Best line by Noah: "you can't rely on modelers to tell you when to not use their models..."
Part of the reason we are surprised (not sure surprised is the right word) by the recent data showing a non linear acceleration in heat energy as well as numerous predicted conditions arriving 10-30 years earlier than estimated, is in great part due to the over-reliance on models. I love hearing a scientist say all models are wrong but some are useful and then 20 minutes later cite some modeling result as being scientifically or foundationally true. But to their defense, they are just human, and all humans are sloppy, flawed and often incorrect... but some of those humans are useful. :)
That's too bad because any good researcher, and especially a modeler, should be upfront about the limitations of their work, generalizability, boundary conditions, possible generally accepted assumptions that could be debunked.
Based on this talk given by Nordhaus, I would definitely say that he agrees that global warming is a serious problem and we urgently need to being doing more to reduce emissions.
Nobel laureate William Nordhaus: The economics of climate change
Yes, I agree. Everything I've heard him say supports that. I guess the clear conclusion is that the "optimal warming" he calculations is not something we can use to guide policy.
How an elite clique of math-addled economists hijacked climate policy.
His models, it turns out, are fatally flawed, and a growing number of Nordhaus’s colleagues are repudiating his work. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and professor of economics at Columbia University, told me recently that Nordhaus’s projections are “wildly wrong.” Stiglitz singled out as especially bizarre the idea that optimization of the world economy would occur at 3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
"3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations."
That's a pretty specific prediction. Can you point me to some of those physical scientists? Are their conclusions published in scientific papers, or only in press releases?
"at those temperatures, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher."
Here is a scientific paper that supports their claim about sea level rise, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay3701 . Here is a relevant excerpt on sea level, " A new reconstruction of global mean sea level during the mid-Pliocene warm period indicates a rise of ∼17 m, implying near-to-complete loss of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with some additional contribution from East Antarctica (34)." 17 m = 56 feet.
I don't doubt that warming contributes to sea level rise. I don't doubt that sea levels have risen, are rising, and will continue to rise. I doubt that there's any reason to see worldwide disaster in this. I doubt that any physical scientists have said this will led to "global chaos" or "climate genocide" - or, if they have said such things, that they are speaking as activists, not as scientists.
Certainly, significant increases (or decreases) in sea level will pose challenges for humans and civilization. It's worth pointing out that a quarter of the Netherlands is already below sea level, so there are ways of coping with rising sea levels.
What I object to from the "climate activist" camp is the direct leap from "science shows that the earth is warming and humans are contributing to the warming" to "further warming will cause catastrophe and we must prevent it" to "easy zero-emissions solutions are at hand and we must implement them." The first proposition is pretty clearly true. The second is possible, but unsupported by any science or experience. The third is simply false, unless you are willing to assume future technologies that will solve the hard parts of the problems.
Often the driver who loses control and crashes sideways at high speed into a bridge abutment or large tree survives, only passengers die. Unfortunately billions along for the ride can't get off the planet, we can only stop the bad driving.
Incidentally, you mention The Netherlands as an "answer":
Sjoerd Groeskamp, an oceanographer at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, said a 475km dam between north Scotland and west Norway and another 160km one between west France and south-west England was “a possible solution”.
Not really: when he says the "optimal warming" level is 3.5°C, he means we should be doing less, since "current policies and action" point to less than that (see https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/)
I look at the things that have turned out economies upside down in my lifetime from oversaturated tech markets, too many houses, and a virus that if we're being honest wasn't that bad (compared to movies like contagion or the Spanish flu). As I understand it the effects of rising temperatures will be non linear and I expect the economic ripples to be non linear as well.
Saying the Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is not as bad as the influenza virus is like saying a .308 bullet is not as bad as a .22 because it missed. Thanks to public health measures and the earlier work done on mRNA vaccines most dodged the bullet, but it still killed more people than the flu does now and long Covid remains a problem.
What value to economists put on human society? Will civilisation survive a 4K rise in mean global surface temperature? We cannot even stop Russia destroying Ukraine or "Teacher's pet" destroying Gaza. We won't stop nuclear powers fighting for survival.
