Daniel, I appreciate your work on this issue. As you know, I've worked on climate policy for over twenty years. I've come around to the view that the abrupt and catastrophic climate change scenarios are quite unlikely to occur for a couple of reasons: 1) mainstream models significantly under-estimate the role of natural solar variation over decades; 2) those same models significantly under-estimate the role of the urban heat island effect on global temperature records. A number of peer reviewed papers over the last decade have explored these issues. Here's one recent example, finding that global temperature records are probably over-stated significantly b/c they don't adequately account for urban heat island effects: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179.
At the same time, we are seeing a massive global shift toward renewables and electric vehicles. For example, a recent study by Bloomberg found that 31 countries accounting for 2/3 of all car sales have passed the 5% of new car sales from EVs, which is a tipping point where it's not just early adopters buying EVs. https://cleantechnica.com/2024/03/28/the-ev-revolution-has-passed-a-tipping-point/
The end result of these trends is my view, described in some detail in my 2nd edition of my book, Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright, is what I call in one chapter "The reasonable person's case for climate optimism." There are no certainties in this area but I think the more reasonable view at this juncture is that the more dire and extreme climate scenarios are quite unlikely to occur.
What we are addicted to is hubris. The idea that we can accurately model and predict highly complex systems not fully understood, is nonsensical. Even simple models like fluid dynamics, my field, require assumptions or controlled variables that introduce error. This increases with complexity and any introduced error compounds over time. Hence the repeated inaccuracy of climate models and predictions. Same could be said of economic or covid models. Facts are: humans are bad at predictions of the future, climate related deaths are at an all time low mostly due to fossil fuels, co2 has been higher in the past with life (not human but life) thriving and humans are one of the most adaptable species to ever inhabit this planet. I am all for mitigation of human impacts to the environment but climate alarmism is something we should be highly skeptical of.
I don't get it. If I tell people we need to drive and fly less, stop buying so much junk, SIMPLIFY, they get pissy and say it's all government's fault. I wonder how they'd respond to government telling them to stop driving and flying and buying so much junk.....not well I suspect. I'm with you, I know it's possible to change, but it seems that people won't, at least not Americans. Problem is, the rest of the world wants to have the "great stuff" that we have, we've created a monster.
The cost of retrofitting throughout the top emitting industries is a significant factor in the speed of response to climate factors. Take tires, for example. While EVs make sense for some people, they still have tires. The average tire requires seven gallons of oil to produce (source: https://blog.tiremart.com/how-much-oil-make-one-car-tire/). Some cities are so far behind in mitigation efforts that I don't see how they will catch up to making big enough changes to have any effect, short of shutting everything down (and we know how well that goes.) I tend to use Phoenix, Arizona, as the "poster child" for man-made climate change, as I witnessed the degradation of a relatively pristine environment to a heat-island effect that created a destructive downward spiral of a delicate desert region in less than a decade.
Here in British Columbia, climate change is blamed for an increase in forest fires yet the government has allowed forestry companies (also big emitters) to spray vast swaths of deciduous trees with RoundUp so that the valuable conifers they harvest will grow larger and faster. You can imagine the disruption to natural flora and fauna.
It's no wonder people feel overwhelmed by the mixed messages. Amid the high usage of EVs on this island, farmers still need lots of gasoline for tractors and livestock transports, and the yachts that show up daily in the marina during tourist season chug many gallons of fuel. Canada has just increased the carbon tax by 23%, and while the government touts "rebates" the average citizen is drowning in higher costs of basic consumables.
I don't know how to calm the "emergency" response other than to suggest individuals choose their climate battles with care and take small steps toward a more sustainable future that makes sense to them.
For those interested (especially young people who only know city life), I highly recommend a foray into organic, sustainable farming practices with hands-on experience via the international WWOOFER program https://wwoof.net/
I discovered Jacque Fresco over a decade ago, I’m actually writing about him in my next newsletter. Excited to learn more about this in the seminar.
What do you mean with we have 5 to 10 years left? Before we start to see collapse in the system? That’s terrible!
I don’t think that people can’t think of alternatives because they are only used to dystopian futures. I think that people don’t understand the consequences. I think that nobody really believes that it will get so bad. It’s like watching a tsunami come.
