It would be interesting to read a post by Roger on climate tipping points--the science around what they are, their possible magnitude, and the probabilities and risks. It seems that the idea of large tipping points (positive feedback loops) is what is driving some of the climate fear.
My view is to let em stay. If an activist ties himself to a goal post, leave him there and when the game starts, have the players aim their shots at him. And when they glue themselves to the street in a busy intersection, let em stay glued and let em hope they don't get run over. When they set themselves on fire, let em burn baby burn.
It is tiring to put up with these ideologically driven protests. These are marxists that simply hate our societies because they can afford it. They don’t bring any data or fact to support their thesis because they perfectly know that they would work against them. The world has never been so healthy, so rich, so equal. But no one at political level has the guts to call out the rubbish that these people are pushing. As they cause social and economic damages they should be sued and jailed. This would be democracy and not the anarchy we are living in.
And people wonder why young people are so filled with anxiety and face the highest suicide rates ever. The “climate crisis“ is a big part of their anxiety, and it just needs to stop or evolve into using real science and not the rhetoric of politicians using fear mongering to control the you g to their advantage.
Stopping the burning of fossil fuels would be a big start. The rest of the uses of fossil fuels are so ingrained in everything we have make, and do that stopping oil completely will be impossible.
Hi Roger, I appreciate your writings. Spellcheck, there were a few typos. Nevertheless, how about a comment on “the worlds hottest day” being touted all over the airways this past week?
It’s crap of course, just more narrative control, they announced on July 3rd that July 3rd was the hottest day ever? Unmitigated bullshit.
And the next day a few hundredths of a degree warmer?
Measured mostly with devices accurate to 0.5C?
Fear porn for the weak of mind.
It’s an El Niño year so they were just waiting for a warm day.
Roger has shown the fraud committed in his area of expertise, but has been careful to stay in his own playpen but do we really think that is the only area of fraud?
If this concerns all fossil fuels and right away, it would mean being left to be able to consume only 12% of the energy that is consumed in the World nowadays. And even this would be problematic because almost all transportation would be impossible.
The 88% dependency of the World on fossil fuels in 2022 is a corrected value of the biased interpretation that BP (and now EI, the Energy Institute) makes in its statistics for the consumption of primary energies by non-fossil technologies.
Take home message: no energy transition can take place without the wise but massive use of fossil fuels.
Given that the funders of Just Stop Oil got their wealth from fossil fuels in the first place, they could derive enormous profits and increase in their own wealth if they can force oil prices up dramatically with even a simple pause or decrease in production. Yes, this would be at the expense of the rest of the world, but would they care about that?
When one considers engaging in a discussion with an individual or organization, it’s generally helpful to start with an articulation of their goals.
That sounds simple in the case of “Just Stop Oil” — they might even argue they’ve summarized their goal in their name, but despite providing hints, I’m not clear on their actual goals.
Let’s start with something simple. The use of the term “oil” doesn’t simply mean liquid based petroleum, it also includes natural gas. Not surprising and since the oil industry themselves uses oil as shorthand for oil and gas, I’m fine with accepting that shorthand. But oil as shorthand for oil and gas doesn’t mean coal and it appears that just stop oil is also interested in coal. This isn’t hard to figure out as they specifically use the term and also generically referred to fossil fuels.
So what’s the problem?
Well, a substantial portion of the products of the oil, gas and coal industry are used to create products that are burned. But industry products are also used to make North Face jackets, wind turbine blades, and fertilizer. Are they opposed to those products?
I thought perhaps the reference to fossil fuels meant they were only concerned about the products which were used as fuel, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
They say they are “demanding the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects. “
That doesn’t limit the demand to fuel products. Moreover, it’s talking about NEW projects. Does that mean existing projects are fine and they are simply calling for a moratorium on new ones? I honestly don’t know.
When do they want it? As the chant typically goes, they want it now, but they also say “in eight years we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels completely”.
So, which is it? Now or phased in over eight years? Fossil fuels only, or all petrochemical products? All production or only new production?
It’s hard to know how to start a conversation when their goal is so squishy.
