I believe that fossil producers and consumers are locked into a kind of codependency. Thus unlike most people who either primarily blame the producers as Berman does or the consumers as you do I see the need to focus on both supply and demand.
We should demonize the fossil fuel producers and we can still recognize that ultimately as you point out it is the incredible all but miraculous energy density of fossil fuels that makes their use so addictive and irresistible.
That’s why the clean energy transition will inevitably take decades and during these decades the world will increasingly suffer or unimaginable climate extremes.
Humanity was truly both incredibly blessed and cursed when fossil fuels were first discovered.
Activists, if they thought hard, realized this truism decades ago. But they went along with the charade that they could force hundreds of millions, if not billions, into "their energy lifestyle" in a matter of a few short years (e.g., we're only 6 years away from the newest "deadline" - it ain't gonna happen).
I'm glad that you see that such a transition can't happen that quickly, be it 2030, 2035, 2050, or even by 2100. And that's just the time. Few are willing to admit the MASSIVE amount of money that is required to do it. Looking around at the national debts in the developed world, there's no way those required monies can be confiscated or conjured up out of thin air.
>> What about the massive costs of not doing anything?
I was expecting that platitude/talking point. It's nonsensical. Why?
If there isn't the money, then little (by definition and necessity) will be done within the artificially constrained timelines that activist Elites keep shoving down our throats. You can't spend 10s of trillions USD if there are no trillions available in the first place. Magical thinking isn't a strategy.
And no, you just can't Eat The Rich (as Lloyd keeps saying) and say that THEY will "give" it. You might be able to confiscate $2T but that's a one time deal as you'd completely wipe out that wealth source.
Then what are you going to do - where's the rest going to come from?
And the world's total GDP was expected to be approximately $105 Trillion. So how do you think you're going to confiscate approximately 40% of everyone's income?
Only way I can figure is by an Authoritarian global governance system. Unless, of course, you have a better idea. If not, is that the kind of world you want your kids growing up in?
And do you REALLY think that China and India, or any other country for that matter, is going to relinquish their cede their Powers and allow that to happen?
The $38 trillion isn’t an estimate for the costs of transitioning to a green economy. It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change.
In reviewing this again, I again see that Western activists refuse to acknowledge that China, India, and Russia are responsible for 40% of all emissions (Communist collectivist govts are like that - they don't care) making it a total waste of enforcing draconian strictures on the West.
It's still an opportunity cost at best and the article stated that incomes will go down so that is an actual cost ("such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income REDUCTION of 11% each and France with 13%,” ").
And to be sure, part of that $38T will still, in part, be expended in buying energy sources that are non-dispatchable (or in the case of utility grade batteries systems, dispatchable only for hours). And, I bet that will also include the environmental costs of the materials for the battery and PV manufacturing (and then recovery) and the damage to the environment from the vast land areas used for PV farms.
Cost is cost.
And remember, I've been listening to all the Enviro-Doomsquealing since before the first Earth Day - and not ONE of them have come true.
“It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change“
Bullshit. Weather can’t be predicted, especially decades in advance, so any weather-related incident that WILL happen would have to be 100% ascribed to 100% human-induced climate change, and that’s simply not just unrealistic but unscientific.
Even if we could snap our fingers and immediately return atmospheric CO2 levels to that of 1850, we’d *still* be dealing with just as extreme tropical cyclones, droughts, floods, heatwaves, and every other atmospheric phenomenon.
Can you agree and disagree simultaneously? It seems that I do. These entities are to blame, and we are to blame. We buy what they are selling, and they are using propaganda to sell more. "We have met the enemy and 'he' is us". The us in this case is everyone that uses fossil fuels, which includes the companies extracting them. The fossil footprint of extraction is a component of the problem. So are the militaries in a variety of countries, especially the US, used to protect our "right" to extract fossil fuels from other countries. Subdividing the blame is silly. It is a system, and most of us are trapped in that system and very few are making a legitimate effort to change that system. Governments, corporations, and consumers are all too blame. My main complaint about your approach is that it does not admit clearly there are players in this system actively working to prevent any systemic change and most of these are corporate who are buying their politicians.
I have been repeating like a mantra to anyone who will listen that the real people driving the planet over a cliff can be found staring back at us from our mirrors. As far as I can tell it is not doing much good even within my own circle never mind on a planetary scale. We are all remarkably adept at coming up with excuses for why we need another SUV or why we can’t possibly get by using public transit, or why we need 3000 or 5000 sqft of heated and cooled living space for two people or another vacation in Mexico or tropical fruit in Northern Europe in January or to leave the lights on all night or to water our lawn or … We are also remarkably good at convincing ourselves that reducing or eliminating our tiny (on a global scale) contribution to the problem will not change anything so we shouldn’t have to absorb the brunt of the cost of changing until and unless everyone else does too.
I have been trying for sometime now to run my life in such a way as to leave the parts of the planet I touch directly or indirectly in at least as good shape as I found them when I got here. I am growing more and more of my own food in a sustainable way and share my surplus, I try to source what I need from as close to home as possible, I travel less, I plant native trees and other plants on my property, I ask myself before I grab my keys to go anywhere whether I really need to go and, if yes, if driving is the best option, I try to avoid buying disposable/single use/new items and I do host of other small things to try to make a difference but if I am honest with myself I have to acknowledge that the debt to the planet and its future inhabitants that I have already accumulated (and am still piling on despite my efforts) will be difficult to pay off before I die. The conflict between our current desires (desires that we are also great at convincing ourselves are really needs or things the world somehow owes us) and the true needs of the future of others yet to be born is a battle that the future is losing badly. I fight the idea every time it pops in my head but, sad as it is, it becomes harder with each passing day to deny that human societies tend to act as truly blind and ignorant beasts living only for the immediate moment and oblivious/wilfully blind to the damage they are doing to their own future until they face a scenario so horrid and so immediate that it causes a critical mass of their individual members to finally break free of their hypnotic cultish hold on our will and change course, at least for a time until complacency sets in and the cycle begins to repeat. As a group we seem to be driven to repeatedly squander the gift of reason that provides us the opportunity to peer into the future and should surely allow us to do better than we have so far.
My life goal has become to help break that pattern and to try to change the trajectory of the curve representing my individual contribution to the problem to such a degree that it ultimately slopes downward at a rate that allows it to cross the starting line where I began borrowing from the future at my birth. I will need to live a long life to make it happen and the jury is still out on whether I can possibly succeed but I vow to all the life on the planet to keep trying to my last breath (or at least my last lucid moment).
Conclusion: It's proving that the emphasis has to be ON SOLUTIONS.
It dosn't help to blame anybody else.
It's the CO2 (the reaction product) released into the atmosphere.
Yes, we can: Reduce that. Significanytly. And we (almost all of us) can contribute - releasing less CO2, communicating real solutions, (BTW: insulating a home does improve the quality of life.)
Fantastic much-needed focus on the demand side. Only by building momentum of the following messaging will we avoid overwhelming future global warming catastrophes. Year after year it's not happening - not even by many climate activists as is evidenced by the comments to.this thread. Climate activists leading the message, rather than denigrating and violating it, are essential to humankind promptly minimizing its greenhouse gas emissions. Join us in spreading the message and walking the talk.
"Consumers (individuals, organizations, businesses, governments) must promptly minimize their greenhouse gas emissions to bridge the gap while we work on long-term green technology and infrastructure. Less heating and less cooling (none between 13C-30C/55F-85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it yourself. Tenaciously encourage others to do it."
Embrace the message and tenaciously introduce the message "business card" to all you encounter. (You can print the business card 12 per 8.5x11 using a file from the Promote page of the website.)
Be a climate superhero - take it to the next level. Promote the message at local events. Files for posters are available on the Promote page of the website.
The companies are being made a scapegoat by the press because the Guardian can't possibly blaming its online readers and print subscriber base for this, can't they?
