We now have multiple candidates out with serious (although sometimes flawed, gapped, inadequate, etc ) plans to address climate change.
The candidates and their teams are recognizing that climate is a (if not the) top-tier issue for a substantial portion of the electorate … along with a more simple, physical reality, that the climate crisis is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most significant threat to humanity’s continued viability and prosperity.
While troubled by some things (such as lack of discussion of fracking), Biden’s emphasis on the need to focus on both U.S. domestic emissions but a stronger international engagement (building on, but not stopping with, the Paris Accords) is an example of strength within his plan.
Again, the critical thing …
The Green New Deal is party canon because of tireless organizing. These are now consensus Dem positions: – $1.7 tn public investment – polluters pay – No FF$ – just transition – ej protections – end ff subsidy – end drilling on public lands and offshorehttps://t.co/FcCz5KBXM7
Scientific reality, increasingly evident climate-related disasters globally, Trump’s climate science denial, and strong activism by Sunrise Movement (and so many others) have helped put climate on top of the political agenda.
Even if too many political pundits and professional political consultants remain oblivious to this fact, politicians from Elizabeth Warren to Jay Inslee to Beto O’Rourke to Joe Biden to … aren’t blind to political realities.
While painful (in so many ways) that it took so long to occur, it is heartening that “the climate crisis has FINALLY arrived in our politics.”
And, the time has truly come for a climate debate.
ow. It’s been less than a week since we released the official #Climate2020 candidate scorecardand our plan to set a high standard for climate action among the 2020 Democratic candidates is working — today we have ironclad proof.
This morning, just days after getting a D- grade on our #Climate2020 presidential climate scorecard, former Vice President Joe Biden released his climate plan.
The response around our #Climate2020 scorecard has been huge — from the media, activists like you and I, and the candidates are talking about it as well. Elizabeth Warren met Biden’s plans head-on today by promising a $2 trillion investment in green energy infrastructure and innovation. Amazing!
May 22nd, 2019 · Comments Off on Wind: tourism boom (not bust)?
One of the canards against wind turbines: it will hurt tourism. While my personal perspective, discussions with others, and ample evidence that this is not the case, a just-released analysis of rental activity near a new installation supports the contrary: wind turbines could well foster booming tourism.
In analysis of AirBNB activity on Block Island compared to neighboring communities, in the year following construction
AirBnB rentals in Block Island experienced, on average, a 19% increase in occupancy rates and a $3,490 increase in monthly revenue compared to those in Narragansett, Westerly and Nantucket.
While the University of Rhode Island researchers are careful to note that that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, they do believe that the wind farm has had a positive impact on tourism business.
Though the data did not indicate the reason for the increase in occupancy, Lang and Carr-Harris suggest that people were curious about the wind farm and wanted to see it for themselves.
“I think there has been some excitement about it. People are excited about renewable energy and sustainability, and they want to get behind it,” Lang explains. “So for the nation’s first offshore wind farm, we believe our results indicate that it has had a positive effect on tourism.”
“There are other factors that could be at play, too,” notes Carr-Harris. “It’s perceived that there is better fishing near the turbines, for instance, so more people may be coming to the island to go fishing.”
Comments Off on Wind: tourism boom (not bust)?Tags:wind power
Wednesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren released her concept of how she would leverage the Department of Defense (and introduced legislation) as part of a larger effort to address the climate crisis if elected President. Entitled Our Military Can Help Lead the Fight Against Climate Change, this ‘plan’ is a troubling mix of accurate problem definition, reasonable ideas, and misguided concepts.
Upfront, Senator Warren
correctly identifies climate chaos is a serious issue for the Department of Defense, that DOD is the largest single U.S. energy user, and there is much ground/need for both mitigation (reducing pollution) and adaptation (improving resiliency in face of climate risks;
proposes many useful items, such as creating policy positions focused on climate and requiring more robust examination of/reporting on DOD and climate;
mistakenly promotes DOD as a lead agency in addressing climate change, buying into a false conception of DOD as more effective than any/all other government activity; and
gets some critical items wrong, such as treating the contractor/industrial base as a unity rather than addressing its complexity.
All-in-all, much useful material but meriting revisiting to deal with its problems.
Senator Elizabeth Warren George Mason University, 16 May 2019 (Photo: A Siegel)
Problem Definition strong yet …
Team Warren correctly lays out that climate change
is already
costing the Department of Defense (and the taxpayer) $billions in terms of damages to and repairs to bases from climate-driven catastrophes;
impacting operational requirements and realities;
undermining readiness; and
will have mounting impacts in the years and decades to come in terms of driving mission requirements, undermining readiness; and creating high costs.
In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it?—?and making it worse.
The military’s heavy energy usage is outlined (largest single user of liquid fossil fuels in the United States (and, by the way, globally) and vulnerabilities from that fuel use (not just financial but also operational, as fuel convoys are susceptible to enemy attack).
While the problem definition is correct, there are framing issues. Two examples:
Throughout, Team Warren starts with bases and base implications. This is ‘supporting infrastructure’. Such infrastructures matters (a lot) but it is not ‘what’ the military is about, not why the taxpayer is investing $700B (or so) in DOD and related expenses per annum. A better approach: start with mission and work back to supporting infrastructure.
“Washington is ignoring” misrepresents the problem. Why obfuscate? The problem is not “Washington” but the Republican Party’s steadfast allegiance (for a host of reasons but notably the financial interests of major campaign donors) to climate science denial and tooth-and-nail obstruction of sensible policy to mitigate climate chaos and adapt to inevitable climate change.
Reasonable concepts are within the plan
With this background, Elizabeth Warren lays out that action is required.
I am introducing my Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act to harden the U.S. military against the threat posed by climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate solution.
Excellent that Warren is emphasizing both mitigation (“climate solution”) and adaptation (“harden”): core to any meaningful climate efforts is investing in both (even though mitigation should be first and foremost).
Among the proposals are staffing and office requirements within DOD that would heighten the visibility of climate issues within decision-making and enable incorporation of climate sensible actions within DOD activities and procurement.
To improve readiness and resilience to climate-related events, we should also create a dedicated source of funding to adapt our bases in the United States and around the world. Let’s save money by budgeting for climate change on the front end, so that the Pentagon doesn’t have to ask for more only after a base is flooded or equipment damaged when natural disasters strike.
