As many of the criticisms in this rebuttal echo those in the earlier Diesendorf rebuttal, to which we thoroughly responded, we direct Fthenakis et al., to that lengthy response.
That said, we do feel compelled to make a few additional comments on specific faults in this rebuttal.
To begin with, Fthenakis et al., do not seem to have read our paper. Most importantly, they ignore our opening argument that the climate/energy debate must be framed within the real-world context of ecological overshoot [1]. Overshoot means that modern techno-industrial (MTI) society is on a fatal course driven by overconsumption and overpopulation (Figure 1). The authors simply restate the case—which we called out as flawed—for 100% so-called renewable energy (RE) as a means of sustaining the unsustainable status quo. This runs the debate right off the rails.
In their defense of so-called RE, Fthenakis et al., accuse us of unscientifically cherry-picking data to support our “opinion”, of citing “known climate change deniers”, of citing sources while not agreeing with the conclusions of their authors, of not being critical of fossil fuels (FF), and, worst of all, of being unethical. Of course we refer mainly to studies that refute many of our critics’ assertions and support our perspective. Is this not the same approach they and others in the modern renewables camp also use? Our critics’ base resort to ad hominem attacks is regrettable. Not only that, but some of these attacks are flat-out untruths. Ozzie Zehner cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be construed as a climate denier…
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
