tilak doshi

"The deepest tenet of environmentalism is that the original sin of modern civilisation is the Industrial Revolution." This is correct. When I was on the BBC's Moral Maze, it completely threw me when Matthew Taylor, Blair's ex-policy chief, attacked the Industrial Revolution. I wasn't really expecting it because for me it is a central achievement of Britain's contribution to the advancement of humanity and civilisation. It marked the moment we broke free from subsistence, scarcity, and the brute constraints of nature. It gave us mass prosperity, longer lives, modern medicine, sanitation, and the material foundations of everything we have taken for granted. But what that exchange revealed is a deeper divide. For some, the Industrial Revolution is the root of our problems. For others, it is the reason we have the capacity to solve them at all. If you start from the premise that industrial civilisation is the problem, then policies that constrain hydrocarbons and limit growth begin to look virtuous. If you start from the opposite premise, that human flourishing depends on abundant, reliable, high-density energy, then those same policies look reckless. That is the real argument. Everything else is downstream of it. Great piece from @RupertDarwall mol.im/a/15699301

Europe's Hormuz Armageddon is not merely an energy crisis. It is the moment the post-war geopolitical illusion of haughty European elites ends – and the real multipolar world, cold, hard and unforgiving, begins.

A recent paper by USC's Harry D'Angelo and climatologist Judith Curry calls Net Zero "a harmful and unnecessary goal," writing, "There is no credible evidence of an existential threat from global warming." They point out that Earth has warmed about 1.3C since the 1800s, and during that warming humanity has grown healthier, wealthier and more productive than ever. The authors warn that abandoning fossil fuels would cripple food, steel, cement, plastics and global supply chains, producing huge costs and no measurable benefit. They point out that even if the US cut emissions to zero today, the temperature effect by 2100 would be less than 0.2C - statistically undetectable. The real threat isn't climate. It's reckless energy policy.

Former trader Francis Holburne has put together a mythbuster to explain why the seven most common arguments trotted out by Net Zero zealots against drilling in the North Sea are all wrong. dailysceptic.org/2026/03/31/nor…

@Veritatem2021 sorry for the previous error in my reply

If you wonder how Ed Miliband can claim heavily subsidised renewables are 'cheaper than gas', look no further than the latest report from Oxford University, which simply ignores anything inconvenient.

“Oil continues to dominate aviation, shipping, petrochemicals and fertiliser production. Natural gas remains indispensable for electricity generation and industrial processes in the pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals sectors… The world still runs on fossil fuels despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on renewable subsidies.” @tilakdoshi

The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is a sharp reminder that the world still runs on fossil fuels. When crisis strikes, governments do not rely on intermittent renewable power. They rely on fossil fuels. (article linked)

“Barclays PLC dropped a bombshell white paper last week that pulls no punches in flipping the script on the climate establishment’s favourite bogeyman. For years, we’ve been lectured that fossil fuels are the quintessential stranded assets… Yet, as the Barclays analysts point out, the real risks now lurk in the renewable sector.” @tilakdoshi

For years, Net Zero-obsessed elites have claimed fossil fuels are 'stranded assets' to be avoided. But Barclays is finally telling the truth: renewables are the real stranded assets while fossil fuels are booming.

Carbon trading is back. Despite huge problems with fraud and no sign of effectiveness, the UN's indulgences scheme for the climate industrial complex is making a return. Lessons have not been learned. (see linked article below)

Even some climate sceptics have criticised Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, arguing it's better to be on the inside. Here is why it was the right call. (linked below)

Energy realism has returned to the IEA not because the facts have changed but because power has.