What will it take?

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Lord, will you stop the USA from buying oil from Saudi Arabia to save the planet to climate and civilization catastrophe?


Lord, will you stop the USA from selling arms to Saudi Arabia to stop the killing of Yemenis?


Lord, will you stop the USA from selling arms to Saudi Arabia to protest the killing of a single journalist with a high profile in the West?

That sounds serious. I’ll think about that one, but only if he was not killed by accident while being interrogated.




The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

6 thoughts on “What will it take?”

  1. I’ll think about that one, but only if he was not killed by accident while being interrogated.

    Per Eric Idle in his Monty Python days in the early 1970s:

    Wink wink nudge nudge. Say no more, say no more.

    Tim Widowfield (16 December 2014). “The Object of Torture“. Vridar.

    Rule number one of power is that it must protect itself. Any threat to power must be met by every tool available. Whatever public excuse the people in power give us for what they do, we must not forget rule one.

    1. I think there are several jobs that need to be done, one of which is:

      • Developing energy storage projects for variable renewable energy (VRE) rather than maintaining a dependence on petroleum oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries that increase global instability and anthropogenic climate change.

      See “A CONSERVATIVE solution to global warming (Part 1)“. YouTube. potholer54. 2 September 2018.

      Cf. “A Conservative Solution to Global Warming“. Hume’s Apprentice. Nicholas Covington. 3 September 2018.

        1. • Given that a nuclear apocalypse will destroy the human race.

          If solar and wind reduce global instability, then the chance of a nuclear apocalypse is also reduced.

          Carrier’s argument should be evaluated on the likelihood that new technological developments will alter “net energy return”.

          Per Carrier (1 November 2016) [now formatted]. “The Shocking Reasons Why We Should Go Nuclear“. Richard Carrier Blogs.

          [Climate change] won’t be an apocalypse. It won’t wipe out the human race.
          we may expand and benefit from solar-thermal. But it actually isn’t better than nuclear.
          Because all the other options, “(like solar, wind, seismic, and thermal) and alt fuels (like algal biofuels, hydrogens, and other artificial fuels),” even smarter uses of old-school petrofuels (from coal to oil to gas), are actually super shitty. Yes, even solar and wind. Super, super shitty.
          • You probably didn’t know solar and wind generated so much less energy after subtracting the energy we put into them.
          • You might not have thought how limited hydro and geo are, because we are already close to capacity with them.
          • And you probably didn’t think about the deaths, dangers, and pollution that a solar and wind power industry entail.
          They are still better than fossil fuels in terms of environment and safety, but come not even close in terms of net energy return.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading