10 Comments

In your essay on global population, you reference a paper done with Bjorn Ola-Linner, “From Green Revolution to Green Evolution: A Critique of the Political Myth of Averted Famine.” Is there any way you could provide us with a non-paywalled link to the paper? Thanks.

Expand full comment
author

Yes, can do!

Am on the move today but will let you know when I post it up.

Thanks!

Expand full comment

Coal to nukes still makes sense.. they could start with the communities who want them. Also develop a national policy on sources for uranium or other inputs. Otherwise we might find that various conservation efforts have put areas with those minerals off limits to mining. Which may also happen to areas for potential renewable transmission lines and renewables. 30 x 30 and energy policy seem to be on a collision course. A reasonable approach would be to 1. Develop a decarbonization strategy 2. Map out what is needed where, renewables, nuclear, new transmission and 3. Then decide what land to take out of commission for protection. What’s happening now policy wise is random flailing in the interests of whomever has attracted the Admin’s good graces.

Expand full comment

"The Global Population Crisis that never was" presents information I was never aware of, and I think it is highly significant. Can you recommend any other authors who have joined the dots between e.g. Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, the Gaia Myth guy and David Attenborough and connections to governments and the IPCC? Rupert Darwall's "Green Tyranny" goes some of the way but it's very Europe-focused.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Aug 24, 2023Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.

In a wealthy country the health costs of coal double its apparent price and are 10x higher than its proposed CO2 cost

Don't believe in CO2, you still have 10x more reasons to build nuclear. Air quality and energy security are all good reasons for actual cost effective low carbon technologies regardless

Expand full comment
author

Agree 100%

Expand full comment

Nuclear is the solution whether or not carbon is a problem. The real problem is the legitimate aspirations of Developing Nations to reach a modern standard of living, with a functioning Industrial Economy, will require a 5X increase in World Primary Energy supply. There is no way fossil is capable of that economically. Or is renewables capable, not even close. Not even fossil + renewables. The only energy source capable of supply that level of energy economically is Nuclear. Just the resources of thorium and uranium on the accessible portion of the Earth's land mass would power that level of energy consumption for 20Myrs. Fusion resources would supply that much energy past when the Sun dies.

Add to that Nuclear releases negligible toxic emissions, far, far less than any other energy source. So, the simple truth is, the energy transition needs to be to Nuclear, nothing else matters. And because of that, the Climate Change Grifters despise nuclear more than even fossil. And go to great lengths to blockade nuclear expansion. With their $trillions in wealth.

Expand full comment