Finally, the "Spanish" flu started in Kansas so why does America not claim its discovery? :)
COVID was bad, but could have been much worse, but I think you get what I'm saying, if those things were bad climate change is probably going to take a non linear toll on many things and many people that just can't be accounted for.
Thought experiment: at what point do rising food prices go from complaining to rioting. I'm sure there's a % of income statistic out there, but the difference between complaining about high prices and rioting and overthrowing a government are obviously substantial.
My point is not that Covid-19 is worse than the Spanish flu but that we did something about it.
America is not doing enough about global warming, especially considering its historic emissions are still the highest in the world.
Since Trump will beat Biden, the best hope for civilisation is that one or the other will die of old age. It won't be Trump - the Devil looks after his own.
Dennis, I agree with everything you've been saying. But this acceptance of Trump beating Biden is beyond me. Biden is far from perfect, but at least he's legislated for the environment. I say Biden will win by a larger margin than predicted. Because a whole lot of us never get polled and are working grassroots to preserve this country's attempt at democracy
Anthropogenic climate change is real and needs to be addressed. However, 4 to 5 billion people live in relative poverty in developing countries and I accept the Bjorn Lomborg thesis which states that we should be spending money helping these 4 or 5 billion people raise their standard of living so that they can adapt to climate change in the short to medium term by growing their economies without making the same mistakes made by developed countries. This thesis also implies that the world does not yet have the technologies needed to allow us to fully decarbonise, so there also needs to be significant increases in R&D and commercialisation of the new technologies needed by the entire planet.
Cold kills some 10 times more people each year than heat, so a warming world will save more lives from reduced levels of cold than will die from elevated heat. Best if you understand the science and the research rather than believing alarmist propaganda.
I'm curious why the article mentions a 5 degree C rise in temperature when this is clearly double what the most likely outcome of climate change is expected to be.. Thanks for the link nonetheless.
We've had around 1.4 C of global warming for 1 C of global average around here. 3 C of global warming will probably see temperatures around 4.2 C hotter (a very rough estimate, not that simple); that is not something I can see as inconsequential in places like this, that already endure severe droughts, heatwaves and wildfires. That much extra will make heatwaves deadly and fires unstoppable.
Droughts are the worst natural weather disasters in economic terms and lead to the premature deaths of more people than any other. Coping with serious drought means being supported by other regions or worse, see large scale migrations with all the conflict and problems that brings. I don't think the potential for human misery in unmitigated global warming is being overstated.
Best if you take the time to read what Lomberg is proposing. People wanting to migrate to places like Europe, UK and USA are doing so for economic reasons, not climate change reasons, and Lomberg says that helping their countries grow their economies will allow them to stay at home and benefit from the economic growth, one benefit of which will be the economic strength to adapt to climate change.
I would like to hear what you guys think about the Calcasieu 2 project being delayed. I have mixed feelings. I don't mind if it is delayed and a review is done quickly to consider the issues and tradeoffs of methane leaks vs. the CO2 emissions saved if it displaces coal. What I worry is that this is being driven by activists and politics that are not considering the science or not interested in the science, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/climate/a-huge-win-for-activists-puts-climate-on-the-2024-agenda.html . I mean the idea that people are considering withholding their support for Biden over this is crazy. Not when the alternative gives you Trump.
I think the deniers are the real doomists who are so overwhelmed by their alarmist fears they cannot bear to face up to reality. Fear of responsible governance that demands responsibility and accountability and regulation of corporations - that get inflated to fears of imagined globalist/socialist/environmentalis/scientist-ist conspiracies to impose tyranny. Fears of low emissions renewable energy causing loss of prosperity. But underlying it is the same old climate science denial that presumes the science is wrong as well as denying the viability of the solutions - not necessarily entirely wrong (that no longer resonates so well), but a presumption the problem is greatly exaggerated.
The power of Doubt, Deny, Delay politics to make what should be easy hard and the hard much harder should never be underestimated but nor should the positives of the successes of RE and the quiet activism of reasonable people taking the problems and challenges seriously.
Crucial tipping points on energy choices seem to already be crossed, to be seen in the staggering growth of investments in solar and wind and battery and EV's - in the commitment to FACTORIES that will flood the world with them over the next few years, even more so than simply looking at what has been installed so far.
