves, its dismantling of its nuclear grid, and its regulations mandating so-called renewable energy as its primary energy source has led to a ‘perfect storm’ energy crisis, which many experts believe will far exceed the most pessimistic government predictions regarding consequences to Europe’s population and economy.

Europe’s “protected” old growth forests are falling victim to this misguided energy policy. In the energy regulations within the EU’s Paris Accords, scrap wood and sawdust from timber mills is deemed “renewable.” Therefore, European wood pellets are permitted to be used as fuel, whereas gas and oil produced from Western Europe’s vast shale deposits, are prohibited.

As a substitute for Russian gas, Central Europe’s old-growth forests are being ground up and pressed into wood pellets, destroying the enormous timber value and the forests’ priceless carbon storage capacity as well as the animal and plant biodiversity.

Because wood pellets are much less efficient than hydrocarbons, pellets emit more greenhouse gasses per BTU than gas, oil, or coal, burn dirtier in terms of atmospheric pollutants than coal, and cost far more.

European scientists are quoted, saying, “…burning wood released more carbon dioxide than would have been emitted had that energy come from fossil fuels.” They also said, “Using wood deliberately harvested for burning will increase carbon in the atmosphere and warming for decades to centuries.”

Even though the forests will take several centuries to regrow, their destruction checks the ideological box of “renewable” as mandated in the EU’s energy treaties, ignoring the collateral damage of deforestation, increased pollution and increased cost.

The article above has an excellent discussion of the growing recognition that beavers are an essential part of habitat restoration. Quoting one expert, “It may seem trite to say that beavers are a key part of a national climate action plan, but the reality is that they are a force of 15-40 million highly skilled environmental engineers.”

Videos

With their piercing looks and spine-tingling howls, wolves inspire both adoration and controversy around the world. Find out how many wolf species exist, the characteristics that make each wolf's howl unique, and how the wolf population in the continental United States nearly became extinct.

This is fake news (explosives not lightning) – but a great video

—

And that’s it - as always thank you..

Please pass along, and if you if you received this from a friend - consider subscribing here.

And if you haven’t already - please check out our views on biodiversity at the link below. 👇

https://pitchstonewaters.com/blog/