Or we could be investing in cheap nuclear energy and sharing that technology with the developing world.
But we know so much of the climate change movement is not about preventing climate change, it is about asking Westerners to look inside their souls, confess their wickedness, and repent. Another weird sublimation of Christianity, in other words.
Love your comment. All of it. And the money has already been appropriated for ... fusion, which they now say could be commercial in 20 years. I read a book on fusion using the Tokamak design in 1961, and it was predicting 10 years to commercialize. They are still working on Tokamaks, while fission has long been commercial and there are so many promising designs that burn nuclear waste, and can't be used to make bombs, and can't melt down. We just need to take the money from the bleeding edge physics types and give it to the practical types.
"If you want to know an actual, no bullshit thing you can do" So in the end this rant contradicts itself. There are things we can do. The problem is not about "we" it's that we don't know what to do.
While I agree with his technical proposals, the real problem is with cooperation. Climate is a "problem of the commons." And it's the hardest of that kind we've ever run into. The only answer is cooperation, and the trouble there is that the left's theory of cooperation is: "Let's all be nice (meaning altruistic)." Several social sciences study this cooperation, and they've all found that doesn't work. We need to look for deals that say "We will if you will, and if we both do, we'll both benefit."
In the mean time, Toro's idea to support research is a good one. Reducing fear of nuclear is another. Transferring the money from nuclear fusion to improving fission is my favorite. No new money needed, and we are so close to safe, cost-effective fission, that it could almost surely do the trick.
But learning to cooperate in a practical way is the missing ingredient in almost every social problem.
You're right that "No, You Don’t Have the Power to Affect Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trajectories" would've been a more precise title, but way too wonky!
Thanks for writing this much needed perspective The real and terrible problem of global warming first came to widespread public attention in the early and mid 90's..... and ever since then the idiot winds seem to have outsripped all other sources of hot air by about a ten-to-one ratio. I'm not sure what the answers are, but I am fairly confident that the best way forward has nothing to do with the current policies of moral grandstanding while outsourcing energy production to communist and Islamic regimes. In an atmosphere smothered by total bullshit, this bit is a welcome breath of fresh air.
Having grown up in Jakarta as an American, I have always felt that American environmentalism was fundamentally at odds with the poor of the world. Clean water and electricity are still uncommon for many Indonesians and Indonesians will gladly sacrifice air quality, the local environment and most certainty the goals of the West to have reliable access to what we consider common place.
I will quibble with one section, as it feels like commonly tread ground that seems incorrect to me, or more precisely I haven't heard the counter argument because no one appears to engage with the other side on these issues. Looking at 1% Brighter, you might just be the right person to tell me how I am wrong so if you see this please tell me how I am wrong.
"They have the engineering prowess to install the sophisticated smart grids you need to roll out wind and solar energy at scale....".
This is something I repeatedly see reported, about how its easy for America to change its grid and that we simply have to want it. But seeing some of the reports from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), I get the feeling like this is wishful thinking and that wind and solar aren't the solution that they are claimed to be.
In May of last year FERC went before the senate with the chairman of FERC claiming 'We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system.' (Full testimony can be found here https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/B7FE1551-6BA0-4DB7-A5A5-19755800D83E). The commissioner went on to say 'Most of these market-distorting forces originate with subsidies—both state and federal—and from public policies that are otherwise designed to promote the deployment of non-dispatchable wind and solar assets or to drive fossil-fuel generators out of business as quickly as possible.' (https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/0A896B12-2895-4F68-A367-74009F2975C4). And this seems to just be part of it, Robert Bryce (robertbryce.substack.com - where I originally heard about FERC's hearing), Meredith Angwin (meredithangwin.substack.com), Doomberg (doomberg.substack.com) and others have commented multiple aspects of the issues with the grid generally, particularly with heavy wind and solar production.
I mean, the details of Smart Grid economics (and viability) are way beyond my grasp. I understand a debate exists about it, and people-smarter-than-me tell me smart grids are technically sophisticated and expensive to roll out.
Like nuclear they look like the kinds of technologies countries north of $25,000/year/person can and do consider adopting but which are just going to be beyond the reach of middle income and poorer countries.
And this isn't due solely to cost but to technical complexity: plenty of poorer countries don't have the engineering talent to spend on things like this.
So I'm agnostic on the feasibility of smart grids, but certain even if they are feasible, they're out of reach for most of the developing world.
Appreciate your the response as well as your candor!
I would largely agree with your perspective on nuclear, and as others have pointed out (https://decoupledispatch.substack.com/) building a 1 GW nuclear reactor, even if feasible, may not suit a grid with relatively little demand. Though I would probably argue that it is more of a bureaucratic and institutional struggle than a technical one.
Being in an engineering field myself, I can say my Indonesian friends have the similar level of technical expertise as myself and colleagues (not to mention many, if not most are immigrants from Asia) here in America. And that goes for China and India as well, who both have growing nuclear programs (and at least India is far short of $25k/year/person). However in a place like Indonesia there is too much corruption, political instability and honestly lower hanging fruit to make a lot of endeavors work in the way they might in the West.
Regardless these countries will need to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for the foreseeable future, whether that is coal, LNG, solar, hydro, etc. Whatever perspectives we have over in the west won't be able change their priorities, only the realities on the ground can trigger such shifts.
The problem of increasing energy use in the developing world is actually two fold. First, developing countries striving to raise their populations out of poverty must increase their GDPs, which is energy intensive. Second, population growth continues unabated in much of the developing world, and wealth created by any increase in GDP is absorbed to a large extent by increased population so poverty also continues unabated. In the developed world, populations are remaining steady or increasing through immigration.
Yup! Kaya dynamics are important here. Globally, GDP per capita has been growing about twice as fast as the number of capitas, though. I've written about this in Persuasion.
The climate change problem has already been solved. Vermont passed a law making oil companies liable for climate change. Actually, there is a deeper point. Most (almost all) Americans don’t have any idea of how much development has taken place outside of the ‘developed world’ (Europe, Japan, the US, Canada, etc.). It is commonplace to see even educated Americans claim that “we have the largest economy”. Of course, that’s not close to true. However, ignorance of basic economic (and hence environmental) truths is both pervasive and largely non-political.
Another point, is that we have entered the ‘post-oil’ era. China is the first significant country to industrialize since the world used up much of its oil. What fuel does China run on? Coal by the billions of tons. Will China find alternatives to Coal in the future? Who knows.
Or we could be investing in cheap nuclear energy and sharing that technology with the developing world.
But we know so much of the climate change movement is not about preventing climate change, it is about asking Westerners to look inside their souls, confess their wickedness, and repent. Another weird sublimation of Christianity, in other words.
Yeah, the religious sublimation angle is tricky to write about, mostly because the people who do it are in such deep denial.
Love your comment. All of it. And the money has already been appropriated for ... fusion, which they now say could be commercial in 20 years. I read a book on fusion using the Tokamak design in 1961, and it was predicting 10 years to commercialize. They are still working on Tokamaks, while fission has long been commercial and there are so many promising designs that burn nuclear waste, and can't be used to make bombs, and can't melt down. We just need to take the money from the bleeding edge physics types and give it to the practical types.
"If you want to know an actual, no bullshit thing you can do" So in the end this rant contradicts itself. There are things we can do. The problem is not about "we" it's that we don't know what to do.
While I agree with his technical proposals, the real problem is with cooperation. Climate is a "problem of the commons." And it's the hardest of that kind we've ever run into. The only answer is cooperation, and the trouble there is that the left's theory of cooperation is: "Let's all be nice (meaning altruistic)." Several social sciences study this cooperation, and they've all found that doesn't work. We need to look for deals that say "We will if you will, and if we both do, we'll both benefit."
In the mean time, Toro's idea to support research is a good one. Reducing fear of nuclear is another. Transferring the money from nuclear fusion to improving fission is my favorite. No new money needed, and we are so close to safe, cost-effective fission, that it could almost surely do the trick.
But learning to cooperate in a practical way is the missing ingredient in almost every social problem.
You're right that "No, You Don’t Have the Power to Affect Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trajectories" would've been a more precise title, but way too wonky!
Don't say I'm right, and then put stupid words in my mouth.
Thanks for writing this much needed perspective The real and terrible problem of global warming first came to widespread public attention in the early and mid 90's..... and ever since then the idiot winds seem to have outsripped all other sources of hot air by about a ten-to-one ratio. I'm not sure what the answers are, but I am fairly confident that the best way forward has nothing to do with the current policies of moral grandstanding while outsourcing energy production to communist and Islamic regimes. In an atmosphere smothered by total bullshit, this bit is a welcome breath of fresh air.
Yeah, it's sort of despiriting.
Having grown up in Jakarta as an American, I have always felt that American environmentalism was fundamentally at odds with the poor of the world. Clean water and electricity are still uncommon for many Indonesians and Indonesians will gladly sacrifice air quality, the local environment and most certainty the goals of the West to have reliable access to what we consider common place.
Great to see you suggest geo-engineering solutions, while I am more of a proponent of Nuclear fission, if we are to treat climate change as an existential threat then there is no reason to not explore more radical approaches. Alas some in the 'field' instead run around publishing strange articles calling for international non-use agreements for geo engineering while also claiming climate change is "drastic" (https://www.solargeoeng.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/WIREs-Climate-Change-2022-Solar-geoengineering-The-case-for-an-international-nonuse-agreement-1.pdf).
I will quibble with one section, as it feels like commonly tread ground that seems incorrect to me, or more precisely I haven't heard the counter argument because no one appears to engage with the other side on these issues. Looking at 1% Brighter, you might just be the right person to tell me how I am wrong so if you see this please tell me how I am wrong.
"They have the engineering prowess to install the sophisticated smart grids you need to roll out wind and solar energy at scale....".
This is something I repeatedly see reported, about how its easy for America to change its grid and that we simply have to want it. But seeing some of the reports from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), I get the feeling like this is wishful thinking and that wind and solar aren't the solution that they are claimed to be.
In May of last year FERC went before the senate with the chairman of FERC claiming 'We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation’s electric system.' (Full testimony can be found here https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/B7FE1551-6BA0-4DB7-A5A5-19755800D83E). The commissioner went on to say 'Most of these market-distorting forces originate with subsidies—both state and federal—and from public policies that are otherwise designed to promote the deployment of non-dispatchable wind and solar assets or to drive fossil-fuel generators out of business as quickly as possible.' (https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/0A896B12-2895-4F68-A367-74009F2975C4). And this seems to just be part of it, Robert Bryce (robertbryce.substack.com - where I originally heard about FERC's hearing), Meredith Angwin (meredithangwin.substack.com), Doomberg (doomberg.substack.com) and others have commented multiple aspects of the issues with the grid generally, particularly with heavy wind and solar production.
This also reminds me a lot of Roger Pielke Jr. (https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/) who wrote an article of the policy envelope (https://issues.org/opening-up-the-climate-policy-envelope/) of climate change and the need to be realistic given the sort of realities you mention.
I mean, the details of Smart Grid economics (and viability) are way beyond my grasp. I understand a debate exists about it, and people-smarter-than-me tell me smart grids are technically sophisticated and expensive to roll out.
Like nuclear they look like the kinds of technologies countries north of $25,000/year/person can and do consider adopting but which are just going to be beyond the reach of middle income and poorer countries.
And this isn't due solely to cost but to technical complexity: plenty of poorer countries don't have the engineering talent to spend on things like this.
So I'm agnostic on the feasibility of smart grids, but certain even if they are feasible, they're out of reach for most of the developing world.
A lot like Nuclear, in fact.
Appreciate your the response as well as your candor!
I would largely agree with your perspective on nuclear, and as others have pointed out (https://decoupledispatch.substack.com/) building a 1 GW nuclear reactor, even if feasible, may not suit a grid with relatively little demand. Though I would probably argue that it is more of a bureaucratic and institutional struggle than a technical one.
Being in an engineering field myself, I can say my Indonesian friends have the similar level of technical expertise as myself and colleagues (not to mention many, if not most are immigrants from Asia) here in America. And that goes for China and India as well, who both have growing nuclear programs (and at least India is far short of $25k/year/person). However in a place like Indonesia there is too much corruption, political instability and honestly lower hanging fruit to make a lot of endeavors work in the way they might in the West.
Regardless these countries will need to produce electricity as cheaply as possible for the foreseeable future, whether that is coal, LNG, solar, hydro, etc. Whatever perspectives we have over in the west won't be able change their priorities, only the realities on the ground can trigger such shifts.
The problem of increasing energy use in the developing world is actually two fold. First, developing countries striving to raise their populations out of poverty must increase their GDPs, which is energy intensive. Second, population growth continues unabated in much of the developing world, and wealth created by any increase in GDP is absorbed to a large extent by increased population so poverty also continues unabated. In the developed world, populations are remaining steady or increasing through immigration.
Yup! Kaya dynamics are important here. Globally, GDP per capita has been growing about twice as fast as the number of capitas, though. I've written about this in Persuasion.
https://www.persuasion.community/p/all-cops-are-bastards
The climate change problem has already been solved. Vermont passed a law making oil companies liable for climate change. Actually, there is a deeper point. Most (almost all) Americans don’t have any idea of how much development has taken place outside of the ‘developed world’ (Europe, Japan, the US, Canada, etc.). It is commonplace to see even educated Americans claim that “we have the largest economy”. Of course, that’s not close to true. However, ignorance of basic economic (and hence environmental) truths is both pervasive and largely non-political.
Another point, is that we have entered the ‘post-oil’ era. China is the first significant country to industrialize since the world used up much of its oil. What fuel does China run on? Coal by the billions of tons. Will China find alternatives to Coal in the future? Who knows.
Well duh…