Stocks of RE vs fossil fuels look small - because there is so much existing dependence on Fossil Fuels (fierce promotion of which has never let up) but the growth of RE is phenomenal and as the proportion grows it creates it's own de-facto carbon price by reducing their capacity factors - losing 6 hrs a day of profitability every sunny day. Many times more GW of solar are being added than all coal and gas (and nuclear) combined - at 20% capacity factor in GWh terms, around 80 1GW nuclear plants worth last year and IEA ! expectations for near 1 TW a year (200 nuclear plants worth) by the end of (?) 2025.
As an Australian it looks like once there is a significant proportion of RE there is no going back - not one new coal plant is in the pipeline (as older plants face closure) and only one gas plant of significance is in construction, that seemed to me to be more araised finger to RE by the previous pro fossil fuels, anti-renewables government than any kind of plan. Which is finding even the expected role of backup to wind and solar shrinking, not growing with batteries offering serious competition over what is left.
There’s no such thing as an undeniable fact. Noöne will be able to physically force all deniers into silence, and if anyone tries, they’ll only be playing into the deniers’ hands, by turning them into free-speech heroes and burying the science in yet another layer of distraction and shame by association.
Great theories but even just planning to cut fossil fuel subsidies let alone start a carbon tax has brought Germany to a stand still with protesting farmers!
So what's the optimum temperature? 2° warming? 3.7°? 4.5?
How about ZERO? In a tragic example of the groupthink you were discussing, the IPCC doesn't even consider an RCP-zero--a scenario in which we restore pre-industrial levels of CO2 and hence, obviously, zero degrees of warming above pre-industrial.
Fortunately, some people are doing so! I urge you and your readers to check out Climate Restoration—The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race. Yes, it's possible to remove the trillion tons of legacy CO2. No, it's not possible through direct air capture and new tech being sponsored by the IRA. Rather, by following Nature's lead. (After all, she removed about trillion tons of CO2 10 times in the last million years.) Interested? Get in touch!
There is no reason the DOE review of LNG permitting needs to take more than 1 or 2 months. There is enough science and science literature out there already that have looked at the tradeoffs between LNG and coal to make a rapid recommendation on how to proceed, e.g.
Andrew, great article. The CB has been my main source for science-based climate updates for over a year now.
Do you think it’s likely we still have a shot to salvage a livable future? I’m young and active online and it’s so easy to fall down the doom rabbit hole…
Yeah, I do think we still control the future climate. What we need to do is make sure that, if you care about climate, you vote in favor of candidates who share your concern.
I would be interested to hear from energy system modeling experts that helped craft the IRA, Dr. Jesse Jenkins and are now evaluating the impact of the IRA, Dr. John Bistline, about some of the critiques leveled at the IRA in the paper by Stiglitz, Barrett an Kaufmann.
For example,
"Surely there are portfolios of climate policies that could achieve similar outcomes as the IRA for
much lower costs."
I consider the IRA a major achievement in climate change policy for the U.S. I would be willing to bet that people like Jenkins did the best they could to achieve what they could even though it may not have been optimum. I'm sure both of them would be willing to consider input into making their tools and models and better.
I think Noah covered that; he said that you could get cheaper emissions reductions by transitioning coal to natural gas, but that was not what the IRA (or anyone) wants if the ultimate goal is to reach net zero by mid century.
One of the papers by Bistline et al. that Kaufman et al. takes issue with was coauthored by MIT economist Dr. Catherine Wolfram. So it's not just a bunch of egg-head engineers out there working on their own.
I guess I'm left wondering what Kaufman et al. are really trying to bring to the table. If you got something to say or offer then you really ought to be talking to the people that are actually influencing policy.
Yes, it's a political "sausage" (quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/08/laws-sausages), that was IMO sadly weakened by compromise with the likes of Sen. Manchin. Nonetheless, numerous experts I pay attention to say it has the potential to significantly reduce the USA's aggregate greenhouse emissions in a short timeframe, as long as it's sustained by subsequent governments. That's evidence energy-system and other experts were consulted!