Absolutely. Well past time to be serious about Benjamin Franklin’s “an ounce of prevention” especially since this ‘insurance’ investment will pay for itself through lower utility bills, better operational capacity, and greater resiliency to threats beyond ‘just’ climate change.
Within this, Warren’s focus is on “non-combat” base infrastructure. While ‘hardening’ matters there and there is much value (financial, resiliency, reduced pollution) in addressing their resource use (not just energy but water and trash as well), these facilities are a fraction of the overall DOD energy use (which is dominated, first and foremost, by aviation liquid fuel requirements). The proposal is for these facilities to be “Net Zero” by 2030 — powered 100% by renewable energy ‘in accord with the Green New Deal’. With this, Senator Warren is beginning to get into more tenuous ground by, for example, emphasizing “renewable” rather than “clean” energy.
Misguided concepts requiring reconsideration and change …
While renewable vs clean and the 2030 target are part of larger debates, here are several examples of misguided concepts.
I’ll invest billions of dollars into a new, ten-year research and development program at the Defense Department focused on microgrids and advanced energy storage. The Pentagon has been responsible for countless technological breakthroughs, working together with colleges and universities, our national labs, local governments, and private companies. Let’s put that effort toward new clean energy solutions that will improve our security by allowing military bases to remain operational when traditional power sources fail, and save taxpayers money through lower overall energy consumption.
Proposed microgrid research program
likely should not be DOD lead but, rather, could be run within the Department of Energy (with DOD and other agency involvement);
shouldn’t be a leading-edge item of discussion
When it comes to climate mitigation, an appropriate mantra is ‘deploy, Deploy, DEPLOY’ what we already have with then, as #4, investing in creating (researching, developing) the options for deployment tomorrow; thus,
Should a 10-year research effort be a priority in discussion (with a ‘2030 deadline looming and need for urgent action?) rather than emphasizing deployment of and learning from existing technologies and options; and
is indicative of a serious problem:
the Department of Defense is not some perfect panacea and best run government agency that should have leadership of anything and everything.
As per above, this is likely far better done within DOE with then military research organizations focused on working with and leveraging that research for DOD-specific/priority arenas (such as micro-grids for deployed forces rather than micro-grids for university campuses).
The DOD awards hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of contracts every year, so if we’re serious about climate change then industry also needs to have skin in the game. I’ll ask contractors that have not achieved net zero carbon emissions to pay a small fee?—?one percent of the total value of the contract?—?and I’ll use that money to invest directly in making our military infrastructure more resilient.
Penalizing contractors based on ‘net zero’ fails to consider the complexity of the DOD contractor ecosystem.
The defense contractor world is huge, complex, and multifaceted. An analytical consulting firm is not the same as a cloud storage provider is not the same as a logistical services company is not the same as a shipyard — in business model, contract structures and timeframes, and energy requirements to execute the required contracts. The first likely could be ‘net zero’ today while the last (with steel fabrication, requirements to move 1000s of tons around, etc …) might be hard pressed to get there (without major support) over a several decade period.
Defense contractors are likely ready to work with an Administration on paths to lowering their climate impacts.
In 2012, the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) adopted as part of its policy priorities, for discussions with Congress, a concept for putting defense contractors on an energy/resource efficiency planning process like the Obama Administration required for governmental agencies.
Such a plan would accommodate the complexity of the contractor environment — requiring all firms to ‘clean up their act’ according to auditable plans — rather than creating a one size (doesn’t) fit all system.
From “Top Issues 2012” National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) page 5
Some final thoughts
As one who has spent (sigh) decades as (a minor) part of the effort to get the US military (and other military) forces to tackle energy (and water and waste and …) in a smarter way, while there is much of value in Senator Warren’s laydown, this could have been a stronger and more on target proposal.
The military should NOT be the lead …
even as being less damaging to the environment, due to better/smarter practices, can be a corollary to a more effective military force,
the military is ‘not’ about being clean (nor ‘green’) but about being prepared to kill people and destroy things (hopefully enough to dissuade others from conflict so that it won’t occur) in support of national strategy.
when it comes to climate chaos, lead agencies should be Energy, Interior, Transportation, State/USAID, Treasury … even as there are serious roles for mitigation within DOD investments and serious climate chaos implications for DOD readiness and operational requirements, “climate change’ is not the DOD mission.
This messaging — in specific ways — can/will turn off many w/in ‘traditional’ national security: even those who take climate change seriously
Why should DOD — rather than DOE — as an example, run a ten-year program on micro-grids?
This whole messaging buys into/reinforces a mistaken societal belief that DOD is better at running things than elsewhere in government/society.
The approach to contractors fails to consider the complex nature of the contractor / industrial base.
Despite everything, DOD is roughly 1% of US energy use/pollution
With contracting, this might rise to as much as 5% (or so)
A very high share of that energy use and pollution is embedded into capital assets (ships, tanks, planes … oh, and buildings/bases) that
either are stranded assets to be abandoned or …
will take a long time to turnover/replace
E.g., DOD facility energy use and pollution matters, BUT
There are many arenas that matter (FAR) more …
It takes time to have massive change — even within a WWII-like mobilization to address the climate crisis.
Framing matters and research is showing that stronger terms (climate crisis, climate chaos, climate emergency) aren’t just merited but foster stronger support for action on the scale necessary to address the climate crisis.
This proposal has strengths but the gaps in understanding the DOD (energy issues) and climate are frustrating and merit addressing.
A note: The above puts aside a discussion of whether the DOD should be radically restructured (reduced in size, scope), roles/missions, etc that is clearly a related/associated subject/debate. Even w/in ‘traditional’ DOD terms, the Warren proposal is at best a mishmash that merits revisiting
According to Reuters, Joe Biden is seeking a ‘middle ground’ climate policy — a return to Obama Administration policies for gradual (an inadequate) incrementalism to reduce emissions while seeking to satisfy those (excessively) profiting off fossil fool(ish) extraction.
The backbone of the policy will likely include re-joining the United States with the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo ….
… the policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.
“There may have been a chance for modest, ‘all of the above,’ ‘middle ground’ climate strategies twenty years ago but we’ve passed that point now,” said Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and co-founder of California’s Pacific Institute. He added that “many politicians still fail to understand or accept the severity of the climate crisis or the speed with which we now have to act.”
Climate change is an urgent crisis. 'Middle-ground' approaches and half measures won't cut it. We need a large-scale national mobilization to defeat climate change and grow millions of jobs in a clean energy economy.