Hi roger, I value your work but want to challenge you a bit here. You make a persuasive point re the general energy situation, and our reliance on fossil fuels. But in your discussion of a scenario involving rapid phase out of fossil fuels you have a swipe at degrowthers suggesting they might enjoy the inevitable recession. But this is a straw man. Degrowthers make a distinction between capitalist recession and an organized/planned contraction of the energy-economic system. It’s at least conceivable that the economy could contract in a way that is not the same as familiar (unintended) capitalist recessions, but rather managed to ensure shared sacrifice but overall equality and social security is maintained.
Second, one could look at your (accurate) energy assessment and actually argue that it reinforces the case for degrowth. Degrowthers can say, given how dramatically we have to reduce emissions to reach net zero by 2050, we have to abandon economic growth”. Really, where one comes down on this depends on one’s assessment around how important it is to stay within the ie 2 degree target. There seems to be a spectrum of opinion on this from those (included climate scientists) who think the outcomes will be dire; to those who think they will be entirely manageable. Where do you sift? I’ve asked you previously to address the claim that climate tipping points might result in rapid climate change - would love to hear your response.
Finally, on the need for political pragmatism. I am sure an intelligent degrowther would agree with you that the political prospects for degrowth are slim; but I think they can reasonably claim that if pragmatism just means accepting an economic growth fueled global hothouse, then it’s a dead end, and more dramatic changes are needed. Your response?
I think we need to discount the alarmist claims on the Internet as to how bad a 2 degree rise would be. Today, CNN produced a news release in large font:
"Global heat in 'uncharted territory' as scientists warn 2023 could be the hottest year on record"
followed immediately by:
"Global heat in 'uncharted territory' as scientists warn 2023 could be the hottest year on record."
Then it says:
"And they are not holding back -- "extraordinary," "terrifying" and "uncharted territory" are just a few of the ways they have described the recent spike in global temperature."
When you think about it, you realize that the earth has been warming for over 100 years, and as CO2 goes up it is appropriate and predictable that each ensuing year will likely set a record because an ascending curve of temperature vs. time sets new records continually. So we would expect 2023 to be the hottest year on record. And 2024, and 2025, and 2026. Its like a 12-year old saying this is the tallest I've ever been. The odd thing is not that 2023 might set a record, but rather, that for the past seven years the temperature curve flattened out and after the 2016 record temperature, there have been no further records set. So there is no "spike" as reported by CNN, just a wandering curve of temperature vs. time at the top of a seven-year plateau that might increase a bit in 2023.
I suppose that if you believe the impacts will be "extraordinary," "terrifying" and will enter "uncharted territory", you might believe extraordinary degrowth is called for. But be aware that the banking system depends on growth. When you borrow a $1,000 from a bank, they enter $1,000 into a ledger representing your account, but there is no "money" or assets backing that up. They simply create $1,000 right then and there by typing it in the ledger. Let's say its a one year loan at 5%. You need to pay them back $1,050. But where does the $50 come from? Under normal circumstances it comes from growth in the money supply. If the money supply contracts sufficiently, the banks will go out of business. The whole banking system will collapse. Its a slippery slope. Get it started and it might have a life of its own. Degrowth is not an option.
The only sane approach is reduce emissions as much as possible while maintaining growth and adapt to the impacts which are likely to be far less than "extraordinary," "terrifying".
As a compromise, why not just stop making diesel today? Perhaps we should give in just a tiny bit to their ill considered but well funded demands. It would solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions, because, within three months 90% of us will have starved to death.
The 10% who could survive would not be the kind of people who any of the Just Stop Oil kids would like to have dinner with. You know, hard ol' boys with guns and traps, a two years supply of canned food and a full 500 gallon diesel tank out by the barn
Why even dignify their stupidity with an analysis based on facts? They don't care about facts.
I had a solar panel salesman come to my door on a cold, overcast January day. The temperature that day was about 8 degrees F. He said they were trying to do away with fossil fuels. I stopped him at that point and told him if he really believed that he should go home and shut off his furnace and water heater. He didn't know what to say next. I didn't buy his solar panels.
