Cast your mind back to September 6, 2019, when presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in New Hampshire, took the hand of a 24-year-old activist. "Kiddo," he said, "look in my eyes. I guarantee you. I guarantee you. We're going to end fossil fuel!"
Mission unaccomplished.
But did President Biden's policies – including hugely expensive subsidies and mandates – hasten a revolutionary and inevitable "energy transition"?
According to the elite media, absolutely!
To take but one example: An essay by two Oxford professors in the Wall Street Journal late last month was headlined: "The Clean Energy Revolution Is Unstoppable!"
The subhead: "The Trump administration is determined to promote fossil fuels, but the economic and technological forces driving solar, wind and other sources are now too powerful to resist."
Color me skeptical.
I say this having just read "Blackout" by Brenda Shaffer, a senior advisor for energy at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the think tank where I expend my professional energies.
Her new monograph examines energy policies that threaten U.S. national security. The title of her first chapter: "There is no energy transition coming."
Among the facts she marshals: Strong interest in and promotion of "alternative energy" began during the oil crisis of 1973. Back then fossil fuels provided 84.5% of global energy consumption.
Half a century later, with trillions of dollars invested in alternative energy, fossil fuels provide roughly 82% of global energy.
Does that sound like a revolutionary and unstoppable clean energy transition to you?
What's more, as Dr. Shaffer points out, this modest decline in fossil fuel usage is only partly explained by the growth of wind and solar. Another part is "explained by counting as renewable the burning of dung, wood, and other biomass," such as charcoal and lump coal.
Do I need to spell out why dung, wood, and other biomass are not revolutionary, clean, or green?
What I may need to bring to your attention are some of the reasons why solar, wind and electric vehicles also are not as green and clean as advertised.
Solar "farms" are often more like deserts, with panels covering vast tracts of land devoid of flora and fauna.
Wind turbines can be guillotines for birds.
EVs run on batteries that require cobalt which mostly comes from the impoverished Democratic Republic of the Congo where mining practices – including Congolese children working barehanded – have been doing enormous environmental damage.
Companies under Chinese control take possession of most of the cobalt and send it to companies in China for processing.
Okay, but once an EV is manufactured, because it's emissions-free, it must be green and clean, right?
No, because if the electricity that charges its battery comes from a coal-fired power plant, it's really a coal-powered vehicle. If the plant uses natural gas that's much cleaner but natural gas is one of the fossil fuels that the "energy transition" is meant to "end."
As to the national security implications: China dominates the global EV market – batteries, as noted, but also EV production and sales – as well as the global wind and solar industries. China has more market dominance in strategic minerals than OPEC has in oil.
So, American, European and UN policies that promote and even underwrite the substitution of these renewables for fossil fuels empower China which is ruled by the strongest Communist Party in history led by Xi Jinping, whose goal is to displace the United States as the most powerful nation on earth.
He leads an anti-American axis that includes Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Ali Khamenei in Tehran, and Kim Jong Un in Pyongyang.
Perhaps you think: "But we still need an energy transition because we need much more electricity. Artificial Intelligence demands huge amounts of electricity to power data servers."
Yes, we are indeed in an AI arms race and, as Mr. Putin has predicted, whoever wins will become "the ruler of the world."
But solar and wind duplicate rather than add. Because they produce electricity only when the sun shines and the wind blows (respectively) they must be backed up by a continuous energy source, which generally means fossil fuels.
Your next objection might be: "But wind and solar are addressing climate change!" Addressing is not the same as impacting.
Among the reasons: The Chinese are building dirty coal-fueled power plants at a frenetic pace.
Unlike Greta Thunberg and John Kerry, Mr. Xi doesn't believe that climate change is an "existential threat." Truth to tell, the scientific evidence suggests he's correct.
Climate change is a challenge. We can handle it. Fossil fuels will help. If you think that's wrong, buy condos in Halifax rather than Miami.
Some good news: President Trump appears to understand that energy security is a key component of national security.
Last month, he signed an executive order creating the National Energy Dominance Council. Chaired by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and vice-chaired by Energy Secretary Chris Wright, it's to recommend a "National Energy Dominance Strategy."
"American energy leadership," declares a White House fact sheet, "is vital not only for our Nation's economic and national security, but also for the security of our allies."
Expect the council to pursue an "all-of-the-above" energy strategy, with a heavy emphasis on domestically produced fossil fuels and next-generation small modular nuclear reactors.
There's more to do. For example, Mr. Trump should prod allies, the World Bank, and the UN to reverse their many policies that, as Dr. Shaffer points out, exacerbate "global energy poverty," and create "opportunities for China to increase its influence in the developing world."
She concludes: "The future of America's energy security depends on revising the full array of policies based on the premise of an imminent transition to renewable energy."