Net zero simply won’t be possible if the world continues to waste most of its energy, food and water. Although the focus is most often on building new renewable energy generation capacity as a solution, on it’s own this will be too little too late. It’s just as important to improve energy efficiency and productivity, through decentralisation and reducing demand/waste at the point of use. Energy efficiency is the largest, fastest, cheapest and cleanest source of greenhouse gas emission reductions, economic competitiveness and energy security. It is the crucial companion for any new additions to the energy system from a decarbonisation perspective. And it is profitable - my firm has over $2 billion in commercially sustainable projects and portfolio companies. For this side of the story - how competition for coveted resources creates both climate change and conflict, and what we can do about it - please see www.the-edge-book.com.
Hi Roger... very much appreciate your work and your efforts here at THB. What is the best resource you can recommend for communicating how C02 impacts atmospheric temperature despite its extremely low concentrations. Unless my math is wrong, 500ppm equates to 1/2000 of the atmosphere. How is it that this life-sustaining gas becomes a hazard at such minimal levels. Thanks! Matt
I read The Climate Fix - do you have recommendations on other balanced books on Climate Change for someone like me who's interested in energy and climate science but is not an expert on either, especially on the latter? thanks
Stopping in one more time before the end of the weekend to get one last opinion from you.
I've been conflicted by the prospects and risks of geoengineering, specifically stratospheric aerosol injection. Part of me, while understanding that we are on a much better track for warming than we were just a few years ago, still can't shake the idea that there could possibly be some unforseen or underexplored risks associated with climate change on society where geoengineering may be more beneficial than allowing warming to continue being so high.
If we ended up on a higher tail end of plausible scenarios, like around RCP4.5, but there was much worse effects than expected, would that be an acceptable time to do it? If not then, would there be any other scenarios where geoengineering could be relied upon (if proven safe) in say like, an RCP8.5 scenario, or are you fully against it no matter how hot it gets?
1. why so much activity recently given that this was announced in 2021
Physics related
2. Ordinary white paint, with light reflected values between 80 and 90, gets warm in the presence of sunlight. Less so than darker shades but they still get warmer than ambient air. This paint gets cooler than ambient air. What is the physics involved such that it is cooler than ambient air?
3. I believe I read that the cooling occurs even when it’s cold outside and you need to heat the building (not relevant if on a panel in the open.) Is this true? Is it a problem?
Economics
4. What is the cost of this paint compared to more ordinary white paint?
5. What are the expected savings relative to the additional costs?
Environmental
6. Early formulations use barium sulfate, subsequent formulations use boron nitride. How safe are these chemicals?
The idea that climate reacts to increasing CO2 logarithmically rather than linearly stems from a simplistic notion that since there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to "saturate" the main IR absorption bands, adding more CO2 only increases IR absorption at the edges of the bands ("the wings of the bands") where the absorptivity falls off logarithmically. But the effect of increased CO2 can't be interpreted so simply. One way of looking at it is that increased CO2 pushes the atmosphere upward and the median altitude at which the earth radiates to space is higher, where it is colder, so the earth is less effective at radiating energy away.
Hi Dr.Pielke Jr. Thanks for your work. I suspect that I might be one of the more “alarmed” posters here. I was made aware of your work via associations with the Breakthrough Institute and find the hostility you receive from climate researchers kind of bizarre.
Anyway, as someone who does believe we are courting catastrophe (especially after 2100, when ice sheets may start shedding mass at a rate that could imperil the world’s coastal cities without allowing for sufficient time to move inland), I was heartened to read your paper, “Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100.”
In the paper, you find that, “in the scenarios our analysis identifies as most consistent with global energy system developments toward mid-century, large-scale carbon removal is necessary for achieving net-zero emissions this century.” If CDR does not pan out, would the unavailability of carbon removal mean that we should assume that “plausible” scenarios actually will result in higher emissions/temperatures? How radically would this failure change your result?
Thanks much. In Our paper we also look at scenarios with no CDR. See our figure S2. Very similar results there as well. I think that CDR is possible, but need to see it in action first, at scale. I discuss this in depth in Ch.5 of The Climate Fix.
Hey Dr. Pielke, I saw last week you shared a project from University of Exeter actuaries on climate losses, and their prediction of a 50% GDP destruction between 2070 and 2090 seems outlandish. In imagining possible futures, it seems to me that unless we encounter some unknown unknown, the idea that we’re going to just see massive levels of destruction and death leading to collapse seems almost impossibly unlikely. Are there any studies or resources that try to examine civilized life at different levels of warming?
There are a lot of studies, but many are hampered by not considering adaptation and emphasizing implausibly extreme scenarios. I am unaware of any study that looks at, say, a 3.4 W/m^2 scenario and a 4.5 as a high end.
That's all nonsense, we could make an advanced self-supporting civilizations on the Moon or Mars, as long as you have energy. Those two places make any climate change on Earth pale to insignificance. Greenies are technologically illiterate. It's amazing that anyone would listen to their pronouncements on technology or science when they can't even do basic math.
Briefly, it lays out that short term plumes of CO2 tied to land stewardship get silenced by the long term models uaed in carbon stock computations, despite being much larger than industrial emissions.
It follows that the CO2 is soil, not fossil fuels, and easy to curb and soak up by using polycropping to prevent the short term CO2 plumes tied to tillage.
With the data that is coming out of countries required to report it by law, I would anticipate there would be more discussion on the increases in excess mortality in the post covid world.
I neglected to include related excess mortality supplements referenced in my initial post.
Rather than submit to you all to links to data that would never be looked at, I am providing a video (with verifiable data citations) that does a much better job/presentation than I could on said subject.
Net Zero is just another carbon trading scam designed to steal vast wealth from the middle class in the Western world and transfer it to $billionaire parasites and Developing Nations. Al Gore got rich on carbon trading. If they really cared about climate change (they don't) they would institute the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend and remove all preferential subsidies, mandates and exemptions given to the welfare cows, wind & solar.
Regardless of how one perceives or defines "Net Zero", my point is to bring some logic and reality into the equation and discussion.
This IEA graph from my link above, updated 08-2021, brings quite a bit of clarity on how effective several decades and the trillions of dollars expended on alternate energy sources has been on the World Total Energy Supply.
Yes, I like that chart, 90% combustion fuels. Wind & solar haven't even been able to cover the increase in fossil fuel growth never mind replace any fossil, after $5T spent, not incl all the necessary added grid infrastructure, long distance transmission & storage.
Notwithstanding all the arguments in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it seems to me that climate policies - and just about all environmental policies (concerning biodiversity, air pollution, pesticides, etc.) - absurdly set unattainable goals that would mobilize resources we don't have [yet or ever].
