“With climate change happening faster than was first predicted, we need to get away from fossil fuels and move even faster toward non-polluting solar energy.”
Its a shame bad logic isn’t an energy source. There’s no shortage of environmentalists who would provide an endless supply.
Here, for example, the writer makes the questionable assumption that climate change is a crisis that demands we abandon fossil fuels. But this, in turn, hinges on the even more questionable assumption that abandoning fossil fuels would solve the climate crisis. Then there’s the demonstrably false assumption that Earth-based solar energy is a viable replacement for fossil fuels.
And it gets worse. The writer cites a DOE study which supposedly shows, “clean energy jobs (solar, wind, etc.) outstrip the number of jobs provided by the fossil fuel energy industry by at least five to one.”
https://www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report
Only, the report shows no such thing. Instead, it repeatedly documents how the fossil fuel industry employs 300,000 more people than the clean energy industry.
But let’s assume, anyway, that the writer can justify the five-to-one statistic in the letter. What does it even matter?
If jobs are what we care about, we could make plenty of them just by, for example, regulating shovels and backhoes out of existence, forcing ditch-diggers to use thimbles, instead.
Its all so foolish, it can’t be taken seriously.
If we want solar power, space-based generation is the way to get it. And it’s not necessary to scare people with climate change or wreck the economy by eliminating fossil fuel use to make a good case for it.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
The Greenland ice sheet contains enough water to raise ocean levels 25 feet — 2,850,000 km^3.
I don’t care if Doc is right about CO2 in 50 years and the whosits model… the melt rate is accelerating NOW.
Soooo cool, my street is 30 feet above sea level… so looking forward to either the insurance claim, or waterfront property. Well, one way or t’other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So what’s the grift?
I get that the right is openly contemptuous of science as a matter of policy, but what I do not understand is why the scientific community would make this up. Why would people, who dedicate their entire lives to understanding every detail about their chosen field almost unanimously decide to misrepresent their findings for decades? What do they gain from this?
LikeLiked by 3 people