Bring up climate change, or alternative energy, or even energy independence and people will say the conversation is political, maybe even too political for them. And it is.
That’s the problem.
The conversation has been commandeered by proselytizers who take on the topic with the fervent energy of a televangelist or worse, a prohibitionist. You consume too much. You have too much. There is more you should do. Why aren’t you doing more? Don’t you know this is the biggest existential crisis of our time? The world is on fire! Look at what I can do! Why can’t you? Alternatively, there are those who say climate change is a hoax and that we should not have to do anything to help preserve the planet for future generations or even this one. Certainly one could see this type of reaction after the manic push by many who find climate activism their hobby or raison d’être. But it’s really too bad, because there is an opportunity here.
And opportunity is not talked about enough when it comes to the environment. I have said in the past that even if you think climate change is a hoax, what could be so bad about moving toward a green future with renewable energy produced locally instead of far away places that don’t have our best interests in mind? What is the worst that could happen? Clean air and water? An improved natural environment? Seems pretty good to me.
But we get stuck with eco-preaching about the existential crisis, the ice caps, the polar bears, the storms, the fires. Then the discussion can turn to how climate change would happen naturally, we are still in the late stages of an ice age after all, and how storms and fires have always happened, then the argument becomes about to what degree the storms and fires have gotten worse, and how do we know, and then we shout about scientists and dogma and misinformation and Instagram and TikTok, and now everyone hates one another and we haven’t done a damn thing except agree that paper straws suck, and not in a good way.
Recommended for you
Sometimes it’s hard to intellectualize icebergs when someone says we should not drive or not do something else, when they do things that could be conceived as bad for the planet too, and it becomes a competition about who and what is worse. Which will get us nowhere.
So let’s think about this. Drilling, refining and delivering oil is a costly venture. But so are all the alternatives right now. But that doesn’t mean there can’t be a change to a better tomorrow. And the more we think about the opportunities presented by a green economy, the better. Can we lower power bills? Create new jobs? Make some money?
I’ve never understood the lack of interest in seeing ways to make money with alternative energy. Obviously, community aggregators like Peninsula Clean Energy are making money for some folks, so good on them. But it obviously is costly to move away from gas to electric, otherwise it wouldn’t be offering rebates and pushing cities for reach codes.
There are other ways to capitalize on the green economy. Oil is king and has been for a while, but there will be a time when it will not make financial sense to produce it and run our economy on it. This is where the opportunity lies.
GE Vernova was spun off from General Electric’s energy businesses in 2024. It focuses largely on steam, nuclear, hydro and wind power but also some gas power. It is focusing on decarbonization. In the past year, it has risen from $160 a share to $549, an increase in 229%. That was an opportunity. While the prevailing sentiment is that green businesses are in the doldrums because of our current federal policies, that won’t last forever. We will get a new president and there is simply too much opportunity for this type of business. GE Vernova’s rise over the past year proves two things, it is good to shake off the weight of a legacy company that didn’t keep up with the times and it is good to focus on a variety of ways to provide energy to track with our growing economy. Tech companies aren’t going to build artificial intelligence on natural gas, they will need new forms of energy — both clean and plentiful. When that clean energy becomes cost efficient, it will lead to ways to scale and individualize. We will all benefit. So now is the time to start thinking about ways to invest in that new economy. We have talked about AI ad nauseam, now let’s start talking about ways our society can benefit from it — and one big one is the opportunity in the clean energy technology that will power it.
(12) comments
What are we arguing about?
There are currently three main positions occupied by Republicans and Democrats:
A] "Climate Change is a Hoax" - Human brains DO work differently. At this point only flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers call Global Warming a Hoax.
B] "Climate Change is real, but I'm only causing X%" - That has been the position of Australia, Canada and the US while their forests are burning. Those are also the countries with the highest per-capita footprint (https://youtu.be/YSGthMUzjfA?feature=shared
C] "Bay Area is such a beacon of Green" - that one is the real Hoax. San Mateo County has two main sources of carbon. One is Energy, one is Transportion. Energy is taken out of their calculations via Peninsula Clean Energy. PCE is the County's greenwashing outfit. By pushing for Electrification PCE can carbon-launder everything. Sweet.
