Although I recognize that merely mentioning Bjorn Lomborg’s name will cause some to wrinkle up their noses in disgust, I think he has a point in his assertion in an op-ed at MarketWatch that becoming vegetarian or driving a Prius is a lot more about showing to others how virtuous you are than it is about doing anything meaningful about carbon emissions:
Significantly cutting CO2 emissions without reducing economic growth will require far more than individual actions. It is absurd for middle-class citizens in advanced economies to tell themselves that eating less steak or commuting in a Toyota TM, -0.18% Prius will rein in rising temperatures. To tackle global warming, we must make collective changes on an unprecedented scale.
By all means, anyone who wants to go vegetarian or switch to an electric car should do so, for sound reasons such as killing fewer animals or reducing household energy bills. But such decisions won’t solve the problem of global warming.
What I found darkly amusing about the Green New Deal proposal is that it’s authors cobbled together a grab bag of measures to deal with things they didn’t like which suffered greatly from the opposite of synergy whatever that is. Dysergy?
If people genuinely wanted to reduce carbon emissions, they should start by recognizing that the three largest producers of carbon emissions are energy production, transportation, and cement production, in decreasing order of importance. Then realize that our economic system is a system rather than a random collection of unrelated parts.
While I think there are roles for solar or wind power, they are likely to remain niche solutions. The issues with energy storage and transmission limit them to local use. The same is true of hydroelectric. To sustain our population we need heavy industry and that necessarily means lots of energy, much more than solar or wind can provide and much more reliably. Today that means either fossil fuels or nuclear.
How about massive localization? For reducing the emissions produced by transportation there’s nothing that beats shorter commutes and shopping locally. That would mean single family homes, multi-family homes, retail, commercial, and industrial space all in close proximity. I’m pretty skeptical that you can reduce carbon emissions while importing everything you buy from 12,000 miles away.
Making more efficient use of energy is probably the most productive thing the world could do. The increasing use of LEDs versus incandescent bulbs and/or vapor bulbs is one example, although a small one. If you waste less of a resource, you don’t need to use as much of it. True conservation.
Wind, solar, and other ‘green’ intermittent energy sources will always remain niche until we achieve an order of magnitude better way of storing surplus generated electricity. One hope is carbon nannotube capacitors which have shown some promise. Their ability to store and discharge large amounts of energy quickly will be a game changer for rechargeable vehicles. A big downside of course is a tendency to discharge energy too quickly (i.e. explosion).
Another is superconductors. They’ve been stuck at liquid nitrogen temperature levels for decades now. Room temperature or even dry ice temperature superconductors would revamp the whole energy sector.
And of course there is the biggest pipe dream of all, economical fusion generation. Even if it only uses deuterium, there’s a lot of it out there. And aside from construction minimal fossil fuel use.
Thorium reactors are another coming thing that will replace plutonium and uranium reactors elsewhere in the world.
Right now I don’t know of any good substitute for cement that isn’t as energy expensive if not more.
I am a AGW denier. I think it is a hoax, so I don’t believe any CO2 reduction is necessary.
I start from the Vostok ice cores, Gore’s favorite graph. Look at it. Temperature changes lead CO2 changes. This means temperature drives CO2. CO2 does not cause warming. Warming causes CO2, ocean outgassing.
The same thing happened during the recent warming: warming drives CO2 increases.
So just stop with the AGW nonsense.
Lomborg is correct that individual actions won’t make much difference. (He is right about a lot of stuff.) We need big actions. Tars is also correct that there is a lot of low hanging fruit on the usage side. I think your idea about less urban sprawl falls into that category. Unfortunately I think that will take more govt intervention than people will accept.
On the energy generation side I would support greatly increased research spending. Thorium might be an answer, but no one has tried it here in the US. Smaller, more local reactors might work, but lets build some and see. Solar and wind costs have steadily decreased. Lets see if we can continue that. Storage costs have come way down in a relatively short period of time. Lets supplement that research.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/10/29/huge-battery-investments-drop-energy-storage-costs-threaten-natural-gas-industry/#7fa7ecbf7c3b
Steve
“China dominates due to investment “
Or malinvestment, we’ll see. They’re famous for that.
“The big downside of course is a tendency to discharge energy too quickly. (ie explosion)”
Nice. Heh. When working at the mill one day I found myself in a sudden, unexpected and rather, um, violent phase change of liquid hydrogen hydroxide to gas……………………………………a steam explosion.
For those interested in the science of why during natural cycles CO2 precedes warming, as was predicted 30 years ago, you can find it here.
https://skepticalscience.com/Why-does-CO2-lag-temperature.html
Steve
He’s not just saying that individual actions won’t make much difference. He’s saying that the type of individual actions being promoted won’t make much difference.
I don’t know where Tasty is these days, but he and I have pointed out the earth/sun orbital issues for years. One might note that the range in temperatures is 8-10 degrees from this effect. And long term. Depending on time frame and source the earth has warmed .5-.9 degrees C in some 140 years. (And presuming it’s all due to CO2)
The lessons are crystal clear. We had only a precious few years back in 1980. But now we have only 12 years left…… what bad timing for us, but for sure this time. We must raise carbon taxes immediately. The situation is so dire that nuclear power is off the table as an option. Therefore we must nuke China and India back into agrarian shitholes.
Or fertilize the oceans:https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fertilizing-the-ocean-with-iron/
re “the three largest producers of carbon emissions are energy production, transportation, and cement production.”
WRONG. The largest producer of carbon emissions, now and in future, are the breeders, supported by all the pro-natal gummint policies. Japan’s emissions are due to go way down now that their women have apparently found out that they have better things to do than breed.
“Unfortunately I think that will take more govt intervention than people will accept.”
Not so unfortunate. That’s the entire program in a nutshell.
“Therefore we must nuke China and India back into agrarian shitholes.”
I was pretty sure this has been the conservative plan all along. Deny, deny, deny and then when it gets too hot….Boom! Nuclear winter! Either that or harvest the asteroid belt for giant chunks of ice to cool us down.
Steve
Well, the conservative plan is to keep central planners out of power.
“12,000 miles away”
There’s cheap labor, there’s economies of scale http://thebricspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/brazil-soybean.jpg, infrastructure, but I’m always surprised at at how transportation costs are not that big of a deal in international trade.