Have you ever tried to have a climate change argument with someone who strongly believes that a) it's occurring, man made and that we have the ability can stop it and b) it's a real problem and therefore MUST stop it? I have, too. A lot. What I am about to say isn’t meant to be mean or offensive but more often than not I discover that the quote from Ryan Gosling in "The Big Short" is the most apt description of what comes next. "Most of them don't really know what's happening....I mean sure, they have a sound bite they repeat so they don't sound dumb, but come on..."
Ask someone when the last time CO2 was 420 ppm (4 mm years ago), they have no clue. Ask why the Vikings were able to colonize Greenland in 984 and were gone by 1400, they won't know that it's because it got too cold. Ask how much the sea level is rising a year and they don't know it's 3 mm (don't even ask them about the uncertainty of that measurement). Ask what the CO2 concentration was 250 mm years ago (2000 ppm), and they don't know that either. They say "but scientific consensus is that the planet is warming because of CO2 and that's bad." Data is not the way to go, even though I firmly believe the following books are essential for every person who has a view on climate change to read and assess for themselves.
Steve Koonin wrote a fascinating book called "Unsettled" which examimes the science of the IPCC models. Terry Donze has a book called "Climate Realism." Michael Shellenberger has "Apocalypse Never." Gregory Wrightstone as "Inconvenient Truth." "Climate Change: The Facts" edited by Alan Moran. Don't take my word for it. Read them yourselves and always ask the question: is science that can't be publicly questioned, science? But science is not where the narrative will be won. Cost will. Why?
Greta Thunberg. Bill Gates. Larry Fink. Al Gore. The UN. The IEA. Basically anybody who gets TV time, newspaper time, or social media love is firmly in the camp of we must do something. None of them talk about the cost, because the cost their biggest weakness and they are all too busy trying to get their share of the quadrillion dollars that will be spent, with profit, to solve a problem of their creation. IEA said this today. Seriously.
Polls suggest that the 68% of Americans wouldn’t pay $10 a month in higher electricity prices to support the climate. How much will a 400% increase in capacity build out to rebuild existing equipment per year cost? 65% also think government should do more (with your money) and 80% think tougher restrictions in emissions are a good idea. Sadly- most Americans (and Europeans, Canadians and and and) have not connected that doing the latter increases the former by - lot more than $120 a year. Until the cost conversation becomes the centerpiece of the discussion, we won’t find common ground to build consensus on what to do.
A Nature magazine article often quoted by Bjorn Lomborg says that the cost to get to net zero under the Biden Administration is $11,300 per person, per year for each of the next 29 years. That MAY reduce CO2 (depending on India and China) and it MAY have an impact. I'll quote Bjorn directly from his recent WSJ op ed.
“Bank of America finds that achieving net zero globally by 2050 will cost $150 trillion over 30 years—almost twice the combined annual gross domestic product of every country on earth. The annual cost ($5 trillion) is more than all the world’s governments and households spend every year on education. Academic studies find the policy is even costlier. The largest database on climate scenarios shows that keeping temperature rises to 2 degrees Celsius—a less stringent policy than net zero by midcentury—would likely cost $8.3 trillion, or 3.3% of world GDP, every year by 2050, and the costs keep escalating so that by the end of the century taxpayers will have paid about $1 quadrillion—a thousand trillion—in total.”
Climate is a religion and unquestioning belief is necessary for the disciples. That faith has been the life force of the energy transition movement to date. Hope as a plan, a technology that doesn’t exist as the answer. However, now that consumers are seeing doubling and tripling of energy prices, rolling blackouts, and are starting to realize things have a cost. And cost is how consumers vote. That is why it’s the number 4 issue to watch in 2022, and Kazakhstan is a good preview.
#hottakeoftheday
I can only conclude that The Laws of Thermodynamics HAVE to, like math, be racist...someone should do something about them...you know, like make them illegal
David
As usual, a very good analysis. I would temper though the Kazakh example.
The intel i am getting family members there is that Nazerbayev died and the increase in LPG was just an excuse to start the fight for power between powerful clans to fill the vacuum.