Transportation: This is the ultimate litmus test. Do we see bike lanes, bus lanes and bus shelters in the county. No, hence our politicians are indeed Virtue Signalling.
I mean this county bans ebikes but not Ferraris and this county takes down bike lanes for single mothers and their children. This are our typical "Sustainable Bay Area Democrats".
And for the latest on the EPA greenhouse gas emission reversals see: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/29/climate/epa-endangerment-finding-repeal-proposal.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Of course, the SMDJ Conservative Cabal will dismiss this as “fake news.”
Sorry DavidKristofferson, I can’t access your link because I don’t (and I doubt I ever will) have a subscription to the failing nytimes. I’m betting many who are not conservatives will likely dismiss it as fake news. But if it has anything to do with so-called man-made global warming, good riddance. Let’s hope the repeal also starves the climate industrial complex of taxpayer money.
Thank you for your very thoughtful column. The problem with current green tech is it still requires 100% fossil fuel back up which increases the cost of green energy significantly. This is not a trivial cost since our economy depends significantly on electric power for transportation and now critically for AI.
Ideas like making hydrogen from solar in the summer and storing it for winter use are underway as is lithium battery research for less expensive, safer batteries. If we could get the cost of green energy below the cost of fossil fuel, markets would resolve the issue.
Thanks for your column, Mr. Mays. I’d say the issue is about government attempting to pick winners and losers, while losing billions, if not trillions, of dollars in taxpayer money. Money that all of us know could go towards more important things. Actually, even less important things. If private companies want to go for it, they can go for it but government should stay out of it. As for opposing sides, if folks who believe climate change is a thing, they can spend money and efforts on combatting it, but please stop lecturing the rest of us. And please, somebody answer why it’s okay for China and India and undeveloped and developed countries continue getting a pass for their emissions.
Because China and India, etc., are **sovereign countries**, and if they don’t want to do something there is **no international power to force them to do it unless we want to start WWIII to decide the issue.** Meanwhile China is going after the electric car market like there is no tomorrow, after already dominating the solar panel market. Yet another case of MAGA-bias wishing not to see the obvious answers…
Thanks for your response, DavidKristofferson, and for admitting you can’t force China and India to do anything as they continue increasing their use of fossil fuels. As such, you may as well push a giant boulder up Mt. Everest if you believe in the global warming thing. As for cherry picking China as your example of going green. Where do you think the energy is coming from to manufacture electric cars? Let’s not forget that since 2021, China has been building more and more coal plants, culminating in building 94.5 gigawatts of new coal-power capacity in 2024. More than 20 times more than the rest of the world. And how are these electric cars going to be powered, wherever they go? Mostly from fossil fuels as they are in California. Yet another case of talking broadly about “green” and looking past everything else. When you look closely, it all comes back to fossil fuels – the obvious answer. BTW, other than talking about going green what are you doing, DavidKristofferson, to help the cause? I’m positive fossil fuel consumption, directly or indirectly, continues to be a large part of your life. I’m assuming you’re still on the electrical grid. Maybe time to get off the grid?
Terrence, in the early 20th Century when the automobile began to take off, NY City had a massive horse poop problem. I highly doubt that anyone, except possibly someone who was mentally ill, advocated killing all of the horses immediately and forcing people to buy cars to solve the problem.
Any technology transition takes time, and you are right that China has been violating its climate commitments as documented in https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/ . Yes, EVs are still powered around the U.S. by a significant fraction of electricity generated by fossil fuels. And, yes, even the food coming to our grocery stores is delivered by trucks powered by diesel in most cases, so if you like to use this as a reason to call people hypocrites, be my guest and continue to do so. Name-calling has always been a Trumpian forte.
Now we are also faced with calls to “win the AI race” by generating even more electrical power quickly from fossil fuels, and I am sure that interest groups in China are making the same urgent requests to beat America.