So my question is manifold:
- why this deliberate misconception,
- why is it spreading uncontrollably like a virus throughout the world,
- by what wanton forces,
- in the name of what illusion of the greater good?
Following the money is usually a good idea. Maybe ESG and WEF contribute to it. The wasteful Kendi/DeAngelo corporate DEI fad has been accelerating along with the climate panic, which also is accelerated by ESG investment rule-makers.
Also, for a laugh, look at this WEF post about (seriously) generating power from subway station gate turnstiles:
I agree that the passionate energy of global climate change alarmism is a phenomenon not fully explained by the underlying state of the science. I speculate that it is a secular version of apocalypse psychology. All of the major religious traditions--- Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, Hinduism--- have versions of apocalypse eschatology, where the masses perish while the chosen are saved in the end.
Malthus’ idea that humans will inevitably outgrow their sustainable natural environment was immediately embraced by the environmentalist movement as impending apocalypse, now supercharged by climate change. The practical importance of this is to realize that there has always been a misanthropic element in this narrative, many may perish. This explains the unrealistic, unrelenting focus on stopping CO2 immediately, at the expense of climate resilience through energy security for the world’s poor.
I'll bite. For debate and discussion. A step outside the paradigm we've all been in.
An interesting story from CNN that came out in November, 2019, an important time frame in the evolution of the CV story. Note the discussion about the need to develop a new type of all-purpose vaccine, a desire to test it widely, one that focused on a protein they link to a particular virus...like, say, a spike protein. Fauci is frequently quoted in it:
"But a universal flu shot would theoretically cover every strain of the flu using what’s known as an ice cream cone approach."
"Last spring, doctors at the NIH started testing universal flu shots on Sonn and other study participants to see how their bodies respond.
“I have a personal connection to the flu,” Sonn explained. “My grandfather was orphaned due to the flu epidemic in April 1919.”
The 1918-1919 Spanish flu pandemic infected a third of the world’s population and killed 50 million people.
Losing his parents at 6 years old left a mark on Sonn’s grandfather, and subsequently on Sonn himself.
“He really had great trust in science and medical research, so I know he would be proud I’m taking part in this,” Sonn said.
One of the most useful things about the universal flu shot is that if it works out as hoped, it will also protect against flu pandemics like the one that killed Sonn’s great-grandparents.
In a flu pandemic, a new strain of flu virus emerges. Since very few people have immunity to it, it can spread quickly and easily.
There have been four flu pandemics in the past century: in 1918-1919; in 1957-1958; in 1968; and in 2009.
The research got an extra push in September when President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at developing a better flu vaccine.
Fauci said it could take less time – but still many years – to develop a semi-universal flu shot, which would protect against not all flu viruses, but rather a group of flu viruses."
"The faster and more precise method is not to grow the virus at all and instead just create the virus’ protein, he said.
“We clone the gene that codes for the specific protein we want,” Fauci said. “I don’t even want to see the virus. I just need the sequence of that virus, the genetic map of that virus. And you could send that to me by email.”
That’s the technology that’s being used to create the vaccines being trialed on participants like Sonn right now.
“We feel like we’re pioneers, and our volunteers are pioneers,” Ledgerwood said."
How does that CNN piece from November, 2019 read in hindsight now? Experimental technology they were trying out in the summer of 2019. Was everyone who took the 2019 flu vax made unwitting "pioneers?" Could that have been the source of a more severe than usual flu season that was already being experienced in the US before authorities declared a novel virus escaped from a lab or came from a wet market? Before you answer that, follow me in the comment below that details more about what was in the actual 2019 flu vax, and why it was capable of shedding and spreading.
What if Wuhan, USAID, bioweapon GOF/DURC research studies funded by the US is true...but...not the source of a "lab leak" pandemic? What if that story itself is a distraction and diversion from another story of the pandemic: was it manufactured by means of the deployment of a brand new flu vaccine for the 2019 flu season? And that vaccine, using LAIV, known to shed and spread, with a more virulent strain than normal, provided a convenient predicate for Fauci to develop his "ice cream cone" approach, with those proteins (spike) he was describing in a new technology (mRNA) that his research was working on?
I offer up this as evidence for consideration:
- This publication describes a brand-new style of flu vaccine that came online for the 2019-2020 flu season. Mammalian cell-based instead of egg-based. Claims that it was studied for efficacy...but no mention of safety trials:
"A new cell-based seasonal influenza vaccine has been issued marketing approval by the European Commission and will be available for the 2019/2020 flu season.
Flucelvax® Tetra (Seqirus) is the first cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) to be made available in Europe and is licensed for use in individuals aged nine years and older.
To date, there have been no randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of QIVc and standard egg-based quadrivalent vaccines (QIVe)"
“This real-world study, along with other emerging evidence, indicates that cell-based influenza vaccines may result in better influenza-related outcomes compared to standard egg-based vaccine options in some seasons"
"In the UK, the potential advantages of QIVc, which is cultured in mammalian cells rather than eggs"
“We are pleased to be bringing Flucelvax Tetra to the UK next season and have sufficient capacity at our cell-based manufacturing facility in the US to also ensure supply in September 2019"
- This article is interesting. It says that they added live-attenuated influenza vaccines to the schedule. It goes on to say that flu vaccines most definitely, positively, absolutely don't cause the flu, and by that definition won't shed...even after all of the science on vaccines admit that live-attenuated vaccines do shed. Curious:
"The 2019–2020 influenza vaccine recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have remained mostly the same, with the exception of adding the LAIV to the immunization schedule."
- These articles tell us about the WHO's process is and what they decided the 2019-2020 vaccine recommendations would be. I'll note that the first link speaks to concerns with preparing for H3N2 from the prior year, while the second link says they ended up not developing that specific strain of vaccines, after all, and the third link says they went ahead and included the H3N2 variant, after all:
For debate and discussion. We can accept only one paradigm, the one we've all been talking about for the past three years. Or we can look at other paradigms that immediately preceded the story of the pandemic for new ways of understanding. Science. Questioning everything. Descartian.
I am curious about your reaction to the report just published by the Rocky Mountain Institute. The core conclusion is, "This exponential growth [of renewables] has put the electricity system at a global tipping point — where the transition away from fossil fuels has become hard to reverse, suggesting fossil fuel demand has peaked in the electricity sector and will be in freefall by the end of the decade."
This conclusion contrasts with some of what you have argued vis-a-vis achieving net zero by 2050. I recognize the report in question is focused principally on power, rather than energy supply broadly.