As a quick reminder, action to address climate chaos is polling high with Democratic Party voters — increasingly right at the top of priorities of action (such as this CNN poll which had 96% of Democratic voters viewing “aggressive action on climate change” as very or somewhat important). Activists like Sunrise, scientific voices about climate risks, and increasing clarity about mounting climate chaos disasters (California fires, Midwest floods, Hurricanes, …) are key factors in driving the political discussion (at least within the Democratic Party) toward addressing the reality of climate chaos and the need for serious, aggressive action. Political reality (again, at least in the Democratic Party) seems to be striving to catch up with science and physical realities.
The Biden ‘trial balloon’ is at odds with the increased importance for (D) voters of strong climate policy as a core focus for the next President of the United States. Two named people (Zichal and Moniz) seem to emphasize that ‘reality’ requires compromising with fossil fuel interests (from which both, such as Zichal as a Cheniere board member, are receiving significant funds) rather than focusing on what is required to protect the nation from climate chaos and what is possible in terms of creating a prosperous, clean-energy future. It also seems to buy into a (at best partially true) view that ‘blue collar’ and voters in key states support fossil fuel extraction and opposed efforts to address climate change. As to that:
It seems that the Biden camp might have quickly recognized the tone-deaf nature of this climate balloon.
TJ Ducklo, a spokesman for Biden’s campaign, said in an email statement that the former vice president “knows how high the stakes are” and noted his record on addressing climate change.
“As president, Biden would enact a bold policy to tackle climate change in a meaningful and lasting way, and will be discussing the specifics of that plan in the near future,” he said. “Any assertions otherwise are not accurate.”
As the (informed, substantive, passionate, angered) responses started to mount, Heather Zichal weighed in to accuse the Reuters’ team of getting it wrong:
I expect as president @JoeBiden would enact a bold policy to tackle climate change in a meaningful and lasting way. Reuters got it wrong. Any suggestion that it wouldn't is in direct contradiction to his long record of understanding climate change as an existential threat.
Simply put, if Joe Biden truly recognizes climate chaos as an ‘existential threat’ (which it is), a “middle of the ground’ policy approach wouldn’t have made it to the trial balloon stage. An “existential threat” recognizing policy wouldn’t emphasize 2016 ‘Business as Usual” as the objective for action. Let’s hope that Heather Renee Zichal is correct and that Joe Biden will some come out with a robust, thoughtful, implementable, and aggressive climate policy like Jay Inslee has started to lay out.
Sadly, there are far too many “OH SH-T” moments for those paying even the slightest attention to climate chaos (and related environmental issues/crises). One came for even that “slightest attention” crowd as a peer-review article about Bitcoin’s gluttonous electricity habits made a splash leading to global headlines like “Bitcoin Predicted To Be The Nail In The Coffin Of Climate Change” with the potential that “Bitcoin alone could push global temperatures over the 2ºC catastrophic threshold by 2034.” ‘Oh s—, Bitcoin miners could well kill kill us all’ was a thought that passed through likely not just this blogger’s mind. Now, on second reflection, the thought was ‘this seems a bit click bait exaggeration potential’, then ‘need to check into it’, and, then, life caught up and the check-up never occurred. And, like probably so many of us, in the back of the mind was this idea that Bitcoin’s electricity demands posed a serious, menacing, and real threat to hopes for driving a clean energy future.
Those click-bait headlines and that back-of-the-mind, semi-forgotten thought were — like all too many fantastical claims — simply off by orders-of-magnitude. As Churchill said, a lie is halfway around the world before the truth got out of bed. Well, as to the fantasy claims of Bitcoin burning the world, the truth got out of bed wide-awake today as the Coin Center just issued a report it commissioned from energy efficiency expert Jonathan Koomey entitled Estimating Bitcoin Electricity Use: A Beginner’s Guide.
“Periodically and predictably someone makes wild claims about information technology electricity use. Because I’ve been working on this topic for a quarter century, those claims always make their way into my inbox. I wrote this report to address misconceptions about Bitcoin electricity use and give those not versed in its complexities some simple tools for assessing whether an estimate of Bitcoin electricity use is credible.” Jonathan Koomey
In brief, Koomey makes clear that Bitcoin is responsible for perhaps 0.2% of global electricity use with uncertain projections about its future growth. That Bitcoin mining is using 1/500th of the world’s electricity production, when hundreds of millions have no electrons, isn’t something to laugh at but it isn’t going to drive global warming.
As to that 2 degree prediction, Koomey makes clear the fundamental analytical assumption failures:
The authors assumed that the efficiency of Bitcoin mining as well as the emissions intensity of electricity would stay constant over the next century. [p. 12]
Sure, based on the past 50+ years, it seems ever so reasonable to assume that computing efficiency wouldn’t improve an iota. Sure, based on rapidly reducing emissions per kilowatt hour through the global electricity system over the past decade, let’s assume that the grid of 2109 will be no cleaner than that of 2019. Sure …
Reading that one line reminded me of how forecasting agencies are constantly getting it wrong as to (even near term) future clean energy developments: assuming that efficiencies won’t improve and costs won’t fall pretty much guarantees underestimating how well clean energy systems will perform in the market place.
Koomey’s opening underscores the importance of being awake to clickbait risks about information technology energy demands since debunking claims about growing IT electricity usage is Groundhog Day for him. For example, there were claims that the Internet used 8% of electricity in 2000 (actual figure, about 1%), all computers plus the Internet used 13% (actual about 3%), and that a wireless Palm VII used as much electricity as a refrigerator to support its networking (oops, this was an exaggeration of the networking electricity demands by some 2000%). Thus, Koomey’s opening section’s title: Know Your History (Beware the Hype). Or, as Jonathan summarized it last fall when he blogged on this Bitcoin will burn the planet hysteria.
“The amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” (Brandolini’s law)
In any event, with yet another quality analytical product, Jonathan Koomey’s work should put to rest aside any lingering concern you might have had that Bitcoin miners were frying humanity’s future.
April 23rd, 2019 · Comments Off on Are you an “Angry Clean Energy Guy” (or Gal) Too?
Looking around the world, there is much to be frustrated and angry with. “If only …” could start a million sentences about possibilities for change to the better. The climate and clean energy space is replete with such ‘missed opportunity’ frustration space. Assaad Razzouk‘s new podcast “The Angry Clean Energy Guy” (website) gives voice to this frustration in an impassioned and informative way.
