Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Scenes of the Cajun Navy, CNN rescues, Waffle House and other businesses acting decently to great, and basic human decency (even heroism) seem to dominate ‘the’ story as to helping Houstonians amid and after Hurricane Harvey’s (still probably inconceivable for all of us who were under its) 50 inches of rain.

Despite this compelling (and meaningful) stories, a basic truth is that major institutions bear the major brunt and role both in preparing for and dealing with disaster situations.  Amid the serious (and often valid) discussions of how Houston’s free-wheeling land development and Texas political elite’s climate-science denial’s damaging of efforts to reduce vulnerabilities, there are ways in which parts of Houston showed real learning and invested (often with meaningful Federal (both Bush and Obama Administration) support to be better prepared to face climate-driven/enhanced catastrophes like Hurricane Harvey.  Houston’s hospitals and medical system might prove to be the strongest example of how learning from expert analysis (of disasters and risks) and investments based on that learning help society better deal with climate impacts.

Upfront: Before jumping into the discussion of Houston’s hospitals, some basic truth:

• Human-driven climate change (AGW) worsened/amplified Hurricane Harvey
  • Sea-level rise worsened storm surge level
  • Increased temperatures and evaporation added, one scientist estimates, 30% to rainfall levels absent climate change
  • Changing climate might (MIGHT) have fostered conditions for rapid intensification and stalling over Houston
• Investing in mitigation (reduce future human impacts on climate) is preferred over adaptation
  • Though both are necessary — climate is changing and adaptation investments are required even as (much) more should go to mitigation
  • David Roberts’ discussion has this core point: “Mitigation has local costs and egalitarian global benefits; adaptation has local costs and inequitable local benefits.”

• Writ large, Hurricane Harvey’s impacts on Houston show that the city (and, writ large, society) is neither making adequate mitigation nor adequate adaptation investments.
  • Houston has been paving itself ever more with each passing year, making the city more vulnerable to floods.
  • See Greg Laden Is Harvey a failure of the assumption that we’ll adapt to climate change?

Even with news of chemical plant explosions, some news from Houston shows that climate adaptation investments can work and enable resiliency in the face of climate-intensified disasters. Example #1: Houston’s medical system.

Previous storm weather events created havoc in Houston’s medical services.

Houston’s medical complex … was swamped by Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. That storm caused a blackout, inundated medical center streets with up to 9 feet of water, and forced evacuations of patients, some airlifted from rooftops by helicopter. Damage totaled more than $2 billion.

Consider that damage figure.  That is, roughly, one percent of the damage totals being bandied about for Hurricane Harvey’s impacts. (Today, saw estimate of $150B — have to think that this will increase — though perhaps that is solely Federal aid request level.)

Houston’s hospitals and the overall medical system didn’t, however, simply cash disaster-relief checks for $2B (and boost bonuses) but did what good medical professionals do: they considered what had happened, sought to learn lessons, and took action based on recommendations from those evaluations.

After a review of the area’s flood weaknesses, member hospitals moved their electrical vaults and backup generators out of basements to areas above flood level. Scores of existing buildings were fitted with flood gates, and new buildings were built surrounded by berms. Underground tunnels were outfitted with 100 submarine doors, some 12 feet tall. The $756 million bill was paid by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; millions more were spent on the public works projects.

The result? Some hospitals evacuated, but Houston’s medical world mostly withstands Harvey. While hospitals reduced operations (stopped outpatient services), evacuated some patients, and had to deal with challenges like reduced food services,

Disruptive as such changes have been, doctors, health-care administrators, and the leaders of the regional network say Houston’s vaunted web of hospitals has generally come through the storm in far better condition than during the last massive rains to deliver a direct hit.

During Allison, “Memorial Hermann, for one, had no power because its basement-level generator had been flooded, and staff members were working by flashlight and ventilating patients by hand.The pills in hospital pharmacies were wet and ruined. Medical equipment shorted out. The medical center’s research laboratories suffered $2 million in losses.” And, even months later, the hospital warned the community

“Drink milk, not booze, on this Fourth of July weekend, because if you get into a wreck or get in a fight, we have no way to take care of you.”