Yes, there are some who hold neo-Malthusian, apocalyptic worldviews. Certainly not a majority and more likely a small number. They have disproportionate influence and media attention. There is a large appetite for millenarianism.
I know it is tempting to mock these young folks -- it is ridiculous to disrupt Wimbledon and think that will change global energy policy. But maybe it is because I have 3 kids in this age group, but I am deeply saddened by how people who know better are seducing them into these beliefs or failing to speak up and share more realistic perspectives. We are failing them. I had been meaning to write this post for a while -- I posted a similar Twitter thread a while back. So please join me in trying to better educate and support these young people. They are the future, we gotta do right by them!
Who are the people who know better that you are refering to? What do you see as the primary motivation of these people to either knowingly distort or misrepresent facts or not to speak out when facts are being distorted or misrepresented.
Roger, sorry but I must disagree. It's not our fault. It's their fault. These so-called "activists" are mature enough that they must take responsibility for their actions. They must judge what is credible and what is not. Even if they are stupid enough to believe the hogwash on the Internet, they must also accept that they don't have the right to inflict upon large numbers of people their personal views by disrupting the lives of others. In the words of a prominent "activist": "How dare they!"
In the original book "Pinocchio" there is a town called "Stupid Catchers". When the cat and the fox talk Pinocchio into losing his gold coins, and he goes to the town magistrate to file a complaint against the cat and the fox, they throw him in jail for stupidity. So should it be for these vandals.
The climate howlers have done a fabulous of scaring these kids. 20% of young people report "mental difficulties" due to climate anxiety. If you truly fear for your life, which I think they do, it is easier to understand this childlike, panicked response.
Hopefully there is a special place in Hell for these preachers of doom that are frightening children to the point of mental illness.
It would be interesting to read a post by Roger on climate tipping points--the science around what they are, their possible magnitude, and the probabilities and risks. It seems that the idea of large tipping points (positive feedback loops) is what is driving some of the climate fear.
My view is to let em stay. If an activist ties himself to a goal post, leave him there and when the game starts, have the players aim their shots at him. And when they glue themselves to the street in a busy intersection, let em stay glued and let em hope they don't get run over. When they set themselves on fire, let em burn baby burn.
It is tiring to put up with these ideologically driven protests. These are marxists that simply hate our societies because they can afford it. They don’t bring any data or fact to support their thesis because they perfectly know that they would work against them. The world has never been so healthy, so rich, so equal. But no one at political level has the guts to call out the rubbish that these people are pushing. As they cause social and economic damages they should be sued and jailed. This would be democracy and not the anarchy we are living in.
A final note on this, and I hope this comment spreads.
Any parent who looses a child to despair and suicide over “climate emergency” and extinction needs to go look for those that took their child’s life.
They aren’t hard to find.
This will only stop once there are consequences for those spreading this.
And people wonder why young people are so filled with anxiety and face the highest suicide rates ever. The “climate crisis“ is a big part of their anxiety, and it just needs to stop or evolve into using real science and not the rhetoric of politicians using fear mongering to control the you g to their advantage.
Stopping the burning of fossil fuels would be a big start. The rest of the uses of fossil fuels are so ingrained in everything we have make, and do that stopping oil completely will be impossible.
Hi Roger, I appreciate your writings. Spellcheck, there were a few typos. Nevertheless, how about a comment on “the worlds hottest day” being touted all over the airways this past week?
It’s crap of course, just more narrative control, they announced on July 3rd that July 3rd was the hottest day ever? Unmitigated bullshit.
And the next day a few hundredths of a degree warmer?
Measured mostly with devices accurate to 0.5C?
Fear porn for the weak of mind.
It’s an El Niño year so they were just waiting for a warm day.
Roger has shown the fraud committed in his area of expertise, but has been careful to stay in his own playpen but do we really think that is the only area of fraud?
All fraud all the time.
What does "just" stop oil means?
Right away or only oil?
If this concerns all fossil fuels and right away, it would mean being left to be able to consume only 12% of the energy that is consumed in the World nowadays. And even this would be problematic because almost all transportation would be impossible.
The 88% dependency of the World on fossil fuels in 2022 is a corrected value of the biased interpretation that BP (and now EI, the Energy Institute) makes in its statistics for the consumption of primary energies by non-fossil technologies.