Not only "not all." The consensus of economists as I read it is that emissions of CO2 int0 the atmosphere are harmful (if not civilization threatening) and it is good economics to take low-cost measures, like a tax on net emissions, to reduce that future harm. There might be, indeed should be discussion about whether any specific measure aiming to reduce net CO2 is cost effective or not.
Yes, I think all economists (other than a few misanthropes) agree that CO2 emissions are harmful. What I'm referring to are the arguments that we'll be able to adapt pretty easily to large amounts of warming. e.g., https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-economics-has-let-us-down
We estimate the costs of climate change, total and costs from including costs of adapting and compare those to varios policies that could reduce the marginal costs. If you think the least cost policy is taxing CO2 emissions as I do this translates into different estimates of the rate of Tax (better said the trajectory of the tax) on net emissions. In this context, What does "pretty easily" mean?
Specifically, I’d take Mendelson as an outlier with someone like Nordhaus more representative.* But it ultimately comes down to numbers. What amount of deadweight loss associated with each tax trajectory (or whatever policy is adopted) should we willing to accept to avoid different amounts of aggregate harm. We need to constantly update our climate models that estimate the with/without policy harm as well as our estimates of the deadweight losses. Qualitatively I have the impression that estimates of the deadweight losses of policy have been falling as wind and solar energy costs have moved down their cost curves, but this does not mean that nothing more needs to be done. But climate economics can only “let us down” by doing the sums wrong.
* BTW, reduction in future GDP (much less a percentage reduction) is not the proper metric for “cost” and not what I understand climate economist to be trying to minimize.
I'd argue the opposite. Economies that function well rely on stability. Climate change, especially from extremes, bring instability and unpredictable consequences. For instance, the atmospheric river that deluged the Pacific Northwest in 2021 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pacific_Northwest_floods] cutoff the Port of Vancouver from the rest of the country, with significant economic consequences locally as well as throughout the continent. There will be more of these, not less. As extremes increase in intensity, they will begin to impacts international trade and global economies.
This should be alarming and I think that the consequences of climate disruption on our economies deserve closer scrutiny.
I agree, but I take it that cost of weather events is exactly the kind of things that ARE under study and that justify policies that lead to reducing those costs.
What I meant is a risk analysis that looks at economic impacts from climate extremes. I understand that this is inherently difficult, but these are also the most impactful aspects of climate change. For instance, we talk about Hurricane Katrina because of its sudden and unexpected (at the time) impacts. I noted elsewhere that the combination of drought in Panama, which restricts shipping traffic, combined with the instability in the Suez Canal, will result in higher shipping costs and delayed deliveries. Elsewhere, droughts in Chile are impacting mining, a large consumer of water. Some mines are pumping desalinized seawater >100 km up the mountainside at substantial cost to keep operating [https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/viewpoints/water-supply-mining-industry-chile-case]. Perhaps this is also what you mean?
Best line by Noah: "you can't rely on modelers to tell you when to not use their models..."
Part of the reason we are surprised (not sure surprised is the right word) by the recent data showing a non linear acceleration in heat energy as well as numerous predicted conditions arriving 10-30 years earlier than estimated, is in great part due to the over-reliance on models. I love hearing a scientist say all models are wrong but some are useful and then 20 minutes later cite some modeling result as being scientifically or foundationally true. But to their defense, they are just human, and all humans are sloppy, flawed and often incorrect... but some of those humans are useful. :)
That's too bad because any good researcher, and especially a modeler, should be upfront about the limitations of their work, generalizability, boundary conditions, possible generally accepted assumptions that could be debunked.
Based on this talk given by Nordhaus, I would definitely say that he agrees that global warming is a serious problem and we urgently need to being doing more to reduce emissions.
Nobel laureate William Nordhaus: The economics of climate change
https://youtu.be/5DG5i8BGaXo
Yes, I agree. Everything I've heard him say supports that. I guess the clear conclusion is that the "optimal warming" he calculations is not something we can use to guide policy.
https://theintercept.com/2023/10/29/william-nordhaus-climate-economics/
When Idiot Savants Do Climate Economics
How an elite clique of math-addled economists hijacked climate policy.