Daniel, I appreciate your work on this issue. As you know, I've worked on climate policy for over twenty years. I've come around to the view that the abrupt and catastrophic climate change scenarios are quite unlikely to occur for a couple of reasons: 1) mainstream models significantly under-estimate the role of natural solar variation over decades; 2) those same models significantly under-estimate the role of the urban heat island effect on global temperature records. A number of peer reviewed papers over the last decade have explored these issues. Here's one recent example, finding that global temperature records are probably over-stated significantly b/c they don't adequately account for urban heat island effects: https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/11/9/179.
At the same time, we are seeing a massive global shift toward renewables and electric vehicles. For example, a recent study by Bloomberg found that 31 countries accounting for 2/3 of all car sales have passed the 5% of new car sales from EVs, which is a tipping point where it's not just early adopters buying EVs. https://cleantechnica.com/2024/03/28/the-ev-revolution-has-passed-a-tipping-point/
The end result of these trends is my view, described in some detail in my 2nd edition of my book, Solar: Why Our Energy Future Is So Bright, is what I call in one chapter "The reasonable person's case for climate optimism." There are no certainties in this area but I think the more reasonable view at this juncture is that the more dire and extreme climate scenarios are quite unlikely to occur.
AI is a far far bigger threat at this juncture to humanity's wellbeing and survival and that is why I am turning much of my attention to efforts to mitigate or slow the rise of catastrophic AI. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-safety-research-only-enables-the-dangers-of-runaway-superintelligence/
What we are addicted to is hubris. The idea that we can accurately model and predict highly complex systems not fully understood, is nonsensical. Even simple models like fluid dynamics, my field, require assumptions or controlled variables that introduce error. This increases with complexity and any introduced error compounds over time. Hence the repeated inaccuracy of climate models and predictions. Same could be said of economic or covid models. Facts are: humans are bad at predictions of the future, climate related deaths are at an all time low mostly due to fossil fuels, co2 has been higher in the past with life (not human but life) thriving and humans are one of the most adaptable species to ever inhabit this planet. I am all for mitigation of human impacts to the environment but climate alarmism is something we should be highly skeptical of.
I don't get it. If I tell people we need to drive and fly less, stop buying so much junk, SIMPLIFY, they get pissy and say it's all government's fault. I wonder how they'd respond to government telling them to stop driving and flying and buying so much junk.....not well I suspect. I'm with you, I know it's possible to change, but it seems that people won't, at least not Americans. Problem is, the rest of the world wants to have the "great stuff" that we have, we've created a monster.
The cost of retrofitting throughout the top emitting industries is a significant factor in the speed of response to climate factors. Take tires, for example. While EVs make sense for some people, they still have tires. The average tire requires seven gallons of oil to produce (source: https://blog.tiremart.com/how-much-oil-make-one-car-tire/). Some cities are so far behind in mitigation efforts that I don't see how they will catch up to making big enough changes to have any effect, short of shutting everything down (and we know how well that goes.) I tend to use Phoenix, Arizona, as the "poster child" for man-made climate change, as I witnessed the degradation of a relatively pristine environment to a heat-island effect that created a destructive downward spiral of a delicate desert region in less than a decade.
https://titantreeaz.com/blog/urban-heat-islands#:~:text=Phoenix%20has%20been%20identified%20as,out%20more%20of%20our%20area.
Here in British Columbia, climate change is blamed for an increase in forest fires yet the government has allowed forestry companies (also big emitters) to spray vast swaths of deciduous trees with RoundUp so that the valuable conifers they harvest will grow larger and faster. You can imagine the disruption to natural flora and fauna.
It's no wonder people feel overwhelmed by the mixed messages. Amid the high usage of EVs on this island, farmers still need lots of gasoline for tractors and livestock transports, and the yachts that show up daily in the marina during tourist season chug many gallons of fuel. Canada has just increased the carbon tax by 23%, and while the government touts "rebates" the average citizen is drowning in higher costs of basic consumables.
I don't know how to calm the "emergency" response other than to suggest individuals choose their climate battles with care and take small steps toward a more sustainable future that makes sense to them.
For those interested (especially young people who only know city life), I highly recommend a foray into organic, sustainable farming practices with hands-on experience via the international WWOOFER program https://wwoof.net/
I discovered Jacque Fresco over a decade ago, I’m actually writing about him in my next newsletter. Excited to learn more about this in the seminar.
What do you mean with we have 5 to 10 years left? Before we start to see collapse in the system? That’s terrible!
I don’t think that people can’t think of alternatives because they are only used to dystopian futures. I think that people don’t understand the consequences. I think that nobody really believes that it will get so bad. It’s like watching a tsunami come.