I couldn't disagree with you more. I really feel like you're going backwards on this one. Backwards into victim blaming. Fossil fuel companies spend billions and billions of dollars every year lobbying governments, advertising their wares, and tilting all the tables in their direction. I've long been frustrated by the whole "If everyone did this" approach. You are never going to get a supermajority of people to get on board with anything so that is not the path to follow. The fight against the fossil fuel mega corporations needs to intensify. Please don't be part of the crew that is watering it down!
Never going to get a solid answer, Grok. It's like the liberal calling card cry of "Make the rich pay their fair share!" without giving an actual percentage or number. And when you point out that the top 1% pay 40% of *ALL* income taxes, the liberal's eyes stare blankly at you, before saying that the rich ought to pay MORE.
How about if we begin with the government not trying to dictate every minutiae of our daily lives through endless regulation? And once that's done, perhaps they can do away with the fraud and waste, and we'll recognize that we can have plenty of money for social security, military readiness, and health programs—if not for the corruption plaguing every. single. layer. of government and corporate America.
"perhaps they can do away with the fraud and waste"
If Lloyd would permit it (after all, this is HIS house and we all are just visitors), a brief plug: "Neil Johnson (Lumberjack Logic Show) Exposing Corruption in New Hampshire".
Here is one of my writers going after her city for spending millions of dollars the wrong way and then trying to cover it up. Her doggedness is starting to have an effect but she has been slimed and dragged through the mud and gutter for standing up to a govt that won't live by the law and hates that it is getting exposed. The lesson learned is that we are ALL responsible for holding govt accountable to US in all matters.
And that's just one example. And one wonders why, like our Founders, I am a skeptic of govt; I find it, easily enough, all over the State.
if y'all do your part as well, there'd be a lot more money to get done what you are looking to do. Or better yet, let people keep their own money.
Lloyd, I agree that we have to work on the demand side but in my opinion, your post today is drawing a false equivalency. Fossil fuel companies have an exponentially higher level of blame here. I think it's critical to keep that at the forefront.
Every time I see something to the effect of "we have to work on the demand side..." I keep thinking of those famous words of Hillary Clinton (June 2004):
>>"Fossil fuel companies have an exponentially higher level of blame here."
I think—no, check that—I KNOW you have it wrong. Would you blame the cocaine farmers in Colombia for the addict passed out in the street, or the user whose sole purpose in life is to get high?
Imagine a world where fossil fuels DIDN'T become developed. What would the world look like today? How much of NYC would be buried under literal tons of horse shit? Would we have the wonderful technological advances we enjoy today, from modern electronics to transportation to medical diagnostics and drugs to food shipped around the world and everything in between?
No, of course not. But keep your deluded optimism lying to you that we'd all be so much better off while billions live in squalor and abject poverty. That's SO much better than fossil fuels, right?
>>"Fossil fuel companies spend billions and billions of dollars every year lobbying governments, advertising their wares, and tilting all the tables in their direction."
Absolutely not true. They don't spend billions, and they don't even have to spend tens of millions, because the value in fossil fuel companies are in the dividends they yield on their stock price, not their growth.
The world runs on fossil fuels—after decades of falling prices for wind and solar, we *STILL* get 86% of our energy needs from fossil fuels—which means there's very little in the way those companies need to spend on advertising and lobbying of government, because the government KNOWS that without fossil fuels the global economy grinds to an absolute halt.
We saw this during the pandemic. It's not conjecture, nor theory, but factual history.
There's no reason why flipping the switch can't produce electricity generated by renewable sources. A society that uses less energy isn't necessarily a poorer society than a society that uses more. Driving a car that gets 40 mpg gets you where you're going just as quickly and comfortably as one getting 25 mpg. Heating with a heat pump doesn't mean you'll be colder than if you heat with a gas furnace. It's really a political problem more than a technical one. I agree with Lloyd that we need to work on the demand side, because energy suppliers will produce exactly as much as we demand.
And how much will a fully renewable energy DISPATCHABLE grid cost?
Winters where I am are often where heat pumps turn into electrical heaters. At 22cent/KW, it's too costly for me. And the emissions are just being outsourced to somewhere else - there's a reason why peaker generators are required in both winter and summer.
It still is a technical one (e.g., when the sun isn't shining and the wind ain't blowing). And you are correct - it IS a political problem, a big one, but not for the reason you think. Restudy your line of "because energy suppliers will produce exactly as much as we demand" as Govt is forcing generators to close down.
So what IS your solution in lowering demand - and no Magical or Wishful Thinking allowed. Just saying "lower demand" is back to spitting into a hurricane - useless and only puts the spittle on your own schnoz.
If climate change is bullshit, then there's no reason to spend money on renewable energy. But if climate change is the threat that most people who aren't stupid think it is, then whatever needs to be spent should be spent. And spending trillions on oil and gas is not nothing.
I have little hope that we'll really mitigate the impact of climate change. A carbon tax would help, but is politically unlikely. Curtailing subsides for oil and gas would help, but is also politically unlikely.
Maine has managed to install more than 100,000 heat pumps in just a few years. If we adopted and enforced the 2021 IECC, we'd reduce demand for energy, save money and reduce fossil fuel fuel use. (Maine has a pretty clean grid). But imposing a more energy efficient building code is, again, politically unlikely.
As for intermittency, let's worry about the last 10-20% of electricity production after we implement renewables for the rest. The intermittency problem can be solved with some combination of battery technology, a modernized grid that moves more electricity from place to place, continued improvement in efficiency generally, overbuilding of solar and wind such that excess can be used to produce green hydrogen which generates electricity when it's dark and calm, etc. Nothing magical needed.
>>”But if climate change is the threat that most people who aren't stupid think it is, then whatever needs to be spent should be spent.”. I’ve argued for YEARS that if—and that’s a BIG “if”—climate change is the existential threat that fear mongering climastrologists pretend it is, then there would be no reluctance or fear over the massive increase in nuclear power which would be necessary to transition away from carbon emissions as quickly as possible, because as Lloyd says, “every gram of carbon dioxide counts.” Either CO2 is the existential danger it is positioned as being, and we as a collective global society will spare no expense to fight it, or it’s not. There is no half-assed, halfhearted effort in between, period.
The financial community doesn't want to invest in nuclear power because it's too expensive and it takes too long. Would you invest in building something that will cost triple your budget and take three times as long to finish as you plan?
It's a Tragedy of the Commons problem that probably won't be solved. But that doesn't mean it isn't doesn't present an existential risk.
I've never said that climate change isn't real. It is and we can see from historical records, both human and geological, it varies over long periods of times.
"...then whatever needs to be spent should be spent". And that's the question I keep asking and it is a REASONABLE question and an obvious one - HOW MUCH? You can't spend "whatever" if you don't know (or not willing to say) what that amount is.
And people spending trillions on gas and oil DO get services and goods that they can easily tell what the expense actually is and they can control what they spend (may not like it, but some is within their control). What you are asking is for us to trust others in ruling us to get the result they want. Having been a political blogger for almost 20 years, I can tell you that most are not altruistic and have YOUR best interest in mind (there's a reason why many politicians in the US Congress come out wealthier than when they went in, as one short example).
I'm next door in NH - and I'll ask you where the money came for those 100K units came from and how's that playing with your grid costs (I know the answer to the first but not the second)?
"The intermittency problem" - no, you CAN'T forget "the last mile" in anything - that's absolving anyone from being responsible for both bad outcomes and costs therein. I'll agree with moving electrons a bit more easily (California is in deep, DEEP trouble if that doesn't happen soon).
Battery tech, while improving, is still very costly and most installations are rated at hours of provisioning, not days. You're here in New England part of the US so you know that NH got hit rather hard this last storm - even decentralized installs wouldn't have helped (though my neighborhood was alive with the sound of generators starting up).
Again, time and cost. I'm a retired engineer and not a denialist. However, I AM a skeptic concerning politicians and bureaucrats (I am a reformed politician) and of anyone that throws out talking points without realistic designs, effort and time frames, milestones, costing, and a refusal of politicians/bureaucrats non-changing of regulations that get in the way (see time frames and costing, earlier).
Over building is a huge cost. Green Hydrogen is barely past the "glint in someone's eye" stage (although it seems that a couple of catalyst breakthroughs have been announced).