His models, it turns out, are fatally flawed, and a growing number of Nordhaus’s colleagues are repudiating his work. Joseph Stiglitz, former World Bank chief economist and professor of economics at Columbia University, told me recently that Nordhaus’s projections are “wildly wrong.” Stiglitz singled out as especially bizarre the idea that optimization of the world economy would occur at 3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations.
"3.5 C warming, which physical scientists say would produce global chaos and a kind of climate genocide in the poorest and most vulnerable nations."
That's a pretty specific prediction. Can you point me to some of those physical scientists? Are their conclusions published in scientific papers, or only in press releases?
Our only way to understand the conditions that might exist at 3.5 C warming is to look to the past.
Here is an information page from the NOAA about the Mid-Pliocene Period, https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide . Here is an excerpt about sea level rise,
"at those temperatures, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. Sea level was at least 16 feet higher than it was in 1900 and possibly as much as 82 feet higher."
Here is a scientific paper that supports their claim about sea level rise, https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay3701 . Here is a relevant excerpt on sea level, " A new reconstruction of global mean sea level during the mid-Pliocene warm period indicates a rise of ∼17 m, implying near-to-complete loss of Greenland and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet with some additional contribution from East Antarctica (34)." 17 m = 56 feet.
I don't doubt that warming contributes to sea level rise. I don't doubt that sea levels have risen, are rising, and will continue to rise. I doubt that there's any reason to see worldwide disaster in this. I doubt that any physical scientists have said this will led to "global chaos" or "climate genocide" - or, if they have said such things, that they are speaking as activists, not as scientists.
Certainly, significant increases (or decreases) in sea level will pose challenges for humans and civilization. It's worth pointing out that a quarter of the Netherlands is already below sea level, so there are ways of coping with rising sea levels.
What I object to from the "climate activist" camp is the direct leap from "science shows that the earth is warming and humans are contributing to the warming" to "further warming will cause catastrophe and we must prevent it" to "easy zero-emissions solutions are at hand and we must implement them." The first proposition is pretty clearly true. The second is possible, but unsupported by any science or experience. The third is simply false, unless you are willing to assume future technologies that will solve the hard parts of the problems.
Often the driver who loses control and crashes sideways at high speed into a bridge abutment or large tree survives, only passengers die. Unfortunately billions along for the ride can't get off the planet, we can only stop the bad driving.
Incidentally, you mention The Netherlands as an "answer":
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/giant-dams-could-protect-millions-from-rising-north-sea
Sjoerd Groeskamp, an oceanographer at the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research, said a 475km dam between north Scotland and west Norway and another 160km one between west France and south-west England was “a possible solution”.
Over there -->
Was that an answer? I'd genuinely like to see such scientific claims.
Not really: when he says the "optimal warming" level is 3.5°C, he means we should be doing less, since "current policies and action" point to less than that (see https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/)
I look at the things that have turned out economies upside down in my lifetime from oversaturated tech markets, too many houses, and a virus that if we're being honest wasn't that bad (compared to movies like contagion or the Spanish flu). As I understand it the effects of rising temperatures will be non linear and I expect the economic ripples to be non linear as well.
Saying the Covid-19 virus (SARS-CoV-2) is not as bad as the influenza virus is like saying a .308 bullet is not as bad as a .22 because it missed. Thanks to public health measures and the earlier work done on mRNA vaccines most dodged the bullet, but it still killed more people than the flu does now and long Covid remains a problem.
What value to economists put on human society? Will civilisation survive a 4K rise in mean global surface temperature? We cannot even stop Russia destroying Ukraine or "Teacher's pet" destroying Gaza. We won't stop nuclear powers fighting for survival.
Finally, the "Spanish" flu started in Kansas so why does America not claim its discovery? :)
COVID was bad, but could have been much worse, but I think you get what I'm saying, if those things were bad climate change is probably going to take a non linear toll on many things and many people that just can't be accounted for.
Thought experiment: at what point do rising food prices go from complaining to rioting. I'm sure there's a % of income statistic out there, but the difference between complaining about high prices and rioting and overthrowing a government are obviously substantial.
My point is not that Covid-19 is worse than the Spanish flu but that we did something about it.
America is not doing enough about global warming, especially considering its historic emissions are still the highest in the world.