That's Amory Lovins operation. He was a college dropout with no expertise in anything until the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations, another Bankster Cut-out organization) promoted him as an "energy genius" and got him a MacArthur Genius Award of $650k.
Amory Lovins is Still Wrong and Spreading Distortions:
The one subject RMI doesn't want to talk about is who is paying their ~$100M/yr funding. Who is giving them multiple >$1M donations?
To see what REAL WORLD wind & solar costs, look at:
There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources
You realize that all solar and wind can do is replace at bit of fuel worth 1/2-2 cents/kwh? It doesn't replace infrastructure which is worth far more than fuel cost. In fact it adds massive infrastructure costs.
So biggest wind/solar countries in Europe have the highest electricity prices and still have amongst the highest emissions. Denmark/Germany double the price of France.
Shellenberger: "....We've been in a huge renewables experiment around the world, particularly here in California, but also in places like Germany, and it's now clear that they just can't power our high-energy civilization. You can see that California cities have the most expensive electricity in the country outside of Hawaii, which has to ship fuel to burn in its power plants. We have the most expensive electricity, and that's because of the heavy use of solar panels and winter turbines. We saw our electricity prices rise seven times more in California than in the rest of the United States over the last decade...."
"...In 2016, Germany generated 545 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity at an average rate of approximately 560 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh. By contrast, France generated 530 TWh of electricity at an average rate of approximately 58 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh. In terms of carbon emissions from electricity, this means that Germany emitted almost exactly ten times as much as France -- over 300 million metric tonnes...."
I certainly agree that any "net zero" fantasy without nuclear is just that - fantasy, and that the benefits of nuclear are being studiously ignored. Woe be to any true believer who utters the fatal phrase "what about nuclear?
BUT, all this still carries the assumption that "net zero" or anything like it is a GOOD thing, and I have YET, despite Roger's protestations, to hear a single concrete argument that the presumed benefits (and they are ALL presumed - lacking any sort of falsifiable experiments or solid data) outweigh the KNOWN benefits of moderately (or even significantly) higher C02 concentrations.
Actually, I think anyone who isn't already wedded to the "C02 is BAD" religion might well come to the conclusion that a higher C02 concentration might well be limited by the increased biomass generated by commensurately greater plant growth. Imagine a world where the world's great deserts disappear underneath a green carpet, capable of productive agriculture. There are innumerable archeological records that show that many places that are desert today were thriving civilizations in the very recent (in geological terms) past. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the 'desertification' process closely correlates to the recent (again in geological terms) DECREASE in global C02 levels.
So, we have the following 'facts'
- Current global C02 levels are near the minimum required for plant survival; if C02 levels decrease significantly from here, most plant life on earth will go extinct. Now THAT would be a catastrophe!
- global C02 levels have been MUCH higher in the geological past, and the earth didn't shrivel up and die - in contrast, the high C02 periods were marked by rapid biological development. You might say that Mother Nature has already performed the "high greenhouse gas" experiment, and rather than "an existential disaster", it was quite the opposite.
- there has been significant 'greening' of previously arid lands due to the slight C02 concentration rise that has the global elite up in arms. This 'greening' is a very well understood consequence of plant biology - more C02 means plants lose less water while acquiring sufficient C02 to continue growth; a 10% higher C02 concentration means 10% less water loss, or conversely, plants can thrive in areas where they couldn't before.
So, why all the bluster about 'decarbonization'? (looking at you Roger). I personally think it is because a)C02 is a invisible gas b)Is difficult or impossible to measure except by "experts", and c) can be used to frighten citizens into "taking action" at huge cost to themselves and the planet, just so the elites can jet around the world.
I’m in substantial agreement with your observations but I do see it a little differently.
Dr. Judith Curry has characterized climate change as a “wicked problem” (not original with her but leaning on Prins and Rayner). I don’t want to oversimplify but this arises because of the existence of “feedbacks and circularity” issues, coupled with many variables that must be considered.
An additional complication which deserves more discussion is that the legitimate concerns of climate scientists are about outcomes which may or may not take place many years in the future – in some cases decades or longer.
It is very hard to get the populace willing to take current actions to forestall future problems, especially if those actions entail significant current sacrifice. Activists respond in two different ways. One, the future impacts are exaggerated (RCP 8 .5 anyone?) while downplaying future benefits, and two, current events which are undeniably negative are attributed to climate change inappropriately, along with ignoring or downplaying current positive events.
A good argument can be made that the net impact of positives and negatives to date is a net positive, but even if that’s true it’s not a sufficient response. If my crops are growing better but the cost is an extreme weather event in some other location, that might net out to be a positive, but it doesn’t mean the negative doesn’t exist. (I know, I know there are legitimate questions about whether extreme weather events anywhere can be attributed to climate change, but stick with me for a minute to work through the argument.) If an honest assessment of the current impacts identifies some positive benefits and some negative costs, it is legitimate to discuss how to address the cost problem.
That’s separate from the projection of future benefits and costs, both of which are extremely hard to measure.
I agree that trying to predict future costs and benefits is a fools game. The scare mongers use models that have been tweaked to provide the answers they want, but the models can't even predict the past, much less the future. On the other side of the coin, we have LOTS of data about the past that make a mockery of the climate modelers, but that doesn't sell ads, and that doesn't allow politicians to wrap themselves in 'green' banners to accumulate personal wealth and power. I am reminded of the adage about how to do a better job of predicting local weather than a professional meteorologist - just predict that tomorrow will be just like today.
As Roger and others have been pointing out for some time, this whole 'Climate Emergency' thing is more akin to a travelling salesman from the 1800's selling snake oil as a cure-all than it is to anything else. Does anyone remember that in the 1970's the 'Climate Emergency' was the looming ice age (there was even a documentary to that effect starring Leonard Nimoy (Dr. Spock). So here we are now, 50 years later, and now the 'Climate Emergency' is the other direction entirely. So which did the climate activists get totally wrong - the ice age 'emergency' or the 'global warming' emergency? Or more likely, was it both?
I am very familiar with the 1970s cooling scare. I did have a discussion with a bona fide climate scientist a few years ago. He was dismissive but not completely persuasive.
My summary — a small number of climate scientists in the 70s did some work that led them to the possible conclusion of an upcoming cooling phase. This they shared with the media, some of whom reacted the way the media usually does, turning a possibility of a cooling phase into a likely, possibly catastrophic Ice Age, with a lot of softness about time frames. I don't know to what extent the bulk of the climate scientists pushed back against the media mantra, which got repeated without independent investigation, but when scientists observed that concerns about catastrophe turned into making it easier to get grants to study climate science, I won't be surprised if they were not overly vocal about dismissing this extreme prediction.
