Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Cliff Rochlin's avatar

You have done a good job of tracing and identifying the error of using RCP8.5 as the baseline climate change scenario. However, you continue to not face the fact that your scientific paradigm of data, science, policy has been turned on its head to meet the political goal of a fundamental transformation of the global economy. The IPCC reports are political documents that support this transformation and will continue to use selected, even if incorrect, scenarios that support their policy goals.

Expand full comment
SmithFS's avatar

Very dubious there is enough coal to fuel the predicted growth required for RCP8.5. China is already having supply problems. And the Developing World where that demand must come from does not have sufficient economical supply and lacks the foreign exchange to import it. So coal is just not feasible. Even moreso oil and gas are infeasible.

However it is still true that a 5X increase in World primary energy supply will be needed to modernize and industrialize the developing world. The only energy supply that can allow for that is nuclear which also happens to have the lowest emissions. With these facts being quite obvious, it is really astounding how the IPCC not only does not promote the nuclear solution but likes to throw shade on nuclear with ridiculous statements that are utterly false:

Open Letter to Heads of Government of the G-20 from Scientists and Scholars on Nuclear for Climate Change -- The IPCC anti-nuclear bias:

https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2018/10/25/open-letter-to-heads-of-state-of-the-g-20-from-scientists-and-scholars-on-nuclear-for-climate-change

"...IPCC authors make misleading claims about nuclear power including:

An alleged debunking of the above-mentioned 2016 study in Science through the use of a 2018 study published in a journal[12] with an impact factor of just 10 percent of that of Science;

The suggestion that building new nuclear plants must be a slow process[13] despite evidence from the recent past that nuclear capacity can be installed very rapidly when required[11];

A statement[14] suggesting a connection between “nuclear installations” and “childhood leukemia,” and no mention of recent research finding higher radiation exposure from coal plants and the manufacturing of solar panels than from nuclear.[15] While the authors acknowledge that there is “low evidence/low agreement” to support their claim, in reality there is no valid evidentiary support for it and the supposed connection has been thoroughly dismissed in the literature[16];

A claim that nuclear power “can increase the risks of proliferation”[17] and that the "use of nuclear power poses a constant risk of proliferation"[18] even though no nation in history has ever created a nuclear weapon from civilian nuclear fuel under inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency;

A claim that nuclear has “mixed effects for human health when replacing fossil fuels,”[19] which is contradicted by the large body of scientific research, cited above, showing that nuclear saves lives;

Repeated concerns raised about nuclear waste[20] without acknowledgment or clarification that spent fuel is safely contained, usually on site, nor any mention of the waste from other low-carbon energy sources, including solar panels, which contain toxic metals including lead, chromium, and cadmium, and which in most of the world lack safe storage or recycling.[21]

Such fear-mongering about nuclear has serious consequences. ..."

Expand full comment
49 more comments...

No posts