Assaad begins each podcast:
There is so much to be angry about, if you are a clean energy guy.
Every day, SO many things that happen around the world make me angry when I look at them with lenses COLORED BY the climate change chaos unfolding everywhere around us
– and I am especially angry because I KNOW we can solve the climate change crisis if we were only trying.
But as a civilization, as a collective, as a society, we’re not.
IN FACT, we are doing the opposite, because the climate chaos is getting worse!!
Razzouk has, for awhile, been a staple of my social media life — a Singapore-based clean-energy investor, his tweets and LinkedIn posts often highlight items that I might otherwise have missed and his OPEDs (and other commentaries) frequently coherently lay out issues and opportunities. Thus, when he announced a podcast, I had decided to try it out … and, with the opening, he had me especially I was experiencing an ‘angry clean-energy guy’ micro-moment as I listened. I had walked to the library to return some books, arriving in beautiful weather perhaps ten minutes before it’s opening, and there were five people in cars with engines running, engines polluting as they waited for the doors to open. Really? REALLY? Have to doubt that a single one of those people considered what was coming out of their tailpipes.
That sort of ‘micro-moment’, which is exemplary of thoughtless all around us, isn’t Razzouk’s focus space. As he puts it,
each week, I will share with you a few TOPICS that struck me and that I was very ANGRY about – and this will generally have to do with CLIMATE CHANGE, SOLAR OR WIND POWER, PLASTIC POLLUTION, THE OCEANS AND OTHER RELATED TOPICS – as well as some of the HYPOCRISY I see coming from the REALLY BAD ACTORS in my world WHICH, NOT SURPRISINGLY, ARE MOSTLY BIG, BAD CORPORATIONS
Re plastics, Razzouk opens the discussion with a poignant example of how and why anger is sparked.
angry to see that a dead whale turn up in the Philippines, with, wait for it, 40 kilograms of PLASTIC in its belly.
So this poor whale died of “dehydration and starvation” after eating 40 kilos (or 88 pounds) of plastic rice sacks, grocery bags, banana plantation bags and general plastic bags
We are currently producing EACH YEAR plastic equal to the total weight of 5 billion of us, 5 billion people.
Can you even imagine that kind of VOLUME? I can’t …
And here’s an even more incredible number: Since we invented plastic, we’ve produced THE equivalent of the weight of 100 BILLION PEOPLE
We’ve recycled just seven percent — leaving 93 billion people of plastic weight for landfills or, too frequently, the environment to ‘absorb’ (roughly 5 billion people’s worth has made it into the oceans).
And, at the core of the plastics problem: subsidies to the oil industry (across the board) and an inability (refusal) to price in real costs (externalities) (which, in this case, would include plastic pollution implications).
But do you know what else? Pretty much all of the TV, press and social media coverage I’ve seen blames us, the consumer, and the Filippinos in the case of this poor whale, for this tragedy.
But the truth is very, very different: The plastic EPIDEMIC is fundamentally due to the fact that OIL, the principal raw material in plastic is not priced correctly.
And therefore plastic is not priced correctly
And the reason oil is cheap – – and plastic is cheap — is because its impact on the environment is not in its price.
In other words, oil companies aren’t paying for the damage their product is causing
The oceans are paying, the rivers are paying, the waterways are paying, and WE are paying with our health
All this plastic means hardly any drinking water we consume is free of microplastic, and so much of the food is consume is contaminated with microplastics
But you aren’t going to see that mentioned in ANY of the media coverage about this poor whale.
So: oil companies are burying us with plastic because they are basically dumping it on us free. If oil companies PAID for the environmental impacts their products cause, plastic would be a lot more expensive and guess what would happen then? Supermarkets would STOP giving out plastic bags that most of us, ashamed as we are of taking, can’t say no to when we have a baby with us, 3 other bags, and are frenetically working our phones because it’s raining and we can’t get to the subway …
Wrecking the planet is the business model of Big Oil.
“Wrecking the planet is the business model of Big Oil.” Assaad has the capacity to eloquently, directly, succinctly capturing the truth of a matter.
The above is simply a taste of The Clean Energy Guy weekly podcast which has joined my podcast staples for informed commentary for walks to the library and elsewhere.
Comments Off on Are you an “Angry Clean Energy Guy” (or Gal) Too?Tags:climate change · Energy
When it comes to climate discussions, a “Lukewarmer” represents a dangerous portion of the climate discussion spectrum. While stringent climate denial, like Donald Trump’s, can be quickly pigeon-holed as yet another ignorant absurdity from someone who is poorly acquainted with truth and knowledge, Lukewarmers can easily confuse the situation through their seeming reasonableness and superficial moderation — mixing some truth, partial truths, and outright deception to undermine public (and policy community) understanding of climate science and, therefore, to weaken support for climate mitigation.
A definition is merited before delving deeper. A Lukewarmer
acknowledges that climate change is occurring and that human action is, in part, driving a warming planetary system;
Asserts that this isn’t a crisis due to
low ‘climate sensitivity’ (how much heating will occur for doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations);
warming (and increased CO2) provides significant benefits (at least to well beyond where we are today); and that
adaptation to changed conditions is normal human action and easy/low-cost.
argues against action to mitigate climate change
asserting high costs and risks for mitigation action, minimal impacts of action, combined with the assertions above, makes this simply not worth doing.
Or, as a member of the National Academies of Sciences put it to me in a private note:
Lukewarmer.
That’s just a medium denier, who pretends to accept the science, but then fights against ANY action to address the problem by minimizing how bad it is and maximizing false information of the costs of acting.
[A moment for some critical truth: no matter its level, that there is any level of climate sensitivity to human action should merit attention and concern. Agreeing that there is climate sensitivity is agreeing that we are driving change in the global system that human civilization and, well, all creatures have evolved/developed in.]
The most important thing to know about climate sensitivity is that it's not zero https://t.co/5c0VgTIN2X
A smooth talking, well-prepared Lukewarmer can truly confuse a public audience by seemingly being so reasonable and so well armed with (alternative) facts to buttress that reasonableness. Just such a snake-oil salesman came to my backyard the other day.
