At Anthropocene Mark Harris makes a good observation. Some people view climate change as a population problem while others view it as a poverty problem. He continues by making the case for each concluding:
Dozens of countries have managed to break the historic link between carbon emissions and economic growth. Most of these to date have been richer countries—another argument, perhaps, for prioritizing development.
Frankly, I’m skeptical. The data in his link seems to illustrate practically the opposite of what he suggests. Countries “decoupling” carbon emissions from growth are largely doing so by offshoring heavy manufacturing and the emissions of the countries to which they are offshoring are increasing faster. When you combine offshoring of heavy industry and dubious schemes like carbon offsets it accounts for practically all of the reductions except in the United States. Much of the reduction in the United States is a consequence of substituting natural gas for coal in producing electricity.
Meanwhile, I’ll only observe that reducing carbon production is analogous to dieting. A good weight loss diet is
- One that actually works. In this case that means it actually measurably reduces carbon production. Not just your carbon production. Total carbon production.
- One you can stick to. In this case that means, for example, that it doesn’t work by depriving your people.
“Give up meat, don’t drive a car, turn off your air conditioner, and keep your thermostat set to 40°F in the winter” might work but you won’t stay with it.
Well, Harris is delusional, too. Fossil fuel consumption, including coal, is growing as fast a renewables, and remains at a little over 80% of total energy generation. This is unchanged for a long time. I think India and China are each building something like one coal-fueled power plant per month. Because of the current self-inflicted gas shortages, Germany is reopening its lignite-fueled power plants.
The Greens are not only driving insane energy policies, they are mandating large reductions in fertilizer use, about 30%. This has led to actual famine and economic collapse in Sri Lanka (total ban on fertilizer). The Netherlands has a farmer insurrection, now going on a week, in which police have fired live rounds at protesting farmers. The Dutch government intends to confiscate and shut down one-third of all Dutch farms. Canada is about to mandate its own 30% reduction in fertilizer use.
This is coming to America. The Amish are organic farmers and use no fertilizer (other than manure) and no pesticides. Their yields are about one-third lower than conventional farms. That works for a well-organized minority, but world-wide it means 2.5 billion people must die off, because there is no food for them. The Greens who talking about going meatless and eating insects are deadly serious.
We are in the ridiculous position of needing Russia and China to save us from our own governments.
People do not realize that whole governments in the West have been captured by the most extreme ideologues imaginable.
A good post.
It brought to mind Rush Limbaugh’s assertions, back in the early 90s, that environmental regulation was largely unnecessary in a capitalist system because the system itself incentivized stewardship of the environment in a way that was absent in communism and socialism.
I thought then that there was a kernel of truth but that it was a mostly false premise. In hindsight I didn’t even realize how wrong it was, based on the offshoring that was happening even as he was making the argument.
To use your dieting analogy, it’s like a person using a calorie tracker or health coach but only inputting the data pertaining to healthy foods and neglecting to report all of the junk food and soda.
That’s a good extension of the analogy.
Look at the graphic. The energy intensity of a modern economy is obvious. Its all fine and well to work on solar and wind, but it won’t make a material dent during the lifetime of anyone here. To force fossil fuels down is to deindustrialize and starve people. And hand the world to those not foolish enough to stick to the dogma.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption
““Give up meat, don’t drive a car, turn off your air conditioner, and keep your thermostat set to 40°F in the winter—
This is a good example of choosing the worst argument from the weakest, stupidest people who want to address climate change. This is what you hear from celebrities. Granted, those are the people media are most likely to quote, but it is not what people who seriously address the issue are after. It is well understood that if you ask people to make sacrifices it wont work. There are things you can do that might help that some might initially see as some kind of sacrifice, like addressing sprawl, but that can potentially be done in ways that people would like.
“Much of the reduction in the United States is a consequence of substituting natural gas for coal in producing electricity.”
Seems like a good idea to me, as an intermediary at least, and we likely use it for a long time.
” Not just your carbon production. Total carbon production.”
I am not sure why you oppose the US leading. Wind and solar are already the cheapest alternatives in lots of places. There is tons of research going on and while costs for these have already had huge drops in the near term we look to have more efficiencies. Costs are going to drive us towards renewables and we could lead. Or we could just wait until the rest of the world decides to come along. (Note that Texas, arguably the least regulated, and probably the most poorly regulated, energy market has been investing heavily in wind and solar. If they ever grasp on to the idea that it gets cold in the winter they could even install wind turbines like they have in Canada and use them for power in winter also.)
So lets put some money and effort into research efforts. Really, long term we need a better grid and to solve the last mile problem. The actual cost reduction is already happening.
Steve
“This is a good example of choosing the worst argument from the weakest, stupidest people who want to address climate change.”
I certainly agree with your assessment of former Vice President Al Gore.
For two reasons:
1. We can’t lead.
2. The problem is less one of leadership than a complete and total lack of followership.
China will not do anything which will impede China’s economy. Its leaders have said as much. The notion that China will do so is fatuous, based on fantasy.
Only because of subsidies. Anything can be cheap if subsidized enough.
â€To force fossil fuels down is to deindustrialize and starve people. And hand the world to those not foolish enough to stick to the dogma.â€
There are those who increasingly believe that is the plan.
Regarding Texas investing in wind turbines to generate more energy – a joke in Texas is to tie a hot day into estimating how much wind there is, in order to be ready for brown-outs.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2022/06/16/as-texas-saw-record-demand-for-electricity-wind-and-solar-delivered/
The Texas system is centered on costs. That is why they are building more wind and solar than anyone. They are also isolated so if they outages it is hard o bring in energy from elsewhere. Other than the joke do you have evidence that Texas has more outages than anyone else? That is is caused by wind turbines? Something better than some nurse told me that wind turbines are bad?
Steve
Right, or wrong? It doesn’t matter, if you can’t get your opponents to listen.
Rhetorical steamrolling is dead. The internet did that ages ago. Your networked opponents are now too numerous to destroy, too agile to avoid, and too upset to ignore.
Find common ground FIRST, then argue. It’s the only tactic left that has a chance of working.
And yet, here we are.
Lighten up Steve. I hadn’t heard a joke was now required to have “evidence†to be repeated!
“I certainly agree with your assessment of former Vice President Al Gore.”
Good example.
jan- Sorry!
Steve