UNTIL those are fixed and folks like you, Lloyd, and John start forking over those needed items (I'm also a former project manager - or was that mangler??), it's wishful thinking BECAUSE THOSE SOLUTIONS don't exist NOW. In the future, maybe (like fusion) but not immediate.
I guess it depends on how you define wealthy. But the countries of Western Europe use much less energy per capita than we do. France, for example, isn't poor. Nor are the Scandinavian countries. Nor Is Germany.
Stop weaseling your way out of the hole you dug yourself. Let's use the basic metric when discussing wealth: money.
You say "France isn't poor" ... and that's true, but France also gets 65% of its electrical needs from nuclear and have done so since ~1970. Scandinavian countries are homogeneous entities in language, culture, ethnicity, and race—they also happen to be of very low population density relative to land area, and Norway gets its entire state pension guarantee subsidy comes from the sale of OIL—so no, the Scandinavian countries are not a reasonable alternative to look towards as an example more diverse Western nations can emulate. And Germany is the wealthiest nation in Europe, but also the biggest carbon emitter (in addition to being the most populous.)
So let's try this again ...
Show me a single instance of a society that uses LESS energy but is MORE wealthy than one that uses more. I double dog dare you!
Since I started my career in ESG and sustainability I have never read something so spot on, factual and elaborative. After the previous cop declarations were made I was like"did you say you're getting rid of fossils while in the middle east"
Am I the first person to notice that Vindaloo Bugaboo and GraniteGrok consistently troll any climate-related content, don't contribute anything meaningful to the conversations that they are on, and mostly send likes to each other's comments?
Wondering if these guys are cranks, or agents of the Russian troll farms.
No, we view things from POVs other than what is presented here. I do so (and I don't speak a lick of Russian nor accept ANYONE's pay in what I write here or at GraniteGrok.com) here in ensuring that not everyone views the world through your Eco-spectacles.
Look, I have, for years, applauded Lloyd and a lot of the others back at TH for "walking their talks". Good on them, and for the record, my former home was an active solar one and my now 40 year residence is a passive solar one.
But it was LLOYD's individual choice, and those folks INDIVIDUAL choice, and my individual choice. It should be that for all. PERSUADE others to "be like you" - but not FORCE them.
My message, having watched Govt at all levels here in the US, is that too many activists burrow their way into the bureaucracy (unelected, unaccountable, and virtually unassailable for their actions) or elected office and then begin the task of RULING which is anathema to our Republic founding of being Representatives instead of Rulers.
Doubt me? Start researching how the US Supreme Court has been knocking down overreaching actions by a myriad of agencies like the EPA, BATF, NOAA, CFBP, Corp of Engineers.
And I and a lot of my writers do the same at the State and local levels against those that just can't seem to understand the idea of "Just leave me alone".
And I should have, even more importantly, stated "and stay within your lane" meaning "do what your authorizing legislation allows you to do and stop word-weaseling in attempts to grab more Powers for yourself".
Too many use the self-justifications of "it's for the common good", "common-sense", agency self-justification (e.g., "we've worked ourselves out of our assigned jobs - quick, find something new!") or just scratching that Power-grabbing itch because they can.
Doubt me? Look around your "government landscape" and see how often they disobey their own laws.
No, you’re not the first. You certainly aren’t original, either.
The reason why Grok and I are such vehement contrarians is because we want y’all to stop talking in an echo chamber of self gratification and lies and be honest about the few hard-hitting concepts that we repeatedly ask about but never have answered.
Your wonderful “solution” of sufficiency? Who has the authority to say what is and what isn’t sufficient? And how is it to be enforced? None of you—certainly not the likes of Geoff, Lloyd, or others who routinely comment here (or previously over on TreeHugger)—will ever, EVER answer that question honestly. And so, Grok and I continue our “trolling” because it is FUNDAMENTALLY important to these discussions.
Why?
Because what you people want to see happen in your quest to save the planet is diametrically opposed to freedom—freedom of choice, thought, movement, and happiness.
YOU are the embodiment of imposed slavery and communistic oppression, WE are the embodiment of individualism and personal liberty. It’s really as simple as that.
I'll take exception to the "trolling" (but understand you are using it in a backwards sarcastic way - heh!).
VB brings up the extraordinary (and at its inception) radical idea of our Founding Philosophy, albeit it in different wording:
"Because what you people want to see happen in your quest to save the planet is diametrically opposed to freedom—freedom of choice, thought, movement, and happiness."
In the US Declaration of Independence, it was made clear that We were to be a people who had a Government and not the other way around. Govt was instituted for one and only one main purpose: to protect Individual Rights. Not a new form of "the common good" Collectivism.
It is unfortunate that our Educational System here in the US sucks so bad that the above is known only by a few of us of the age when it was actually accomplishing what it should be doing - teaching facts instead of ideology/HOW you should think.
So I present the challenge - what is more important than Freedom? For if you have no Freedom (and I would include only having the illusion that you do), what are you?
There is almost a monomaniacal emphasis here that truly can be condensed to "Have Less, Do Less" (and the WEF happily propagandizes as "and you will be HAPPY that we have forced this upon you".
And the pushback against what most Greens both can't understand nor wish to acknowledge - the vast public is rejecting it and HARD.
Look at what degrowth / deindustrialization is doing to Germany and its people. With increasingly more and more expensive energy (thanks to the policies of the Greens who are still trying to sell "look at the energy nirvana we are giving to you") and increasingly scares.
The Transportation Minister has threatened to cancel all vehicle traffic during weekends in order to "achieve our emissions goals". Even as people are losing their livelihoods.
Look at the Netherlands where emissions goals have meant putting farmers out of business and mandatory sales to the Govt of their land - this, the country that on a per capita basis, is the leading exporter of food and feeding the world. The pushback is now such that the Farmers political party is now the second biggest - in 3 years!
THose are but just two small examples (do you know what happened in Sri Lanka, for a third??). Proving that monomaniacal emphasis is proving to be absolutely a wrong headed attempt at windmill-tilting.
People are MORE than about emissions and power - this movement continues to not recognize that people have vast and multi-dimensional interests and needs and refuse to be forced into viewing Life from the sufficiency/Eco-Socialism lens that is demanding to be everyone's first priority.
Or is it "Not recognize" but more aligned with "refuses to see and acknowledge"?
I won't speak for VB but I am certainly one that is trying to temper that outlook in trying to convince folks here that you MUST broaden out your energy jihad against not-like-minded people, you will fail.
Or end up with such authoritarian regimes to MAKE it happen in a one-size fits all, that while you may achieve your aims but end up asking yourselves "er, we're not liking the secondary, tertiary, and beyond aftereffects that we have brought upon everyone."
Have you bothered to wargame that out yet? You should, and ask yourselves some very hard questions about those What If situations.
Look, I am not against y'all here - I'm just trying to soften the outlook, timelines, Freedom, and costs of this all.
Or you may well end up with the Eco-Socialist version of the Dutch Tulip fiasco where everything was put into a single basket - and turned out to be horribly wrong. One should be learning from history...
That's highly amusing. I hold two STEM degrees - I made my 40 year career because of science. And because of that, many of my questions I pose here stem (pun intended) from that.
Which, as both VB and I observe, are refused answers here. You see, those questions are an off-shoot of the Socratic Method. Now do you see our "why"?
Following your logic, Lloyd, it appears that we made a big mistake when we came down hard a few years ago on the tobaco companies. We should have gone after the smokers!
But you refuse to use the known statistics showing that smoker percentages have gone downward.
You also have skirted mentioning that while people are addicted to nicotine, Govt is addicted to the continuing revenue streams on the various levels of tobacco taxation. If Govt REALLY wanted to stop people smoking, they could make tobacco farming illegal. Ask yourself now: so why haven't they?
The other way to do it is from the opposite direction - don't subsidize smoking in healthcare. Change Govt policies such that monies raised by taxing others will not be used in providing healthcare services to those suffering from self-induced behaviors (smoking or chewing, et al).
I.E., let those that smoke bear the ENTIRE cost of their healthcare ills stemming from their smoking. After all, when you subsidize it, you get more of it.
