Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Tackling Six Liberal Climate Change Myths

December 2nd, 2014 · 7 Comments

Buzzing around some circles, Green Boston 035-6x9Six Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question seeks to challenge conventional ‘left’ perspectives about climate change.  The post, regretfully, is an interesting — yet troubling — mix of right on the money, partial truths, and misleading elements.

To #ActOnClimate like quitting #smoking: Always good idea. Should have quit smoking 20 years ago, but quitting now is still smart! #Climate

— A Siegel (@A_Siegel) November 24, 2014

Now, as an aside, my very first reaction on reading the post is that the author (Erik Linberg) should read the Debunking Handbook (as should anyone looking to tackle half-truths and outright deception with counter arguments).

Putting that aside, let’s take the six points quickly in turn. (These points are restructured aligned with Debunking Handbook guidance.)
  1. Liberals are in some denial about climate change.Yes, this seems to be almost a truism.  Relatively few people are fully grasping how seriously humanity is impacting the global system and what that means for us as individuals, our families, our societies, and the prospects for our concept of modern human civilization. Linberg’s focus on ‘denial’ is that liberals don’t see how seriously things need to change for having a real impact on climate mitigation.  As per below, there is reason to think that Linberg does not understand many opportunities that exist to address climate challenges while maintaining (actually improving) quality of life even though it is a truism that too many think that screwing in a few LEDs is enough to get the job done.  Yet, “liberals” are more likely to understand that there is an issue and that ‘society’ should be taking action to address it.
  2. Republicans do merit extra blame … as do businesses & pundits undermining public understanding of climate science and the necessity of and opportunity for meaningful action.There is a simple truth: there are those who are actively forestalling actions to address climate change.  The dominance of the GOP by science deniers undermine even modest moves toward a more efficient and less polluting energy system. This undermines respect for science, reduces resources for necessary research (in climate science, energy technologies, etc …), and otherwise weakens the foundations for addressing climate change.In the United States, if “Big Tent” Democratic Party control of Congress and the White House would not create an a priori situation where all the right policies were in place. After all, President Obama promotes an “All of the Above” energy policy and promotes the use of natural gas.  However, emocratic Party control would, without question, have in place policies and programs that would be better than what is policy with the current power structure in Washington.

    Lindberg asserts that Republicans don’t merit additional responsibility for the situation. Simply put, he is wrong.  As Dave Munger put it:

    Everyone burns fossil fuels, including Democrats, therefore Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for global warming.

    Right. Because Republicans are so on board with emissions caps, or carbon taxes, or efficiency standards for light bulbs and appliances. So since liberals don’t think we can all just hold hands and magically reduce the consumption of fossil fuels, they’re just as much to blame for lack of political progress on global warming as conservatives? There’s a myth at work here, but I think it’s going on in the minds of idealists like Lindberg than in todays “liberals.”

  3. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can replace fossil fuels.We have massive technological advances (breakthroughs) going on in the energy efficiency and clean/renewable energy arenas.  From ARPA-E electric fuels to carbon-fiber nanotubes to better power storage to …  There are viable paths to make synthetic fuel at near zero carbon emissions (life cycle), at an affordable price, at significant amounts by 2030.  There are some really fascinating technologies in waste biomass to liquid fuels. Despite Khosla’s public slap in the face in the Washington Post (e.g., utter failure), there are some potential breakthroughs in the labs. Etc … Energy storage is advancing rapidly. And, efficiency as path to meet renewables half-way on the path to eliminating fossil fuel burning.  We have the potential for a better lifestyle — changed from today’s, but better — if we would go full hog into a clean energy future.Lindberg essentially rejects the concept that renewables can displace fossil fuels. His discussion is informed by some energy experts but doesn’t take account of the advances underway and the opportunities for substitution.When it comes to transportation, renewables don’t have to replace one-for-one all the liquid fuels used today. Road transport is becoming more efficient and migrating toward using more electricity (with PHEVs and EVs).Re transportation — there is a huge opportunity for electrification that is barely discussed in the US:  electrification of rail. Rail, directly, uses roughly 350,000 barrels of diesel per day.  Electrification wouldn’t, however, just eliminate that but would enable transferring truck cargo onto rail lines.  Roughly, electrification — with zero other improvements — increases rail capacity by 15% due to increased acceleration/deceleration/control by shift to electric motors.  Also, rail electrification would open the door for grid connectivity for distributed generation options as every rail spur now is ‘connected’ to the grid and a potential location for solar / geothermal / CHP selling power to grid / wind.  Here is one Steel Interstates discussion.

