Professor: ‘Madness’ of fighting global warming will impoverish everyone

By |2016-05-24T07:17:08+00:00May 24th, 2016|Energy|37 Comments

Cambridge University electrical engineering professor Dr. M.J. Kelly concluded in a peer-reviewed journal article that attempts to fight global warming with green energy will impoverish the world.

The Monday article found reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions enough to actually slow global warming in a measurable way simply isn’t possible without significantly reducing standards of living by plunging most of the world into poverty, destitution and starvation.

“Over the last 200 years, fossil fuels have provided the route out of Daily Caller  New Foundationgrinding poverty for many people in the world,” states the article. “This trend is certain to continue for at least the next 20 years based on the technologies of scale that are available today. A rapid decarbonization is simply impossible over the next 20 years unless the trend of a growing number who succeed to improve their lot is stalled by rich and middle class people downgrading their own standard of living.”

The article found current CO2 emissions aren’t falling rapidly enough to slow global warming largely because most public policy has focused exclusively on developing wind and solar power, which may actually increase emissions. Continued support for wind, solar and other forms of green energy like biofuel “represents total madness” as these energy systems don’t justify the massive costs of the subsidies required to support them.

Africanpoor“It is clear to me that every further step along the current pathway of deploying first-generation renewable energy is locking in immature and uneconomic systems at net loss to the world standard of living,” Kelly wrote in a press statement. “Humanity is owed a serious investigation of how we have gone so far with the decarbonization project without a serious challenge in terms of engineering reality.”

The article confirms previous criticism of environmental policies which state the total amount of energy created by solar and wind is relatively small, even though both systems have been heavily subsidized since at least the 1970s. In 2010, wind power alone received $5 billion in subsidies, swamping the $654 million oil and gas received. Solar and wind power get 326 and 69 times more in subsidies than coal, oil, and natural gas per amount of energy generated.

In 2015, solar and wind power accounted for only 0.6 and 4.7 percent of electricity generated in America, respectively, according to the Energy Information Administration.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller


  1. Brin Jenkins May 24, 2016 at 9:46 AM

    Sums up the supply situation clearly. Every kw of wind energy should have instant backup supply for when the wind varies. If this is not so we get power cuts, this generation capacity is kept fully manned and idling 24/7. The oft quoted reduction in c02 production is imaginary, not accounting standby plant operation.

    Wind Turbines are designed 500% larger than the required output, power of the wind varies on a logarithmic base making load balancing an art form with 10% renewables, and at 50%, it’s impossible to maintain regular supplies. Essential consumers must have priority so all others will take the brunt of all cuts.

    Finally the mechanism for c02 being a warming cause has never been explained, the current theory reverses from c02 being a result of heat to being a cause which seems illogical.

    The fuel for these turbines may be free, but use of green electricity is confined to when it’s being produced, in short only justified by Micky Mouse Economics.

    • Lincoln May 24, 2016 at 12:23 PM

      A well informed post, and this is what most media platforms leaves out.

      Dezember 6, 2014 German Renewable Energy Keeps Blacking Out! Supply Often Less Than 2% Of Wintertime Demand

      My last post featured a commentary by renewable energy expert Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who forcefully conveyed the folly of Germany’s mad rush into renewable energy, and the country’s hysterical obsession with its suicidal fast-track shutdown of its stable base-electric-power generation.

      • Brin Jenkins May 24, 2016 at 12:32 PM

        Thank you, grid watch uk is a very good resource for those who enquire.

        • CB May 27, 2016 at 3:21 PM

          “grid watch uk is a very good resource for those who enquire.”

          Good for what?

          Spreading misinformation?

          Is it wise to believe people you know are misleading you, Brin?

          Do you think that will work out well for you in the end?

          “Germany’s Grid: Renewables-Rich and Rock-Solid”

    • Dano2 May 26, 2016 at 8:34 AM

      Finally the mechanism for c02 being a warming cause has never been explained,

      Actually it has been explained to you a dozen times, you are either being dishonest or lack capacity to grasp the explanation.

      Either way.



      • Brin Jenkins May 27, 2016 at 2:33 AM

        You have been challenged and failed. I want to hear a viable explanation and you have been a dumbo not even being able to understand what you believe.

        • Dano2 May 27, 2016 at 8:07 AM

          Remember, you failed to grasp what several people have showed you, including me. The failure is on you, not anyone else.



        • CB May 27, 2016 at 3:17 PM

          “You have been challenged and failed.”

          I am familiar with Dano, and I doubt that claim very much!

          The signature of the greenhouse gasses we emit can be seen from space, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are warming the planet.

          …so what explains your “doubt”?

          • S Graves May 28, 2016 at 10:45 PM

            Familiar with Drano? Then you must know he’s an idiot.

            • Dano2 June 1, 2016 at 6:59 PM

              Says purposeful liar Graves caught in many lies by me.



        • Ian5 May 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM

          You’re being intentionally evasive if not dishonest. Explanations and evidence have been provided to you many times. You tell us what you don’t understand:

        • Scottar March 12, 2017 at 8:55 PM

          He’s just a baiting troll, ignore him.

  2. Lincoln May 24, 2016 at 12:18 PM

    April 22, 2016 Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view

    Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations. On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.

  3. topperj May 24, 2016 at 2:42 PM

    This is the goal. Bring the West down, particularly, and make everyone impoverished. That way, we’re more easily controlled.

