Climate Believer


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

Why?

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!

Comments

Unknown 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.
2/06/2015 4:56 PM
Unknown 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.
2/06/2015 10:14 PM
Unknown said…
He doesn't claim to be a scientist anywhere in the article.
2/07/2015 12:27 AM
Mike Dombroski 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.
2/07/2015 10:27 AM
Anonymous 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.
2/07/2015 11:35 AM
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.
2/08/2015 1:13 AM
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.
2/08/2015 5:15 AM
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.
2/08/2015 8:12 PM
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?
5/05/2016 4:48 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Starved for CO2

Image
This article is speculation, and yet, it is something to ponder about. During millions of years, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been dropping. Actually the drop had been quite dramatic between the late Jurassic (more than 2,000 ppm) to recent times (less than 400 ppm). This is no fine tuning, the difference is in the range of five to one. Important reserves of carbon in the form of ancient life remains had been trapped "forever" inside the Earth. These reserves were in the form of coal, oil and natural gas. No natural mechanism could pump back to the atmosphere those "forever" sequestered amounts of carbon. No natural mechanism...  but could the Earth naturally create unnatural occurrences to return to the biosphere that long lost carbon or, would the Earth itself slowly starve due to insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere? It was inconceivable for any plant or animal species of the time to actually extract billions of tons of ca...
Read more

550.org

Image
We are launching an alternate organization to 350.org because we believe that just wishing for something to happen (in other words for the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to go back to 350 ppm) is absurd in the light that we break a new CO2 emissions record every year. So, it makes no sense to invest time, effort and money in pursuing an impossible objective.  Let's state here in what we firmly believe: nobody alive today will ever see again 350 ppm. So, if not 350, where are we headed?  We are "easily" headed for 550 ppm, thus the name of our non-profit. Before we proceed further, let us state why we believe our non-profit will be more attractive than 350.org: We will not, ever, under any circumstances ask for donations. Hell, we won't even accept them even if somebody volunteers some money. We won't be dogmatic. We won't believe blindly in models, organizations (e.g. IPCC) or the Pope. We will strive to actually list...
Read more

Going Solar

Image
Some people insist that solar PV has achieved "grid parity" but to claim this they obviously have to consider grid connected PV. The real cost of solar PV is masked when grid connected. In order to better understand the real cost of solar PV, let's make a simplified exercise here. What would be needed to go off grid? The following: Obviously, the solar PV panels. Storage batteries A gasoline electric generator (unless you plan to store heroic amounts of electricity, you would need the backup generator). We'll consider the following parameters in our installation (feel free to substitute your own numbers): Annual solar capacity factor: 18%. Cost of the PV installation (including inverters, installation, etc.): $3 per Watt. We'll use Tesla storage batteries (the 7kW version) at a cost of $6,000 including installation. Solar panel useful life: 20 years. Batteries useful life: 10 years. Annual electricity usage: 8,400 kWh. So, this ho...
Read more