Want less smoking, let those who smoke bear that cost with not a dime of Govt money involved.
I'm sorry, but when are adults going to take responsibility for themselves? Never?
You're over 18, you want to smoke, go for it. The government can draft your punk ass to go die in a foreign land fighting some war for yet another banal reason, but you can't have a drink or smoke a cigarette? How is that "adulting"? If you smoke, you pay for it in a shortened life with decreased quality. It's not for the government to insist that adults can't make that decision for themselves, especially when it involves a product that's been in use for over 10,000 years. Be an adult, and stop demanding Big Daddy Gubermint protect you from your own stupid decisions.
And having just written a comment about Freedom, let me add this:
"Freedom both DEMANDS and REQUIRES individual responsibility."
However, compared to even just a few short decades ago, with Collectivism rising, the requirement that adults be and act responsible is deprecated at an ever increasing rate.
Why?
When one is only seen as part of a Group (or a "community" to use an overabused word nowadays), there can be no individual responsibility. The current Left's support of an increasing sense of Victimhood also is erasing that former important human attribute.
"The transition is failing because of the incredible wealth generated by the burning of fossil fuels, not just for the producers but for everyone."
And you blame "we". Sorry Lloyd, but most people WANT modernity - I haven't heard of a "Great Hairshirt Society" made up of people who they themselves refuse a modern society (The Amish don't count for that as their reasons are religion-based). However, there is one made up of people who are constantly kvetching and using Government to force us all into Hairshirts. As you quoted "...have created a great deal of real affluence, raised the average quality of life for most of the world’s population."
What is that miniscule percentage of people that DESIRE to be poor and destitute compared to those that desire a better and more comfortable life for themselves and their families? And as you point out, and as VB has pointed out for years, only cheap energy (and I would add good govt that is responsive to citizens (as opposed to seeing itself in charge)) allows that to happen.
Look, everyone has a niche in life into which they have been thrust or have taken on - this is yours. But that chart ALSO showed a philosophical / rational "hole" that you've been avoiding for all these years while you've railed against the little things but avoided the BIG problems.
I AM glad that you published that chart showing "the emitters". Two of them - positions 1 & 4 - swamp all others with Russian entities adding to it for a total of 40% of the total. Not one Western nation is in that list. Western based companies were only 3.8%
So no matter how much the Developed (Western) World flagellates itself for it perceived "sins", it doesn't matter. And after years of pursuing such goals, all it is doing is showing that the your curves showing Energy=Wealth=Comfortable Lifestyles, the inverse is also true: Less Energy=Less Wealth=Poorer Citizens.
Germany, after trillions of Euros spent, has gone from Powerhouse to the Poor House. Other countries are now announcing that they are putting their transitions on hold as THEY AREN'T WORKING. Look at just the auto biz - all the majors, after meeting the Early Adopters and Initials demand, are cutting back EV production and headcounts (e.g. Ford and Tesla being two most noticeable). All of this because too many individuals, NGOs, people seeing "opportunity" to make chaos, and those in Govt desiring Control, didn't realize that FORCING something too quickly and too expensively to show their "virtue" in using other peoples' money and lives, DOESN'T WORK.
Back to China, India, and Russia - THE main problems in this. If your mission is to truly "fix this problem" (and polls show that few are willing to spend their own money to do so), tell me what the plan is to get China and India to stop putting up multiple coal-burning generating plants a week.
Otherwise, it's just spitting into a Category 2 hurricane (or even an F-1 tornado).
Scotland just ditched their "goals" as, basically, being totally stupid:
"Ms McAllan said: "In this challenging context of cuts and UK backtracking, we accept the CCCs recent re-articulation that this parliament's interim 2030 target is out of reach.
"We must now act to chart a course to 2045 at a pace and scale that is feasible, fair and just."
Yeah, wanna lay odds that 2045 is almost as stupid?
Thank you. I am trying but it is probably more accurate to say that I am stumbling, constantly having to regain my balance, toward a vision of a place and time where I might truly walk my talk. I preach from a place of immense privilege and as the beneficiary of much unearned good fortune for which I am deeply grateful but, despite the best intentions to share more widely those gifts, I am constantly tripped up on my journey by the same selfish and tribal drivers that afflict us all. Knowing what should be done and actually doing it are very different things. I will keep trying.
Mr. Alter, I greatly appreciate that you are putting the emphasis here on the demand side, which is where the actual transformation will take place. Short of a societal collapse, we are never going to stop fossil fuel supply. But what we can do is to shift demand for the energy services that fossils provide to non-emitting resources: renewables and nuclear power, EVs, heat pumps, etc.
As you rightly say, "we have to stop buying what they are selling." And the only way to do that is to build and deploy the non-emitting electricity sources, heat pumps, EVs and infrastructure to get around without a car (as well as scaling building practices to reduce energy demand in buildings, etc.)
This is something different than "who is to blame." There is plenty of blame to go around; but unlike many of your commenters I personally am not very interested in who is to blame. I am more interested in how we fix the problem - and you and I are on the same page there.
So how can we opt out of the big corporations that pipe gas and electricity into our homes - while I am happy to shop elsewhere how is this practical? How to create new alternative solutions ?
Many do. Remember, it's all about tradeoffs that should be Individually made. If you don't want the plastics, the, yes, grow it for yourself and accept all of the time, expense, and other philosophical conundrums that will appear over your horizon to do so (e.g., farming ain't easy).
Otherwise, you will need to continue to outsource that food supply to others and accept their processes.
You make a lot of sense. And you are right. Guess I should shut up with my rhetorical question about growing my own food, huh? The big guns will not do anything to improve the world as long as they are getting rich from destroying it a little at a time. Frogs in slowly boiling water and all that.
relevant here is the Oil Sustainability Programme by Saudi Aramco, a project to artificially increase fossil fuel demand in Africa in particular - oil producers worldwide are really doing everything they can to increase demand, and they should be fought every step of the way.
It does someone's feel like you're not really appreciating how much oil companies are doing to raise demand for their products.
The flip side of that argument is that the oil producers are trying to supply the energy to the poor in Africa so that they can have the same lifestyles the rest of us have in the First World.
I believe that fossil producers and consumers are locked into a kind of codependency. Thus unlike most people who either primarily blame the producers as Berman does or the consumers as you do I see the need to focus on both supply and demand.
We should demonize the fossil fuel producers and we can still recognize that ultimately as you point out it is the incredible all but miraculous energy density of fossil fuels that makes their use so addictive and irresistible.
That’s why the clean energy transition will inevitably take decades and during these decades the world will increasingly suffer or unimaginable climate extremes.
Humanity was truly both incredibly blessed and cursed when fossil fuels were first discovered.
"...will inevitably take decades"
Activists, if they thought hard, realized this truism decades ago. But they went along with the charade that they could force hundreds of millions, if not billions, into "their energy lifestyle" in a matter of a few short years (e.g., we're only 6 years away from the newest "deadline" - it ain't gonna happen).
I'm glad that you see that such a transition can't happen that quickly, be it 2030, 2035, 2050, or even by 2100. And that's just the time. Few are willing to admit the MASSIVE amount of money that is required to do it. Looking around at the national debts in the developed world, there's no way those required monies can be confiscated or conjured up out of thin air.
“Few are willing to admit the MASSIVE amount of money that is required to do it.”
What about the massive costs of not doing anything?
>> What about the massive costs of not doing anything?
I was expecting that platitude/talking point. It's nonsensical. Why?
If there isn't the money, then little (by definition and necessity) will be done within the artificially constrained timelines that activist Elites keep shoving down our throats. You can't spend 10s of trillions USD if there are no trillions available in the first place. Magical thinking isn't a strategy.
And no, you just can't Eat The Rich (as Lloyd keeps saying) and say that THEY will "give" it. You might be able to confiscate $2T but that's a one time deal as you'd completely wipe out that wealth source.
Then what are you going to do - where's the rest going to come from?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41888-1
https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-damage-economy-income-costly-3e21addee3fe328f38b771645e237ff9
Amusing - $38 Trillion a year is their stance.
