Will Green Initiatives Opposed To Natural Gas In Homes Endanger Lives?

Supposing the death-by-1000s cuts approach accomplishes its goal... then what?

There is a concerted effort by motivated individuals that we bring an end to all fossil fuels and move to an entirely electrically-based system.

Ideally, we will rethink our entire energy sector so that it is driven by non-fossil fuel energy.

That will, unfortunately, require a significant increase in an electrical draw at a time when most of our power grids are already running near capacity. The only kind of energy source that is not actively opposed by activist (environmental?) groups is wind and solar, both of which are tools for passive harvesting of energy contingent on the ebbs and flows of natural cycles.

Will this presidential election be the most important in American history?

Neither of these actually manufactures energy on a reliable and predictable model. This poses a serious hurdle to the future envisioned by the don’t-sell-any-more-gasoline-powered cars-by-2035 crowd.

Our consumption of electricity will vastly exceed our production. We’ve begun to see this already. In the same week, Newsom announced the switch to a gasoline-car-free future, there was an advisory to refrain from charging e-vehicles overnight to spare the power grid.

That story ties in with another one about gas stoves.

After the left was suddenly seen singing from the same songsheet about the ‘dangers’ of living in homes with gas stoves, the Biden administration is moving down the road of appliance regulation, which is the death-by-1000-cuts method of making something defacto illegal.

This conveniently dovetails with the activist left’s opposition to any new homes being built with gas heat. Of course, we’ve been gaslit (pun intended) to believe that Dems have no such designs on eliminating natural gas.

Of course, that’s difficult to square with this NPR piece. (Note the date circled: August 2019)

We note that at least one CCP party member is involved in nudging us in the direction of abandoning gas stoves, per a Free Beacon article, by way of his role in Climate Imperative, with a billion-dollar budget.

Let’s imagine for a moment that this green utopian vision prevails. Then what?

For one thing, electrical power consumption will make California’s infamous rolling blackouts/brownouts look positively stable by comparison.

But that’s California. If the power goes out there, just hope it comes back before the contents of your fridge/freezer are affected by it.

States that experience a serious winter will face a very different problem. Here’s a headline to consider:

Storms have a habit of knocking out power lines. But winterized states have adapted to that. They often heat their homes with an energy supply option that is not so easily knocked offline.

Otherwise, the home would be without heat, pipes would freeze, and you would have one hellofamess.

What happens to a city in winter in Biden/AOC/Newsom’s utopian future? Power gets knocked offline in a storm. Your heat goes down. You have no gas or oil heat source/cooking source to fall back on. Temperatures in the home plunge below zero.

And your electric car can’t even take you somewhere warmer because there’s no way to charge it.

How many people die in that scenario?

How many of those same people would have lived under the current model?

But if you are an anti-human organization like many of these environmental groups, even death and suffering have an upside.

It’s a small price to pay in service of Mother Gaia.

Every god, after all, demands some kind of sacrifice. This one just happens to charge a higher premium.

Free Beacon

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *