When discussing climate change, the conversation often turns to metrics like global averages or regional temperatures. However, these broad measurements overlook the reality that, even within the same city, different individuals experience drastically different climates.
Going off on a tangent: I am currently in Oxford and note a great deal of food is imported into the UK from places where there is increasing difficulty growing food due to drought, fires and floods. (Not forgetting Putin annihilating Ukraine's farmland and produce at a time we cannot afford to waste the lives of healthy young people and resources on wars.)
When I was a young chap in the early 1960s I was aware I needed to work or I might not have enough to eat or somewhere to live - now in my old age I am conscious there may not be much food to buy here. Even in NZ where I live floods this year have devastated land that was particularly suitable for the crops grown there. Some is low-lying and rising sea levels may render it permanently unusable.
I was just reading about the saguaro cactus plants in the Phoenix area collapsing in the heat. I cannot imagine what such extreme heat is doing to humans having to work outside in these conditions.
More than just “thoughts,” promote policies that prevent even worse in the future: tax net CO@ and methane emissions and deregulate (regulate according to cost benefit principles) non-CO2 emitting technologies - Solar nuclear, wind, geothermal, carbon capture and sequestration.
Very well (knowing how important semantics is) we can both "reduce vulnerability" to climate change and slow and reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes it. We should use the proceeds of a tax on net emissions of CO2 (and methane) to invest in reducing vulnerability/adapting to climate change.
"They also don’t understand that they won’t be able to escape the heat forever. As the climate warms, one day the hot life will come for them." reminds me of the quote from Martin Niemöller.
So... the poor are most affected by (nearly) all bad things. It seems the most effective way to help the poor is to help them become more prosperous. This is true whether the poor you're talking about are the poor members of our own society, or the members of poorer societies.
But prioritizing decarbonization will interfere with improving prosperity for everyone.
Where are you getting the statistics that decarbonization will damage prosperity? Can we not 'help' the poor without killing them in the process? If the climate collapses will not the prosperity for everyone collapse as well? Is it possible we can become "green" and prosperous at the same time?
Yeah, I think that's were we disagree. Obviously, making people more prosperous is good, but there's no reason to think that switching to renewable energy will interfere with that — and may in fact improve prosperity of the poor.
Not only possible, but _necessary_. Of course, that does not mean that reducing and eventually reversing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is costless, but those costs are less than the consequences, even with the best possible adaption.
My reasoning is very simple: "green" energy is more expensive than conventional energy. This is borne out by literally every analysis of energy costs I've seen from any source. The two most recent examples are from Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy (https://www.2035report.com/electricity/) and Princeton's Net Zero America Project (https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report). You generally have to read the fine print in the studies to find the reference, but it's always there.
If you doubt the studies, just note that poor countries don't choose solar plants or wind farms for their electricity; various policy wonks propose various means to coerce the poor countries to prioritize decarbonization; if carbon-free energy were more economical, it would already be the primary choice.
Higher cost for carbon-free energy means higher energy prices for consumers. In rich countries, these higher prices fall disproportionately on the poor. In poor countries, they probably most affect the poorest, but the bigger issue to me is that they keep the whole country poor, at levels nearly unimaginable to most residents of rich countries.
I'll stipulate that there are some carbon-free energy sources that are potentially more affordable than fossil fuels. One example would be hydroelectric, but there's not a lot of opportunity to build new hydroelectric facilities in most countries, and they have their own ecological costs. Another example would be nuclear - I'm not convinced that nuclear would be less expensive than fossil fuels, because there's been almost no nuclear construction anywhere in the world for decades, and the facilities that have been built were not built for commercial purposes.
We recently witnessed the switch of energy suppliers in Europe due to Putin's War in Ukraine. The various governments stepped up to subsidize the cost of the switch to renewables and new gas suppliers. The shift must happen or we all suffer. We can all chip in and make the transition less painful for the most vulnerable among us. "Necessity is the mother of invention."
If your claim is that renewables may become cheaper than fossil fuels, I'll agree. It would be wonderful if they do. But my initial claim was that prioritizing decarbonization will interfere with improving prosperity. That's still true.
As to necessity being the mother of invention, we in the US have had a statutory requirement for producing cellulosic ethanol for the past 12 years. The total amount produced for commercial use is 0 liters. Necessity imposed by policy does not overcome the laws of physics.
You claim is that there are costs to reducing CO2 accumulation, as there are to adapting to the effects of past and continuing increases. That does not mean that reducing CO2 accumulation is inimical to increasing prosperity. We pay those costs now to avoid greater costs in the future.
I understand the approach, and it makes sense on some level. But not unless you can at least attempt to describe the costs and risks with each approach. You didn't mention your evaluation, so I'll describe the alarmist position as I understand it.
> In this position, the risk is that warming above 2C, relative to pre-industrial levels, risks worldwide ecological and social catastrophe. Current estimates are that preventing warming above 2C requires achieving dramatic worldwide reductions (85%) by 2030, and net zero emissions by 2050. Since we risk catastrophe, this is what we must do.
Now, I claim there is currently no path to achieve this objective with anything like a current rich-world standard of living. I claim this because no one has proposed an approach that could realistically cut emissions to net zero even without letting poor countries use more energy.
I also claim there is no basis for predicting worldwide catastrophe with 2C of warming, or anything close to it. I claim this because every climate-related scientific paper I've read in the past 25 years, and every IPCC report, forecasts some ecological problems, and some economic/social challenges, but nothing that could fairly be summarized as "catastrophe".
I also claim that any attempt to impose a GHG-free economy will cause intolerable worldwide poverty. A simple estimate would say that elimination of fossil fuels would put us back to a technical level of about 1800. This overstates the case - we do have nuclear plants that could continue operating, although I don't know whether we'd be able to get more fuel. We have hydroelectric plants that could continue operating, although I don't know whether we'd be able to produce spare parts for things that break. We also have solar and wind generation that could provide some electricity. But we'd have a lot less transportation, a lot less machinery for farming, a lot less fertilizer, a lot less refrigeration, and a lot less labor force that could be devoted to things like research, medical care, education, or anything not involving food production.
So, my approach is: reduce emissions where feasible. Implement improvements that can improve fuel efficiency. Support research to make fission, fusion. and/or renewables effective. Stop spreading panic, and stop trying to force poor countries to forego modern energy.
If you think the panic is justified, why? Who says so?
If you think it's worthwhile to pay more for renewable energy, how much more? Remember that higher energy costs will mean less resources available for any other priority.
For Americans, we've committed to "unprecedented" spending in the Inflation Reduction Act, but all the advocates I've seen say that it's nevertheless inadequate, and doomed to fail. And that's more than any other country has done.
Who cares?! If the ecology collapses (as we have been repeatedly warned), then we're all the poorer. You are advocating poverty genocide - doing nothing causing misery and death to billions worldwide. I am remembering the cartoon with a bumble bee holding a sign saying: "If I die, I'm taking all of you with me." Status quo is not an option now no matter how hard you attempt to deny it.
"The "Doomsday Clock," created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to illustrate how close humanity has come to the end of the world, moved its "time" in 2023 to 90 seconds to midnight, 10 seconds closer than it has been for the past three years."
You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, and I doubt there's anything I could say in a substack post that would change your mind. But, if you read the full reports from the IPCC (skip the "summaries for policymakers"), you won't find anything that comes close to warning of ecology collapse. Likewise, if you read any published scientific papers, you'll find lots of predictions for some adverse impacts, but nothing close to ecology collapse.
There have certainly been "warnings" of dire consequences. Some of these came from scientists, but not in any scientific publications - they were functioning more in their "activist" roles than their "scientist" roles. Many of the early climate models predicted 6, 8 or more degrees (C) warming by 2100, and these heavily influenced the 1995 IPCC report. I think most of the predictions of doom were based on these models. I won't comment on the likely impact of that amount of warming, but I will point out that current IPCC forecasts call for about 2-2.5C warming by 2100. The IPCC came up with their infamous Scenario 8.5, which could potentially lead to significantly more warming, but it was never intended as a realistic scenario, as Zeke Hausfather explained (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/).
As for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, do you really take them seriously as a forecast of climate? What climate articles have they participated in, or published?
So, your position is that we "have to" stop burning fossil fuels. Why? Because we run out of fossil fuels? That could certainly happen, but there's no sign of it happening soon. Or is it because fossil fuels are so irretrievably damaging to the environment that the world will become unlivable if we continue? I acknowledge that some people believe this, but I will point out that there is no scientific basis for this belief.
As to necessity becoming the mother of invention, we in the US have had a statutory requirement for producing cellulosic ethanol for the past 12 years. The total amount produced for commercial use is 0 liters. Necessity imposed by policy does not overcome the laws of physics.
Reducing the use of fossil fuels to zero will probably no be necessary to reduce and eventually reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon capture (in situ or from the atmosphere) and storage will probably become less expensive than eliminating fossil fuel use in its most productive niches.
This is basically the approach recommended by Princeton's Net Zero America Project. It might even be feasible some day. Their program doesn't estimate the cost of carbon capture, because there is no demonstrated capability to cost.
I don't object to your vision, if we have a technically and economically viable path.
My claim was that prioritizing decarbonization will mean less prosperity for everyone, and more suffering for the poor. When I said "prioritizing decarbonization," I meant pursuing maximal efforts now. If you take a broader view, and include research and development to find a viable path to making carbon-free energy cheaper than fossil fuels, I'd support that. I'd support taking all the money we currently use to build windmills and solar panels, and use it for that.
Your reasoning is indeed simple. To find FFs cheaper, you have to ignore the implicit subsidies - principally the damage caused by CO2 buildup. Factor that in and the debate is over. Additionally, you’re ignoring cost changes over time. Take a look at how wind and solar prices have tumbled, and will continue to tumble.
Fossil fuels do have environmental costs. But how to quantify them? Some people estimate values of US$35 per ton of CO2. At this price, fossil fuels are still much cheaper. Of course, if you believe the stronger versions of the catastrophe claims, you'd have to conclude the cost of carbon emissions is close to infinite. But how would you quantify the costs?
Costs do change over time. Solar and wind prices have certainly declined. They may continue to decline. If so, at some point it will make sense to use them. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to use them now.
Wind and solar offer the cheapest new generation. This is even more important in poor areas where there is no electricity distribution system. I imagine in many places where people walk miles for water electric bikes might be an amazing gift and a motor car utterly useless.
Everybody cannot be prosperous. This planet cannot support 8bn living like "ordinary" Americans let alone the wealthy.
Motivated reasoning is taking you down the wrong path. (But if you come to a fork in the road take it!)
Thanks - what is your basis for claiming that wind and solar offer the cheapest new generation? Every study I've seen acknowledges that wind and solar need subsidies to be competitive. Who will provide the subsidies in places where people walk miles for water?
What is your basis for claiming that "everybody cannot be prosperous?" What fundamental limitation prevents all of the 1.4 billion Indians from achieving a US standard of living?
Are you sure you're not the one trapped by motivated reasoning?
Your Wikipedia link lists five sources of estimated energy costs. Two of these ignores fossil fuels, so doesn't provide a comparison. One (IPCC 2104) shows solar and wind to be more expensive than coal or natural gas. I've read the third (Lazard 2021); it bases its estimates on US government sources, which are based on current US subsidies. I haven't read the fourth, but I only read primary sources, so I don't consider Wikipedia to be strong evidence.
I skimmed through the "Conversation", and couldn't find any scientific or economic argument for anything. I suppose you're using it as a citation that "everybody cannot be prosperous". But it makes no real argument for this position. Aside from having a large population, India also has a lot of natural resources. I see no reason to think that large population can't use its human and natural resources to achieve prosperity.
The UNEP link is even weaker. Its only argument is that increasing production of natural resources involves increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I believe this is true. I also believe it's a problem. But I don't think it's a bigger problem than the terrible poverty in poor countries.
Well you have a problem. No scientific society or institution, or any government, agrees with you, and nor are they likely too, so you're just going to have to suck it as we make the changes you disagree with.
Gee Whiz! The world seems to find "subsidies" when we fight wars so why can we not find communal resources to bring basic standards of living for the most vulnerable? The resources are there, it is the "will" that is in short supply.
I will point out that nearly all of the "subsidy" attributed to fossil fuels in G20 is due to failing to account for "environmental costs". These costs are real, at some level, but so difficult to define and measure as to be essentially arbitrary.
It sounds like your argument is that, if the world stops spending on military forces, the resources freed up could be applied to carbon-free energy. Swords into ploughshares, and all that. I suppose if we could get everyone to agree to never make war again, that might be viable. But didn't we try that once? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact) Of course, it could be different this time.
But, I can be quite confident that, if the US were to eliminate its military, the savings would be applied to secure the finances of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, not to provide energy subsidies for India, China, or Burundi.
That is not what I was suggesting, but that certainly would be nice.
My point is we can find the resources when we want or need to. It is a matter of priorities and choice. We can make a united communal world effort to fund and scale renewable and clean energy sources if we need to. Sadly, it will likely become a catastrophe before we take action. "Pay me now or pay me later..."
"We can find the resources when we want or need to." I guess you could say that about just about any topic. If you look at actual actions taken, it looks like no political leaders in any country are really willing to devote the resources it would take to accomplish decarbonization on any visible timescale. The politicians aren't willing because their citizens aren't willing.
I've seen almost no one attempt to convince the larger public that preventing climate change is worth significant resources. You could try. But you'll have to convince the citizens of rich countries that it's worth sacrificing their welfare states, and you'll have to convince the citizens of poor countries that they're better off poor without electricity than having electricity to run air conditioners.
No, zero CO2 emitting energy sources do not need subsidies to be competitive. They simply need for CO2 3mitting sources to be taxed. Another excise tax whose revenue are used for the common good or to reduce some other tax will not impoverish the poorest nation.
Whether you frame it as subsidies or excise taxes, switching to more expensive energy sources means that energy will be more expensive. That means that there will be less of everything else. The US can afford some of this, and we've been doing it for a while. To do it economy-wide, we'd need to do 5 or 10 times as much. For poor countries, they'd have to consciously choose less energy and more poverty. They won't choose that, and you won't have the tools to make them.
If one does not think "we can adapt to climate change" [and this does not mean "instead of preventing more of it"] then why bring up the topic? The response to the costs arising from the past and continuing increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere should be both to slow further increases and eventual removal AND to mitigate the effects, BOTH as cost effectively as possible
In my Environmental Politics, Comm + Media class at Northeastern, I try to link studies and readings of national and international scope with relevant readings that connect to the Boston-region and New England. In Boston for example which has never been designed to be resilient to extreme heat, the heat island effects by neighborhood, SES, and race are dramatic. A few links to sources below:
"Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that hinges on creating self-doubt. “I think of gaslighting as trying to associate someone with the label ‘crazy,’” says Paige Sweet, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who studies gaslighting in relationships and in the workplace. “It’s making someone seem or feel unstable, irrational and not credible, making them feel like what they’re seeing or experiencing isn’t real, that they’re making it up, that no one else will believe them.”
Gaslighting involves an imbalance of power between the abuser and the person they’re gaslighting. Abusers often exploit stereotypes or vulnerabilities related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality and/or class.
“The most distinctive feature of gaslighting is that it’s not enough for the gaslighter simply to control his victim or have things go his way: It’s essential to him that the victim actually come to agree with him,” writes Andrew D. Spear, an associate professor of philosophy at Grand Valley State University..."
Going off on a tangent: I am currently in Oxford and note a great deal of food is imported into the UK from places where there is increasing difficulty growing food due to drought, fires and floods. (Not forgetting Putin annihilating Ukraine's farmland and produce at a time we cannot afford to waste the lives of healthy young people and resources on wars.)
When I was a young chap in the early 1960s I was aware I needed to work or I might not have enough to eat or somewhere to live - now in my old age I am conscious there may not be much food to buy here. Even in NZ where I live floods this year have devastated land that was particularly suitable for the crops grown there. Some is low-lying and rising sea levels may render it permanently unusable.
I was just reading about the saguaro cactus plants in the Phoenix area collapsing in the heat. I cannot imagine what such extreme heat is doing to humans having to work outside in these conditions.
https://parade.com/news/giant-cactuses-are-collapsing-arizona-heat-wave-photos-july-2023#
More than just “thoughts,” promote policies that prevent even worse in the future: tax net CO@ and methane emissions and deregulate (regulate according to cost benefit principles) non-CO2 emitting technologies - Solar nuclear, wind, geothermal, carbon capture and sequestration.
Should it be "spare a thought" or rather "Climate Change is Class War"?
Glad to see this post stressing there's no common experience of heat (or other climate hazards), and that the #climatedivide, which I covered in depth in The New York Times in 2007 ( http://j.mp/climatedivide ), can exist down the block or down the supply chain. What this shows, powerfully, is the vital need to focus on vulnerability reduction more than the overused term "adaptation". Much more on Sustain What here https://revkin.substack.com/p/behind-global-climate-emergency-rhetoric-21-08-06 and here https://revkin.substack.com/p/as-global-warming-fuels-more-record-22-07-19
Thanks for your comment, Andy. I know you've been working this beat for a long time.
Very well (knowing how important semantics is) we can both "reduce vulnerability" to climate change and slow and reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes it. We should use the proceeds of a tax on net emissions of CO2 (and methane) to invest in reducing vulnerability/adapting to climate change.
"They also don’t understand that they won’t be able to escape the heat forever. As the climate warms, one day the hot life will come for them." reminds me of the quote from Martin Niemöller.
So... the poor are most affected by (nearly) all bad things. It seems the most effective way to help the poor is to help them become more prosperous. This is true whether the poor you're talking about are the poor members of our own society, or the members of poorer societies.
But prioritizing decarbonization will interfere with improving prosperity for everyone.
Where are you getting the statistics that decarbonization will damage prosperity? Can we not 'help' the poor without killing them in the process? If the climate collapses will not the prosperity for everyone collapse as well? Is it possible we can become "green" and prosperous at the same time?
Yeah, I think that's were we disagree. Obviously, making people more prosperous is good, but there's no reason to think that switching to renewable energy will interfere with that — and may in fact improve prosperity of the poor.
Not only possible, but _necessary_. Of course, that does not mean that reducing and eventually reversing the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is costless, but those costs are less than the consequences, even with the best possible adaption.
My reasoning is very simple: "green" energy is more expensive than conventional energy. This is borne out by literally every analysis of energy costs I've seen from any source. The two most recent examples are from Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy (https://www.2035report.com/electricity/) and Princeton's Net Zero America Project (https://netzeroamerica.princeton.edu/the-report). You generally have to read the fine print in the studies to find the reference, but it's always there.
If you doubt the studies, just note that poor countries don't choose solar plants or wind farms for their electricity; various policy wonks propose various means to coerce the poor countries to prioritize decarbonization; if carbon-free energy were more economical, it would already be the primary choice.
Higher cost for carbon-free energy means higher energy prices for consumers. In rich countries, these higher prices fall disproportionately on the poor. In poor countries, they probably most affect the poorest, but the bigger issue to me is that they keep the whole country poor, at levels nearly unimaginable to most residents of rich countries.
I'll stipulate that there are some carbon-free energy sources that are potentially more affordable than fossil fuels. One example would be hydroelectric, but there's not a lot of opportunity to build new hydroelectric facilities in most countries, and they have their own ecological costs. Another example would be nuclear - I'm not convinced that nuclear would be less expensive than fossil fuels, because there's been almost no nuclear construction anywhere in the world for decades, and the facilities that have been built were not built for commercial purposes.
Yes, and initially the horseless buggy was more expensive than a horse. There is a ramp-up time for any new technologies, but the cost of renewables is dropping drastically as the demand rises. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2022/09/14/renewable-energy-costs-have-dropped-much-faster-than-expected-but-theres-a-catch/?sh=377177a03164
We recently witnessed the switch of energy suppliers in Europe due to Putin's War in Ukraine. The various governments stepped up to subsidize the cost of the switch to renewables and new gas suppliers. The shift must happen or we all suffer. We can all chip in and make the transition less painful for the most vulnerable among us. "Necessity is the mother of invention."
If your claim is that renewables may become cheaper than fossil fuels, I'll agree. It would be wonderful if they do. But my initial claim was that prioritizing decarbonization will interfere with improving prosperity. That's still true.
As to necessity being the mother of invention, we in the US have had a statutory requirement for producing cellulosic ethanol for the past 12 years. The total amount produced for commercial use is 0 liters. Necessity imposed by policy does not overcome the laws of physics.
You claim is that there are costs to reducing CO2 accumulation, as there are to adapting to the effects of past and continuing increases. That does not mean that reducing CO2 accumulation is inimical to increasing prosperity. We pay those costs now to avoid greater costs in the future.
I understand the approach, and it makes sense on some level. But not unless you can at least attempt to describe the costs and risks with each approach. You didn't mention your evaluation, so I'll describe the alarmist position as I understand it.
> In this position, the risk is that warming above 2C, relative to pre-industrial levels, risks worldwide ecological and social catastrophe. Current estimates are that preventing warming above 2C requires achieving dramatic worldwide reductions (85%) by 2030, and net zero emissions by 2050. Since we risk catastrophe, this is what we must do.
Now, I claim there is currently no path to achieve this objective with anything like a current rich-world standard of living. I claim this because no one has proposed an approach that could realistically cut emissions to net zero even without letting poor countries use more energy.
I also claim there is no basis for predicting worldwide catastrophe with 2C of warming, or anything close to it. I claim this because every climate-related scientific paper I've read in the past 25 years, and every IPCC report, forecasts some ecological problems, and some economic/social challenges, but nothing that could fairly be summarized as "catastrophe".
I also claim that any attempt to impose a GHG-free economy will cause intolerable worldwide poverty. A simple estimate would say that elimination of fossil fuels would put us back to a technical level of about 1800. This overstates the case - we do have nuclear plants that could continue operating, although I don't know whether we'd be able to get more fuel. We have hydroelectric plants that could continue operating, although I don't know whether we'd be able to produce spare parts for things that break. We also have solar and wind generation that could provide some electricity. But we'd have a lot less transportation, a lot less machinery for farming, a lot less fertilizer, a lot less refrigeration, and a lot less labor force that could be devoted to things like research, medical care, education, or anything not involving food production.
So, my approach is: reduce emissions where feasible. Implement improvements that can improve fuel efficiency. Support research to make fission, fusion. and/or renewables effective. Stop spreading panic, and stop trying to force poor countries to forego modern energy.
If you think the panic is justified, why? Who says so?
If you think it's worthwhile to pay more for renewable energy, how much more? Remember that higher energy costs will mean less resources available for any other priority.
For Americans, we've committed to "unprecedented" spending in the Inflation Reduction Act, but all the advocates I've seen say that it's nevertheless inadequate, and doomed to fail. And that's more than any other country has done.
Who cares?! If the ecology collapses (as we have been repeatedly warned), then we're all the poorer. You are advocating poverty genocide - doing nothing causing misery and death to billions worldwide. I am remembering the cartoon with a bumble bee holding a sign saying: "If I die, I'm taking all of you with me." Status quo is not an option now no matter how hard you attempt to deny it.
"The "Doomsday Clock," created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to illustrate how close humanity has come to the end of the world, moved its "time" in 2023 to 90 seconds to midnight, 10 seconds closer than it has been for the past three years."
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/doomsday-clock-moves-90-seconds-midnight-nuclear-threat-rises-2023-01-24/#:~:text=The%20%22Doomsday%20Clock%2C%22%20created,the%20theoretical%20point%20of%20annihilation.
Reducing CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is a sensible investment even with futures costs far less than doomsday scenarios.
You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, and I doubt there's anything I could say in a substack post that would change your mind. But, if you read the full reports from the IPCC (skip the "summaries for policymakers"), you won't find anything that comes close to warning of ecology collapse. Likewise, if you read any published scientific papers, you'll find lots of predictions for some adverse impacts, but nothing close to ecology collapse.
There have certainly been "warnings" of dire consequences. Some of these came from scientists, but not in any scientific publications - they were functioning more in their "activist" roles than their "scientist" roles. Many of the early climate models predicted 6, 8 or more degrees (C) warming by 2100, and these heavily influenced the 1995 IPCC report. I think most of the predictions of doom were based on these models. I won't comment on the likely impact of that amount of warming, but I will point out that current IPCC forecasts call for about 2-2.5C warming by 2100. The IPCC came up with their infamous Scenario 8.5, which could potentially lead to significantly more warming, but it was never intended as a realistic scenario, as Zeke Hausfather explained (https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-the-high-emissions-rcp8-5-global-warming-scenario/).
As for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, do you really take them seriously as a forecast of climate? What climate articles have they participated in, or published?
Blah blah blah ... we ain't gonna keep burning fossil fuels. Whatever changes are needed remember necessity is the mother of invention.
So, your position is that we "have to" stop burning fossil fuels. Why? Because we run out of fossil fuels? That could certainly happen, but there's no sign of it happening soon. Or is it because fossil fuels are so irretrievably damaging to the environment that the world will become unlivable if we continue? I acknowledge that some people believe this, but I will point out that there is no scientific basis for this belief.