I have no problem with skeptics raising this issue as a cautionary tale about putting too much faith in climate emergency pronouncements, but I think it's a mistake to use this as the main tool in the toolkit. In the same way I don't dismiss modern psychiatry because they engaged in lobotomies a few decades ago. They were trying to do the best they could and they got it wrong. They learned. While they still don't have all the answers they are in better shape today. Climate science, to the extent they were projecting catastrophe due to cooling in the 70s got it wrong. The pendulum has swung, and now they're getting it wrong in the other direction, this doesn't give me reason to dismiss all of climate science. They are working on one of the most complicated problems in mankind's history, and it's gonna take some time to get it right.
In the short term, let's not overreact as many of the activists insist.
I would agree with you about "not throwing the baby out with the bath water" EXCEPT when there is no 'baby' to start with! With very few exceptions, modern 'climate science' is mostly a scare tactic to get more money and power; more money for the climate scientists, more power for the politicians who inflict this BS on the rest of us. Real climate scientists like Roger have been effectively pushed out of the mainstream and silenced for daring to question 'the narrative'.
Well, the global economy has been decarbonizing for a century, again where decarbonization is defined quantitatively as a reduction in CO2/GDP. Was that a bad thing?
When defined that way, probably not, but that STILL doesn't address the C02<-->plant health connection. Any benefits due to a reduction in C02/GDP are probably more related to a commensurate reduction in air pollution than anything having to do with C02 concentration.
Again, we need to increase energy production by 5X to supply a Western standard of living to Developing Nations. There isn't nearly enough economical fossil resources to achieve that. Only Nuclear energy is capable of supplying that level of energy. And it can do it essentially forever. Happy coincidence Nuclear energy is emissions free.
I agree that reducing the carbon footprint is easier said than done.
What I have learned is that a person’s perspective is often different depending on where they live. If you are living near the northern hemisphere Pacific coast, like I am right now, then the differences in temperature that we are experiencing are moderated by the ocean. However, inland where I just moved from the air temperature ranges from the 80’s to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in spring, summer and fall, and the inland air temperatures appear to be getting warmer sooner in the spring and lasting longer in the fall.
Your observations are valid for the coast, but we all live in a bubble in different locations on earth. So, while you and I may not be observing much of a temperature difference along the coast, the people living inland and along the gulf coast are breaking high temperature records right now.
The visual images that I have provided give us something to look at together, rather than relying on words and data that can cause confusion and distrust.
I live in Arizona and we are breaking extreme heat streak records daily, but this is mostly weather and El Niño effects although I expect them to continue until the next La Niña. Even so, a few more days of extreme heat are not worth spending large percentages of GDP on achieving carbon neutrality which won’t do much anyway (Africa and Asia need and are entitled to as much useful energy as the rest of the world has been using, and as we go down they will go up using the petroleum we don’t which will go down in price). There was a recent article in the Atlantic saying that this heat will make Arizona unlivable soon, as if the writer had never heard of air conditioning, the Palo Verde nuclear plant (biggest in USA) or solar energy. The only people dying from heat here that I hear of regularly are the tourists from Europe who go out on late morning hikes on our beautiful desert mountain trails with only a liter of water. Also, many more people worldwide die from extreme cold than extreme heat, but climate worriers don’t talk about that much.
Although it may seem like, “The only people dying from heat here that I hear of regularly are the tourists from Europe who go out on late morning hikes on our beautiful desert mountain trails with only a liter of water.” There were 21 Phoenix heat related deaths in 2001, that has gradually increased to 338 in 2021 over the 20-year period. In addition, there were 425 confirmed heat-associated deaths in Maricopa County last year, with more than half of them occurring in July (FOX News, July 13, 2023).” A heat wave has baked Phoenix for weeks. Forecasters warn it's not cooling soon (fox10phoenix.com)
Most of the people dying are homeless, which demonstrates that Phoenix is already unlivable during heat waves without air conditioning. Even though the likelihood of power outages are low in your area, it has been recognized that heat related deaths for those people relying on air conditioners would be in the thousands if the power grid went out during a heat wave for extended periods.
Well, for me at the age of 74, air temperatures greater than 94 degrees Fahrenheit are too high for me. In the remote place that I was living, the power grid would go out quite often without notice. So, I moved to the coast to avoid the temperature extremes that were already getting to be too much for me to handle.
So, if you are relying on the power grid and a swimming pool to survive the heat right now then the Southwest is already becoming unlivable. Given your location, and proximity to the Equator (which is the closest place on earth to the sun at all times) the CO2 and heat extremes are radiating north toward you. I know that this is probably not the message you wanted to hear, but you asked so I am just being straight with you.
I'd say that you need a backup plan, so that if the power grid or water supply becomes less reliable then you will be better prepared for the unexpected and still enjoy your location.
Net zero simply won’t be possible if the world continues to waste most of its energy, food and water. Although the focus is most often on building new renewable energy generation capacity as a solution, on it’s own this will be too little too late. It’s just as important to improve energy efficiency and productivity, through decentralisation and reducing demand/waste at the point of use. Energy efficiency is the largest, fastest, cheapest and cleanest source of greenhouse gas emission reductions, economic competitiveness and energy security. It is the crucial companion for any new additions to the energy system from a decarbonisation perspective. And it is profitable - my firm has over $2 billion in commercially sustainable projects and portfolio companies. For this side of the story - how competition for coveted resources creates both climate change and conflict, and what we can do about it - please see www.the-edge-book.com.
Hi Roger... very much appreciate your work and your efforts here at THB. What is the best resource you can recommend for communicating how C02 impacts atmospheric temperature despite its extremely low concentrations. Unless my math is wrong, 500ppm equates to 1/2000 of the atmosphere. How is it that this life-sustaining gas becomes a hazard at such minimal levels. Thanks! Matt
Thanks
My dad wrote this to try to answer this exact question
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-carbon-dioxide-emissions-change
Please feel free to ask him any questions on that thread and I'll make sure that he sees it!
I read The Climate Fix - do you have recommendations on other balanced books on Climate Change for someone like me who's interested in energy and climate science but is not an expert on either, especially on the latter? thanks
James Lindsay does a great run down of the executive summary of what Net Zero really means - the end of the world as you know it.
https://youtu.be/uF9LcEGk4aw
Stopping in one more time before the end of the weekend to get one last opinion from you.
I've been conflicted by the prospects and risks of geoengineering, specifically stratospheric aerosol injection. Part of me, while understanding that we are on a much better track for warming than we were just a few years ago, still can't shake the idea that there could possibly be some unforseen or underexplored risks associated with climate change on society where geoengineering may be more beneficial than allowing warming to continue being so high.
If we ended up on a higher tail end of plausible scenarios, like around RCP4.5, but there was much worse effects than expected, would that be an acceptable time to do it? If not then, would there be any other scenarios where geoengineering could be relied upon (if proven safe) in say like, an RCP8.5 scenario, or are you fully against it no matter how hot it gets?
You may have seen this
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/why-i-support-a-non-use-agreement
And I go into more depth in Ch.5 of TCF
I’m not a fan of geoengineering
Maybe for Mars :-)
I’m intrigued by a recent flurry of articles about a new paint developed at Purdue.
Examples:
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/purdue-whitest-paint-planet-cool-b2374605.html
https://gizmodo.com/whitest-reflective-paint-nanotechnology-purdue-cooling-1850168584
https://www.businessinsider.com/global-warming-purdue-white-paint-climate-change-2023-7
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/12/climate/white-paint-climate-cooling.html
Questions:
Media related
1. why so much activity recently given that this was announced in 2021
Physics related
2. Ordinary white paint, with light reflected values between 80 and 90, gets warm in the presence of sunlight. Less so than darker shades but they still get warmer than ambient air. This paint gets cooler than ambient air. What is the physics involved such that it is cooler than ambient air?
3. I believe I read that the cooling occurs even when it’s cold outside and you need to heat the building (not relevant if on a panel in the open.) Is this true? Is it a problem?
Economics
4. What is the cost of this paint compared to more ordinary white paint?
5. What are the expected savings relative to the additional costs?
Environmental
6. Early formulations use barium sulfate, subsequent formulations use boron nitride. How safe are these chemicals?
I have a couple of basic questions to ask, if appropriate.
I have read that the effects of co2 in the atmosphere are logarithmic rather than linear. Is this true, false or a little of both?
Is co2 (and methane for that matter) well "mixed" in the atmosphere or concentrated at certain latitudes or altitudes?
Thanks. Just trying to wrap my head around the science.
The idea that climate reacts to increasing CO2 logarithmically rather than linearly stems from a simplistic notion that since there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to "saturate" the main IR absorption bands, adding more CO2 only increases IR absorption at the edges of the bands ("the wings of the bands") where the absorptivity falls off logarithmically. But the effect of increased CO2 can't be interpreted so simply. One way of looking at it is that increased CO2 pushes the atmosphere upward and the median altitude at which the earth radiates to space is higher, where it is colder, so the earth is less effective at radiating energy away.
This is a good representation of what Donald is referring to:
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
Yes the gases are well mixed
Hi Dr.Pielke Jr. Thanks for your work. I suspect that I might be one of the more “alarmed” posters here. I was made aware of your work via associations with the Breakthrough Institute and find the hostility you receive from climate researchers kind of bizarre.
Anyway, as someone who does believe we are courting catastrophe (especially after 2100, when ice sheets may start shedding mass at a rate that could imperil the world’s coastal cities without allowing for sufficient time to move inland), I was heartened to read your paper, “Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100.”
In the paper, you find that, “in the scenarios our analysis identifies as most consistent with global energy system developments toward mid-century, large-scale carbon removal is necessary for achieving net-zero emissions this century.” If CDR does not pan out, would the unavailability of carbon removal mean that we should assume that “plausible” scenarios actually will result in higher emissions/temperatures? How radically would this failure change your result?
Thanks much. In Our paper we also look at scenarios with no CDR. See our figure S2. Very similar results there as well. I think that CDR is possible, but need to see it in action first, at scale. I discuss this in depth in Ch.5 of The Climate Fix.
I should have said “SOME” climate researchers. Not universal, and I’m sure you have lots colleagues in the field that you admire.
Yes, very true.
Hey Dr. Pielke, I saw last week you shared a project from University of Exeter actuaries on climate losses, and their prediction of a 50% GDP destruction between 2070 and 2090 seems outlandish. In imagining possible futures, it seems to me that unless we encounter some unknown unknown, the idea that we’re going to just see massive levels of destruction and death leading to collapse seems almost impossibly unlikely. Are there any studies or resources that try to examine civilized life at different levels of warming?
There are a lot of studies, but many are hampered by not considering adaptation and emphasizing implausibly extreme scenarios. I am unaware of any study that looks at, say, a 3.4 W/m^2 scenario and a 4.5 as a high end.
That's all nonsense, we could make an advanced self-supporting civilizations on the Moon or Mars, as long as you have energy. Those two places make any climate change on Earth pale to insignificance. Greenies are technologically illiterate. It's amazing that anyone would listen to their pronouncements on technology or science when they can't even do basic math.
What do you make of the carbon accounting chicanery highlighted in this preprint?
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5378/
Briefly, it lays out that short term plumes of CO2 tied to land stewardship get silenced by the long term models uaed in carbon stock computations, despite being much larger than industrial emissions.
It follows that the CO2 is soil, not fossil fuels, and easy to curb and soak up by using polycropping to prevent the short term CO2 plumes tied to tillage.
I'll take a look, thanks!
I would like to see more rational discussion around Net-Zero and (now hard to find) world TES statistics.
https://www.iea.org/search/charts?q=world%20total%20energy%20supply
+
With the data that is coming out of countries required to report it by law, I would anticipate there would be more discussion on the increases in excess mortality in the post covid world.
I neglected to include related excess mortality supplements referenced in my initial post.
Rather than submit to you all to links to data that would never be looked at, I am providing a video (with verifiable data citations) that does a much better job/presentation than I could on said subject.
Think about it...... don't it run from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovyI17TYaP8
Net Zero is just another carbon trading scam designed to steal vast wealth from the middle class in the Western world and transfer it to $billionaire parasites and Developing Nations. Al Gore got rich on carbon trading. If they really cared about climate change (they don't) they would institute the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend and remove all preferential subsidies, mandates and exemptions given to the welfare cows, wind & solar.
Regardless of how one perceives or defines "Net Zero", my point is to bring some logic and reality into the equation and discussion.
This IEA graph from my link above, updated 08-2021, brings quite a bit of clarity on how effective several decades and the trillions of dollars expended on alternate energy sources has been on the World Total Energy Supply.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/fuel-shares-in-world-total-energy-supply-2019
Reality = 2.2%
Net Zero = Illogical
Talk to us about this, Roger.
What are we missing in the available data?
Is it wrong?