Take home message: no energy transition can take place without the wise but massive use of fossil fuels.
I agree, as I pointed out a couple posts below, their demands aren't coherently stated.
Given that the funders of Just Stop Oil got their wealth from fossil fuels in the first place, they could derive enormous profits and increase in their own wealth if they can force oil prices up dramatically with even a simple pause or decrease in production. Yes, this would be at the expense of the rest of the world, but would they care about that?
When one considers engaging in a discussion with an individual or organization, it’s generally helpful to start with an articulation of their goals.
That sounds simple in the case of “Just Stop Oil” — they might even argue they’ve summarized their goal in their name, but despite providing hints, I’m not clear on their actual goals.
Let’s start with something simple. The use of the term “oil” doesn’t simply mean liquid based petroleum, it also includes natural gas. Not surprising and since the oil industry themselves uses oil as shorthand for oil and gas, I’m fine with accepting that shorthand. But oil as shorthand for oil and gas doesn’t mean coal and it appears that just stop oil is also interested in coal. This isn’t hard to figure out as they specifically use the term and also generically referred to fossil fuels.
So what’s the problem?
Well, a substantial portion of the products of the oil, gas and coal industry are used to create products that are burned. But industry products are also used to make North Face jackets, wind turbine blades, and fertilizer. Are they opposed to those products?
I thought perhaps the reference to fossil fuels meant they were only concerned about the products which were used as fuel, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
They say they are “demanding the UK Government stop licensing all new oil, gas and coal projects. “
That doesn’t limit the demand to fuel products. Moreover, it’s talking about NEW projects. Does that mean existing projects are fine and they are simply calling for a moratorium on new ones? I honestly don’t know.
When do they want it? As the chant typically goes, they want it now, but they also say “in eight years we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels completely”.
So, which is it? Now or phased in over eight years? Fossil fuels only, or all petrochemical products? All production or only new production?
It’s hard to know how to start a conversation when their goal is so squishy.
Hi roger, I value your work but want to challenge you a bit here. You make a persuasive point re the general energy situation, and our reliance on fossil fuels. But in your discussion of a scenario involving rapid phase out of fossil fuels you have a swipe at degrowthers suggesting they might enjoy the inevitable recession. But this is a straw man. Degrowthers make a distinction between capitalist recession and an organized/planned contraction of the energy-economic system. It’s at least conceivable that the economy could contract in a way that is not the same as familiar (unintended) capitalist recessions, but rather managed to ensure shared sacrifice but overall equality and social security is maintained.
Second, one could look at your (accurate) energy assessment and actually argue that it reinforces the case for degrowth. Degrowthers can say, given how dramatically we have to reduce emissions to reach net zero by 2050, we have to abandon economic growth”. Really, where one comes down on this depends on one’s assessment around how important it is to stay within the ie 2 degree target. There seems to be a spectrum of opinion on this from those (included climate scientists) who think the outcomes will be dire; to those who think they will be entirely manageable. Where do you sift? I’ve asked you previously to address the claim that climate tipping points might result in rapid climate change - would love to hear your response.
Finally, on the need for political pragmatism. I am sure an intelligent degrowther would agree with you that the political prospects for degrowth are slim; but I think they can reasonably claim that if pragmatism just means accepting an economic growth fueled global hothouse, then it’s a dead end, and more dramatic changes are needed. Your response?
I think we need to discount the alarmist claims on the Internet as to how bad a 2 degree rise would be. Today, CNN produced a news release in large font:
"Global heat in 'uncharted territory' as scientists warn 2023 could be the hottest year on record"
followed immediately by:
"Global heat in 'uncharted territory' as scientists warn 2023 could be the hottest year on record."
Then it says:
"And they are not holding back -- "extraordinary," "terrifying" and "uncharted territory" are just a few of the ways they have described the recent spike in global temperature."