As to necessity becoming the mother of invention, we in the US have had a statutory requirement for producing cellulosic ethanol for the past 12 years. The total amount produced for commercial use is 0 liters. Necessity imposed by policy does not overcome the laws of physics.
So 1 case and we find an other planet.
Reducing the use of fossil fuels to zero will probably no be necessary to reduce and eventually reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon capture (in situ or from the atmosphere) and storage will probably become less expensive than eliminating fossil fuel use in its most productive niches.
This is basically the approach recommended by Princeton's Net Zero America Project. It might even be feasible some day. Their program doesn't estimate the cost of carbon capture, because there is no demonstrated capability to cost.
I don't object to your vision, if we have a technically and economically viable path.
My claim was that prioritizing decarbonization will mean less prosperity for everyone, and more suffering for the poor. When I said "prioritizing decarbonization," I meant pursuing maximal efforts now. If you take a broader view, and include research and development to find a viable path to making carbon-free energy cheaper than fossil fuels, I'd support that. I'd support taking all the money we currently use to build windmills and solar panels, and use it for that.
Your reasoning is indeed simple. To find FFs cheaper, you have to ignore the implicit subsidies - principally the damage caused by CO2 buildup. Factor that in and the debate is over. Additionally, you’re ignoring cost changes over time. Take a look at how wind and solar prices have tumbled, and will continue to tumble.
Those are reasonable points.
Fossil fuels do have environmental costs. But how to quantify them? Some people estimate values of US$35 per ton of CO2. At this price, fossil fuels are still much cheaper. Of course, if you believe the stronger versions of the catastrophe claims, you'd have to conclude the cost of carbon emissions is close to infinite. But how would you quantify the costs?
Costs do change over time. Solar and wind prices have certainly declined. They may continue to decline. If so, at some point it will make sense to use them. But that doesn't mean it makes sense to use them now.
Wind and solar offer the cheapest new generation. This is even more important in poor areas where there is no electricity distribution system. I imagine in many places where people walk miles for water electric bikes might be an amazing gift and a motor car utterly useless.
Everybody cannot be prosperous. This planet cannot support 8bn living like "ordinary" Americans let alone the wealthy.
Motivated reasoning is taking you down the wrong path. (But if you come to a fork in the road take it!)
Thanks - what is your basis for claiming that wind and solar offer the cheapest new generation? Every study I've seen acknowledges that wind and solar need subsidies to be competitive. Who will provide the subsidies in places where people walk miles for water?
What is your basis for claiming that "everybody cannot be prosperous?" What fundamental limitation prevents all of the 1.4 billion Indians from achieving a US standard of living?
Are you sure you're not the one trapped by motivated reasoning?
No, you are the climate denier by the Oxford-dictionaries definition. Here's a place to start reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
https://theconversation.com/what-the-controversial-1972-limits-to-growth-report-got-right-our-choices-today-shape-future-conditions-for-life-on-earth-184920
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/were-gobbling-earths-resources-unsustainable-rate
Do you read the sources you cite?
Your Wikipedia link lists five sources of estimated energy costs. Two of these ignores fossil fuels, so doesn't provide a comparison. One (IPCC 2104) shows solar and wind to be more expensive than coal or natural gas. I've read the third (Lazard 2021); it bases its estimates on US government sources, which are based on current US subsidies. I haven't read the fourth, but I only read primary sources, so I don't consider Wikipedia to be strong evidence.
I skimmed through the "Conversation", and couldn't find any scientific or economic argument for anything. I suppose you're using it as a citation that "everybody cannot be prosperous". But it makes no real argument for this position. Aside from having a large population, India also has a lot of natural resources. I see no reason to think that large population can't use its human and natural resources to achieve prosperity.
The UNEP link is even weaker. Its only argument is that increasing production of natural resources involves increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I believe this is true. I also believe it's a problem. But I don't think it's a bigger problem than the terrible poverty in poor countries.
Well you have a problem. No scientific society or institution, or any government, agrees with you, and nor are they likely too, so you're just going to have to suck it as we make the changes you disagree with.
Gee Whiz! The world seems to find "subsidies" when we fight wars so why can we not find communal resources to bring basic standards of living for the most vulnerable? The resources are there, it is the "will" that is in short supply.
From memory: the IMF estimate the subsidies to fossil fuel industries is $5tn.