During the ongoing massive flooding and catastrophe?  The hospital is able to take care of patients — even if stressed by the realities of one of the nation’s largest (climate-enhanced) natural disasters.  As per the view from another hospital’s windows,

when William McKeon, the Texas Medical Center’s president, looked outside during the height of the storm, “We saw the water flowing and the streets looking like rivers when the bayou crested, but the lights were all on,” he said. “The people were inside, were caring for patients as they do every day.”

Without question, the climate adaptation investments have paid for themselves — in this one instance — in terms of reduced damage costs.  It seems quite likely, though harder to calculate with assurance, that they have paid off in terms of saved lives as well.

And, Houston’s medical community already has its eyes on learning from Harvey to better prepare for tomorrow. “Following its protocol, the Catastrophic Medical Operations Center will conduct an after-study to compile evidence of how hospitals weathered the storm.”

In conclusion …

While must emphasize climate mitigation (reducing pollution), the reality is that humanity has driven a changed climate and we are already facing (and will, no matter what, face more) impacts from those changes. Thus, climate adaptation investments are necessary.  Houston’s medical community’s performance during Hurricane Harvey proves that they pay off and provide a real return on investment.

NOTE: If Houston’s Medical System has not already, as part of its investment streams, started investing in climate mitigation (that at least intersects with adaptation), perhaps they will do so.  What are examples of potential investment opportunities that meet this criteria?

• Energy efficiency: cut demands for energy services through, for example, LED lighting and control systems … this can save $s directly, reduce pollution from energy production, while also helping adapt with greater resiliency during stressed power situations/outages.
• On-site renewable energy: such as solar panels over parking lots (yes, they wouldn’t be producing much as the rain fell …) which, again, leads to reduced energy costs and pollution loads while providing on-site generation and resiliency if the grid is disrupted during a climate-driven catastrophe;
• Green roofs and other ‘green’ methods to help reduce energy costs AND absorb rainfall to reduce runoffs. No, such investments wouldn’t soak in a 50 inch rainfall, but widespread green roofing could have reduced by the equivalent of a few inches the runoff from those roofs.
• Etc …

If you are ready for more, “Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies …” (“The Tweeter” parody of “The Boxer”) also highly recommended:

• “Lie, lie, lie … when he tweets, you know its probably a lie …”

PS: Re Mumbai:

 Follow

A Siegel @A_Siegel

On opposite sides of planet, #Houston inundated by #Harvey, #Mumbai by Monsoon. Not just signs, reality of changed/changing #climate. https://twitter.com/AssaadRazzouk/status/902494093808476160 …

8:14 AM – Aug 29, 2017

 Follow

Assaad Razzouk 

?@AssaadRazzouk

Mumbai Facing Historic Flood As
City of 18 Million Pounded by 9 Times Its Usual Monsoon Rain

Almost as if the climate is … changing

7:32 AM – Aug 29, 2017

[Read more →]

Energy and climate issues are a prominent part of Virginia’s 2017 campaign season, perhaps more than any time in the past.  From fossil-foolish pipelines to corporate donations to potential economic development opportunities, there is more energy about the discussion of energy in a Virginian election year than perhaps any time in the past.

Not surprisingly, the differences between the two candidates for governor are stark, with Republican “Enron Ed” Gillespie given minimal (at best) acknowledgment of climate change (not outright denying like so many other (Virginia) Republicans — what a low bar to reach) without any example of how he would address its risks/opportunities. While far from a passionate Climate Hawk, the Democratic Party nominee, Ralph Northam, clearly understands and respects climate science and proposes a number of policies to mitigate and adapt to climate changes realities.

While Northam discusses climate change and has proposed some steps (unlike his opponent) to help address it, clearly Ralph Northam can be more aggressive in those measures … and with steps that address climate reality while improving Virginians’ health, improving Virginia school systems’ performance, fostering job growth and the development of a stronger 21st century workforce/work environment, reducing costs (for citizens, businesses, government), boosting economic development, and improving Virginia’s image in the nation and internationally

The reality of 21st century opportunities and challenges is that they are intertwined: systems-of-systems where understanding and emphasizing those interconnections and interactions can lead to far more valuable outcomes.  Staying again, for convenience sake, solely within the campaign website, it is hard to see where or how Ralph Northam emphasizes any of this.