When you think about it, you realize that the earth has been warming for over 100 years, and as CO2 goes up it is appropriate and predictable that each ensuing year will likely set a record because an ascending curve of temperature vs. time sets new records continually. So we would expect 2023 to be the hottest year on record. And 2024, and 2025, and 2026. Its like a 12-year old saying this is the tallest I've ever been. The odd thing is not that 2023 might set a record, but rather, that for the past seven years the temperature curve flattened out and after the 2016 record temperature, there have been no further records set. So there is no "spike" as reported by CNN, just a wandering curve of temperature vs. time at the top of a seven-year plateau that might increase a bit in 2023.
I suppose that if you believe the impacts will be "extraordinary," "terrifying" and will enter "uncharted territory", you might believe extraordinary degrowth is called for. But be aware that the banking system depends on growth. When you borrow a $1,000 from a bank, they enter $1,000 into a ledger representing your account, but there is no "money" or assets backing that up. They simply create $1,000 right then and there by typing it in the ledger. Let's say its a one year loan at 5%. You need to pay them back $1,050. But where does the $50 come from? Under normal circumstances it comes from growth in the money supply. If the money supply contracts sufficiently, the banks will go out of business. The whole banking system will collapse. Its a slippery slope. Get it started and it might have a life of its own. Degrowth is not an option.
The only sane approach is reduce emissions as much as possible while maintaining growth and adapt to the impacts which are likely to be far less than "extraordinary," "terrifying".
Then there is Biden's crazy war on natural gas which emits far less CO2 per unit heating value than gasoline, diesel or coal
As a compromise, why not just stop making diesel today? Perhaps we should give in just a tiny bit to their ill considered but well funded demands. It would solve the problem of carbon dioxide emissions, because, within three months 90% of us will have starved to death.
The 10% who could survive would not be the kind of people who any of the Just Stop Oil kids would like to have dinner with. You know, hard ol' boys with guns and traps, a two years supply of canned food and a full 500 gallon diesel tank out by the barn
Why even dignify their stupidity with an analysis based on facts? They don't care about facts.
I had a solar panel salesman come to my door on a cold, overcast January day. The temperature that day was about 8 degrees F. He said they were trying to do away with fossil fuels. I stopped him at that point and told him if he really believed that he should go home and shut off his furnace and water heater. He didn't know what to say next. I didn't buy his solar panels.
Roger, do you know any climate scientist who seriously and sincerely believes this stuff? So why do they keep quiet, what are they afraid of?
Yes, there are some who hold neo-Malthusian, apocalyptic worldviews. Certainly not a majority and more likely a small number. They have disproportionate influence and media attention. There is a large appetite for millenarianism.
You are describing the insane.
I know it is tempting to mock these young folks -- it is ridiculous to disrupt Wimbledon and think that will change global energy policy. But maybe it is because I have 3 kids in this age group, but I am deeply saddened by how people who know better are seducing them into these beliefs or failing to speak up and share more realistic perspectives. We are failing them. I had been meaning to write this post for a while -- I posted a similar Twitter thread a while back. So please join me in trying to better educate and support these young people. They are the future, we gotta do right by them!
Who are the people who know better that you are refering to? What do you see as the primary motivation of these people to either knowingly distort or misrepresent facts or not to speak out when facts are being distorted or misrepresented.
Roger, sorry but I must disagree. It's not our fault. It's their fault. These so-called "activists" are mature enough that they must take responsibility for their actions. They must judge what is credible and what is not. Even if they are stupid enough to believe the hogwash on the Internet, they must also accept that they don't have the right to inflict upon large numbers of people their personal views by disrupting the lives of others. In the words of a prominent "activist": "How dare they!"
In the original book "Pinocchio" there is a town called "Stupid Catchers". When the cat and the fox talk Pinocchio into losing his gold coins, and he goes to the town magistrate to file a complaint against the cat and the fox, they throw him in jail for stupidity. So should it be for these vandals.
The climate howlers have done a fabulous of scaring these kids. 20% of young people report "mental difficulties" due to climate anxiety. If you truly fear for your life, which I think they do, it is easier to understand this childlike, panicked response.
Hopefully there is a special place in Hell for these preachers of doom that are frightening children to the point of mental illness.
As I have said, we need to treat them the same way we treat pedophiles.
They are child abusers, destroying children not one at a time but in large groups.