IEA exposes the hidden environmental costs and infeasibility of going green
wsj.com
wsj.com
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/iea-versus-solar-pv-r...
> Mr. Mills is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a partner in Montrose Lane, an energy-tech venture fund...
The Manhattan Institute is a conservative think tank:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy...
The article draws heavily from the International Energy Agency (IEA), which seems to be 100% concerned with oil industry matters, and:
"The IEA has been criticised for systematically underestimating the role of renewable energy sources in future energy systems such as photovoltaics and their cost reductions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency#Cr...
I don't mean to say that I want to dismiss anything that's from a conservative viewpoint...however, with the headline of "Biden is making the wrong choice!" and content of "we can't possibly go green" running in Rupert Murdoch's newspaper, I can't help but think that this is another partisan opinion piece that's using cherry-picked quotes from an authoritative-sounding industry association that they know readers will mistake for a scientific or governing body.
But let's put all this aside and assume it's 100% unbiased: the central argument of this article is that we'll have to mine more things in order to use renewable technologies, according to an international industry body.
Is oil extraction not a form of mining? In the status quo, we have a massive global mining operation going on in order to burn oil. Considering that, it's hard not to look at this opinion as industry protectionism: someone else found "the next oil" and the oil folks are worried that they'll be stuck selling horses and buggies.