Yes, I like that chart, 90% combustion fuels. Wind & solar haven't even been able to cover the increase in fossil fuel growth never mind replace any fossil, after $5T spent, not incl all the necessary added grid infrastructure, long distance transmission & storage.
Notwithstanding all the arguments in favor of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it seems to me that climate policies - and just about all environmental policies (concerning biodiversity, air pollution, pesticides, etc.) - absurdly set unattainable goals that would mobilize resources we don't have [yet or ever].
So my question is manifold:
- why this deliberate misconception,
- why is it spreading uncontrollably like a virus throughout the world,
- by what wanton forces,
- in the name of what illusion of the greater good?
Following the money is usually a good idea. Maybe ESG and WEF contribute to it. The wasteful Kendi/DeAngelo corporate DEI fad has been accelerating along with the climate panic, which also is accelerated by ESG investment rule-makers.
Also, for a laugh, look at this WEF post about (seriously) generating power from subway station gate turnstiles:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/world-economic-forum_your-commute-could-be-a-source-of-renewable-activity-7083474879496212481-akK4
God, letting those morons decide our future, what could go wrong there.
I agree that the passionate energy of global climate change alarmism is a phenomenon not fully explained by the underlying state of the science. I speculate that it is a secular version of apocalypse psychology. All of the major religious traditions--- Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, Hinduism--- have versions of apocalypse eschatology, where the masses perish while the chosen are saved in the end.
Malthus’ idea that humans will inevitably outgrow their sustainable natural environment was immediately embraced by the environmentalist movement as impending apocalypse, now supercharged by climate change. The practical importance of this is to realize that there has always been a misanthropic element in this narrative, many may perish. This explains the unrealistic, unrelenting focus on stopping CO2 immediately, at the expense of climate resilience through energy security for the world’s poor.
I'll bite. For debate and discussion. A step outside the paradigm we've all been in.
An interesting story from CNN that came out in November, 2019, an important time frame in the evolution of the CV story. Note the discussion about the need to develop a new type of all-purpose vaccine, a desire to test it widely, one that focused on a protein they link to a particular virus...like, say, a spike protein. Fauci is frequently quoted in it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/29/health/universal-flu-vaccine/index.html
"But a universal flu shot would theoretically cover every strain of the flu using what’s known as an ice cream cone approach."
"Last spring, doctors at the NIH started testing universal flu shots on Sonn and other study participants to see how their bodies respond.
“I have a personal connection to the flu,” Sonn explained. “My grandfather was orphaned due to the flu epidemic in April 1919.”
The 1918-1919 Spanish flu pandemic infected a third of the world’s population and killed 50 million people.
Losing his parents at 6 years old left a mark on Sonn’s grandfather, and subsequently on Sonn himself.
“He really had great trust in science and medical research, so I know he would be proud I’m taking part in this,” Sonn said.
One of the most useful things about the universal flu shot is that if it works out as hoped, it will also protect against flu pandemics like the one that killed Sonn’s great-grandparents.
In a flu pandemic, a new strain of flu virus emerges. Since very few people have immunity to it, it can spread quickly and easily.
There have been four flu pandemics in the past century: in 1918-1919; in 1957-1958; in 1968; and in 2009.
The research got an extra push in September when President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at developing a better flu vaccine.
Fauci said it could take less time – but still many years – to develop a semi-universal flu shot, which would protect against not all flu viruses, but rather a group of flu viruses."
"The faster and more precise method is not to grow the virus at all and instead just create the virus’ protein, he said.
“We clone the gene that codes for the specific protein we want,” Fauci said. “I don’t even want to see the virus. I just need the sequence of that virus, the genetic map of that virus. And you could send that to me by email.”
That’s the technology that’s being used to create the vaccines being trialed on participants like Sonn right now.
“We feel like we’re pioneers, and our volunteers are pioneers,” Ledgerwood said."
How does that CNN piece from November, 2019 read in hindsight now? Experimental technology they were trying out in the summer of 2019. Was everyone who took the 2019 flu vax made unwitting "pioneers?" Could that have been the source of a more severe than usual flu season that was already being experienced in the US before authorities declared a novel virus escaped from a lab or came from a wet market? Before you answer that, follow me in the comment below that details more about what was in the actual 2019 flu vax, and why it was capable of shedding and spreading.
What if Wuhan, USAID, bioweapon GOF/DURC research studies funded by the US is true...but...not the source of a "lab leak" pandemic? What if that story itself is a distraction and diversion from another story of the pandemic: was it manufactured by means of the deployment of a brand new flu vaccine for the 2019 flu season? And that vaccine, using LAIV, known to shed and spread, with a more virulent strain than normal, provided a convenient predicate for Fauci to develop his "ice cream cone" approach, with those proteins (spike) he was describing in a new technology (mRNA) that his research was working on?
I offer up this as evidence for consideration:
- This publication describes a brand-new style of flu vaccine that came online for the 2019-2020 flu season. Mammalian cell-based instead of egg-based. Claims that it was studied for efficacy...but no mention of safety trials:
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/first-cell-based-quadrivalent-vaccine-available-for-2019-2020-flu-season
"A new cell-based seasonal influenza vaccine has been issued marketing approval by the European Commission and will be available for the 2019/2020 flu season.
Flucelvax® Tetra (Seqirus) is the first cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) to be made available in Europe and is licensed for use in individuals aged nine years and older.
To date, there have been no randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy of QIVc and standard egg-based quadrivalent vaccines (QIVe)"
“This real-world study, along with other emerging evidence, indicates that cell-based influenza vaccines may result in better influenza-related outcomes compared to standard egg-based vaccine options in some seasons"
"In the UK, the potential advantages of QIVc, which is cultured in mammalian cells rather than eggs"
“We are pleased to be bringing Flucelvax Tetra to the UK next season and have sufficient capacity at our cell-based manufacturing facility in the US to also ensure supply in September 2019"
- This article is interesting. It says that they added live-attenuated influenza vaccines to the schedule. It goes on to say that flu vaccines most definitely, positively, absolutely don't cause the flu, and by that definition won't shed...even after all of the science on vaccines admit that live-attenuated vaccines do shed. Curious:
https://www.uspharmacist.com/article/20192020-influenza-vaccine-update
"The 2019–2020 influenza vaccine recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) have remained mostly the same, with the exception of adding the LAIV to the immunization schedule."