And the world's total GDP was expected to be approximately $105 Trillion. So how do you think you're going to confiscate approximately 40% of everyone's income?
Only way I can figure is by an Authoritarian global governance system. Unless, of course, you have a better idea. If not, is that the kind of world you want your kids growing up in?
And do you REALLY think that China and India, or any other country for that matter, is going to relinquish their cede their Powers and allow that to happen?
Again, Magical thinking is not a strategy.
The $38 trillion isn’t an estimate for the costs of transitioning to a green economy. It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change.
In reviewing this again, I again see that Western activists refuse to acknowledge that China, India, and Russia are responsible for 40% of all emissions (Communist collectivist govts are like that - they don't care) making it a total waste of enforcing draconian strictures on the West.
Why did you not address that?
It's still an opportunity cost at best and the article stated that incomes will go down so that is an actual cost ("such as Germany and the U.S., with a projected median income REDUCTION of 11% each and France with 13%,” ").
And to be sure, part of that $38T will still, in part, be expended in buying energy sources that are non-dispatchable (or in the case of utility grade batteries systems, dispatchable only for hours). And, I bet that will also include the environmental costs of the materials for the battery and PV manufacturing (and then recovery) and the damage to the environment from the vast land areas used for PV farms.
Cost is cost.
And remember, I've been listening to all the Enviro-Doomsquealing since before the first Earth Day - and not ONE of them have come true.
“It is the cost of NOT making the transition due to the damage from climate change“
Bullshit. Weather can’t be predicted, especially decades in advance, so any weather-related incident that WILL happen would have to be 100% ascribed to 100% human-induced climate change, and that’s simply not just unrealistic but unscientific.
Even if we could snap our fingers and immediately return atmospheric CO2 levels to that of 1850, we’d *still* be dealing with just as extreme tropical cyclones, droughts, floods, heatwaves, and every other atmospheric phenomenon.
Did you even read the study?
Can you agree and disagree simultaneously? It seems that I do. These entities are to blame, and we are to blame. We buy what they are selling, and they are using propaganda to sell more. "We have met the enemy and 'he' is us". The us in this case is everyone that uses fossil fuels, which includes the companies extracting them. The fossil footprint of extraction is a component of the problem. So are the militaries in a variety of countries, especially the US, used to protect our "right" to extract fossil fuels from other countries. Subdividing the blame is silly. It is a system, and most of us are trapped in that system and very few are making a legitimate effort to change that system. Governments, corporations, and consumers are all too blame. My main complaint about your approach is that it does not admit clearly there are players in this system actively working to prevent any systemic change and most of these are corporate who are buying their politicians.
I have been repeating like a mantra to anyone who will listen that the real people driving the planet over a cliff can be found staring back at us from our mirrors. As far as I can tell it is not doing much good even within my own circle never mind on a planetary scale. We are all remarkably adept at coming up with excuses for why we need another SUV or why we can’t possibly get by using public transit, or why we need 3000 or 5000 sqft of heated and cooled living space for two people or another vacation in Mexico or tropical fruit in Northern Europe in January or to leave the lights on all night or to water our lawn or … We are also remarkably good at convincing ourselves that reducing or eliminating our tiny (on a global scale) contribution to the problem will not change anything so we shouldn’t have to absorb the brunt of the cost of changing until and unless everyone else does too.
I have been trying for sometime now to run my life in such a way as to leave the parts of the planet I touch directly or indirectly in at least as good shape as I found them when I got here. I am growing more and more of my own food in a sustainable way and share my surplus, I try to source what I need from as close to home as possible, I travel less, I plant native trees and other plants on my property, I ask myself before I grab my keys to go anywhere whether I really need to go and, if yes, if driving is the best option, I try to avoid buying disposable/single use/new items and I do host of other small things to try to make a difference but if I am honest with myself I have to acknowledge that the debt to the planet and its future inhabitants that I have already accumulated (and am still piling on despite my efforts) will be difficult to pay off before I die. The conflict between our current desires (desires that we are also great at convincing ourselves are really needs or things the world somehow owes us) and the true needs of the future of others yet to be born is a battle that the future is losing badly. I fight the idea every time it pops in my head but, sad as it is, it becomes harder with each passing day to deny that human societies tend to act as truly blind and ignorant beasts living only for the immediate moment and oblivious/wilfully blind to the damage they are doing to their own future until they face a scenario so horrid and so immediate that it causes a critical mass of their individual members to finally break free of their hypnotic cultish hold on our will and change course, at least for a time until complacency sets in and the cycle begins to repeat. As a group we seem to be driven to repeatedly squander the gift of reason that provides us the opportunity to peer into the future and should surely allow us to do better than we have so far.
My life goal has become to help break that pattern and to try to change the trajectory of the curve representing my individual contribution to the problem to such a degree that it ultimately slopes downward at a rate that allows it to cross the starting line where I began borrowing from the future at my birth. I will need to live a long life to make it happen and the jury is still out on whether I can possibly succeed but I vow to all the life on the planet to keep trying to my last breath (or at least my last lucid moment).
Thank you for your comment I will be quoting you on Monday!
And you are to be commended for "walking your talk".
Conclusion: It's proving that the emphasis has to be ON SOLUTIONS.
It dosn't help to blame anybody else.
It's the CO2 (the reaction product) released into the atmosphere.
Yes, we can: Reduce that. Significanytly. And we (almost all of us) can contribute - releasing less CO2, communicating real solutions, (BTW: insulating a home does improve the quality of life.)
Yes I didn't make that clear enough.
"(BTW: insulating a home does improve the quality of life"
Assuming that one has the financial wherewithal to do so I would agree. Not everyone can.
Fantastic much-needed focus on the demand side. Only by building momentum of the following messaging will we avoid overwhelming future global warming catastrophes. Year after year it's not happening - not even by many climate activists as is evidenced by the comments to.this thread. Climate activists leading the message, rather than denigrating and violating it, are essential to humankind promptly minimizing its greenhouse gas emissions. Join us in spreading the message and walking the talk.
"Consumers (individuals, organizations, businesses, governments) must promptly minimize their greenhouse gas emissions to bridge the gap while we work on long-term green technology and infrastructure. Less heating and less cooling (none between 13C-30C/55F-85F, https://greenbetween.home.blog). Less driving. Less flying. Less meat-eating. Less population growth (2 children max). Do it yourself. Tenaciously encourage others to do it."
Embrace the message and tenaciously introduce the message "business card" to all you encounter. (You can print the business card 12 per 8.5x11 using a file from the Promote page of the website.)
Be a climate superhero - take it to the next level. Promote the message at local events. Files for posters are available on the Promote page of the website.
The companies are being made a scapegoat by the press because the Guardian can't possibly blaming its online readers and print subscriber base for this, can't they?
Quite right. Who's worse, the pimp or the john?
I couldn't disagree with you more. I really feel like you're going backwards on this one. Backwards into victim blaming. Fossil fuel companies spend billions and billions of dollars every year lobbying governments, advertising their wares, and tilting all the tables in their direction. I've long been frustrated by the whole "If everyone did this" approach. You are never going to get a supermajority of people to get on board with anything so that is not the path to follow. The fight against the fossil fuel mega corporations needs to intensify. Please don't be part of the crew that is watering it down!
You are right, the fossil fuel companies do everything that you say. But we still have to work the demand side.
"But we still have to work the demand side."
And what is your strategy for that?
>>"And what is your strategy for that?"
Never going to get a solid answer, Grok. It's like the liberal calling card cry of "Make the rich pay their fair share!" without giving an actual percentage or number. And when you point out that the top 1% pay 40% of *ALL* income taxes, the liberal's eyes stare blankly at you, before saying that the rich ought to pay MORE.
How about if we begin with the government not trying to dictate every minutiae of our daily lives through endless regulation? And once that's done, perhaps they can do away with the fraud and waste, and we'll recognize that we can have plenty of money for social security, military readiness, and health programs—if not for the corruption plaguing every. single. layer. of government and corporate America.