My top concern space is climate — and the environmental, energy, technology, societal, business practice, etc. arenas associated with it. One of the notable elements over more than a decade related to climate/environment policy/discussion are serious efforts to move past a stove-piped understanding of these issues. The simplest construct is that it is NOT environment vs. economy but Environment AND Economy.

The intertwining and reinforcing nature of linking environment AND economy  are seriously interconnected spaces, where smart policies/proposals could offer serious payoffs for Virginia and, in fact, the Northam campaign’s electoral prospects.  Here are three examples of tangible examples of systems-of-systems environment/economy proposals that Ralph Northam can – and should -embrace/promote.

• Greening Schools
  • Greening schools might be the most cost-effective path toward improving school performance. In fact, it might be the only educational achievement-enhancing path that is also “profitable” (due to energy and operational cost benefits) even without considering the secondary (job creation, student/teacher health) and tertiary (pollution levels, capacity building for energy efficiency and other ‘green’ across the country) benefits.
  • Note that:
    • A ‘greening schools’ program can fit strongly with Northam’s STEAM concepts, create jobs, help address environmental justice issues and economic disparity (with additional greening support as a path to help improve educational performance in less-wealthy districts), improve energy resiliency, improve health, reduce pollution, and save taxpayers’ money.
    • Improving K-12 educational achievement is a top-notch path for improving economic performance (from attractiveness to businesses to job creation to …) and, again, a major program to green schools could secure these payoffs even while saving money.
• Leveraging VW settlement funds for a PHEV/EV School Bus program
  • VW’s diesel fraud led to a major settlement — which includes $87M for the Commonwealth “to fund environmental improvement and air pollution reduction projects.” That is a targeted “trust fund for use on projects to improve the environment by reducing air pollution in the transportation sector.”
  • Virginia’s school buses are an excellent target for this fund.  School buses are fuel hogs, spew diesel fumes, and worsen student/public health.  Transitioning to plug-in hybrid electric school buses and electric school buses would have tremendous payoffs in terms of reduced pollution (from cancer-causing particulates to CO2 to noise), reduced damage to student (and public) health, improved grid stability, emergency response value, and financial savings.
    • Notes:
      • Dominion Power and other Virginia electric utilities should be supportive of such a program as it translates to increased electricity demand (while reducing diesel demands)
      • A strong program could create numerous jobs: Virginia, as a driver in PHESB/ESB introduction (that would drive down prices due to economies of scale), could demand suppliers (manufacturers) have work content (set up facilities) in the Commonwealth.  And, those facilities could end up exporting buses to other states — after Virginia’s program has create enough demand to drive down costs via economies of scale.
• Championing a major acceleration of Virginia offshore wind:
  • For those of us who closely watch the energy domain, the dramatic price falls in offshore wind have been a pleasant surprise over the past few years.
    • Seriously, I do not recall a conversation from the early 2010s that postulated any offshore wind project delivering at below 10 cents per kWh (might not have been in the right conversations but …) and, well, we are now seeing hard bids for well under that in Europe.
    • Key players in offshore wind are bidding into projects in the United States … able to take their lessons from Europe and apply them here.
  • Virginia hasn’t been the “go-to place” for offshore wind for multiple reasons:
    • cheap electricity rates;
    • lukewarm (at best) Dominion Energy engagement;
    • no mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or carbon price; etc.
  • Virginia can/should be a lead offshore wind energy player.
    • The dramatic price drops in wind power, along with the burgeoning programs up the coast, should help to change this in terms of Virginia government priority.
    • Among other things, offshore wind power development would help secure the Tidewater region (with its excellent harbor, extensive shipbuilding/manufacturing capacity, etc …) as the nation’s (or at least the East Coast’s) leading industrial/logistical support hub for what will likely be a booming industry for years/decades to come.
      • With the potential of well over 10,000 well-paid full-time equivalents.
      • Right now, the jobs are being created elsewhere, and if Virginia doesn’t get its act together quickly, many of them might never get created here.  Ralph Northam can help drive that change.

These are just three examples of environment AND economy proposals, with tremendous benefits for Virginians and Virginia, that Ralph Northam can — and should — embrace. Showing that he “gets” the environment/economic interaction (rather than opposition or separation), along with substantive proposals for action in these veins is a way for Ralph Northam to generate enthusiasm in this Virginian voter, and possibly many others as well.