- These articles tell us about the WHO's process is and what they decided the 2019-2020 vaccine recommendations would be. I'll note that the first link speaks to concerns with preparing for H3N2 from the prior year, while the second link says they ended up not developing that specific strain of vaccines, after all, and the third link says they went ahead and included the H3N2 variant, after all:
https://elemental.medium.com/inside-the-making-of-the-flu-vaccine-c5d6f8cd174c
https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/who-vaccine-recommendations-are-used-pharmaceutical-companies-develop-produce-and-license-influenza
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/918053
For debate and discussion. We can accept only one paradigm, the one we've all been talking about for the past three years. Or we can look at other paradigms that immediately preceded the story of the pandemic for new ways of understanding. Science. Questioning everything. Descartian.
I am curious about your reaction to the report just published by the Rocky Mountain Institute. The core conclusion is, "This exponential growth [of renewables] has put the electricity system at a global tipping point — where the transition away from fossil fuels has become hard to reverse, suggesting fossil fuel demand has peaked in the electricity sector and will be in freefall by the end of the decade."
This conclusion contrasts with some of what you have argued vis-a-vis achieving net zero by 2050. I recognize the report in question is focused principally on power, rather than energy supply broadly.
Source: https://rmi.org/press-release/renewable-energy-deployment-puts-global-power-system-on-track-for-ambitious-net-zero-pathway/
That's Amory Lovins operation. He was a college dropout with no expertise in anything until the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations, another Bankster Cut-out organization) promoted him as an "energy genius" and got him a MacArthur Genius Award of $650k.
Amory Lovins is Still Wrong and Spreading Distortions:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/amory-lovins-is-still-wrong-and.html
The one subject RMI doesn't want to talk about is who is paying their ~$100M/yr funding. Who is giving them multiple >$1M donations?
To see what REAL WORLD wind & solar costs, look at:
There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2550
You realize that all solar and wind can do is replace at bit of fuel worth 1/2-2 cents/kwh? It doesn't replace infrastructure which is worth far more than fuel cost. In fact it adds massive infrastructure costs.
So biggest wind/solar countries in Europe have the highest electricity prices and still have amongst the highest emissions. Denmark/Germany double the price of France.
Shellenberger: "....We've been in a huge renewables experiment around the world, particularly here in California, but also in places like Germany, and it's now clear that they just can't power our high-energy civilization. You can see that California cities have the most expensive electricity in the country outside of Hawaii, which has to ship fuel to burn in its power plants. We have the most expensive electricity, and that's because of the heavy use of solar panels and winter turbines. We saw our electricity prices rise seven times more in California than in the rest of the United States over the last decade...."
"...In 2016, Germany generated 545 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity at an average rate of approximately 560 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh. By contrast, France generated 530 TWh of electricity at an average rate of approximately 58 grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kWh. In terms of carbon emissions from electricity, this means that Germany emitted almost exactly ten times as much as France -- over 300 million metric tonnes...."
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/11/german-electricity-was-nearly-10-times-dirtier-than-frances-in-2016
https://public.substack.com/p/biden-un-elites-spread-climate-disinformation
https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion
I certainly agree that any "net zero" fantasy without nuclear is just that - fantasy, and that the benefits of nuclear are being studiously ignored. Woe be to any true believer who utters the fatal phrase "what about nuclear?
BUT, all this still carries the assumption that "net zero" or anything like it is a GOOD thing, and I have YET, despite Roger's protestations, to hear a single concrete argument that the presumed benefits (and they are ALL presumed - lacking any sort of falsifiable experiments or solid data) outweigh the KNOWN benefits of moderately (or even significantly) higher C02 concentrations.
Actually, I think anyone who isn't already wedded to the "C02 is BAD" religion might well come to the conclusion that a higher C02 concentration might well be limited by the increased biomass generated by commensurately greater plant growth. Imagine a world where the world's great deserts disappear underneath a green carpet, capable of productive agriculture. There are innumerable archeological records that show that many places that are desert today were thriving civilizations in the very recent (in geological terms) past. I suspect (but cannot prove) that the 'desertification' process closely correlates to the recent (again in geological terms) DECREASE in global C02 levels.
So, we have the following 'facts'
- Current global C02 levels are near the minimum required for plant survival; if C02 levels decrease significantly from here, most plant life on earth will go extinct. Now THAT would be a catastrophe!
- global C02 levels have been MUCH higher in the geological past, and the earth didn't shrivel up and die - in contrast, the high C02 periods were marked by rapid biological development. You might say that Mother Nature has already performed the "high greenhouse gas" experiment, and rather than "an existential disaster", it was quite the opposite.
- there has been significant 'greening' of previously arid lands due to the slight C02 concentration rise that has the global elite up in arms. This 'greening' is a very well understood consequence of plant biology - more C02 means plants lose less water while acquiring sufficient C02 to continue growth; a 10% higher C02 concentration means 10% less water loss, or conversely, plants can thrive in areas where they couldn't before.
So, why all the bluster about 'decarbonization'? (looking at you Roger). I personally think it is because a)C02 is a invisible gas b)Is difficult or impossible to measure except by "experts", and c) can be used to frighten citizens into "taking action" at huge cost to themselves and the planet, just so the elites can jet around the world.
Frank,
I’m in substantial agreement with your observations but I do see it a little differently.
Dr. Judith Curry has characterized climate change as a “wicked problem” (not original with her but leaning on Prins and Rayner). I don’t want to oversimplify but this arises because of the existence of “feedbacks and circularity” issues, coupled with many variables that must be considered.
An additional complication which deserves more discussion is that the legitimate concerns of climate scientists are about outcomes which may or may not take place many years in the future – in some cases decades or longer.
It is very hard to get the populace willing to take current actions to forestall future problems, especially if those actions entail significant current sacrifice. Activists respond in two different ways. One, the future impacts are exaggerated (RCP 8 .5 anyone?) while downplaying future benefits, and two, current events which are undeniably negative are attributed to climate change inappropriately, along with ignoring or downplaying current positive events.
A good argument can be made that the net impact of positives and negatives to date is a net positive, but even if that’s true it’s not a sufficient response. If my crops are growing better but the cost is an extreme weather event in some other location, that might net out to be a positive, but it doesn’t mean the negative doesn’t exist. (I know, I know there are legitimate questions about whether extreme weather events anywhere can be attributed to climate change, but stick with me for a minute to work through the argument.) If an honest assessment of the current impacts identifies some positive benefits and some negative costs, it is legitimate to discuss how to address the cost problem.
That’s separate from the projection of future benefits and costs, both of which are extremely hard to measure.
I agree that trying to predict future costs and benefits is a fools game. The scare mongers use models that have been tweaked to provide the answers they want, but the models can't even predict the past, much less the future. On the other side of the coin, we have LOTS of data about the past that make a mockery of the climate modelers, but that doesn't sell ads, and that doesn't allow politicians to wrap themselves in 'green' banners to accumulate personal wealth and power. I am reminded of the adage about how to do a better job of predicting local weather than a professional meteorologist - just predict that tomorrow will be just like today.
