Stop Telling Kids They’ll Die from Climate Change
wired.co.uk
wired.co.uk
Obviously the idea that climate change (or 99.9% of things really) is capable of driving humanity extinct is absurd; but this is essentially the opposite message and equally wrong. I can imagine what it would be like if we had real political and/or financial support, but I'm not sure that there's a lot of evidence, at least here in the United States, that we're all that close to substantial support in either area.
In all honesty, it's hard to not read this as a technologist/neoliberal hype piece. "We don't have political support or money, but technology and the market will save us."
One thing that's somewhat amusing is the set of examples given to support this narrative. "Coal is effectively dead in many countries." Except that coal being dead in Sweden or France is essentially meaningless when roughly 60-70% of the power in China and India comes from coal. "Renewable prices are falling rapidly." This is mostly looking at solar and wind, which are difficult to implement for a variety of physical reasons regardless of price per kWh. "The price of batteries has fallen by 97 percent in the past 30 years." Except that modern battery storage is still horribly inefficient when compared to, for example, oil or natural gas.
Of course these problems are solvable, but it's hard to see how one could frame this genuinely and in good faith as some kind of net tailwind.
Hence the "net" part of what I said... All of what you said is fairly self-evident...
The article essentially argues to focus on the soft breeze at our backs instead of the hurricane in our face, which is a bit ridiculous, and only helps the political and financial forces that are the root cause of the hurricane.
That is to say, renewables are increasing, therefore the net velocity is positive (and accelerating). It is not 100%, so we have further to go (distance traveled).
If you want to measure the rate of change, it makes sense to benchmark against where you started and see if you are progressing.
In terms of renewable power adoption, the world is making ground, not losing it. The world on a better trajectory than it was 20 years ago, a wouldn't without the effort put in over the last few decades. There is a lot more work to do, and it is not going as fast as one might hope, but that does not negate past accomplishments.
Either way, this framing only works in very specific contexts, for example "renewables" or "many countries," many of which we'd arguably make progress on regardless (e.g. the cost of batteries would decrease over time regardless of the impetus of climate change), so it isn't very useful. Global emissions continue to increase, so, if we apply this framing more broadly, the net velocity is still negative (though acceleration has increased). As before, I'd also argue that simply increasing acceleration (towards reducing emissions/mitigating climate change) would happen regardless (e.g. as fossil fuel scarcity increases, usage of alternatives would increase), and still is not very useful.
If this is the framing of the article, it frames it this way very poorly, as you said. Instead it presents headwind vs. tailwind as two alternatives (i.e. "[r]ather than [..] we now have [...]") as opposed to things you'd always have (i.e. forces for vs. forces opposed).
That's an inconvenient truth that's mostly left out of a lot of the narratives around climate change. When you look at who's polluting and who's emissions are on an upward trajectory, there's one obvious country that's actively working against the environment. China's emissions aren't slowing down. Coal is incredibly cheap when there's no carbon tax or emission standards. One of the many reasons it's cheaper to manufacture in China and why North Americans and Europeans can't compete [0]. Comparing the US[1] and China[2], the US has:
- Decreasing per capita emissions in the US starting in 1973 (-27%)
- A decrease in the countries emission starting in 2007 (-13%)
Meanwhile for the same period China has had
- a 7x increase per capita since 1973 (+532%)
- 48% increase for its global emissions since 2007
So it is possible to drastically reduce our carbon footprint thanks to innovation and smarter power generation.
Time to add tariffs on goods produced by states who made the decision of going all-in on polluting power generation, and potentially apply immigration quotas to citizens of these countries.
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/us-leads-greenhouse-gas-emis...
I think it is misleading to look at % change without also taking into account the total magnitude, as the development state and energy situations in each country are drastically different. China is in a growth phase so electricity demand is increasing year over year. US electricity demand is relatively constant. China emissions are certainly increasing, but they are still half of the US per capita.[1]
Despite lower GDP, China has brought significantly more renewable power production online than the US in the last 10 years[2]. The US has added about 300 Twh of renewable electricity production in the last 10 years. China has has added about 1,600 Twh of renewable electricity production in the last 10 years.[3]
China electricity demand will increase to support GDP, and this is non-negotiable. They already source more of their electricity from renewables (as a percent), and are on track to have a lower fossil fuel consumption (as a percent) when they stabilize development.
In short, China is lower than the US in terms of per capita CO2 emissions, and has a trajectory to remain lower in the future.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
If a kid was afraid of terrorists in 2001, adults would explain to the kid that they needn't be, and that the chances of them dying in a terrorist attack were miniscule. Contrast this adults apparently telling their kids that, yes, they are going to die from climate change. Those are completely different scenarios, and likely have completely different psychological impact on a child.
The solution is pretty simple: be honest, and present possible solutions at the same time you present impending problems.
Fossil fueled global warming? It's progressed to the point where polar melting is now self-sustaining, i.e. albedo changes and permafrost melt and outgassing basically guarantee an ice-free Arctic summer within a few decades. So, that's the reality: climate has already significantly warmed relative to the pre-industrial era.
So, what's the solution? How about a 3.3% decrease in fossil fuel production and an equivalent rise in renewable energy production over the next 30 years? That would eliminate the root cause - fossil fuel combustion - while preserving human access to needed energy.
Reducing the consumption of resources and CO2 emissions is crucial in reducing climate change, but is only treating the symptoms of the problem and not the root cause.
Human civilisation is completely unable to deal with any change to the sea level or climate, so any change likely trigger wars for better territory and arable land.
So what exactly do you want? Many of the advanced nations seem to have a current population replacement ratio below 2.1 which means they are LOSING population. So it appears educated countries have made some steps. It also means problems. China's policy for instance. Their population replacement is projected to drop much more causing a shortage of workers, including those growing food for an aging population.
My main point is almost none of the worlds problems have simple solutions. And screaming "Urgent" isn't the solution.
Consider the projected increase in coal-fired energy use in the US due to expected cooler winter combined with reduction in domestic natural gas and oil production. I'd consider this a major unintended consequence. Similarly, the famous Al Gore push for ethanol portions in general usage gasoline, to increase the use of renewable energy. Ethanol requires 1.5X as much as gasoline to produce the same energy. It damaged fuel systems on millions of vehicles requiring costly repairs or replacements. It generally utilizes corn, thus reducing available stocks for animals and humans. Feeding animals cost more, thus feeding humans costs more. Unintended consequences. Side note: Al Gore went from merely rich to mega-rich on ethanol.
Ammonia production is largely based on natural gas. Reducing natural gas production contributes to increased cost of ammonia production. Who cares? Fertilizer is highly dependent on ammonia as an ingredient. Natural gas costs more, ammonia costs more, fertilizer costs more, corn costs more, ethanol costs more, gasoline costs more, grain-fed animals costs more, your food budget suffers.
To quote the great philosopher Kelly Bundy, "The mind wobbles".