However, drawing from these arguments the conclusion that “pollution from greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide does NOT cause solar heat retention in the atmosphere” is not justified.
Instead your arguments may show how shortsighted humanity is and how its focus on short term problems frequently lead to disasters which are not adequately addressed until large numbers of people start dying or become displaced.
Climate scientists have been sounding this alarm since the 1960s, but since there have always been economic interests crying “hoax” we have let the opportunity for easier fixes pass us by. Now that we also have “our, yes our, great President Trump” trying to eliminate climate research itself, the future looks even more bleak.
Congratulations, Terrence. This is “what winning looks like.” If many years from now, the predictions of sea level rise displacing millions of people from major coastal cities come true, food crops start failing, and large numbers of people are dying annually from heat, all of those who made every attempt possible to block the transition to clean energy will be remembered with total scorn.
And speaking of scorn, I didn’t notice any of the usual suspects from the conservative cabal commenting on the this article:
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/national/for-sale-trump-is-leveraging-power-of-his-office-to-reap-profits-for-family-businesses/article_5435b517-4efd-4f20-9deb-47e387811449.html
The amount of totally shameless profiteering under the current administration makes the Hunter Biden laptop and “Biden Crime Family” MAGA claims seem trivial by comparison. I recall nothing so blatant during my lifetime, and I wonder how some of the more thoughtful conservative people like Ray and Dirk live with this “winning.” Instead of “draining the swamp” our country has been sucked into it.
Thanks for your comment, DavidKristofferrson. The biggest takeaway, taking into account your response, is that no matter how you slice it with so-called climate change (whether one believes in it or not) is that in reality, not many (perhaps nobody) care to do anything other than talk about it. You have folks virtue signal that “carbon bad” while they emit carbon greater than most of us will ever emit (such as those taking jets to attend climate conferences) in our lifetimes. But what real actions are they doing? Why don’t they Zoom instead of taking more than 400 jets to attend in person? Speaking of actions, what are you doing to reduce your carbon emissions? Do you have family members running on a treadmill or riding stationary bikes to generate electricity? (Of course that treadmill or stationary bike was likely manufactured using fossil fuels.) And you can’t store excess energy because then you’d need to use batteries manufactured with fossil fuels.
As for your prediction that many years from now that sea level rise will displace many, I wonder why you’re not predicting climate doomsday. Perhaps it is because everyone (including climate scientists) who claimed environmental doomsday both recently and many moons ago have been proven wrong since we’re alive to converse on this forum. As for others from the “conservative” side commenting, do you expect them to rebut the truth? Sure, it would be nice if I received kudos but I don’t need or expect it just as many of them don’t need or expect it when they print the truth. The truth speaks for itself. As for your outrage from allegations Trump is profiting from his office, where’s your outrage for the Clintons and their uranium deals? Where’s your outrage at Hunter Biden profiting from treasonous Joe’s office? Where’s your outrage at Pelosi and her inside stock deals enriching her family? Also, your linked article is from the AP, which means that more likely than not, they’re pushing fake news and lies and so they can’t be taken at face value.
Terrence, clearly neither of us expects any concession from the other. Nothing you said in reply above was unexpected, so no need to waste your time with further explications. I definitely have made the points I want to make and find no need to repeat them yet again. Have yourself a Trumpalicious day!
Unfortunately, DavidKristoferrson, the points you want to make are not salient points. You continue repeating unconvincing talking points while you don’t explain why you give climate conference attendees a pass for burning carbon to their hearts’ desires while lecturing everyone else on the ills of emitting carbon. You don’t explain what part you’re doing to walk the walk to make a difference in saving the world. You don’t explain why people should care about carbon emissions when climate activists don’t care. Most pointedly, you don’t seem to realize I can take the approach from both sides (both believers and non-believers in man-made global warming) and conclude the identical result – in reality not many (perhaps nobody) care to do anything other than talk about it. Sound familiar? Until next time. Have a Trump-tastic day!
Thought provoking, Jon. Thanks.
To the proselytizers and deniers... "Moderation in all things." - Aristotle
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.