Green delusionists attending COP30 are clueless of their renewable idealism

The Conference of the Parties (COP30) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will take place from November 10-21, 2025, in Belém, Brazil with an expected attendance of 70,000.

Across the world, political leaders and environmental activists proclaim that renewable electricity will soon replace fossil fuels and usher in a cleaner, sustainable future. Yet few of them can explain how wind turbines and solar panels, which only generate electricity, can sustain the vast web of products and materials upon which human civilization depends. This blind faith in renewables has become what can only be called a green delusion.

Electricity may run our computers, light our cities, and power our vehicles, but it cannot create the raw materials needed to build those very machines.

Steel, cement, plastics, fertilizers, and pharmaceuticals all require hydrocarbons-not simply as fuels but as essential feedstocks. Oil, natural gas, and coal are the molecular foundations for over 6,000 everyday products that define modern life. Without them, hospitals would lack sterile equipment, farmers would lose fertilizers, and the construction of roads, bridges, and homes would grind to a halt.

This misunderstanding, treating electricity as interchangeable with materials, is the central flaw of the green movement. Electricity is a utility, not a substance. It drives processes but cannot itself make things. Even basic metals like iron and copper require carbon as a reducing agent during smelting. Without carbon, humanity would lose the very means of transforming minerals into usable materials.

Meanwhile, governments pour trillions of dollars into policies designed to eliminate fossil fuels, without considering the economic or physical realities. In California, for example, leaders boast about renewable progress while importing electricity from neighboring states that rely on natural gas and coal. Blackouts, surging prices, and industrial flight are the inevitable consequences of this ideological experiment.

The same contradiction appears globally. Electric vehicles are celebrated as zero-emission solutions, yet their manufacture depends heavily on fossil fuels-from the mining of lithium and cobalt with diesel-powered equipment to the production of steel, glass, and plastic components derived from hydrocarbons. The result is more ways to use fossil fuels which is a carbon shift, not a carbonelimination.

Government mandated winners and losers are only applicable to those few in the wealthier countries that can afford huge subsidies, but the reality is that there are no silver bullet answers.

For those outside the few wealthy countries, we see that at least 80 percent of humanity, or more thansix billion in this world are living on less than $10 a day, and billions living with little to no access to electricity,

Those green ideologies are 100% political in the few wealthy countries that can afford to subsidize their delusions! Examples of the "green" delusion:

• The "green" mandates for transitioning from ICE vehicles to EV's would only eliminate gasoline used in ICE vehicles, which is only 1 of the more than 6,000 products made from fossil fuels. The EV, like the ICE vehicle, continues to be 100% made from those oil products, inclusive of tires, computers, wiring and insulation, and all the electronics of those so-called "zero emissions" vehicle.
• None of the green illusionists, inclusive of one of its political leaders such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, can explain how wind turbines and solar panels can make any of the other 5,999 products made from oil that we see in operating hospitals, airports, offices, shopping centers, datacenters, etc. or how those renewables will support the merchant ships, cruise ships, commercial aircraft, and military aircraft on this planet that did not exist 200 years ago?

The "green" ideological transition to renewables is a globalist suicide pact for the rest of us! Conversations are desperately needed, but the following points summarize their "explanation shortcomings".