2022 environmental activists are focused on a crusade to reduce carbon dioxide to pre-industrial levels. However, since 1850, we have seen great changes in our world and a corresponding increase in our quality of life as a direct result of energy.
"It has become apparent that if we want to reduce carbon dioxide to preindustrial levels, we will have to start thinking about living a preindustrial life."
Where & what is the validated connection between carbon dioxide & "Climate Change"???
Can human-kind alter the earth-orbit changing probable big influencers of "Climate Change"?
My great suspicions are raised when the solution is some/any kind of alleged expert governmental controls.
When reading this article, it is hard for me to shake the feeling of deep bias. While it is true that CO2 enables our planet to be suitable for life, the rate at which we are producing CO2 is unsustainable. This has contributed to the more Volatile temps we are seeing and making areas more and more inhospitable.
I agree in the sense that solar and wind are not close to where they need to be in order to address the current needs. That said, with further innovation in technology, these two energy sources will become more and more viable. Still, likely not to the point of them being 100%, or 75% even. It would be absurd to abandon these energy sources. The way technology advances, they are bound to see major changes and become more of a mainstay in our global energy sources.
The last thing I will say, it seems like we need to continue having a “all of the above” view. Especially since there are so many outside threats, we can’t rely on one singular source of energy. That would expose us dreadfully. Though, when it comes to China’s development of new coal plants, that is to be expected. The country does not care one lick about the future of this planet, their one and only goal is to become the global superpower, as the United States has been for decades. We can not compare ourselves to their authoritarian, socialist agenda because their interests are not ours.
My proposal? To heavily increase investment into nuclear energy. This energy is by far the most efficient, least wasteful way to ensure that our needs are met. Yes, the nuclear name has been severely damaged due to past events (Chernobyl, 3-Mile, etc.), we have come a long way since those mess ups.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on these topics, if you’re willing to discuss. Thanks.
Thanks Joe, for reading my column and your comments. I do have a bias, but that bias is not so much against wind and solar, but against the push to the extremes and to bring us to moderation. I have a bias for humility as a species, that we don't know the answers for sure and that to develop the best policies we need to constantly question those things that we know and what we think we know. Right now, we shouldn't abandon wind and solar or oil and gas or nuclear or anything else that someone may come up with. I am definitely all in on "all of the above", but the culture of our current leadership is not going in that direction. In order to move to a totally carbon free world, which I believe is an impossibility, policy is moving first to discourage oil and gas and nuclear and then when that doesn't work to crush it. I appreciate and agree with your comment that wind and solar are not close to where they need to be but would quibble with the conclusion that there will be further innovation that will make them more viable. Maybe so, maybe not. R & D in this area is a good thing. As we move forward to improve battery technology which is currently the sticking point for utility scale wind and solar, we are finding more problems not fewer. We are realizing what is would take to create massive battery backup systems to solve the problems with wind and solar that hopefully we agree cannot be solved, no wind and no sun. The utility industry has actually coined a phrase for this "dark calm"...a period 2-3 days when clouds cover the skies and the wind doesn't blow, which will cripple the ability of utilities to provide power to its customers without fossil fuel or nuclear resources. This is a worry particularly in the Midwest. We are also finding limits on mining for essential components to make batteries, lithium, cobalt, and nickel which are used for other battery production. These elements are not available in the scale necessary and will not be available by the time we go to all EV vehicles in 2035 or totally zero-carbon in 2050.
Hopefully those of us in the first world will respect the desires of those in the third world that they just want to live the same energy based productive lives that we already have, and that desire and need aren't going to wait for the invention of new battery technology.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, and False Alarm is essentially an environmental economist whose organization models the cost of environmental policies. He has done interesting work in the area. He has said that we could pay for basic food, health care and education for every person on the planet for what we are spending to eliminate carbon. Seems like something we should consider. He is an advocate of R & D spending on all of the above and developing projects to mitigate against the adverse effects of climate change while technology is being developed.
What I appreciate about your comment and request for further dialogue is that you are thinking about this issue in a way that is open to all types of solutions. If we had more moderate and thoughtful discussions about the balance of interests of varying peoples rather than staking out positions of doing nothing vs changing everything, we would have a better way forward, IMHO, in my humble opinion. :)
"It has become apparent that if we want to reduce carbon dioxide to preindustrial levels, we will have to start thinking about living a preindustrial life."