The decades-long stark separation of ‘transportation’ and ‘stationary’ energy markets is breaking down in multiple ways. While one of the prime ways is transportation electrification (rail and automotive), there has been significant growth in the use of liquid fuels for electricity generation: primarily in oil producing nations but also areas with inadequate to non-existent electricity services.

Solar power’s plunging prices — due primarily to economies of scale and the related/intertwined innovations (technical, policy, business practices …) due to increased solar business — are on the cusp of having significant impact on that intertwining of stationary and mobile environments. This includes solar on Indian railroads and automotive roofs (primarily to support auxiliary demands) as well as solar displacement of diesel electricity generation.

The just-announced Kuwait deal is a significant milestone in this development.

Kuwait is putting out a tender for a 1 gigawatt solar farm with an expected price point about $1.20 per watt (or $1.2 billion). This project, to be competed by 2020, is expected to “save burning 5.2 million barrels of oil a year” for electricity generation.  At a relatively low estimate of $50 per barrel (anywhere from 10% to >30% below analyst forecasts …), that ‘saved’ oil will have a value of $260 million on the world market.  Thus, all things being equal, Kuwait will have a full return on investment for the solar plant in under five years. And, an ROI that will keep paying back year-after-year.

While this sort of rapid assured payback for a major unsubsidized solar project was close to inconceivable just a few years ago, it is a clear sign post of where the world energy market is and is headed: solar systems are ever-more frequently a pure high-value investment even without considering ‘externality’ benefits.

As to the Kuwait project, any calls of this as somehow ‘green’ should be — at best — muted (if not silenced).  Kuwait isn’t suggesting that this solar project will somehow keep these 100,000 barrels per day from being burned and contributing to our climate change challenges.  This is displacement — rather than burning for electricity, the hydrocarbons will be used for petrochemical projects and/or sold into the world oil market.

This project will add roughly the equivalent of a good sized well (about 14,100 barrels per day) to the available oil supply. This oil will contribute to, writ large, lowering oil prices and contributing to oil price stability.  While, in near term, this is a ‘positive’ good in terms of economic development, it is also — by definition — will be a (very minor) contributing factor to undermining movement toward a clean-energy future.

That ‘undermining’, however, is overwhelmed by the economy of scale issue — another $1 billion in solar work and another gigawatt deployed. That is another move forward in the ever-increasing solar economies of scale which is driving innovation that is helping to drive down prices that contributes to ever-lower solar pricing.

While Kuwait’s solar doesn’t displace oil, the value of that produced oil will be lower as ever-cheaper solar power increases the economic viability and attractiveness of electric transportation options.

Amid the mania of Trump tweeting, this one passed millions of computer screens on the 4th of July

Oh, the pain …

There is an old adage: a lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets out of bed.

It is painful trying to chase down and refute deceit — far more hear and absorb the deceit than ever hear the truthful refutation.

And, when the deceiver occupies the Oval Office and has the megaphone of a (bot-heavy) massive Twitter account …

Was about to chase down some truth in the vigil of chasing that lie halfway around the world when this one crossed my tweet stream:

Thank you, Richard Hine, for saving me the time to track down the data.

Some points from the Energy Information Administration data about gas prices across the nation.

• Feb 2016: $1.78 per gallon
• Dec 2008: $1.72 per gallon
• June 2017: $2.37 per gallon

[Read more →]

PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) financing is a far under leveraged path to enable property (primarily building) owners to cost-effectively financed energy and resource efficiency along with clean energy.  In short, PACE financing makes the payback of loans part of the property assessment with extremely low interest rates available because this is generally bundled money through the locality and payments are secured associated with the property. While it had a troubled start, many places in the United States now have robust PACE programs to facilitate home owners and businesses to leverage PACE programs for more aggressive climate-friendly investments. Washington, DC, is one of those (with the program run by Urban Ingenuity).

Washington DC PACE Financing from Jackie Weidman on Vimeo.

Back in 2013, DC PACE executed a $340,000 loan with expectations of $40,000 a year of created value for the building owner with annual repayments of roughly $20k/year.  Reduced pollution with a low-cost loan structure that made this profitable for the commercial entity from day one.  A 2015 loan of $700k to the YWCA financed energy efficiency equipment and solar panels in its $17M low-cost/public housing development. And …

This week came news of the largest, to date, DC PACE financing: $25M for greening the new DC United stadium.

for installation of state-of-the-art energy and water efficiency measures, an 884 KW solar array, and stormwater retention systems on Audi Field, United’s new soccer-specific stadium with capacity for 20,000 people opening next year.

