Planck Foundation



There are reasons not to be friendly on the green movement. There are reasons not to be friendly on the oil/carbon industry. It's just time be to realistic and emphasize the need of changing the energy model very rapidly from the old fossil fuel based model, to the new fuel-free (as in : renewable) energy model. Not for environmental reasons (and yes: there are plenty of them), but just for economic reasons. If we don't change our dead ended old energy model, we come economic more and more of road in the mud. We must stop listen to the oil industry that tell us that everything is under control as long we don't create alternatives for their core business model. Someone who listen to the oil industry for wisdom on our energy system is as dumb as a drug addict who believes his pusher. But on the other end of the spectrum there is also a lot of economic dead ended street bla bla. The green movement has failed to picture/project/communicate a world of Sustainable Prosperity for each and everyone. As said earlier in this paper: the greens are more grey than green. Bitter and anti everything is the main imago of the gooders of the world. Not many people's cup of tea. In defence the greens has gone into over drive. Overdrawing the picture certainly would do the job must they have thought. And it did. Everyone got touched by it. But it was just preaching. No valid alternatives were presented. Just giving us a bad feeling and no concrete 'you can start here today' solutions. This overdrawing was the solution of last resort for the green preachers. But it's the nightmare for the environmental friendly alternatives developers. Sustainable Prosperity is not served by overdrawn CO2 horror stories. The reality is that the CO2 movement doesn't understand PeakFossil at all. The only way global fossil consumption will go is down, down, down, the way up is over. The economic explorable reserves are depleted. There is not enough economic to explore fossil carbon left to initiate any horror future. The CO2 movement, just didn't do their homework very well. The CO2 movement was not much at all about open truth searching scientific studies, it was more about a political agenda of creating a global CO2 tax structure, as a by global taxation forced development fund for the non developed countries. The CO2 movement had some severe stalinist characteristics: Science is about keep asking questions, not about Honecker's DDR. Politics is about consensus. Science and politics are natural enemies. Preventing critic scientists to publish their research is a scientific shame. The CO2 movement has fallen into their own swords. Lets put some salt in the open wounds. Global climate (and by this its change) is driven by cosmic radiation and cosmic gravity. Cosmic radiation (like neutrinos: is also the main driver of the nuclear fusion process in the sun and of the nuclear fusion in the earth's core (and so of magma activities and so -with some delay- of volcanic activities). Cosmic radiation is the main driver of cloud development (just google on CERN+clouds+climate). Direct or indirect by magma influence on the atmosphere. The relation between surface water and magma and the relation between magma and cloud development is a matter of current research. The location of our solar galaxy in the universe drives the solar activity. Cosmic radiation is also the main driver of the nuclear fusion process in the earth's core. This fusion process drives the magma streams into the outer core of the earth. Cosmic gravity (which is also connected to the current place of our galaxy in the universe) also can also steer as a pump magma floods at the outer core of the earth. These magma streams drives ocean currents, as they are salt and sensible for this magnetic magma flow motor. The ocean currents distribute the equatorial heat to the poles. When large space objects of other galaxies pass they can change the magma flows very abrupt very significant and this can cause abrupt climate changes within short time frames. The tide of the ocean is the best visual example of cosmic gravity influence (in this case caused by the gravity of the moon). These magma streams also give the earth it's magnetosphere protection that reduces all unwanted high cosmic nasty radiation levels. Short overall information on both geophysical phenomenons can be found on and or by a google query for it. Conclusion: Our climate is made and changed pure and only by the location of our galaxy in the universe. The journey/travel of our galaxy though the universe is the driver of the former and current climate status and a cause of continuous climate change. More precisely: the current status of the universe makes this era's climate (with all kind of also direct effect slowing mechanics) and future climate will be made by the future location of the earth in the future setting and forces of the universe. The man-made climate change theory is a fable made up by green fundamentalists with not any knowledge on PeakFossil exploration and not a very deep love/devotion for the true nature of science (as in: always keep asking questions, or: the more you know only gives you an understanding on how much you don't know). Yes the climate changes, it always have and always will, this is something we don't like since we stop being hunters and became farmers and we certainly don't like since we build cities and nations, but it's just a part of existing in the universe. We had the medieval warmth period in the Northern Hemisphere. In this period Greenland was green. There were vineyards in London and the struggle for live was a little less tense (as in: there was prosperity). Most of the huge cathedrals of Europe find their birth in this period of feudal prosperity. To add this climate part to this paper could be seen as intellectual suicide (as the CO2 movement is quite stalinist on dissidents), this is the reason why Planck Foundation has not mentioned it in the past. But as we deliver by this paper a total blueprint for energy finance, that covers all the needed facets, we think it's time to speak out on this issue. Our energy transition investment wave facilitating finance model delivers us the untouchable status needed for taking this stand. Without our energy finance models there will not be any energy transition investment wave. So we're environmental heroes nevertheless our opposition to the CO2 movement. We've worked hard for several years to develop a valid finance model for massive energy transition investment that's round (as in: no lose ends) and will do the required job. We did this without any governmental subsidies, nor corporate brides/grants. We just suffer and burned our own money to deliver this. The CO2 movement are just a bunch of not very creative, not