Pat Michaels is a rarity in the climate denialism/lukewarmer space. He actually has a relevant degree, actually has worked in relevant science, actually has (even if long ago) publications in peer-reviewed literature. Michaels, also, has a long history of the fossil-fuel industry paying for work to confuse the public about climate science and policy. For example,
In 1991, “Patrick Michaels lended “expert” advice on the impacts of global warming to a public relations campaign conceived and funded by a coalition of coal companies and electric utilities. The campaign, under the title “Information Council on the Environment,” aimed to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).””
“In a leaked 2006 memo of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), Michaels is listed as a recipient of at least $100,000 from IREA to combat global warming “alarmists.” The IREA memo outlines a coordinated strategy by Koch Industries, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michaels, and other key groups. “We have met with Koch, CEI and Dr. Michaels, and they meet among themselves periodically to discuss their activities,” NERA’s General Manager Stan Lewandowski wrote. [97]”
In this announcement, some critical language is underlined. An assertion that Michaels is providing a legitimate “alternative perspective on the underlying science” which could “turn out to be correct”. We are mandated to accept as some form of a reasonable proposition that the world’s scientists could be wrong and fossil-fuels-funded Michaels and friends just might be right. (Re that link, Michaels is asking us to believe him (and bet our, our children’s, humanity’s future) rather than pay attention to every single national academy of science and relevant professional association.) Perhaps the next Faith and Policy Committee announcement will request invitees to “please suspend your disbelief as we discuss the implications of the coming Zombie Apocalypse.”
Summarizing a truthiness-laded presentation
Michaels roughly 90 minute presentation (especially without a recording nor slides) is just too much (and too painful) to recount fully here. A reasonable summary of this Lukewarmer:
Yes, there is warming
Yes, humans have something to do with it
Warming risks/CO2 implications are less than the models predict
Scientists have ‘gone along’ (conspired) to exaggerate warming risks and implications
Increased CO2 and warming are beneficial, on average
Options to reduce CO2 won’t have much impact and cost too much money
We should bide our time until technology and options come around
Adaptation is what humans do and is easy.
The standard denier (okay, Lukewarmer) tactic is what’s call Gish Gallop: jumping from one false or misleading argument to another so fast that it hard to keep up and hard(er) to refute. In an audience like this, the Gish Gallop is strengthened with slide after slide seeming to ‘prove’ with data the point on file. And, unless a true world class expert who has been ‘fighting’ these issues forever, it is essentially impossible to keep up with the presentation while delving into specific items to figure out how they’re misleading. And, since the slide deck isn’t available, pretty much impossible to go back to X slide to demonstrate how the data or presentation was manipulated to confuse the discussion.
Even so, here are a few examples of such ‘misdirection’ or confusion generation.
Hurricanes ….
Michaels talked about how people are concerned about things they hear on the radio and that they shouldn’t be. His example was claims that “hurricanes are getting worse” with an implication (statement?) that this is what climate scientists are stating. He talked for a few minutes (with, of course, solely a focus on Atlantic hurricanes rather than the global data) about how the data record doesn’t back that up.
Changes in the intensity of hurricane have been documented and attributed to changes in sea-surface temperatures, but the link between these changes and climate change remains uncertain and the subject of considerable research and scientific debate.
Now, when I read a sentence from this NAS report to preface a question, to highlight how he was gaming the situation, Michaels interrupted me (as opposed to the moderator not allowing anyone in the audience to interrupt Michaels — so much for cordiality) to state that this was responding to X study by Y author as if (perhaps it is true) that Micheals knew exactly which report this was (out of dozens) and exactly which page. The point really was that Michaels set up a strawman argument to pick apart to ‘prove’ an exaggeration that, well, simply doesn’t exist.
Washington will be like X
Michaels wants people to think that impacts will be minor and thus easily adapted to with, for example, air conditioning. Amid his ‘adaptation’ will be easy (and not even noticeable as we go about our lives), he said something like ‘Washington’s weather will become like Richmond’s. Really think that this will have much of an impact on our lives.’
Richmond? How about Greenwood, Mississippi, which “is 9.8°F (5.5°C) warmer and 75.2% wetter than winter in Washington.” By 2080,
“Many East Coast cities are going to become more like locations to the southwest, on average roughly 500 miles away.”
Some other Michaels’ confusion-generating messaging that, well, generates head-knocking against wall and deception that takes much more effort to refute than it does to spew out.
Michaels: Scientists are “cheating” at the models, are poorly executing their models, and leveraging bad models to scare people.
TRUTH: Greenland ice melt is accelerating, could have a serious impact on global sea levels in our lifetimes, and — if totally melted — could add 23 feet to sea level.
Michaels: Greenland ice melt isn’t to be worried about — it will take a long time and won’t be that consequential.
TRUTH: Energy poverty is being tackled around the world, with increasing numbers of people having access to at least basic (level 1) electricity every year with solar power being a primary reason for this.
Michaels: Africans face a choice between burning fossil fuels or burning dung … who are we to keep them burning dung.
TRUTH: People want/need energy services, not the ‘energy’. Some situations, like powering a jet aircraft, require “dense” energy (power per weight, volume) while in other situations, ‘energy density’ is irrelevant. (Think solar power on rooftops — the roof is already there. As long as those clean electrons are cost competitive, does it (in economic calculations) matter how many watts are generated per square foot? And, for the energy/economic system, that rooftop would be wasted space without those solar panels.)
Michaels: Fossil fuels are an absolute necessity due to energy ‘density’.
TRUTH: Market interactions are complex, with incumbents and other influencers distorting markets and ‘irrational’ humans (e.g., essentially none of us are homo economicus) not always making the most rational economic choices. The ‘market’ isn’t perfect and the ‘best’ solution doesn’t always win or emerge.
Michaels: Efficiency and the market will win out. Just let the market solve everything.
Michaels: Yes, there is coral bleaching, but it has nothing to do with CO2 warming and the system is self-correcting as coral polyps that are able to handle the heat replace those who die. Nature adapts just like humans.
Michaels: The Obama Administration Social Cost of Carbon was overstated since it didn’t discount the future [e.g., the value of we (in our old age), our children (as adults) and grandchildren having a habitable planet] enough.
TRUTH: Climate change is complicated, as is the global ecosystem. Carbon dioxide can lead to greater plant growth even while lowering the quality of the plant’s nutrients (in many cases). And, tropical deforestation is a real thing that creates real risks … and tropical deforestation is happening.