Since Trump will beat Biden, the best hope for civilisation is that one or the other will die of old age. It won't be Trump - the Devil looks after his own.
Dennis, I agree with everything you've been saying. But this acceptance of Trump beating Biden is beyond me. Biden is far from perfect, but at least he's legislated for the environment. I say Biden will win by a larger margin than predicted. Because a whole lot of us never get polled and are working grassroots to preserve this country's attempt at democracy
I hope you are right and wish you well.
Thanks.
Anthropogenic climate change is real and needs to be addressed. However, 4 to 5 billion people live in relative poverty in developing countries and I accept the Bjorn Lomborg thesis which states that we should be spending money helping these 4 or 5 billion people raise their standard of living so that they can adapt to climate change in the short to medium term by growing their economies without making the same mistakes made by developed countries. This thesis also implies that the world does not yet have the technologies needed to allow us to fully decarbonise, so there also needs to be significant increases in R&D and commercialisation of the new technologies needed by the entire planet.
Lomborg?
As a geologist you must know the moon is made of green cheese.
https://theconversation.com/1-billion-people-left-dangerously-exposed-to-heat-stress-by-gaps-in-climate-monitoring-221313
Cold kills some 10 times more people each year than heat, so a warming world will save more lives from reduced levels of cold than will die from elevated heat. Best if you understand the science and the research rather than believing alarmist propaganda.
this post will help you understand the limitations of that argument: https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/unraveling-the-debate-does-heat-or
I'm curious why the article mentions a 5 degree C rise in temperature when this is clearly double what the most likely outcome of climate change is expected to be.. Thanks for the link nonetheless.
you're confusing global average with warming in London. 3 deg C of global avg. warming will probably be 5 deg C in London.
We've had around 1.4 C of global warming for 1 C of global average around here. 3 C of global warming will probably see temperatures around 4.2 C hotter (a very rough estimate, not that simple); that is not something I can see as inconsequential in places like this, that already endure severe droughts, heatwaves and wildfires. That much extra will make heatwaves deadly and fires unstoppable.
Droughts are the worst natural weather disasters in economic terms and lead to the premature deaths of more people than any other. Coping with serious drought means being supported by other regions or worse, see large scale migrations with all the conflict and problems that brings. I don't think the potential for human misery in unmitigated global warming is being overstated.
Bernie, it's not about me or my qualifications, every scientific institution and society on the planet endorses the science as summarised by the IPCC.
With a 1.2K increase since industrialisation we are seeing worse flooding, droughts, fires ... more people on the move and wild animals in strife.
What is Europe, especially England, and America going to do about the hordes who want to move there? Send Lomborg with an accounting ledger?
Best if you take the time to read what Lomberg is proposing. People wanting to migrate to places like Europe, UK and USA are doing so for economic reasons, not climate change reasons, and Lomberg says that helping their countries grow their economies will allow them to stay at home and benefit from the economic growth, one benefit of which will be the economic strength to adapt to climate change.
I would like to hear what you guys think about the Calcasieu 2 project being delayed. I have mixed feelings. I don't mind if it is delayed and a review is done quickly to consider the issues and tradeoffs of methane leaks vs. the CO2 emissions saved if it displaces coal. What I worry is that this is being driven by activists and politics that are not considering the science or not interested in the science, e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/climate/a-huge-win-for-activists-puts-climate-on-the-2024-agenda.html . I mean the idea that people are considering withholding their support for Biden over this is crazy. Not when the alternative gives you Trump.
I know Zeke has weighed in before, e.g. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/howarth-natural-gas . It may be time to take a fresh look and let people on both sides of the issue know what you think.
I think the deniers are the real doomists who are so overwhelmed by their alarmist fears they cannot bear to face up to reality. Fear of responsible governance that demands responsibility and accountability and regulation of corporations - that get inflated to fears of imagined globalist/socialist/environmentalis/scientist-ist conspiracies to impose tyranny. Fears of low emissions renewable energy causing loss of prosperity. But underlying it is the same old climate science denial that presumes the science is wrong as well as denying the viability of the solutions - not necessarily entirely wrong (that no longer resonates so well), but a presumption the problem is greatly exaggerated.
