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