Michaels: The world is greening due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere [implying that we should just keeping adding more] and that areas of greatest greening are in tropical forest areas — which are getting greener, more vegetation rather than the deforestation we hear about.
etc …
etc …
etc …
Head hitting desk moment … essentially every one of Michaels’ assertions was false and/or misleading.
Laughing all the way
Michaels is a good snake-oil salesman, overwhelming with appearance of overwhelming data to ‘prove’ his assertions and engaging in ways to win over audience sympathy. All of this confusion generating and misdirection came with wry humor and seeming self-deprecation.
‘Washington, DC, has one of the largest urban heat islands in the country from all the money changing hands.’
In discussion falselyasserting that modeling is wrong, with the exception of one model: “I hope the Special Prosecutor gets his report out because it is the Russian model.”
In an audience dominated by people over age 65, Michaels slowly and loudly stated “O … M … G” to emphasize (false) points.
“Let’s talk about Syria because that’s one of the infraredherrings of the climate discussion.”
CO2 is the (okay, one of the) culprit(s) (use of cartoon courtesy John Cook)
Ha … ha .. ha … laughing our way to catastrophe.
O … M … G … The Oregon Petition
My question was the last of the evening and I did manage to get out (something like): “Every single world Academy of Science and relevant scientific institution would not agree with your presentation. You are asking everyone here to believe you over the world’s scientific community.” While Michaels’ reaction was, in essence, ‘they are all going along to get along and don’t have my courage’, the most interesting reaction came as the evening closed.
The wife of the event organizer, John Theune, was (my wording) clearly outraged over the impugning of Michaels, Theune, and the professional climate science denial (oops, Lukewarmer) world. She stood up, in her outrage, to assert that there is a “petition signed by 31.478 American scientists who agree with John and Pat Michaels. When John worked at NASA, the position was we did not know enough … There is a large body of data, research, and scientists who stand behind Dr. Michaels.”
Sigh. Love the preciseness of 31,478. In any event, that is the Oregon Petition whose luminaries, in signing, have included senior scientists like Mickey Mouse and ” included the names of “Drs. ‘Frank Burns’ ‘Honeycutt’ and ‘Pierce’ from the hit-show M*A*S*H and Spice Girls, a.k.a. Geraldine Halliwell, who was on the petition as ‘Dr. Geri Halliwel’ and again as simply ‘Dr. Halliwell.'” Now, even if we were to assume that 100% of the “31,478” were accurate, as of 2010, there had been over 10 million Americans who fulfilled the claimed ‘requirements’ to be able to sign the petition as scientists.
An interesting aside moment: CATO vs Heartland
After the presentation, one of the audience members went up to Michaels and said that his unwillingness to discuss his fossil fuel funding undermines his message. Amid this (paraphrasing),
Audience member: You worked at Heartland, after all, which takes lots of money from the Koch Brothers.
Michaels: No, I work at CATO. We’re quite different. You shouldn’t trust anything about science from Heartland.
Hmm … okay, there is at least one thing Michaels said Wednesday evening that is accurate and truthful.
The most critical message of the evening
Without question, there are far (FAR) more pleasant ways to spend the evening than sitting in the audience for a science denial presentation. The event moderator, Lincoln Brooks, provided the painful truth as to ‘why’ it can be necessary:
No matter what you think of Pat Michaels and what he said, no matter whether you think he is utterly wrong, there is a simple truth. One half of major American political parties is listening to him.
A note: In more than one way, a post like this is painful to write. One of those ‘ways’ is that, writ large, we should welcome that efforts/groups/discussions like the “Faith and Policy Committee” exist and try to educate/inform/engage people on important issues. Sadly, however, hosting Michaels was/is misinforming and deceiving, rather than enriching. Step back for a moment and think: should the Faith and Policy Committee next host someone (falsely) explaining how vaccines cause autism? Or, someone (falsely) arguing that smoking doesn’t cause cancer (something, btw, that Michaels was associated with in his history)? Or, that the Earth is flat? Giving a soap box to serial deceit is not a path to improved public discourse and better public policy.
Climate Science Denial Tactics are Directly Aligned with Tobacco-Cancer Denial Tactics Pat Michaels has been involved in both
And, one last note to resolve an opening question: despite a lukewarmer’s substantial CO2 emissions, the grass wasn’t any greener in my backyard the day after Michaels’ visit.
A small ‘update’ to highlight the ‘flawed’ community Michaels is a member of:
Yes all of them flawed. All of them! “Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus”#ActOnClimate#ClimateChange#Sciencehttps://t.co/oIjITCChI4
Let us be clear, upfront, that it is important that
so many credentialed, prominent economists have come together to call for action to address climate change; and
these economists agree that it is past time for polluting “externalities” to be internalized into financial transactions
Over 3,300 economists have now signed this statement on the carbon tax, making it the largest public declaration in the history of economics: https://t.co/iG5Os9gRSa
As leading environmental economist Frank Ackerman put it to me,
it’s great to hear that lots of utterly mainstream economists think a response to climate change is needed, and that a carbon price is part of that response.
Even so, the Economists’ Statement on Climate Dividends is troubling on several accounts, including that it seems oblivious to some basic Econ 102-level economic realities.
Some background
First published 16 January in the Wall Street Journal, as news and excitement mounted about the Green New Deal, the Economists’ Statement evolved from the Baker-Schultz climate dividend plan and could be seen as the calm, collective, experienced, incremental, classics economic theory‘s alternative to an unbridled effort to transform American society while radically reducing emissions. As Baker-Schultz implies, the Economists’ Statement originated with conservative thinking about how to engage productively in discussion about how best to address climate change mitigation. Proponents assert that it “represents the largest expression of combined economic expertise in American history”.
Think ‘classic economic theory’ as this statement fails to stand up to basic scrutiny in part because it is such classic Dismal Science and enshrines Homo Economicus as core to humanity’s future.
A very quick summary of the short statement:
Climate change is real, a threat, and requires action.
Pricing carbon is the most effective way to do so.
Thus, set a price on carbon that increases, gradually, over time to let the ‘invisible hand’ drive decision-making on investments to less polluting options.
With price in place, end regulations and other government interventions (inefficiencies) related to carbon.
Use 100% of the revenues for dividends because this will boost public support.
One clean example makes stark how over 3300 (including many of the most accomplished) economists got it wrong with this Statement.
Carbon pricing has significant differential impact across sectors.