The PACE funded investments will help reduce water runoff, cut the stadium’s energy demand by about one-quarter, and the solar panels are projected to produce about 1 gigawatt hours of electricity per year or 1/3rd of the stadium’s electricity usage.

With a LEED Gold facility & public transport access, will DC soccer fans be the greenest in the nation?

While the Trump regime issues bad news for the climate and energy smart policy from DC, the DC government is showing itself to truly be on the path toward energy/climate smart policies and practices. As Mayor Muriel Bowser put it,

We know that cities throughout the U.S. will be leading the fight against climate change, and this deal is an example of how Washington, D.C. can think globally while acting locally. This deal will not only allow us to green Audi Field, it will also create new opportunities for local businesses and high-quality green jobs for D.C. residents.”

Large projects like this help boost an area’s capacity to execute clean-energy projects: economies of scale at play, doing the DC United Stadium eases and lowers costs for tomorrow’s energy efficiency and solar projects.

“This deal”, as indicated by this post, has another potential real value: public relations and knowledge building.  Will others in DC learn of the opportunity for low-cost clean-energy financing in DC due to DC United’s stadium and move to leverage it for their own projects?  Will others around the country similarly learn and act to either leverage their community’s PACE program or lobby their local/state politicians to create something similar.

A simple truth is that, when it comes to wind power, size matters. The taller the tower, the better the wind conditions. The larger the blade length, the more energy captured. When it comes to wind, economies of scale are both in the number of turbines getting deployed and in terms of the energy production potential from each individual turbine. And, this reality is showing up in the real world.

Wind turbines are getting freaking enormous: https://t.co/A7Wu7hDjSW pic.twitter.com/VOF4itv5gQ

— brad plumer (@bradplumer) June 27, 2017

As per that graphic, a doubling in high-end turbine size/height over the past 15 years with another 50% growth to come in the next few years.  As Reuters’ headline put it, windpower’s big bet: turbines taller than skyscrapers.

Further increases in height and size are serious engineering challengers — can the towers be built and turbines deployed — but we shouldn’t expect the turbines to stop at 10 megawatts. At the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects-Agency (ARPAE) innovation summit, earlier this year, I spoke with a University of Virginia team who envision their technology enabling 50 megawatt offshore wind turbines.  Having passed muster to secure $3.7 million in ARPAE funding through 2019,

The team led by the University of Virginia will design the world’s largest wind turbine by employing a new downwind turbine concept called Segmented Ultralight Morphing Rotor (SUMR). Increasing the size of wind turbine blades will enable a large increase in power from today’s largest turbines. The SUMR concept allows blades to deflect in the wind, much like a palm tree, to accommodate a wide range of wind speeds (up to hurricane-wind speeds) with reduced blade load, thus reducing rotor mass and fatigue. The novel blades also use segmentation to reduce production, transportation, and installation costs. This innovative design overcomes key challenges for extreme-scale turbines resulting in a cost-effective approach to advance the domestic wind energy market.

As discussed in Scientific American,

The team envisions these gigantic [500 meter tall] gigantic structures standing at least 80 kilometers offshore, where winds tend to be stronger and where people on land cannot see or hear them,

If, in 2020, deployed offshore wind turbines are in the 10 mw range, this UVA team envisions multiplying that figure at significantly reduced prices perhaps as early as the mid-2020s. If this occurs, just this one project will pay off the entire taxpayer investment in ARPAE many times over.

UPDATE: August 2017 article: Super Colossal Wind Turbines might be on the horizon.

The U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that raising the height of wind turbines from 80 to 140 meters would almost double the land area across the country where wind power is cost-effective. Loth wants to go higher yet. He envisions 500-meter towers capable of generating 50 megawatts (MW) — roughly six times more electrical power than today’s largest turbines can pump out. – Super-Colossal Wind Turbines May Be on the Horizon – Aug.07.2017 https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/super-colossal-wind-turbines-may-be-horizon-ncna789001?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_mc_170825 via NBC News

Donald Trump has created some buzz with discussing the potential for making the Mexico border wall a power plant:  covering it with solar panels.