  4. odin2 May 24, 2016 at 4:51 PM

    Maurice Strong was an billionaire elitist who helped organize the IPCC, and was the Secretary General of the 1992 Rio Conference (sometimes called the Earth Summit). Here is a quote from Strong:


    Maurice Strong
Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro
[ Emphasis mine].

    • Dano2 May 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM

      Dishonest quote-mine, thanks!



      • CB May 26, 2016 at 2:16 PM

        “Dishonest quote-mine”

        Should that come as a surprise on a site like this?

        I wonder if they realise broadcasting the same dishonest talking points on multiple propaganda outlets simultaneously alerts the public that there really is a conspiracy to mislead going on…

        “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

        “Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion”

        • TraceSkipper May 26, 2016 at 5:11 PM

          1 billion people live without energy and they endure (for a little while) pain and hardship unimaginable to people like you. Why dont you drop your cell phone in the trash and give your car keys to a stranger and go join them. Please and thank-you.

          • CB May 26, 2016 at 6:17 PM

            “1 billion people live without energy”

            Oh, I know!

            You’re so very concerned about those poor people without energy… but it’s fake concern, isn’t it?

            I would be fine with helping poor countries install renewable energy that won’t crash the climate they depend on for survival!

            Would you?

            Plant type LCOE ($/MWh)
            Conventional Coal $95.10
            Advanced Nuclear $95.20
            Geothermal $47.80
            Biomass $100.50
            Wind $73.60
            Solar PV $125.30
            Hydroelectric $83.50


            • TraceSkipper May 27, 2016 at 10:09 AM

              So are you saying that solar power can run an entire city of 10 million? Or a country of 1 billion? Why dont you f-off with your crap.

              • CB May 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM

                “are you saying that solar power can run an entire city of 10 million? Or a country of 1 billion?”

                I am!

                Are you saying it can’t?

                “The theoretical potential of solar power… represents more energy striking the earth’s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ).”


                • S Graves May 28, 2016 at 10:44 PM

                  OH BS! How do you power a city of 10mm at night using all solar? You don’t have that sort of storage. Are you an idiot?
                  You citation is irrelevant.

                  • Scottar March 12, 2017 at 8:52 PM

                    Plus since all that wonderful solar energy is so spread out the practical energy derived is much less then imagined. The effective energy density on a good desert day near the equator is about 1% that of coal, 5% that of NG. That’s why it takes so much infrastructure to capture all that wonderful renewable energy that can’t be affordably stored.

                    But greenies claim if you just get enough participants, why you could run the world of off unicorn farts and rainbow pixie dust! Oh yes we can! LOL.

            • BigWaveDave June 8, 2016 at 5:45 AM

              Where do you expect the energy to build the “renewable energy” to come from?

              • CB June 9, 2016 at 2:25 AM

                “Where do you expect the energy to build the “renewable energy” to come from?”

                Why would it matter where the seed energy came from if the system is self-sustaining?

                “Energy payback estimates for rooftop PV systems are 4, 3, 2, and 1 years: 4 years for systems using current multicrystalline-silicon PV modules, 3 years for current thin-film modules, 2 years for anticipated multicrystalline modules, and 1 year for anticipated thin-film modules”


                • BigWaveDave June 9, 2016 at 10:05 AM

                  You have to build all of the junk you claim will be self sustaining, don’t you? What are you going to use for energy needed to build them? For examples, how are you going to process your silicon, or make steel?

                • jmac June 9, 2016 at 10:25 AM

                  Wow, nice link. I didn’t realize the payback was so quick.

  5. toddyo1935 May 24, 2016 at 7:42 PM

    I posted this solution in the UK over 2 years ago. Ho hum.

  6. Troof Detector May 25, 2016 at 12:37 AM

    Thats the whole idea.

  7. Dano2 May 26, 2016 at 8:33 AM

    So well-known global warming denier writes an opinion piece. And the sun rose in the east.



  8. Dano2 May 27, 2016 at 5:58 PM

    Professor: ‘Madness’ of fighting global warming will impoverish everyone

    Cost of not acting on climate change $44 trillion: Citi

    Anmar Frangoul | Special to
    Tuesday, 18 Aug 2015 | 7:05 AM ET

    Up to $44 trillion could be going up in smoke if the world does not act on climate change, according to the latest piece of research from U.S. banking giant Citigroup.

    The report – Energy Darwinism II: Why a Low Carbon Future Doesn’t Have to Cost the Earth — has forecast that spending on energy will hit around $200 trillion in the next 25 years.

    …the central case we have in the report is that the costs in terms of lost (gross domestic product) GDP from not acting on climate change can be $44 trillion dollars by the time we get to 2060.”

    “So it’s not a sort of a zero sum game, there is a cost to not doing this, and although there is a cost to acting, what we’re trying to do is to actually weigh up the different costs here.”



  9. countrycentral May 30, 2016 at 7:33 PM

    No need for impoverishment. The timeframe we have available for adjustment to renewable resources is more than enough if we start making a change now. Nations will have time to adjust the economy towards renewable resources and in fact this will enrich many countries with more accessible and affordable energy.

  10. Robert June 9, 2016 at 10:43 AM
    • BigWaveDave June 9, 2016 at 7:47 PM

      A bigger tragedy is that abundance produces idiots who write the crap you cite.

      • Robert June 9, 2016 at 7:54 PM


Comments are closed.