I hadn't seen the IMF study - thanks for pointing it out. I couldn't find any detailed analysis, so I'll quote their summary: "Retail prices generally cover the supply costs but rarely environmental costs, with the largest price gaps are generally for coal, followed by natural gas, diesel, and gasoline." (https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#A%20Global%20Picture%20of%20Energy%20Subsidies)
I will point out that nearly all of the "subsidy" attributed to fossil fuels in G20 is due to failing to account for "environmental costs". These costs are real, at some level, but so difficult to define and measure as to be essentially arbitrary.
It sounds like your argument is that, if the world stops spending on military forces, the resources freed up could be applied to carbon-free energy. Swords into ploughshares, and all that. I suppose if we could get everyone to agree to never make war again, that might be viable. But didn't we try that once? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg%E2%80%93Briand_Pact) Of course, it could be different this time.
But, I can be quite confident that, if the US were to eliminate its military, the savings would be applied to secure the finances of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, not to provide energy subsidies for India, China, or Burundi.
That is not what I was suggesting, but that certainly would be nice.
My point is we can find the resources when we want or need to. It is a matter of priorities and choice. We can make a united communal world effort to fund and scale renewable and clean energy sources if we need to. Sadly, it will likely become a catastrophe before we take action. "Pay me now or pay me later..."
"We can find the resources when we want or need to." I guess you could say that about just about any topic. If you look at actual actions taken, it looks like no political leaders in any country are really willing to devote the resources it would take to accomplish decarbonization on any visible timescale. The politicians aren't willing because their citizens aren't willing.
I've seen almost no one attempt to convince the larger public that preventing climate change is worth significant resources. You could try. But you'll have to convince the citizens of rich countries that it's worth sacrificing their welfare states, and you'll have to convince the citizens of poor countries that they're better off poor without electricity than having electricity to run air conditioners.
No, zero CO2 emitting energy sources do not need subsidies to be competitive. They simply need for CO2 3mitting sources to be taxed. Another excise tax whose revenue are used for the common good or to reduce some other tax will not impoverish the poorest nation.
Whether you frame it as subsidies or excise taxes, switching to more expensive energy sources means that energy will be more expensive. That means that there will be less of everything else. The US can afford some of this, and we've been doing it for a while. To do it economy-wide, we'd need to do 5 or 10 times as much. For poor countries, they'd have to consciously choose less energy and more poverty. They won't choose that, and you won't have the tools to make them.
If one does not think "we can adapt to climate change" [and this does not mean "instead of preventing more of it"] then why bring up the topic? The response to the costs arising from the past and continuing increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere should be both to slow further increases and eventual removal AND to mitigate the effects, BOTH as cost effectively as possible
In my Environmental Politics, Comm + Media class at Northeastern, I try to link studies and readings of national and international scope with relevant readings that connect to the Boston-region and New England. In Boston for example which has never been designed to be resilient to extreme heat, the heat island effects by neighborhood, SES, and race are dramatic. A few links to sources below:
https://www.abettercity.org/news-and-events/blog/addressing-extreme-heat-in-boston-heat-resilience-study
https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/breaking-up-bostons-heat-islands/
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2023/06/26/climate-change-gun-violence-boston-heat-islands-gaurab-basu-john-jay
https://www.wbur.org/news/2021/07/14/boston-heat-intensity
https://www.mos.org/explore/public-events/wicked-hot-mystic
"Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that hinges on creating self-doubt. “I think of gaslighting as trying to associate someone with the label ‘crazy,’” says Paige Sweet, Ph.D., an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Michigan who studies gaslighting in relationships and in the workplace. “It’s making someone seem or feel unstable, irrational and not credible, making them feel like what they’re seeing or experiencing isn’t real, that they’re making it up, that no one else will believe them.”
Gaslighting involves an imbalance of power between the abuser and the person they’re gaslighting. Abusers often exploit stereotypes or vulnerabilities related to gender, sexuality, race, nationality and/or class.
“The most distinctive feature of gaslighting is that it’s not enough for the gaslighter simply to control his victim or have things go his way: It’s essential to him that the victim actually come to agree with him,” writes Andrew D. Spear, an associate professor of philosophy at Grand Valley State University..."
https://www.forbes.com/health/mind/what-is-gaslighting/
Wow, thanks for that comment. The “CO2 is plant food” crowd certainly is not internalizing the reality of higher CO2.