"perhaps they can do away with the fraud and waste"
If Lloyd would permit it (after all, this is HIS house and we all are just visitors), a brief plug: "Neil Johnson (Lumberjack Logic Show) Exposing Corruption in New Hampshire".
https://granitegrok.com/groktv/2024/04/neil-johnson-lumberjack-logic-show-exposing-major-corruption-exposed-in-new-hampshire
Here is one of my writers going after her city for spending millions of dollars the wrong way and then trying to cover it up. Her doggedness is starting to have an effect but she has been slimed and dragged through the mud and gutter for standing up to a govt that won't live by the law and hates that it is getting exposed. The lesson learned is that we are ALL responsible for holding govt accountable to US in all matters.
And that's just one example. And one wonders why, like our Founders, I am a skeptic of govt; I find it, easily enough, all over the State.
if y'all do your part as well, there'd be a lot more money to get done what you are looking to do. Or better yet, let people keep their own money.
Lloyd, I agree that we have to work on the demand side but in my opinion, your post today is drawing a false equivalency. Fossil fuel companies have an exponentially higher level of blame here. I think it's critical to keep that at the forefront.
Every time I see something to the effect of "we have to work on the demand side..." I keep thinking of those famous words of Hillary Clinton (June 2004):
“We’re going to take things away from you”
And my evergreen question is "How and by What?"
Especially if you go review the chart at this link to see how small the choir is letting others take stuff away: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/environmental-protection-not-major-issue-majority
This, too:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/05/the-daily-chart-peak-climatism.php
>>"Fossil fuel companies have an exponentially higher level of blame here."
I think—no, check that—I KNOW you have it wrong. Would you blame the cocaine farmers in Colombia for the addict passed out in the street, or the user whose sole purpose in life is to get high?
Imagine a world where fossil fuels DIDN'T become developed. What would the world look like today? How much of NYC would be buried under literal tons of horse shit? Would we have the wonderful technological advances we enjoy today, from modern electronics to transportation to medical diagnostics and drugs to food shipped around the world and everything in between?
No, of course not. But keep your deluded optimism lying to you that we'd all be so much better off while billions live in squalor and abject poverty. That's SO much better than fossil fuels, right?
>>"Fossil fuel companies spend billions and billions of dollars every year lobbying governments, advertising their wares, and tilting all the tables in their direction."
Absolutely not true. They don't spend billions, and they don't even have to spend tens of millions, because the value in fossil fuel companies are in the dividends they yield on their stock price, not their growth.
The world runs on fossil fuels—after decades of falling prices for wind and solar, we *STILL* get 86% of our energy needs from fossil fuels—which means there's very little in the way those companies need to spend on advertising and lobbying of government, because the government KNOWS that without fossil fuels the global economy grinds to an absolute halt.
We saw this during the pandemic. It's not conjecture, nor theory, but factual history.
A simple question: when you flip that light switch, do you expect immediate results?
"...so that is not the path to follow". So what IS that path that you left unstated?
There's no reason why flipping the switch can't produce electricity generated by renewable sources. A society that uses less energy isn't necessarily a poorer society than a society that uses more. Driving a car that gets 40 mpg gets you where you're going just as quickly and comfortably as one getting 25 mpg. Heating with a heat pump doesn't mean you'll be colder than if you heat with a gas furnace. It's really a political problem more than a technical one. I agree with Lloyd that we need to work on the demand side, because energy suppliers will produce exactly as much as we demand.
And how much will a fully renewable energy DISPATCHABLE grid cost?
Winters where I am are often where heat pumps turn into electrical heaters. At 22cent/KW, it's too costly for me. And the emissions are just being outsourced to somewhere else - there's a reason why peaker generators are required in both winter and summer.
It still is a technical one (e.g., when the sun isn't shining and the wind ain't blowing). And you are correct - it IS a political problem, a big one, but not for the reason you think. Restudy your line of "because energy suppliers will produce exactly as much as we demand" as Govt is forcing generators to close down.
So what IS your solution in lowering demand - and no Magical or Wishful Thinking allowed. Just saying "lower demand" is back to spitting into a hurricane - useless and only puts the spittle on your own schnoz.
If climate change is bullshit, then there's no reason to spend money on renewable energy. But if climate change is the threat that most people who aren't stupid think it is, then whatever needs to be spent should be spent. And spending trillions on oil and gas is not nothing.
I have little hope that we'll really mitigate the impact of climate change. A carbon tax would help, but is politically unlikely. Curtailing subsides for oil and gas would help, but is also politically unlikely.
Maine has managed to install more than 100,000 heat pumps in just a few years. If we adopted and enforced the 2021 IECC, we'd reduce demand for energy, save money and reduce fossil fuel fuel use. (Maine has a pretty clean grid). But imposing a more energy efficient building code is, again, politically unlikely.
As for intermittency, let's worry about the last 10-20% of electricity production after we implement renewables for the rest. The intermittency problem can be solved with some combination of battery technology, a modernized grid that moves more electricity from place to place, continued improvement in efficiency generally, overbuilding of solar and wind such that excess can be used to produce green hydrogen which generates electricity when it's dark and calm, etc. Nothing magical needed.
>>”But if climate change is the threat that most people who aren't stupid think it is, then whatever needs to be spent should be spent.”. I’ve argued for YEARS that if—and that’s a BIG “if”—climate change is the existential threat that fear mongering climastrologists pretend it is, then there would be no reluctance or fear over the massive increase in nuclear power which would be necessary to transition away from carbon emissions as quickly as possible, because as Lloyd says, “every gram of carbon dioxide counts.” Either CO2 is the existential danger it is positioned as being, and we as a collective global society will spare no expense to fight it, or it’s not. There is no half-assed, halfhearted effort in between, period.
The financial community doesn't want to invest in nuclear power because it's too expensive and it takes too long. Would you invest in building something that will cost triple your budget and take three times as long to finish as you plan?
It's a Tragedy of the Commons problem that probably won't be solved. But that doesn't mean it isn't doesn't present an existential risk.
I've never said that climate change isn't real. It is and we can see from historical records, both human and geological, it varies over long periods of times.
"...then whatever needs to be spent should be spent". And that's the question I keep asking and it is a REASONABLE question and an obvious one - HOW MUCH? You can't spend "whatever" if you don't know (or not willing to say) what that amount is.
And people spending trillions on gas and oil DO get services and goods that they can easily tell what the expense actually is and they can control what they spend (may not like it, but some is within their control). What you are asking is for us to trust others in ruling us to get the result they want. Having been a political blogger for almost 20 years, I can tell you that most are not altruistic and have YOUR best interest in mind (there's a reason why many politicians in the US Congress come out wealthier than when they went in, as one short example).
I'm next door in NH - and I'll ask you where the money came for those 100K units came from and how's that playing with your grid costs (I know the answer to the first but not the second)?
"The intermittency problem" - no, you CAN'T forget "the last mile" in anything - that's absolving anyone from being responsible for both bad outcomes and costs therein. I'll agree with moving electrons a bit more easily (California is in deep, DEEP trouble if that doesn't happen soon).
Battery tech, while improving, is still very costly and most installations are rated at hours of provisioning, not days. You're here in New England part of the US so you know that NH got hit rather hard this last storm - even decentralized installs wouldn't have helped (though my neighborhood was alive with the sound of generators starting up).
Again, time and cost. I'm a retired engineer and not a denialist. However, I AM a skeptic concerning politicians and bureaucrats (I am a reformed politician) and of anyone that throws out talking points without realistic designs, effort and time frames, milestones, costing, and a refusal of politicians/bureaucrats non-changing of regulations that get in the way (see time frames and costing, earlier).
Over building is a huge cost. Green Hydrogen is barely past the "glint in someone's eye" stage (although it seems that a couple of catalyst breakthroughs have been announced).
UNTIL those are fixed and folks like you, Lloyd, and John start forking over those needed items (I'm also a former project manager - or was that mangler??), it's wishful thinking BECAUSE THOSE SOLUTIONS don't exist NOW. In the future, maybe (like fusion) but not immediate.
Until they are, it's still Wishful Thinking.
Grok,
If the argument is “whatever needs to be spent should be spent” why are buffoons like this guy so anti-nuclear?