Amid Team Trump’s “Energy Week” (with nary a mention of wind or solar power, the fastest growing energy sources around the globe … and in the United States), a question to consider: how many coal-fired power plants would a solar wall displace?

First, to be clear, only the roughest of estimates can occur. The ‘solar wall’ is only notional at this time — while there is some analysis, there are no actual plans in place to evaluate fully. Rough estimates and initial calculations range from, if solar were across the entire length, are pretty far across the spectrum: from 3.6 terrawatt hours (tWh) per year to a(n unrealistically optimistic) high-end of over 80 tWh.

How does this compare to a coal power plant?  A reasonable notional modern US coal plant is 600 megawatts of capacity.  Running 24/7, that would mean 14,400 megawatt hours per day (14.4 gigawatt hours) or 5,256,000 per year (5,256 gigawatt hours or 5.256 twh).  Now, power plants are — by definition — intermittent (despite all the ‘baseload’ noise) and do not run 24/7/365. In 2016, the average US coal power plant had a 52.7% utilization rate.  Thus, this notional coal plant would generate 2,769,912 megawatt hours per year (2,770 gWh) or 2.7 tWh.

If an average coal plant produces 2.7 tWh, making the wall solar would displace the electricity production of somewhere between 1.3 to 22 coal power plants (with the actual figure likely somewhere in the 5-10 figure).

The reality is that, to date, solar has played a very small role in the decline of US coal (though the story is somewhat different elsewhere in the world: for example, in India, solar price competitiveness is leading to dramatic reductions in plans to exploit coal). In the US, the move away from coal has primarily occurred due to the drastic reduction in natural gas prices.  Cheap gas has killed not-so-cheap coal.  Now, with every passing day, solar is becoming more cost competitive with it achieving ‘cheapest’ in new markets virtually every month. Thus, if cheap natural gas killed off coal-fired power plants, what should be expected of even-cheaper solar?

Would making the ‘wall’ solar accelerate that ‘ever-cheaper’ and accelerate the (US and global) transition away from coal?

Thus, the impact of the solar wall on coal would not be constrained to those direct electrons but how the product, through driving economies of scale, would make solar even more price competitive even faster.

Notes: Some material re the solar wall includes:

• Powering America from Trump’s solar wall: how many kilowatts?
• Financial Times’ calculus puts this at 3.6 tWh/year.
• Jigar Shah: One Way to Get Mexico to Pay for Donald Trump’s Wall
• Business Insider
  • How much power Trump’s wall could generate if it was covered in solar panels
  • Trump floated a solar-paneled border wall with Mexico — here’s what it would look like
• The Motley Fool: Trump, Solar, and The Wall: What It Means for Solar Stock Investors

Climate Denier RoundUp guest post.

The Grenfell Tower fire is a tragedy that should not be something we have to address. It is not something Carbon Brief should have to fact check. But here we are.

As Carbon Brief explains, The Daily Mail and other conservative outlets have pushed a theory that the fire was due to insulation installed primarily to meet green goals for reducing energy use.

This is false. Per Carbon Brief, savings on utility bills was the primary reason for the insulation upgrades, not pro-environment regulations.

But even the dozens of lives lost aren’t enough to stop some using tragedy to advance the Koch’s anti-regulatory agenda.

[Read more →]

A number of raving lunatics (is that too harsh a term …? probably not) are asserting that ‘climate alarmism’ (and other such delusional attack terms of those who understand climate science) is at fault for the horrific Grenfell Towers catastrophe.

Twisting arguments beyond pretzel logic, here is an example

the coroner may as well scribble “cause of death: climate-change alarmism” on his report.

Before delving into these fossil-foolish muckrakers’ broadsides, some truthful analogies between Grenfell & (catastrophic) climate change. Both are

• Preventable: expert opinion, knowledge, and advice provide(d) the tools to avoid the catastrophe.
• Known: many voices warned/warning of risks.
• Mired with financial and ideological self-interest driving myopia drowning out voices warning of the danger and undermining ability to execute solutions/actions to prevent the disaster.

Yes, there is an appropriate analogy between Grenfell Tower and climate change — alarmism, in both situation, highlighted/s real risks and offers paths to mitigating risks.

[Read more →]