As I read this discussion of the framing of the narrative on climate change by Jamie Milton Freestone at Areo it occurred to me that there is a spectrum of opinion on the subject, from hard global warmist alarmists at one end to climate change denialists on the other. From this passage:
Unlike the roadmap to nuclear disarmament, which is inscrutable, the way to avoiding climate catastrophe is, though steep, surprisingly well lit: abandon fossil fuels, especially for generating energy; invest in carbon sequestration (reforestation and new technologies); and vote out politicians who oppose this agenda.
I gather that the author leans toward the former. I am, as usual, more in the center than that. I think we should use resources more prudently than we do, we shouldn’t subsidize sprawl, and should be working harder on mitigation strategies rather than prevention strategies. I also believe that the rejection of nuclear power on the part of many of those who profess deep concern about global warming calls their entire program and intentions into question. I would add that there is no such thing as a green container ship.
IMO the best criticism that those at the rejectionist extreme have levied on the activists is “when they start acting like it’s an emergency I’ll believe it’s an emergency”, pointing to environmentalists boarding their private jets to attend global warming conferences. I think that goes a bit farther than pointing out hypocrisy which, indeed, is rampant.
I wish those on the two extremes were willing to give fairer hearings to those at the opposite end of the spectrum.
… green container ship …
You could add sails, but there would be more capsized and/or sunk ships. The simplest solution would be nuclear powered ships.
… climate change denialists …
Many of the CO2 hysteria is based upon the belief that the earth is in a steady-state climatewise. The Earth’s climate is changing, has been changing, and will be changing, and no human can stop it.
Believing there is an existential climate crisis is on par with believing in witchcraft. Interestingly, the witch burning was the result of a belief in an existential climate crisis, but the witch burners were trying to stop global cooling.
Believing that humans can make changes to the Earth that take thousands of years naturally is ludicrous. For sustained climate warming, the additional thermal energy must be stored, and that does not occur in decades. People who cannot tell a Joule from a Watt are going to save the planet.
It is insanity.
It was warmer in the Middle Ages; wine grapes grew in England. It was warmer yet during the Roman expansion, and still warmer during the Minoan era. There were no ecological disasters then.
The long term trend over the last 10,000 years has been cooling, in accord with the Milankovitch theory. We would actually be better off if we were warmer than we are, especially if the tundras of Canada and Russia could grow crops. But even if we only get an ocean route along the northern Russian coast, that would cut shipping costs and times from China to Europe by 40%.
In any case, crushing the world’s economy for some delusion is criminal. But mass hysterias are common in history.
Here is madness, clinical madness: California is shutting down power plants and neglecting power line maintenance while mandating increased electricity usage to eliminate natural gas and propane from homes and toe eliminate the gasoline/diesel engine.
They are also dumping water out of their reservoirs, already at very low levels, in the middle of an extreme drought to maintain endangered fish.
I was thinking about nuclear power for container ships — it could be done, Russia has nuclear icebreakers that escort commercial ships through Russia’s arctic coast.
The real problem is the potential for accidents or nefarious events. Its unrealistic to expect hundreds/thousands of nuclear powered container ships to dock at the world shipping hubs like Amsterdam, Long Beach, Shenzhen, Singapore, Shanghai.
While weapons grade nuclear fuel is acceptable for naval vessels, I don’t believe it’s particularly attractive for large commercial vessels like container ships. Imagine 5,000 large A-bombs sailing around the world and you’ll see what I mean.
My personal preference would be for liquid fluoride thorium reactors. They’re inherently safe, operate at low pressure, and utilize stable coolant. They have shortcomings, too, of course.
IIRC Gates is pursuing smallscale nukes using spent nuclear fuel rods for maritime use.
The models are as worthless as predictive tools as their crude and primitive nature would lead a thinking person to expect.
https://www.masterresource.org/north-gerald-texas-am/climate-models-north-today/