>>”A society that uses less energy isn't necessarily a poorer society than a society that uses more.”
Show me a single instance of a society that uses less energy but is more wealthy than those that use more. Just one.
I guess it depends on how you define wealthy. But the countries of Western Europe use much less energy per capita than we do. France, for example, isn't poor. Nor are the Scandinavian countries. Nor Is Germany.
>>"I guess it depends on how you define wealthy."
Stop weaseling your way out of the hole you dug yourself. Let's use the basic metric when discussing wealth: money.
You say "France isn't poor" ... and that's true, but France also gets 65% of its electrical needs from nuclear and have done so since ~1970. Scandinavian countries are homogeneous entities in language, culture, ethnicity, and race—they also happen to be of very low population density relative to land area, and Norway gets its entire state pension guarantee subsidy comes from the sale of OIL—so no, the Scandinavian countries are not a reasonable alternative to look towards as an example more diverse Western nations can emulate. And Germany is the wealthiest nation in Europe, but also the biggest carbon emitter (in addition to being the most populous.)
So let's try this again ...
Show me a single instance of a society that uses LESS energy but is MORE wealthy than one that uses more. I double dog dare you!
Germany, Spain, UK, Italy, Chile, Brazil all have much lower CO2 emissions per capita than the US.
Source:EDGAR
Since I started my career in ESG and sustainability I have never read something so spot on, factual and elaborative. After the previous cop declarations were made I was like"did you say you're getting rid of fossils while in the middle east"
No wonder floods are teaching us a lesson
Floods aren't teaching us anything other than it rains heavy at times. To believe anything else is just pure lunacy.
Am I the first person to notice that Vindaloo Bugaboo and GraniteGrok consistently troll any climate-related content, don't contribute anything meaningful to the conversations that they are on, and mostly send likes to each other's comments?
Wondering if these guys are cranks, or agents of the Russian troll farms.
No, we view things from POVs other than what is presented here. I do so (and I don't speak a lick of Russian nor accept ANYONE's pay in what I write here or at GraniteGrok.com) here in ensuring that not everyone views the world through your Eco-spectacles.
Look, I have, for years, applauded Lloyd and a lot of the others back at TH for "walking their talks". Good on them, and for the record, my former home was an active solar one and my now 40 year residence is a passive solar one.
But it was LLOYD's individual choice, and those folks INDIVIDUAL choice, and my individual choice. It should be that for all. PERSUADE others to "be like you" - but not FORCE them.
My message, having watched Govt at all levels here in the US, is that too many activists burrow their way into the bureaucracy (unelected, unaccountable, and virtually unassailable for their actions) or elected office and then begin the task of RULING which is anathema to our Republic founding of being Representatives instead of Rulers.
Doubt me? Start researching how the US Supreme Court has been knocking down overreaching actions by a myriad of agencies like the EPA, BATF, NOAA, CFBP, Corp of Engineers.
And I and a lot of my writers do the same at the State and local levels against those that just can't seem to understand the idea of "Just leave me alone".
And I should have, even more importantly, stated "and stay within your lane" meaning "do what your authorizing legislation allows you to do and stop word-weaseling in attempts to grab more Powers for yourself".
Too many use the self-justifications of "it's for the common good", "common-sense", agency self-justification (e.g., "we've worked ourselves out of our assigned jobs - quick, find something new!") or just scratching that Power-grabbing itch because they can.
Doubt me? Look around your "government landscape" and see how often they disobey their own laws.
No, you’re not the first. You certainly aren’t original, either.
The reason why Grok and I are such vehement contrarians is because we want y’all to stop talking in an echo chamber of self gratification and lies and be honest about the few hard-hitting concepts that we repeatedly ask about but never have answered.
Your wonderful “solution” of sufficiency? Who has the authority to say what is and what isn’t sufficient? And how is it to be enforced? None of you—certainly not the likes of Geoff, Lloyd, or others who routinely comment here (or previously over on TreeHugger)—will ever, EVER answer that question honestly. And so, Grok and I continue our “trolling” because it is FUNDAMENTALLY important to these discussions.
Why?
Because what you people want to see happen in your quest to save the planet is diametrically opposed to freedom—freedom of choice, thought, movement, and happiness.
YOU are the embodiment of imposed slavery and communistic oppression, WE are the embodiment of individualism and personal liberty. It’s really as simple as that.
I'll take exception to the "trolling" (but understand you are using it in a backwards sarcastic way - heh!).
VB brings up the extraordinary (and at its inception) radical idea of our Founding Philosophy, albeit it in different wording:
"Because what you people want to see happen in your quest to save the planet is diametrically opposed to freedom—freedom of choice, thought, movement, and happiness."
In the US Declaration of Independence, it was made clear that We were to be a people who had a Government and not the other way around. Govt was instituted for one and only one main purpose: to protect Individual Rights. Not a new form of "the common good" Collectivism.
It is unfortunate that our Educational System here in the US sucks so bad that the above is known only by a few of us of the age when it was actually accomplishing what it should be doing - teaching facts instead of ideology/HOW you should think.
So I present the challenge - what is more important than Freedom? For if you have no Freedom (and I would include only having the illusion that you do), what are you?
There is almost a monomaniacal emphasis here that truly can be condensed to "Have Less, Do Less" (and the WEF happily propagandizes as "and you will be HAPPY that we have forced this upon you".
And the pushback against what most Greens both can't understand nor wish to acknowledge - the vast public is rejecting it and HARD.
Look at what degrowth / deindustrialization is doing to Germany and its people. With increasingly more and more expensive energy (thanks to the policies of the Greens who are still trying to sell "look at the energy nirvana we are giving to you") and increasingly scares.
The Transportation Minister has threatened to cancel all vehicle traffic during weekends in order to "achieve our emissions goals". Even as people are losing their livelihoods.
Look at the Netherlands where emissions goals have meant putting farmers out of business and mandatory sales to the Govt of their land - this, the country that on a per capita basis, is the leading exporter of food and feeding the world. The pushback is now such that the Farmers political party is now the second biggest - in 3 years!
THose are but just two small examples (do you know what happened in Sri Lanka, for a third??). Proving that monomaniacal emphasis is proving to be absolutely a wrong headed attempt at windmill-tilting.
People are MORE than about emissions and power - this movement continues to not recognize that people have vast and multi-dimensional interests and needs and refuse to be forced into viewing Life from the sufficiency/Eco-Socialism lens that is demanding to be everyone's first priority.
Or is it "Not recognize" but more aligned with "refuses to see and acknowledge"?
I won't speak for VB but I am certainly one that is trying to temper that outlook in trying to convince folks here that you MUST broaden out your energy jihad against not-like-minded people, you will fail.
Or end up with such authoritarian regimes to MAKE it happen in a one-size fits all, that while you may achieve your aims but end up asking yourselves "er, we're not liking the secondary, tertiary, and beyond aftereffects that we have brought upon everyone."
Have you bothered to wargame that out yet? You should, and ask yourselves some very hard questions about those What If situations.
Look, I am not against y'all here - I'm just trying to soften the outlook, timelines, Freedom, and costs of this all.
Or you may well end up with the Eco-Socialist version of the Dutch Tulip fiasco where everything was put into a single basket - and turned out to be horribly wrong. One should be learning from history...
C'mon. Have you decided to insult science? We live in a time of unpredictable weather patterns, and you think this is normal?
"Have you decided to insult science?"
That's highly amusing. I hold two STEM degrees - I made my 40 year career because of science. And because of that, many of my questions I pose here stem (pun intended) from that.
Which, as both VB and I observe, are refused answers here. You see, those questions are an off-shoot of the Socratic Method. Now do you see our "why"?
Since when have weather patterns EVER been reliably predictable? What knowledge do you even have of atmospheric science and fluid mechanics? Any?
Ah yes, ESG - the financial version of CRT.
Following your logic, Lloyd, it appears that we made a big mistake when we came down hard a few years ago on the tobaco companies. We should have gone after the smokers!
But we did with taxes and regulation and shaming. Smoking rates went down and the tobacco companies lost sales. We worked the demand side first.
