VinceC 🇨🇦🇮🇹🇺🇸

Future historians will study Europe‘s „green energy transition“ and have some really good laughs. It’s not just one funny idea, that doesn’t make any sense at all, it is a series of decisions that not only hurt European economies, destroy entire industries and countless jobs, but also make Europe geopolitically irrelevant, and limit Europe‘s ability to defend itself. Let me summarize that genius approach, let’s see which one is the most entertaining: 1. Europe produced more gas than Russia was exporting, then decided to stop. Importing gas instead of producing it yourself, not only makes it more expensive, unreliable as proven by recent events in Russia and the Middle East, but also generates more emissions due to gas liquefaction process and shipping. Purest madness on many levels. 2. Germany switching off nuclear power plants, but keeping coal and gas, not only made energy more expensive, decimated German industrial base, but it also hurts the climate badly. German energy production after the „green energy transition“ generates ten times more emission than France‘s which kept nuclear as the main energy source. If Germany switched off coal power plants first, but kept nuclear, it would have avoided emissions equivalent to Berlin’s emissions in almost a century. Purest ideological madness. 3. High energy prices in Europe causing deindustrialization, jobs and prosperity destruction don’t mean that Europe consumes much less. The same products come now from Asia. The difference is that they cause now much more emissions than they did before. A car built and shipped from China causes 70% more emissions than a car built in Germany, cement twice as many emissions. How is this even possible? Are European greens and their voters really so naive that they don’t see the deep damage they cause to the economy, geopolitical security and the climate?