$10-$20 ton is enough of a tipping point to accelerate, rapidly, coal off the grid and reduce natural gas seriously.
$50/ton would barely dent liquid fuel demand without accompanying policies.
The statement gives no indication of an understanding of this simple truth: what is a “powerful signal” in one sector is barely noticed in others.
Let's also talk transportation. Unlike electricity, carbon taxes are quite weak in transportation. That $50 / ton carbon tax that would kill coal and turn natural gas electricity into backup? It would raise the cost of a gallon of gas by… 50 cents. Minimal impact, if any. 14/
In other words, these world-leading economists are flocking to sign on to a statement that seems oblivious to a simple reality: in terms of climate impacts, a price is not a price is not a price … What ‘kills coal’ barely would barely wound natural gas and oil.
it’s always meant to be a political document that basically says: “Economists support carbon pricing.” The dividend bit is there based on who the organizers are, but that’s about it. It’s not some sort of legislative text. It’s simply a sign-on statement that went viral. The fact that it only reflects econ 101 and not, say, econ 102 or political economy 101 is unfortunate but doesn’t really matter in that context. …
What’s telling in general is that e.g. the two Nobel laureates best positioned to know the details — Nordhaus and Krugman — did not, in fact, join their fellow Laureates. (I didn’t sign either, in case that matters.)
Can’t we rely on the Invisible Hand & Homo Economicus?
As a basic point, the failure is classic “liberal market economics” perpetuating the falsehood of “the invisible hand” even as putting in policy (pricing) to shape the ‘invisible”.
The rejection of regulation as a legitimate part of policy is great example of Homo Economicus thinking without integrating/involving any of the learning from behavioral economics over the past several decades. As per study after study of Misbehaving humans in the real world, humans are not perfectly informed, perfectly rational actors across our economic decision-making. And, while a strong believer in the value of pricing externalities as part of changing course toward a prosperous, climate-friendly society, real-world experience demonstrates that ‘pricing’ doesn’t work in absence of accompanying policy (e.g., regulations) in many energy domains.
The Economists’ Statement derives from the Climate Leadership Council whose explanation makes clear an intent to eliminate significant regulations (while eliminating any/all liability for past emissions). E.g., let’s issue ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ cards to firms who have fostered confusion in climate discussions for decades while undermining the ability to have a “well-regulated” economy structure “invisible hand” decisions to drive ever-greater emissions reductions.
As one pulls threads on the Economists’ Statement, one starts to wonder just how many of its authors really thought about what they were signing — past a desire to sign on to a symbolic statement. For example,
there is (yet again) the assertion that 100% of any carbon price should be returned as dividends because it will boost the political popularity.
While I tend to fall into thinking that having a decent share as ‘rebate’ would foster increased support (and is a minor path toward addressing economic inequalities), I have yet to see proof that this is actually true rather than assertion.
In addition, the basic logic of 100% returned is hard to justify.
What carbon pricing system around the world is giving 100% of revenue back as dividends? None by recollection.
As Ackerman put it to me, “Why the 100% return requirement? Nothing else in public life is required to be 100% revenue-neutral, why should climate policy have to meet this strange standard? Public investment, infrastructure, basic research are all important, along with dividends to ease the possible regressivity of a carbon price.”
100% discounting of the future, in terms of dividend payment
Giving out dividend, today, ‘rewards’ people alive today while reserving nothing (investing nothing) for those tomorrow.
Assumption that individual knows better than the collective (e.g., government) is one of the greatest myths promoting by the GOP and accomplice economists.
While there are things the individual knows better (what clothing their children like; whether they want to save money for vacation or go out to restaurants; etc …), there is so much that the ‘individual’ isn’t in a position to know better (what concrete should be used to repair the road; how to recruit/train teachers/police/etc; public health; etc…).
Giving 100% of the money back in a dividend is an implicit embrace of ‘individual knows better’ (Homo Economicus) ideology.
In addition to undermining non-pricing mechanisms, by asserting ‘a single price uber alles’, the Economists’ Statement fails to meet very basic analytical standards to support their statement along with these other failures.
Thus, let’s celebrate the Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends for highlighting that pricing pollution has widespread support across the economics profession while recognizing that signatories are promoting a flawed structure that does not stand up to scrutiny.
Selected Bibliography: In addition to material cited/linked in the post, here are some discussions of the Economists’ Statement that I found interesting/useful.
In all seriousness, it seemed on 5 November 2016 that there was a crowd of PMS (pale, male, and stale) somewhat irrational outliers on climate science who were truly about to be relegated to the ash heap of history — instead, thank you to Putin, horrible media practices, GOP voter suppression (among other reasons), these deluded people have the demi-G-d in control of the Federal government and are in positions of power. With Trump about to announce a “Presidential Committee On Climate Security”, it’s those irrational outliers who are going to be in charge of the game.
Among the PMS crowd, there are a few credentialed scientists (though very few climate scientists) who rate in the ‘climate science confuser’ (if not denier) space. One of those is William Happer, formerly a professor at Princeton University, a specialist on lasers (not climate science) and now a senior director in the Trump National Security Council staff. Happer is to be in charge of that Presidential Committee.
Boxer: This is a weird kind of place you’ve taken us to. You’re taking us back how many years to when we were fine.
Happer. About 80 million year
Boxer. I don’t know how to say this. A lot has happened since then in terms of where people are living and working. We have a society now. So, to say go back to those days, … either I’m missing something or you just don’t seem to think times have changed.
Happer: While I don’t think that the laws of nature or physics have changed. [Said snidely …] or chemistry have changed in 80 million years. 80 million years ago the Earth was a prosperous place. There is no reason to think that it will suddenly become bad now …
Hmmm … well before human civilization, in the … period, CO2 levels were higher and sea levels were only about 400 feet (120 meters) higher than today. Thus, according to Happer, evidently losing every piece of land less than 400 feet above sea level today would be “bad”.
It’s important to note the person behind this attempt to chill our defense agencies from understanding and managing climate risk is Dr. Will Happer. Dr. Happer testified before Congress in December 2015 that the world has too little Carbon Dioxide and is too cold – an extreme, fringe view even for the tiny number of scientists who call themselves climate skeptics. This is a clumsy attempt to force the entire federal government to conform to a bizarre view thoroughly rejected by the vast majority of scientists.” – Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret), former Oceanographer of the Navy and now a Professor at Penn State. [Note: Titley gave a truly excellent TED talk about his journey from climate science skepticism to understanding its reality and importance. See it at the end of this post.)