However, Lloyd, after the first adjustments, their profit margins have remained steady.
The tobacco settlement agreement of 1998 forced the tabacco companies themselves to pay billions in compensation for health care cost that their products had caused. Here's the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
But you refuse to use the known statistics showing that smoker percentages have gone downward.
You also have skirted mentioning that while people are addicted to nicotine, Govt is addicted to the continuing revenue streams on the various levels of tobacco taxation. If Govt REALLY wanted to stop people smoking, they could make tobacco farming illegal. Ask yourself now: so why haven't they?
The other way to do it is from the opposite direction - don't subsidize smoking in healthcare. Change Govt policies such that monies raised by taxing others will not be used in providing healthcare services to those suffering from self-induced behaviors (smoking or chewing, et al).
I.E., let those that smoke bear the ENTIRE cost of their healthcare ills stemming from their smoking. After all, when you subsidize it, you get more of it.
Want less smoking, let those who smoke bear that cost with not a dime of Govt money involved.
I'm sorry, but when are adults going to take responsibility for themselves? Never?
You're over 18, you want to smoke, go for it. The government can draft your punk ass to go die in a foreign land fighting some war for yet another banal reason, but you can't have a drink or smoke a cigarette? How is that "adulting"? If you smoke, you pay for it in a shortened life with decreased quality. It's not for the government to insist that adults can't make that decision for themselves, especially when it involves a product that's been in use for over 10,000 years. Be an adult, and stop demanding Big Daddy Gubermint protect you from your own stupid decisions.
And having just written a comment about Freedom, let me add this:
"Freedom both DEMANDS and REQUIRES individual responsibility."
However, compared to even just a few short decades ago, with Collectivism rising, the requirement that adults be and act responsible is deprecated at an ever increasing rate.
Why?
When one is only seen as part of a Group (or a "community" to use an overabused word nowadays), there can be no individual responsibility. The current Left's support of an increasing sense of Victimhood also is erasing that former important human attribute.
Yep! And google/microsoft/apple/Facebook never spent a dime to figure out how to addict you to your phone!
"The transition is failing because of the incredible wealth generated by the burning of fossil fuels, not just for the producers but for everyone."
And you blame "we". Sorry Lloyd, but most people WANT modernity - I haven't heard of a "Great Hairshirt Society" made up of people who they themselves refuse a modern society (The Amish don't count for that as their reasons are religion-based). However, there is one made up of people who are constantly kvetching and using Government to force us all into Hairshirts. As you quoted "...have created a great deal of real affluence, raised the average quality of life for most of the world’s population."
What is that miniscule percentage of people that DESIRE to be poor and destitute compared to those that desire a better and more comfortable life for themselves and their families? And as you point out, and as VB has pointed out for years, only cheap energy (and I would add good govt that is responsive to citizens (as opposed to seeing itself in charge)) allows that to happen.
Look, everyone has a niche in life into which they have been thrust or have taken on - this is yours. But that chart ALSO showed a philosophical / rational "hole" that you've been avoiding for all these years while you've railed against the little things but avoided the BIG problems.
I AM glad that you published that chart showing "the emitters". Two of them - positions 1 & 4 - swamp all others with Russian entities adding to it for a total of 40% of the total. Not one Western nation is in that list. Western based companies were only 3.8%
So no matter how much the Developed (Western) World flagellates itself for it perceived "sins", it doesn't matter. And after years of pursuing such goals, all it is doing is showing that the your curves showing Energy=Wealth=Comfortable Lifestyles, the inverse is also true: Less Energy=Less Wealth=Poorer Citizens.
Germany, after trillions of Euros spent, has gone from Powerhouse to the Poor House. Other countries are now announcing that they are putting their transitions on hold as THEY AREN'T WORKING. Look at just the auto biz - all the majors, after meeting the Early Adopters and Initials demand, are cutting back EV production and headcounts (e.g. Ford and Tesla being two most noticeable). All of this because too many individuals, NGOs, people seeing "opportunity" to make chaos, and those in Govt desiring Control, didn't realize that FORCING something too quickly and too expensively to show their "virtue" in using other peoples' money and lives, DOESN'T WORK.
Back to China, India, and Russia - THE main problems in this. If your mission is to truly "fix this problem" (and polls show that few are willing to spend their own money to do so), tell me what the plan is to get China and India to stop putting up multiple coal-burning generating plants a week.
Otherwise, it's just spitting into a Category 2 hurricane (or even an F-1 tornado).
Scotland just ditched their "goals" as, basically, being totally stupid:
"Ms McAllan said: "In this challenging context of cuts and UK backtracking, we accept the CCCs recent re-articulation that this parliament's interim 2030 target is out of reach.
"We must now act to chart a course to 2045 at a pace and scale that is feasible, fair and just."
Yeah, wanna lay odds that 2045 is almost as stupid?
They have realized that their Citizenry/Voters are starting to reject:
"Have Less, Do Less, Be Less" (H/T Steve Mac Donald)
on a philosophical and standard of living basis.
And since I last wrote that reply, Sweden has just ditched their "renewables" philosophy and are going full in for nukes.
Thank you. I am trying but it is probably more accurate to say that I am stumbling, constantly having to regain my balance, toward a vision of a place and time where I might truly walk my talk. I preach from a place of immense privilege and as the beneficiary of much unearned good fortune for which I am deeply grateful but, despite the best intentions to share more widely those gifts, I am constantly tripped up on my journey by the same selfish and tribal drivers that afflict us all. Knowing what should be done and actually doing it are very different things. I will keep trying.
Mr. Alter, I greatly appreciate that you are putting the emphasis here on the demand side, which is where the actual transformation will take place. Short of a societal collapse, we are never going to stop fossil fuel supply. But what we can do is to shift demand for the energy services that fossils provide to non-emitting resources: renewables and nuclear power, EVs, heat pumps, etc.
As you rightly say, "we have to stop buying what they are selling." And the only way to do that is to build and deploy the non-emitting electricity sources, heat pumps, EVs and infrastructure to get around without a car (as well as scaling building practices to reduce energy demand in buildings, etc.)
This is something different than "who is to blame." There is plenty of blame to go around; but unlike many of your commenters I personally am not very interested in who is to blame. I am more interested in how we fix the problem - and you and I are on the same page there.
So how can we opt out of the big corporations that pipe gas and electricity into our homes - while I am happy to shop elsewhere how is this practical? How to create new alternative solutions ?
You want to opt out of the corporations that pipe gas and electricity to your home, contact your local utilities and have them disconnect service.
It's literally that simple.
You can opt out anytime you want. Have you done so? Have you spent your own money to retro your home to do that? If so, how much did it cost?
It is impossible to even do a simple thing like buying food in America without coming home with plastics.
So, what are we peons on the demand side supposed to do? Grow all of our own food?
"Grow all of our own food?"
Many do. Remember, it's all about tradeoffs that should be Individually made. If you don't want the plastics, the, yes, grow it for yourself and accept all of the time, expense, and other philosophical conundrums that will appear over your horizon to do so (e.g., farming ain't easy).
Otherwise, you will need to continue to outsource that food supply to others and accept their processes.
You make a lot of sense. And you are right. Guess I should shut up with my rhetorical question about growing my own food, huh? The big guns will not do anything to improve the world as long as they are getting rich from destroying it a little at a time. Frogs in slowly boiling water and all that.
Now you're sounding despondent/helpless by allowing others to control your outlook.
Make your own outlook, the good with the bad, and then proceed with your decisions.
What does grocery store plastic have to do with radically reducing our carbon emissions?
relevant here is the Oil Sustainability Programme by Saudi Aramco, a project to artificially increase fossil fuel demand in Africa in particular - oil producers worldwide are really doing everything they can to increase demand, and they should be fought every step of the way.
It does someone's feel like you're not really appreciating how much oil companies are doing to raise demand for their products.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/27/revealed-saudi-arabia-plan-poor-countries-oil
The flip side of that argument is that the oil producers are trying to supply the energy to the poor in Africa so that they can have the same lifestyles the rest of us have in the First World.
Or are you against that?