Well, here we are. The climate scolds have been wagging fingers and lecturing all of us about the vital need to go "Net Zero" on carbon emissions, claiming that it's necessary to stave off a catastrophic climate disaster that may well have the entire planet burst into flame. (OK, I'm exaggerating there, but only a little.) They don't pay much attention to the facts that, through most of the planet's 4.6 billion-year history, it's been warmer than it is now. They don't pay much attention to the fact that, throughout much of that history, CO2 levels have been higher than they are now. And they certainly won't let go of the notion that they seem to know the planet's "correct" temperature range, and that we must surrender much of our comfortable, energy-hungry lifestyles to make sure it stays there.
Now, though, it's happened. One nation, a small island nation in the Caribbean, is on the verge of achieving Net Zero. That nation? This bastion of climate awareness?
Francis Menton, in a post at the Manhattan Contrarian, informs us as to which nation it is. It's Cuba.
There it was on the front page of Saturday’s New York Times: with a small assist from the United States, the island nation of Cuba has almost entirely ended the use of fossil fuels. Finally, we have the first country in the world to achieve the climate movement’s Holy Grail and nirvana — Net Zero! Or at least a very close approximation. This should be cause for a huge celebration.
You would think that the Times, which has been demanding the elimination of fossil fuels for at least a couple of decades, would be leading the celebrations. But weirdly, now that Cuba has finally shown the way, the Times chooses to put a completely different spin on the achievement. The headline and subheadline are (print edition): “U.S. Choking Oil Deliveries To Cuba Ports; Military Action Brings a Nation to Its Knees.”
The piece reports that the Trump administration is helping Cuba to achieve Net Zero by preventing oil tankers from landing there. Somehow in this piece, that is spun as a bad thing. It has brought Cuba “to its knees.”
Of course, that's predictable to anyone who has done the numbers, who has looked at facts. Net Zero already has one Scottish town on its knees, as I reported some time back, and if scolds continue pushing it, it will only get more and more expensive for less and less result.
Read More: How Net Zero Destroyed a Scottish City
Net Zero Won't End in 2050: Three Countries Now Demanding Billions More for Forests
It's remarkable, though, to see the New York Times, of all institutions, crying about this, about poor Cuba being denied the use of fossil fuels. Shouldn't the notoriously climate-sensitive Times editorial board be shouting this great achievement from the rooftops? Well, if they were in Cuba, to even get to the building from which rooftop you wanted to shout the news, you might have to wade through a pile of garbage, because there's no fuel to haul the garbage away. You might run across a lot of people on foot, because there's no fuel for cars or trucks. You might run across a lot of people chawing on raw food, because there's no gas for cooking.
You get the idea.
Yes, Venezuela's sudden change put Cuba in this spot, not climate scolds. But while the means differed, the ends are the same: A nation without the necessary energy to maintain a modern, technological lifestyle - or even a post-Industrial Revolution lifestyle. This is the endgame for climate scoldery, and it always was.
Francis Menton explains it better than I could:
What am I missing? Since when are fuels like oil, gasoline, natural gas, and diesel any longer necessary, or even useful or economic, for providing energy to the people? The Times for years has been pounding a relentless drumbeat emphasizing that wind and solar are now the cheapest ways to produce energy, and all sane people are flocking to them as the best sources. For example, from August 17, 2023:
As the planet registers the highest temperatures on record, rising in some places to levels incompatible with human life, governments around the world are pouring trillions of dollars into clean energy to cut the carbon pollution that is broiling the planet. The cost of generating electricity from the sun and wind is falling fast and in many areas is now cheaper than gas, oil or coal. Private investment is flooding into companies that are jockeying for advantage in emerging green industries.
In other words, to eliminate use of fossil fuels all Cuba would have to do would be to slap up a few wind turbines and solar panels, and then it could run its economy on the abundant renewable electricity without need for any of those icky fossil fuels.
Feature, not bug. And that's the interesting side note; why are the scolds not lining up to make Cuba the shining example of modern life under Net Zero? Why are they not raising funds to slap up solar panels everywhere in Cuba? If solar power worked anywhere, one would think it would work on an island in the sunny Caribbean. Why are they not raising funds to run up a bunch of offshore wind turbines, to catch those lovely warm trade winds off the Caribbean? If wind power worked anywhere, one would think it would work on an island in the breezy Caribbean.
Why are the scolds not calling for this? Because it won't work, and they know it won't work. It's not about the planet. It's not about the climate. It's about control. It's always about control.
Anyone who still thinks Net Zero is a good idea should head for Cuba, posthaste. See how it works in the real world.