As Roger and others have been pointing out for some time, this whole 'Climate Emergency' thing is more akin to a travelling salesman from the 1800's selling snake oil as a cure-all than it is to anything else. Does anyone remember that in the 1970's the 'Climate Emergency' was the looming ice age (there was even a documentary to that effect starring Leonard Nimoy (Dr. Spock). So here we are now, 50 years later, and now the 'Climate Emergency' is the other direction entirely. So which did the climate activists get totally wrong - the ice age 'emergency' or the 'global warming' emergency? Or more likely, was it both?
I am very familiar with the 1970s cooling scare. I did have a discussion with a bona fide climate scientist a few years ago. He was dismissive but not completely persuasive.
My summary — a small number of climate scientists in the 70s did some work that led them to the possible conclusion of an upcoming cooling phase. This they shared with the media, some of whom reacted the way the media usually does, turning a possibility of a cooling phase into a likely, possibly catastrophic Ice Age, with a lot of softness about time frames. I don't know to what extent the bulk of the climate scientists pushed back against the media mantra, which got repeated without independent investigation, but when scientists observed that concerns about catastrophe turned into making it easier to get grants to study climate science, I won't be surprised if they were not overly vocal about dismissing this extreme prediction.
I have no problem with skeptics raising this issue as a cautionary tale about putting too much faith in climate emergency pronouncements, but I think it's a mistake to use this as the main tool in the toolkit. In the same way I don't dismiss modern psychiatry because they engaged in lobotomies a few decades ago. They were trying to do the best they could and they got it wrong. They learned. While they still don't have all the answers they are in better shape today. Climate science, to the extent they were projecting catastrophe due to cooling in the 70s got it wrong. The pendulum has swung, and now they're getting it wrong in the other direction, this doesn't give me reason to dismiss all of climate science. They are working on one of the most complicated problems in mankind's history, and it's gonna take some time to get it right.
In the short term, let's not overreact as many of the activists insist.
I would agree with you about "not throwing the baby out with the bath water" EXCEPT when there is no 'baby' to start with! With very few exceptions, modern 'climate science' is mostly a scare tactic to get more money and power; more money for the climate scientists, more power for the politicians who inflict this BS on the rest of us. Real climate scientists like Roger have been effectively pushed out of the mainstream and silenced for daring to question 'the narrative'.
Well, the global economy has been decarbonizing for a century, again where decarbonization is defined quantitatively as a reduction in CO2/GDP. Was that a bad thing?
When defined that way, probably not, but that STILL doesn't address the C02<-->plant health connection. Any benefits due to a reduction in C02/GDP are probably more related to a commensurate reduction in air pollution than anything having to do with C02 concentration.
Thanks! Well, that is a good place to agree ;-)
Again, we need to increase energy production by 5X to supply a Western standard of living to Developing Nations. There isn't nearly enough economical fossil resources to achieve that. Only Nuclear energy is capable of supplying that level of energy. And it can do it essentially forever. Happy coincidence Nuclear energy is emissions free.
Agreed. I cannot make the mathematics of deep decarbonization work without a large role for nuclear.
Thank you for your questions.
I agree that reducing the carbon footprint is easier said than done.
What I have learned is that a person’s perspective is often different depending on where they live. If you are living near the northern hemisphere Pacific coast, like I am right now, then the differences in temperature that we are experiencing are moderated by the ocean. However, inland where I just moved from the air temperature ranges from the 80’s to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in spring, summer and fall, and the inland air temperatures appear to be getting warmer sooner in the spring and lasting longer in the fall.
Your observations are valid for the coast, but we all live in a bubble in different locations on earth. So, while you and I may not be observing much of a temperature difference along the coast, the people living inland and along the gulf coast are breaking high temperature records right now.
The visual images that I have provided give us something to look at together, rather than relying on words and data that can cause confusion and distrust.
I live in Arizona and we are breaking extreme heat streak records daily, but this is mostly weather and El Niño effects although I expect them to continue until the next La Niña. Even so, a few more days of extreme heat are not worth spending large percentages of GDP on achieving carbon neutrality which won’t do much anyway (Africa and Asia need and are entitled to as much useful energy as the rest of the world has been using, and as we go down they will go up using the petroleum we don’t which will go down in price). There was a recent article in the Atlantic saying that this heat will make Arizona unlivable soon, as if the writer had never heard of air conditioning, the Palo Verde nuclear plant (biggest in USA) or solar energy. The only people dying from heat here that I hear of regularly are the tourists from Europe who go out on late morning hikes on our beautiful desert mountain trails with only a liter of water. Also, many more people worldwide die from extreme cold than extreme heat, but climate worriers don’t talk about that much.
Although it may seem like, “The only people dying from heat here that I hear of regularly are the tourists from Europe who go out on late morning hikes on our beautiful desert mountain trails with only a liter of water.” There were 21 Phoenix heat related deaths in 2001, that has gradually increased to 338 in 2021 over the 20-year period. In addition, there were 425 confirmed heat-associated deaths in Maricopa County last year, with more than half of them occurring in July (FOX News, July 13, 2023).” A heat wave has baked Phoenix for weeks. Forecasters warn it's not cooling soon (fox10phoenix.com)
Most of the people dying are homeless, which demonstrates that Phoenix is already unlivable during heat waves without air conditioning. Even though the likelihood of power outages are low in your area, it has been recognized that heat related deaths for those people relying on air conditioners would be in the thousands if the power grid went out during a heat wave for extended periods.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/07/heat-dome-southwest-arizona/674689
When Will the Southwest Become Unlivable?
Air-conditioning and swimming pools are sustaining my community. I worry about the day when they won’t be enough.
Well, for me at the age of 74, air temperatures greater than 94 degrees Fahrenheit are too high for me. In the remote place that I was living, the power grid would go out quite often without notice. So, I moved to the coast to avoid the temperature extremes that were already getting to be too much for me to handle.
So, if you are relying on the power grid and a swimming pool to survive the heat right now then the Southwest is already becoming unlivable. Given your location, and proximity to the Equator (which is the closest place on earth to the sun at all times) the CO2 and heat extremes are radiating north toward you. I know that this is probably not the message you wanted to hear, but you asked so I am just being straight with you.
I'd say that you need a backup plan, so that if the power grid or water supply becomes less reliable then you will be better prepared for the unexpected and still enjoy your location.