    In addition to technologies, we are seeing huge changes in business processes that are driving down costs to, for example, deploy solar panels.  Also, insurance is beginning to incorporate climate risks which can change the financial industry. And …

    Efficiency can reduce demand for fossil fuels as renewables expand to displace them …

  4. The Knowledge Economy can be low carbon.Innovations are creating opportunities for improving living conditions while cutting emissions. Again, there are some tremendously interesting things going on.  The internet has changed social dynamics — people socialize virtually. Getting places can be more efficient because you’re less likely to get lost using the GPS guidance. 3-D printing is changing manufacturing — which will impact the container ships Lindberg discusses as some form of insurmountable hurdle.  Lindberg doesn’t discuss the potential that we could replace much of our livestock with vat meat (with a fraction of the carbon implication and pretty close to ending the morality issue of how animals are treated/slaughtered).Lindberg asserts that the knowledge economy can’t be low carbon.  He is simply wrong. The Knowledge Economy can enable a low-carbon future: if we adopt the policies that will enable this future.
  5. To deal with global warming, we’ll need to evolve our lifestyles — some.We do need to think about changing our lifestyles and consumption habits. No, we can’t buy our way to a sustainable future. No, we can’t maintain a hyper-disposal culture.  Thus, at the highest level, Lindberg is right — a clean energy future won’t be seamless. BuHowever, much of the change can be for the better. Think ‘invisible energy‘.  A few decades ago, the average refrigerator used 1750 kilowatt hours per year. Now — with ice makers, larger sizes, quieter operations, no more manual defrosting — they are roughly one-third that. Well insulated and energy smart homes (and offices and stores …) are not just lower polluting, but also healthier, quieter, and more comfortable. Yes, we will need to see lifestyle changes — but much of that change can be to the better.
  6. We can do things to mitigate climate change.Lindberg is right here … sort of. He tells us that it is a myth that “there is nothing that we can do” and then lays out examples of personal action.  Yes, you can do something.  But, it is staggering that Lindberg focuses on the individual and individual action without talking about the most critical element — vote to change the system for the better.
In short, “Six Liberal Myths” is a combination of interesting material mixed with pablum and truthiness.
NOTE: As I write this, I’m in a techno-optimist mood and the comments reflected that.
Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: Energy

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Gail Zawacki // Dec 2, 2014 at 6:20 pm

    On the other hand…

  • 2 John Egan // Dec 2, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    I believe we are, at least, in some agreement that Linberg’s positions are political suicide. Even if he is right (which I do not) – to espouse such views will result in a GOP Congress and president for the next generation and more.

    The logical conclusion, then, for climate activism a la Linberg is to advocate for some form of green authoritarianism – since what he views as essential actions can never come about through a pluralistic process.

  • 3 John Egan // Dec 3, 2014 at 7:53 am

    Adam – I want to thank you fro drawing my attention to the Post Carbon Institute. After refusing to post my comment which suggested that Linberg’s views represented reactionary greenism, I looked more closely at the organization. Among their many fellows is one Richard Heinberg.

    Are you aware that this “fellow” has only two years’ of college and that his first “research” was with Immanuel Velikovsky? I read “worlds in Collision” excitedly in 4th grade – hiding it in my desk.

    I cannot believe that the climate change community has attacked people like Bjorn Lomborg and Judith Curry who have legitimate academic credentials and research then and give shelter to charlatans like Heinberg who support end-of-the-world mythologizing and theories like abiogenic oil.

    It confirms, for me, the quasi-religious nature of many in the climate change community as well as the need for immediate action on a global scale. Hell – – if we’re all going to be roasted by fireballs coming from the cosmos, a few extra degrees is chump change.

    The so-called Post Climate Institute is nothing more than a fraud that perpetrates its freeze-in-the-dark philosophy of sin and punishment on a gullible public.

    So, again, I thank you.

  • 4 Greg Laden // Dec 3, 2014 at 10:59 am

    Great post

    My Fisking of your Fisk:

    1. Liberals are in some denial about climate change.

    I agree with what you say and I’d add this. There are people out there who have made changes in their own lives to reduce their own environmental footprint. This may involve putting a solar panel on the roof (if every single household did that maximally it would make a difference) or driving a more fuel efficient car (ditto) or using public transit or bikes where possible,etc. Who are these people? Mainly liberals, not conservative. The assertion that liberals are just as in denial as conservatives that we will need to change certain aspects of our lifestyle has no evidence to support it and a lot of evidence against it.

    Having said that, yes, Linberg seems to be writing off the opportunities we have to make changes that don’t impact lifestyle but do impact our Carbon use.

    2. Republicans do merit extra blame

    I’m starting to get annoyed at an assertion I see mainly among progressives, that it does not matter what one’s political affiliation is, support for doing something about climate change is great from any quarter. While that is technically true, the truth is that the GOP has remade itself over recent decades to have NOT doing anything about climate change as a key central philosophy and a litmus test for being a good Republican. Linberg’s original post supports more of a balance theory, which is false.

    The part about his argument that notes that Democrats use fossil carbon based energy is a Tu Quoque fallacy in reasoning.

    3. Renewable energy and energy efficiency can replace fossil fuels.

    This is a key part of this discussion. Linberg claims this isn’t true, he is wrong.

    No comments beyond yours on the other issues.

    You say “In short, “Six Liberal Myths” is a combination of interesting material mixed with pablum and truthiness.”

    I think you are being kind.

  • 5 John Egan // Dec 23, 2014 at 4:19 am

    Did you see this?

    The far right continues to grow by leaps and bounds all across Europe. There is a connection.

  • 6 O hai let me wanna-be! pe Trilema - Un blog de Mircea Popescu. // Dec 27, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    […] are seeing this because your blog was recently used as part of a DDOS attack against […]

  • 7 Mythbusting | Sense & Sustainability // Jan 26, 2015 at 7:01 am

    […] note: An unedited version of this post first appeared here. Image credit courtesy Wikimedia Commons by Victor […]