Warmist prof: ‘Need to demonize’ investors to end fossil fuel era

Hampshire College prof Michael Klare bemoans the era of unconvention fossil fuels and says the only way to stop it is:

What can be done to cut short the third carbon era and avert the worst of these outcomes? Calling for greater investment in green energy is essential but insufficient at a moment when the powers that be are emphasizing the development of unconventional fuels. Campaigning for curbs on carbon emissions is necessary, but will undoubtedly prove problematic, given an increasingly deeply embedded institutional bias toward unconventional energy.

Needed, in addition to such efforts, is a drive to expose the distinctiveness and the dangers of unconventional energy and to demonize those who choose to invest in these fuels rather than their green alternatives. Some efforts of this sort are already underway, including student-initiated campaigns to persuade or compel college and university trustees to divest from any investments in fossil-fuel companies. These, however, still fall short of a systemic drive to identify and resist those responsible for our growing reliance on unconventional fuels. [Emphasis added]

Read more at Grist.

9 thoughts on “Warmist prof: ‘Need to demonize’ investors to end fossil fuel era”

  1. Fracked oil and gas are “unconventional energy”? The method has been around for decades but it’s only recently become economically valuable. Oil and gas — and coal, which the professor dismisses as being a fuel of the past — are certainly conventional fuels.
    In the lined article, the author says we are not moving toward a future of renewable energy. He’s right about that because renewable energy is more costly and will be more costly for the foreseeable future. That means its use is harmful TO THE POOR MOST OF ALL (I’d have used italics but HTML doesn’t seem to work here). It also means its use is WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, NOT BETTER. Even if one believes CO2 is a major climate driver, which is demonstrably false, the renewables or alternative energies all have larger environmental footprints than their conventional brothers have.
    By the way, I didn’t see in the article, nor the Amazon link for his book, what the professor is a professor OF. I imagine it’s supposedly economics but he sure sounds like a poor excuse for an economist (cough Krugman cough Nobel).

  2. As a sidebar to this article, I cannot believe the chutzpah of these dilettantes who want to see the portfolios divested of oil and gas holdings!It is the gains and dividends from these stocks that probably fund the free scholarships these naïve children are probably getting.All I think you would need is to have some hard-nosed business -oriented benefactors sue the university in the grounds of breach of fiduciary trust to bring them back to reality.The only purpose of a portfolio manager is to get the greatest return on the endowment money,and if oil and gas yield those high returns it is encumbent upon them to seek them out. (BTW MT Geoff,my brother’s border collie says hello)

  3. Peak Oil blather.

    Prof. Klare is a professor of “peace and world security studies.” Who knew there was such a thing?

    “Some efforts of this sort are already underway, including student-initiated campaigns to persuade or compel college and university trustees to divest from any investments in fossil-fuel companies.”

    Ignorance of the stock market. The trustees selling their oil company stock to someone else has no effect on the oil company.

  4. Howdy Gamecock
    You found what I did not, the professor’s supposed area of expertise.
    There’s something to be said for a study of peace and world security. The problem is that the discipline(?) seems to be in the hands of the undisciplined.
    We actually know what contributes most to peace and security. It’s a combination of rising standard of living, lots of international trade, and liberty. Of course the details are more difficult than that. But that’s the essence.
    I may not have a PhD, but I did graduate study in both international economics and international relations.

  5. “We actually know what contributes most to peace and security.”

    Victory. There is no substitute for victory. College professors will bring forth peace. They will bring forth defeat. Defeat will bring peace, as it is the other side of victory. Peace through slavery. Professors want it.

  6. I have a Ph. D. But it is in organic chemistry and I didn’t have the time, or frankly interest at the time, to venture into formal graduate classes in econ and international relations. I was doing this 4 decades ago at a cow college so it was before we got into the proliferation of meaningless degrees such as “peace and world security studies.” We used to laugh at courses and curricula that were without content. Looks like they may have won.

  7. Just read my badly worded response. Didn’t intend to denigrate grad work in econ and other areas, especially since most of the econ grad students I knew were doing things that made it look like they were math and computer science majors. The university was also starting something called “university studies” which, as best anyone could determine, were courses and degrees devoid of any real content.

  8. Howdy Gamecock
    I suspect that Professor Klare’s notion, yes. My basic idea is still valid, and rigorous study of how to spread prosperity and peace is still a good concept.

Comments are closed.