Climate Believer

Yes, I'm a climate change believer, but I will be siding with the deniers.


Because many of the actions proposed by vocal believers are worse than doing nothing.

Here are some examples:
  • Renewable* energy targets. Why take this indirect and probably counter productive approach? Who says renewables reduce emissions system-wise? Show me one country with emissions below 100 grams per kWh that has achieved it primarily with solar and wind. The silence is deafening. 
  • Subsidies (overt and covert) for renewables. Let's not overlook that priority access to the grid by renewables IS a sort of subsidy. Why are reliable producers penalized to accommodate random energy dumps from renewables? It is not fair. 
  • Label wood as "renewable" and shamelessly burn it. And since Europe doesn't have enough, then let's burn the forests of North America!
  • Block energy access to the poor (particularly in poor countries). Oh, yes, India doesn't have the "right" to burn coal. Let them "leapfrog" to the newest technologies, like solar. Never mind it is not reliable and very expensive. Never mind the Energiewende has been a failure. WE know better than these bunch of Indians. 
  • Campaign against nuclear. This almost seems like a bad joke: campaign against the premier low carbon energy! Are they kidding? Can you consider yourself an environmentalist and be against nuclear? Can you consider yourself an environmentalist and NOT be pro-nuclear?
  • Tax incentives for electric vehicles (so, the poor have to pay for the toys of the rich? Wow!). Yes, divert more public funds to the ultimate cool toy of the rich: a Tesla!
  • Carbon taxes: when you boil them down to their essentials, they are just another tax. So, thanks, but no thanks. 
  • Oh, and finally: scare the population to death. Yes, no doubt the best way to get everybody on board is to create panic. And nobody is too young to escape this: let's begin by planting fear in the hearts of children at the most tender age possible. 

So yes, even though I am a believer in climate change "officially" I am now siding with the deniers.

Lately, they seem to make more sense respecting the well-being of humanity.

If a "solution" implies vast suffering for billions of humans, then it is not a solution.

Stay tuned, a future post would deal with the subject: the sensible believer.

Feel free to add to the conversation in Twitter: @luisbaram

Thank you.

* By renewable I mean solar PV and wind turbines. Hydro is the premier renewable resource. It has led, leads and will continue to lead in electric energy generation. Kudos to hydro!


Adam Hendricks said...

Glad to see that there is a climate scientist out there who has finally figured out that much of the force behind global warming alarmism are degenerate elitists (not scientists) who want to goad governments into mass murder via Holodomor (mass starvation via government policy) because they want a world with less people in it.

Christian Forment said...

Good points. I'm all for reducing human impact on climate & environment but, as you pointed out, a lot of the proposed solutions just don't make sense. I'm also a firm believer in the power of innovation. Better or more efficient ways to do the things we need The answer isn't to taxes companies and create watchdog agencies for everything but to educate about the problems and foster business competition towards solution creation.

Leonard Dimberio said...

He doesn't claim to be a scientist anywhere in the article.

Canman said...

Don't forget the free pass for the environmental footprint of renewables with their offshore mining of rare earth metals and bird and bat kills.

plazamoyua.com said...

Quite interesting. And, funny. I have taken the liberty to translate it into Spanish, as part of a somewhat wider idea. With due attribution. Let me know if you have a problem with that.

Brian H said...

Tesla would do fine without "subsidies", which are tax breaks given to purchasers, typically about 4% of purchase. The car is simply superior, and the company is working hard to get to the point it can offer a mid-priced car at half the price of its current offerings in 2-3 yrs.

Wijnand said...

You must have forgotten the /sarc tag right Brian H.?

The car is simply superior? In what way exactly?

- Cost? Yes.
- Luxuriousness? Yes
- Pompous pronouncement that one "cares" while at the same time consuming like hell? Yes!
- less energy use per km driven? No!!!!!!

Typical gasoline-powered auto engines are approximately 27% efficient. Typical fossil-fueled generating stations are 50% efficient, transmission to end user is 67% efficient, battery charging is 90% efficient and the auto’s electric motor is 90% efficient, so that the fuel efficiency of an electric car is also 27%. However, the electric car requires 30% more power per mile traveled to move the mass of its batteries.
Given that it is decades (if ever) before our electricity is mostly generated without fossil fuels those "superior" Tesla's of yours are just burning coal and gas to move around, and doing it less efficiently than a modern reciprocating engine driven vehicle.

So what is the freaking point of stuffing a vehicle full of chemical waste (chemical batteries) and pretending it does not use fossil fuels to propel itself?
No point at all except "feel-good" "look at me" pretend-to-be-green ultra consumerism.

Richvs said...

Good summary points. As a retired BSEE/MSChE engineer I was once a true believer in AGW always looking for an efficient way to promote renewables & nuclear energy. But after studying this issue for 45+yrs I realized that this whole debate is not about a methodology of moving from hydrocarbons to a more sustainable energy source but a political mindset based on saving the world from destructive forces of an increasing population of (humanity). It is not scientific in any way possible. Sane people would realize that standardized design, nuclear based power is the answer...but insanity currently reigns. Just imagine if we were in a position today to try to justify to the world that electrical energy routed to nearly ever household or business would be beneficial to mankind. In todays world, it would never happen. I think humanity intelligence reached its apex shortly after WWII and is now descending fairly rapidly.

Saskboy said...

"Who says renewables reduce emissions system-wise? Show me one country with emissions below 100 grams per kWh"

Is Iceland an example?
Don't you set up your question to fail by excluding geothermal renewable energy?