very much thinking and not very passionate, mainly political driven people. Now we can speak out loud on the CO2 issue. We've delivered the finance model for energy transition to the world: just hit us for it. Sustainable Prosperity is our agenda: just hit us for it. Has energy environmental impact? Yes. Very much. Fossil energy use delivers lots of nasty air pollution the oil industry rather not want to talk about. Do we need the oil industry? Yes we do. Their business model is old and quite terminal, but it gives us the time to make them superfluous within 5 years. Nobody can says we're breast feed by the fossil energy lobbyists regarding our CO2 statement. We think the oil industry doesn't care about economic collapse if they care deliver their energy promises any more. But you should do if they don't. Without affordable energy our economies will decline, our governmental deficits will grow, our governments and currencies will collapse. Do we need nuclear fission (the new high priest in the CO2 church)? No, nuclear fission is just garbage science, half complete research with huge risks and downsides. The CO2 movement want to avoid a non-existing problem by creating another one. An example of very good thinking. Forget the risks (as nobody want to talk about it: very hard to understand, but the truth), what about fuel? PeakUranium is not very much on the scope of the CO2 fear sowing movement, they are blinded by CO2. But the 235 and 239 isotopes of Uranium are very scarce. Do we want U 235/239 wars beside oil and natural gas wars? Another very valid facet in the nuclear energy alternative is the required time to build an nuclear fission plant: at least 10 years. Building more quick equals more risks. Do we want that? This long realization period alone is a huge downside on nuclear fission power generation. Another solution can be realized in 25% of that time budget. And why we don't use the nuclear fusion reactor the earth provides us by the heath processes in its core? Geothermal is just safe and sound nuclear without this risks: just drill some pipes and enjoy the heat of this reactor with sea water as heat transport expedient. Regarding the recent cheer leading of nuclear fission by the greens: Yes, we have a time budget regarding energy transition away from fossil fuel. Not by fear, but by economics. The economics of nuclear fission are a wonder in itself: cleaning the garbage and delivering military security is done for free by societies in the nuclear fission business model that now on every table due to the CO2 movement. A good lobbyist is worth every dime he/she costs. What happened with about our common dislike of privatizing profits and socializing debts business models? Trade in CO2 emission rights is an other miracle. This is literal trade in thin air. Vulnerable to scams as nothing earlier in history. Trade in emission rights dwarfs even the huge Tulip Mania scam in Holland's Golden Age. Mr. Gore his public investment advice: going long on CR (telling the CO2 story is one thing, earning on it an other thing). Mr. Gore his personal investment strategy: liquidating the CR assets just before the collapse of the CR scam and than reverse it in going long on carbon (oil/coal) as they will be scare and prices high. But the CO2 tax is just about global wealth distribution, that's still a operation right? No. Dig into nett outcome of taxation: global taxation just gives another far away remote governmental layer that needs budgets. Democracy and distance are contrary developments: democracy just has a limited reach, beyond that reach it's called democracy by name, but has in practice nothing in common with it. Both global taxes and global governments are not wise concepts: it just will give less income to the working man/women. National taxes are needed, but just like salt on a meal: to much spoils the meal. And for what's left of the CO2 tax after the global government has taken its 'operational fee', what good will this 'global development fund' do? Just dig into the work of Dambisa Moyo (google/yahoo/baidu/yandex her, or watch, or visit Aid practice between governments works contrary the targets: it supports aid receiving governments in doing nothing, consuming foreign/global aid and ignore the economic rise of their own nations. Does the poor needs development? Yes. But we need no strange of several misconceptions based global CO2 taxation for this, we just need to install Open Foundation ( for this. Than they can develop themselves in rapid speed. More taxation is in its nature anti prosperity: it waters down earnings. We all think too easy on the prosperity effects of taxation in times of economic head winds by expensive energy prices. High taxation (over sized governmental layers) and sustainable prosperity are contrary directions. The two sad sides of the whole CO2 polarization is that the environmental movement for the first time in it's history united is used/abused by the Carbon Right can-artists and the nuclear fission lobby. A very high unwanted price for good intentions. Open (as in: non-political) science would have prevented this. Influences energy environment? Yes, but only on local level! As last shot of salt in an already itchy open wound: What is the influence of CO2 on climate? Zero. It's just an atmospheric fertilizer that feeds the flora on earth, who use the C in CO2 for its growth to make much nice CxHx by H20 (water) use and powered by sunlight. More flora growth: more water vaporisation, more cooling. Nature has often round systems with no lose ends: More CO2, delivers where's water available more growth and more water vaporisation and the balance is levelled. Any marriage of science and politics is lethal for science. Influences energy the climate? Climate is more complex that just one facet (CO2), climate science is with its current CO2 focus in just one street of the town and really thinks that street is the whole town. Politics never should have taken narrow science as engine, as this delivers only very short traction. Science is too strong, too multiple sided to get limited in narrow visions. The last thing science needs in a global tax that could fund global governance. If that happens more narrow vision based 'science' will occur. Science needs diversity to get traction in the direction. Mono science is low quality science. Science must resist any politicization of their research. Politics is about visions, science is about comprehensive views based on proven facts. Unfortunately for all the CO2 line followers who have been attracted with the heading: Energy is climate is not a very valid statement.

Author: Gijs Graafland

Back to index page of Energy Economics | Energy Politics

Download the full Energy Economics report in PDF

Planck Foundation