The power of Doubt, Deny, Delay politics to make what should be easy hard and the hard much harder should never be underestimated but nor should the positives of the successes of RE and the quiet activism of reasonable people taking the problems and challenges seriously.
Crucial tipping points on energy choices seem to already be crossed, to be seen in the staggering growth of investments in solar and wind and battery and EV's - in the commitment to FACTORIES that will flood the world with them over the next few years, even more so than simply looking at what has been installed so far.
Stocks of RE vs fossil fuels look small - because there is so much existing dependence on Fossil Fuels (fierce promotion of which has never let up) but the growth of RE is phenomenal and as the proportion grows it creates it's own de-facto carbon price by reducing their capacity factors - losing 6 hrs a day of profitability every sunny day. Many times more GW of solar are being added than all coal and gas (and nuclear) combined - at 20% capacity factor in GWh terms, around 80 1GW nuclear plants worth last year and IEA ! expectations for near 1 TW a year (200 nuclear plants worth) by the end of (?) 2025.
As an Australian it looks like once there is a significant proportion of RE there is no going back - not one new coal plant is in the pipeline (as older plants face closure) and only one gas plant of significance is in construction, that seemed to me to be more araised finger to RE by the previous pro fossil fuels, anti-renewables government than any kind of plan. Which is finding even the expected role of backup to wind and solar shrinking, not growing with batteries offering serious competition over what is left.
There’s no such thing as an undeniable fact. Noöne will be able to physically force all deniers into silence, and if anyone tries, they’ll only be playing into the deniers’ hands, by turning them into free-speech heroes and burying the science in yet another layer of distraction and shame by association.
Great theories but even just planning to cut fossil fuel subsidies let alone start a carbon tax has brought Germany to a stand still with protesting farmers!
So what's the optimum temperature? 2° warming? 3.7°? 4.5?
How about ZERO? In a tragic example of the groupthink you were discussing, the IPCC doesn't even consider an RCP-zero--a scenario in which we restore pre-industrial levels of CO2 and hence, obviously, zero degrees of warming above pre-industrial.
Fortunately, some people are doing so! I urge you and your readers to check out Climate Restoration—The Only Future That Will Sustain the Human Race. Yes, it's possible to remove the trillion tons of legacy CO2. No, it's not possible through direct air capture and new tech being sponsored by the IRA. Rather, by following Nature's lead. (After all, she removed about trillion tons of CO2 10 times in the last million years.) Interested? Get in touch!
Zeke,
I see you're posting stuff on X about LNG vs coal. I refuse to get an X account just to hear what you have to say.
Could you please post some of those here or put them together in short blog on the subject?
Thanks,
Sorry for being a broken record....
we'll have something on this (at least tangentially) early next week
RE: LNG permitting
There is no reason the DOE review of LNG permitting needs to take more than 1 or 2 months. There is enough science and science literature out there already that have looked at the tradeoffs between LNG and coal to make a rapid recommendation on how to proceed, e.g.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/howarth-natural-gas
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90839-7
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac71ba/meta
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace3db
Congress should be pushing DOE to expedite the review. We absolutely do not want this to be delayed beyond the election.
Andrew, great article. The CB has been my main source for science-based climate updates for over a year now.
Do you think it’s likely we still have a shot to salvage a livable future? I’m young and active online and it’s so easy to fall down the doom rabbit hole…
Yeah, I do think we still control the future climate. What we need to do is make sure that, if you care about climate, you vote in favor of candidates who share your concern.
Can do! All my friends are super worried about this too.
Yes and thank you.
I would be interested to hear from energy system modeling experts that helped craft the IRA, Dr. Jesse Jenkins and are now evaluating the impact of the IRA, Dr. John Bistline, about some of the critiques leveled at the IRA in the paper by Stiglitz, Barrett an Kaufmann.
For example,
"Surely there are portfolios of climate policies that could achieve similar outcomes as the IRA for
much lower costs."
I consider the IRA a major achievement in climate change policy for the U.S. I would be willing to bet that people like Jenkins did the best they could to achieve what they could even though it may not have been optimum. I'm sure both of them would be willing to consider input into making their tools and models and better.
