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.
Please send me a PDF of your book to my email. I appreciate optimism!
I do think the Kevin Anderson / Jem Bendell / Hagens perspective is, unfortunately, the accurate one, but always happy to consider other options.
There do seem to be psychological influences in how one tends in these areas. I notice we differ on a number of topics. I am persuaded we have little time left and whatever the "urban heat island" effect is, it is only a small factor out of many. The evidence of increasing super storms, accelerating breakdown, is everywhere and overwhelming.
In terms of renewables, it seems they are highly dependent on fossil fuel inputs plus mining and in terms of baseload, can never replace fossil fuels, which also represent a vast "sunk cost" of infrastructure. Perhaps Vaclav Smil is too pessimistic, but it is hard to see renewables making much of a dent. Also, when renewables do go online, it apparently simply leads to more energy consumption, negating the positive effects. This interview seemed reasonable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmygkdoGgc&t=2697s . He argues the rare minerals do not exist in sufficient quantities to do global solar and wind. Etc.
Obviously, if nuclear fusion can work (we know it does work - the sun uses it), that would be a massive game changer. but it seems unclear if it is possible on any useful time-scale.
One area where I see AI helping is with science breakthroughs like nuclear fusion. We may well enter a golden age before the fall, but mark my words: there will be a fall as AI becomes AGI and then quickly ASI.
My POV concurs with yours as to the "abrupt and catastrophic" scenarios being unlikely. I've participated in climate change education and action since the 2000s and have had excellent teachers in that regard. There is definitely cause for optimism, and small steps each person can take so as not to become overwhelmed by doom and gloom prospects.
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.
Hi Claudia, I agree that people can’t imagine it will get so bad. We are used to having comfortable lives where we everything is provided for us and we can travel anywhere easily. I struggle to imagine and accept that this could change radically, even when I study the work of people like Nate Hagens, Jem Bendell, and Kevin Anderson. With the 5 - 10 years, the problem is that the longer we wait to make systemic changes, the less cheap energy and material resources will be available to do it. It may already be too late to make massive infrastructure changes like build a light rail system in the US that would help people stop driving. A partial shift to renewable power would require a huge amount of resources and mining. People are obviously creative when they need to be but there are also physical limits on what the Earth can provide and we have clearly gone past those limits already.
I understand now what you meant with the 5 to 10 years window. People seem to be oblivious of the fact that the resources on this Earth don't come in unlimited supply. Yet, there is great resistance to the idea that we should not live in a system that allows single people to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. In a world with limited resources what does it mean when a handful of people grab most of those resources? It doesn't ring with people that the more one person takes, the less there is left for the rest. This way of thinking is called 'a scarcity mindset'. I'm looking forward to reflecting on this during the seminar.
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/
Hi Tam,
Please send me a PDF of your book to my email. I appreciate optimism!
I do think the Kevin Anderson / Jem Bendell / Hagens perspective is, unfortunately, the accurate one, but always happy to consider other options.
There do seem to be psychological influences in how one tends in these areas. I notice we differ on a number of topics. I am persuaded we have little time left and whatever the "urban heat island" effect is, it is only a small factor out of many. The evidence of increasing super storms, accelerating breakdown, is everywhere and overwhelming.
In terms of renewables, it seems they are highly dependent on fossil fuel inputs plus mining and in terms of baseload, can never replace fossil fuels, which also represent a vast "sunk cost" of infrastructure. Perhaps Vaclav Smil is too pessimistic, but it is hard to see renewables making much of a dent. Also, when renewables do go online, it apparently simply leads to more energy consumption, negating the positive effects. This interview seemed reasonable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmygkdoGgc&t=2697s . He argues the rare minerals do not exist in sufficient quantities to do global solar and wind. Etc.
Obviously, if nuclear fusion can work (we know it does work - the sun uses it), that would be a massive game changer. but it seems unclear if it is possible on any useful time-scale.
One area where I see AI helping is with science breakthroughs like nuclear fusion. We may well enter a golden age before the fall, but mark my words: there will be a fall as AI becomes AGI and then quickly ASI.
The book is available here: https://www.amazon.com/Solar-Why-Energy-Future-Bright-ebook/dp/B09C5VV12Y/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2H1EWPD4HLWIH&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.gQxl4fqISQQl69Q6bAyDng0soCaYpKftnetYNYf0bXmr6celFJJMWGEx6-0NIQtWVICn6NngU6oYnemsJELmbQ.-7Oa-tjxRWWirDDwG7b-9lAd4PbIR749Du99wf5jvkQ&dib_tag=se&keywords=tam+hunt+solar&qid=1712335594&sprefix=tam+hunt+solar%2Caps%2C193&sr=8-2.
Yes, I disagree with most of the points you raise and I explain why in the book and my various publicly available columns over the years. Renewables are already making a massive dent. Germany, the 3rd biggest economy in the world, is already powered 50% or more from renewable electricity. https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/2023-a-bumper-year-for-germanys-renewable-electricity-sector/
EV sales in EU were on average 22% for 2023, with the Scandis well over 50%, growing rapidly and will probably achieve 80% new market share by 2030 or so. These are rapid world changing trends. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-28/electric-cars-pass-adoption-tipping-point-in-31-countries?srnd=hyperdrive&embedded-checkout=true
My POV concurs with yours as to the "abrupt and catastrophic" scenarios being unlikely. I've participated in climate change education and action since the 2000s and have had excellent teachers in that regard. There is definitely cause for optimism, and small steps each person can take so as not to become overwhelmed by doom and gloom prospects.
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.
Hi Claudia, I agree that people can’t imagine it will get so bad. We are used to having comfortable lives where we everything is provided for us and we can travel anywhere easily. I struggle to imagine and accept that this could change radically, even when I study the work of people like Nate Hagens, Jem Bendell, and Kevin Anderson. With the 5 - 10 years, the problem is that the longer we wait to make systemic changes, the less cheap energy and material resources will be available to do it. It may already be too late to make massive infrastructure changes like build a light rail system in the US that would help people stop driving. A partial shift to renewable power would require a huge amount of resources and mining. People are obviously creative when they need to be but there are also physical limits on what the Earth can provide and we have clearly gone past those limits already.
I understand now what you meant with the 5 to 10 years window. People seem to be oblivious of the fact that the resources on this Earth don't come in unlimited supply. Yet, there is great resistance to the idea that we should not live in a system that allows single people to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth. In a world with limited resources what does it mean when a handful of people grab most of those resources? It doesn't ring with people that the more one person takes, the less there is left for the rest. This way of thinking is called 'a scarcity mindset'. I'm looking forward to reflecting on this during the seminar.