Where & what is the validated connection between carbon dioxide & "Climate Change"???
Can human-kind alter the earth-orbit changing probable big influencers of "Climate Change"?
My great suspicions are raised when the solution is some/any kind of alleged expert governmental controls.
When reading this article, it is hard for me to shake the feeling of deep bias. While it is true that CO2 enables our planet to be suitable for life, the rate at which we are producing CO2 is unsustainable. This has contributed to the more Volatile temps we are seeing and making areas more and more inhospitable.
I agree in the sense that solar and wind are not close to where they need to be in order to address the current needs. That said, with further innovation in technology, these two energy sources will become more and more viable. Still, likely not to the point of them being 100%, or 75% even. It would be absurd to abandon these energy sources. The way technology advances, they are bound to see major changes and become more of a mainstay in our global energy sources.
The last thing I will say, it seems like we need to continue having a “all of the above” view. Especially since there are so many outside threats, we can’t rely on one singular source of energy. That would expose us dreadfully. Though, when it comes to China’s development of new coal plants, that is to be expected. The country does not care one lick about the future of this planet, their one and only goal is to become the global superpower, as the United States has been for decades. We can not compare ourselves to their authoritarian, socialist agenda because their interests are not ours.
My proposal? To heavily increase investment into nuclear energy. This energy is by far the most efficient, least wasteful way to ensure that our needs are met. Yes, the nuclear name has been severely damaged due to past events (Chernobyl, 3-Mile, etc.), we have come a long way since those mess ups.
I’d like to hear your thoughts on these topics, if you’re willing to discuss. Thanks.
Thanks Joe, for reading my column and your comments. I do have a bias, but that bias is not so much against wind and solar, but against the push to the extremes and to bring us to moderation. I have a bias for humility as a species, that we don't know the answers for sure and that to develop the best policies we need to constantly question those things that we know and what we think we know. Right now, we shouldn't abandon wind and solar or oil and gas or nuclear or anything else that someone may come up with. I am definitely all in on "all of the above", but the culture of our current leadership is not going in that direction. In order to move to a totally carbon free world, which I believe is an impossibility, policy is moving first to discourage oil and gas and nuclear and then when that doesn't work to crush it. I appreciate and agree with your comment that wind and solar are not close to where they need to be but would quibble with the conclusion that there will be further innovation that will make them more viable. Maybe so, maybe not. R & D in this area is a good thing. As we move forward to improve battery technology which is currently the sticking point for utility scale wind and solar, we are finding more problems not fewer. We are realizing what is would take to create massive battery backup systems to solve the problems with wind and solar that hopefully we agree cannot be solved, no wind and no sun. The utility industry has actually coined a phrase for this "dark calm"...a period 2-3 days when clouds cover the skies and the wind doesn't blow, which will cripple the ability of utilities to provide power to its customers without fossil fuel or nuclear resources. This is a worry particularly in the Midwest. We are also finding limits on mining for essential components to make batteries, lithium, cobalt, and nickel which are used for other battery production. These elements are not available in the scale necessary and will not be available by the time we go to all EV vehicles in 2035 or totally zero-carbon in 2050.
Hopefully those of us in the first world will respect the desires of those in the third world that they just want to live the same energy based productive lives that we already have, and that desire and need aren't going to wait for the invention of new battery technology.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist, Cool It, and False Alarm is essentially an environmental economist whose organization models the cost of environmental policies. He has done interesting work in the area. He has said that we could pay for basic food, health care and education for every person on the planet for what we are spending to eliminate carbon. Seems like something we should consider. He is an advocate of R & D spending on all of the above and developing projects to mitigate against the adverse effects of climate change while technology is being developed.
What I appreciate about your comment and request for further dialogue is that you are thinking about this issue in a way that is open to all types of solutions. If we had more moderate and thoughtful discussions about the balance of interests of varying peoples rather than staking out positions of doing nothing vs changing everything, we would have a better way forward, IMHO, in my humble opinion. :)