And, it is that irrationality — framed as run by a “Princeton Professor” — that will head a Presidential Committee on Climate Security.
The assessment Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats submitted on Jan. 29 to the Senate Intelligence Committee, for example, states, “Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”
The Defense Department said in a report submitted to Congress in mid-January that several dozen military installations around the nation already are experiencing climate impacts. The assessment, which called climate change “a national security issue,” said rising seas, wildfires and other such disasters are likely to create more severe problems for the military in the coming years.
In the face of these reports, CO2 promoter and climate change risks dismisser Happer will head a “Presidential Committee” created to put the White House seal on the rejection of science and a refutation of the national security community’s assessment that climate change is “a national security issue”.
“This is the equivalent of setting up a committee on nuclear weapons proliferation and having someone lead it who doesn’t think nuclear weapons exist,” said Francesco Femia, Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Strategic Risks and Co-Founder of the Center for Climate and Security “It’s honestly a blunt force political tool designed to shut the national security community up on climate change.”
“Looks like someone at the White House doesn’t like the fact that our defense and intelligence agencies are concerned about the security implications of climate change,” said John Conger, Director of the Center for Climate and Security and former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations and Environment.“So they want to set up a politically-led panel to undermine the credibility of military and security experts. They don’t seem to understand that to the military and to the broader security community, this is an issue of risk, readiness, and resilience, not politics. The military doesn’t have the luxury of deciding to ignore certain threats because a politician doesn’t find them convenient.”
“For over 7 decades, our Nation has been the instrument of change in establishing world order in the face of fascism, communism and terrorism. The human toll from these “isms” has been catastrophic and those of us who have served in public office and in uniform can be rightfully proud for taking decisive action to right those wrongs. But to deny the trajectory of the global climate defies America’s bias for action as a catalyst for change among world leaders.” – Admiral Paul Zukunft, U.S. Coast Guard (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Commandant of the Coast Guard
“Our intelligence, defense and science agencies stretching back across many Administrations, both Republican and Democrat – including the Trump Administration itself are closely aligned. The science and facts on climate change are well-established and do not need an administration influenced review by an NSC headed panel. What we do need are practical and pragmatic policy choices today to fix the problem. Americans are affected everyday by climate change and will see through any thinly-veiled political attempt to say they are not. An NSC-headed panel to address solutions is what we need.” – General Ron Keys, US Air Force (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Commander of Air Combat Command.
“This is not a real peer review committee – it’s a political review committee,” said Rear Admiral David Titley, US Navy (Ret), Senior Member of the Advisory Board at the Center for Climate and Security and former Oceanographer of the Navy.“It’s designed to try to scare our intelligence, defense and science professionals into doing and saying nothing about this pressing threat. I don’t think it will succeed. In fact, I think it would be an embarrassment, like other panels before it.”
“It’s hard to stop good people from doing good work – especially those in the defense, intelligence and science agencies of our government,” said Sherri Goodman, Senior Strategist with the Center for Climate and Security and former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security). “One way to try to stop them is through bullying. This proposed ‘adversarial’ committee is a bully committee. And whether it succeeds or not, it will hurt our national security. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.”
Princeton colleague and climate scientist Professor Michael Oppenheimer has said of Happer that “with respect to climate science and scientists, he is not only unknowledgeable but appears to have become unmoored.” One of the few genuine climate scientists to have engaged with Happer in detail about his interpretation of climate science is Dr. David Karoly, currently leader of the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub at the Australian government’s CSIRO science agency. In 2016, while at the University of Melbourne, Karoly engaged with Happer in a so-called “focused civil dialogue” on climate science. Karoly told DeSmog he disengaged from the process after having reservations about the way it was being moderated. “But in the end, I realised that no matter what I said — all based on the peer reviewed science — he was not going to change his view, so I gave up,” said Karoly. Commenting on Happer’s suitability for the White House position, Karoly said: “Usually you would select a scientist with a strong peer-reviewed publication record in the area of interest. But he has not published a single peer-reviewed article on climate change in his career. That would suggest he does not have the credentials. I would argue that he does not have the appropriate experience, or the demonstrated capabilities, to be engaged in this sort of position.”
February 14th, 2019 · Comments Off on “More energy, less carbon”
Urbanization: Humanity’s future
BP’s Valentine Day gift to the energy geek world: the release of BP’s Energy Outlook and Chief Economist Spencer Dale’s discussion of key issues and implications of its work. As previously written,
BP’s chief economist, Spencer Dale, is perhaps one of those for who the old EF Hutton ad applies: when Spencer Dale speaks, people should listen. Thoughtful, substantive, and often incisive about what has happened, is happening, and might/potentially could happen in the energy sector.
As as a sign that opinion is shared by others, in addition to a packed meeting room in London, there were 8,435 people signed in globally to the live webcast.
From the presentation, the key underpinning point about humanity’s requirements is perhaps ‘no surprise’ but succinctly well put. Any reasonable look out into the future, seeking to have improved conditions for humanity is summarized in four words:
More energy, less carbon
Ending energy poverty and increased ‘middle class demands globally drives a massive increase in energy demand and requirements. BP’s CEO, Bob Dudley, gave a window on this based on a recent conversation with Boeing’s CEO:
Eighty two percent of humanity has never been on a plane.
Every year, year-in, year out, Boeing projects 100 million people taking their first flight.
While energy efficiency and other paths towards improved energy productivity can ameliorate the extent of this increased demand, a reasonable look forward ends at roughly 40 percent greater global energy use by 2040. With a reasonable assessment of current trends, this would mean a ten-percent increase in annual global green-house gas (GHG) emissions.
Pretty simple summary: continued growth in annual emissions means cooking humanity’s future.
Thus, if meeting increased services will occur without cooking humanity’s future, there must be far more aggressive energy efficiency globally and far more aggressive introduction of renewable energy than what is currently projected under current policy structures.
Note: I intend to provide additional thoughts on the BP Energy Outlook after having a chance to read through it rather than an immediate response to/during its initial presentation. In the interim, I recommend taking a look of Gregg Muttitt’s 2017 BP’s Energy Outlook: between forecasting and advocacy.
Comments Off on “More energy, less carbon”Tags:Energy