I think Noah covered that; he said that you could get cheaper emissions reductions by transitioning coal to natural gas, but that was not what the IRA (or anyone) wants if the ultimate goal is to reach net zero by mid century.
One of the papers by Bistline et al. that Kaufman et al. takes issue with was coauthored by MIT economist Dr. Catherine Wolfram. So it's not just a bunch of egg-head engineers out there working on their own.
I guess I'm left wondering what Kaufman et al. are really trying to bring to the table. If you got something to say or offer then you really ought to be talking to the people that are actually influencing policy.
I think the paper is suggesting something deeper than that about the weakness of some of the IRA policies.
Forgive me, I know nothing about the IRA, but isn't it a political reality rather than scientific response.
Yes, it's a political "sausage" (quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/08/laws-sausages), that was IMO sadly weakened by compromise with the likes of Sen. Manchin. Nonetheless, numerous experts I pay attention to say it has the potential to significantly reduce the USA's aggregate greenhouse emissions in a short timeframe, as long as it's sustained by subsequent governments. That's evidence energy-system and other experts were consulted!
It is a political reality and legislation that was guided by insight from energy system experts like Dr. Jesse Jenkins, https://heatmap.news/politics/inflation-reduction-act-jesse-jenkins
I can see the whole world adhering to a carbon price apart from the States, like you scorn International Law.
Not only "not all." The consensus of economists as I read it is that emissions of CO2 int0 the atmosphere are harmful (if not civilization threatening) and it is good economics to take low-cost measures, like a tax on net emissions, to reduce that future harm. There might be, indeed should be discussion about whether any specific measure aiming to reduce net CO2 is cost effective or not.
Yes, I think all economists (other than a few misanthropes) agree that CO2 emissions are harmful. What I'm referring to are the arguments that we'll be able to adapt pretty easily to large amounts of warming. e.g., https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/climate-economics-has-let-us-down
We estimate the costs of climate change, total and costs from including costs of adapting and compare those to varios policies that could reduce the marginal costs. If you think the least cost policy is taxing CO2 emissions as I do this translates into different estimates of the rate of Tax (better said the trajectory of the tax) on net emissions. In this context, What does "pretty easily" mean?
Specifically, I’d take Mendelson as an outlier with someone like Nordhaus more representative.* But it ultimately comes down to numbers. What amount of deadweight loss associated with each tax trajectory (or whatever policy is adopted) should we willing to accept to avoid different amounts of aggregate harm. We need to constantly update our climate models that estimate the with/without policy harm as well as our estimates of the deadweight losses. Qualitatively I have the impression that estimates of the deadweight losses of policy have been falling as wind and solar energy costs have moved down their cost curves, but this does not mean that nothing more needs to be done. But climate economics can only “let us down” by doing the sums wrong.
* BTW, reduction in future GDP (much less a percentage reduction) is not the proper metric for “cost” and not what I understand climate economist to be trying to minimize.
I'd argue the opposite. Economies that function well rely on stability. Climate change, especially from extremes, bring instability and unpredictable consequences. For instance, the atmospheric river that deluged the Pacific Northwest in 2021 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pacific_Northwest_floods] cutoff the Port of Vancouver from the rest of the country, with significant economic consequences locally as well as throughout the continent. There will be more of these, not less. As extremes increase in intensity, they will begin to impacts international trade and global economies.
This should be alarming and I think that the consequences of climate disruption on our economies deserve closer scrutiny.
I agree, but I take it that cost of weather events is exactly the kind of things that ARE under study and that justify policies that lead to reducing those costs.
What I meant is a risk analysis that looks at economic impacts from climate extremes. I understand that this is inherently difficult, but these are also the most impactful aspects of climate change. For instance, we talk about Hurricane Katrina because of its sudden and unexpected (at the time) impacts. I noted elsewhere that the combination of drought in Panama, which restricts shipping traffic, combined with the instability in the Suez Canal, will result in higher shipping costs and delayed deliveries. Elsewhere, droughts in Chile are impacting mining, a large consumer of water. Some mines are pumping desalinized seawater >100 km up the mountainside at substantial cost to keep operating [https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/viewpoints/water-supply-mining-industry-chile-case]. Perhaps this is also what you mean?