The New England Journal of Medicine has once again ventured beyond clinical science and into political commentary, this time targeting the fossil fuel industry under the pretense of promoting public health. The journal recently published a piece titled “Clearing the Smoke on Fossil Fuels — The Health Imperative for a Countermarketing Campaign,” which argues for a public health initiative to discredit fossil fuels.
National Review reports that the article cites findings from the International Energy Agency and a broader review of climate studies, stating:
“International Energy Agency analyses show that expected growth in global electricity demand can be met without any new fossil-fuel extraction; a recent comprehensive analysis concludes that there is a ‘large consensus’ across all published studies that developing new oil and gas fields is ‘incompatible’ with the target established by the Paris Agreement of limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. But the fossil-fuel industry continues its reckless expansion of oil and gas extraction and production.”
Despite such claims, meeting global energy demands without fossil fuels remains highly unrealistic — at least without a significant pivot to nuclear power. Renewable sources such as wind and solar are intermittent, dependent on favorable weather. When the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing, energy production drops. Germany has even coined a term for this energy shortfall: dunkelflaute, meaning “dark doldrum.”
The urgency of this energy gap is set to grow, especially as environmental policies push for wide-scale electrification. Mandates to phase out natural gas in homes and switch to electric vehicles within a decade are already taking shape. Additionally, the rise of artificial intelligence is fueling an enormous surge in electricity consumption — so much so that Microsoft is planning to revive the Three Mile Island nuclear facility solely to power its AI infrastructure.
This presents a moral dilemma for developing nations. Should impoverished regions delay building power grids until clean energy becomes reliably sufficient? Such a demand could have severe consequences for economic development and public well-being, notes National Review.
Nonetheless, the authors of the NEJM piece advocate for a sweeping public messaging campaign aimed at discrediting fossil fuels, stating:
“It is time to counter the disinformation of the fossil-fuel industry. We believe local and state public health jurisdictions — in partnership with philanthropic organizations — should build a comprehensive public health campaign that weds countermarketing and community-based organizing to accomplish several ends. It should aim to limit the influence of the fossil-fuel industry by exposing its deceptive practices and massive health harms; to reduce the acceptability and availability of products and systems that cause fossil-fuel pollution; to inform the public about the health benefits of reduced fossil-fuel pollution; and to galvanize public support and political will for policies that protect from the health harms of fossil fuels and climate change and hold the fossil-fuel industry accountable.”
They even draw parallels with anti-tobacco efforts, suggesting similarly aggressive measures:
“The experience with tobacco also suggests that several complementary strategies would be valuable, such as Surgeon General warnings regarding the health harms of fossil fuels; strengthening and more robust enforcement of rules regarding misleading advertising and greenwashing; requirements for warning labels on gas stoves and other consumer products that produce harmful indoor and outdoor air pollution from fossil-fuel combustion; ending of fossil-fuel subsidies; and rules that minimize industry influence on national and international climate policy. . . .
A bold, large-scale countermarketing campaign can expose industry deception, shift the narrative, and ignite demand for clean energy policies that will safeguard our health now and in the future.”
However, such a campaign is unlikely to generate widespread support if it implies the dismantling of the fossil fuel sector. The reality remains: fossil fuels are intricately woven into modern life. They’re not just used for electricity — they heat homes in winter, cool them in summer, enable global transportation, and support global agriculture through fertilizer production. Fossil derivatives are also key ingredients in countless medical and consumer products, from artificial heart valves and antiseptics to plastics used in solar panels.
As far as I’m concerned they can run all the disinformation campaigns they want as long as they don’t use any taxpayer money to do so. It is my opinion that they are just as much victims of the man made global warming hoaxers as we are. But as long as they are spending THEIR money, it’s theirs to spend. I suspect they are suffering from an “I D 10 T” malfunction. (Idiot)