The Race of Our Lives1

[stone]

I know there are a few climate change skeptics on here. Have you seen Jeremy Grantham's GMO quarterly letter "The Race of Our Lives" where writes about the need to move over to alternative energy? I'm already of the same view as him but I'm interested as to what the rest of you think.
http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/GMO_Q ... 1Q2013.pdf
[quote] I have just two comments about our current problems. First, that there is one particular pressure this time that seems
particularly serious: aversion to bad news. The investment business has taught me – increasingly as the years have
passed – that people, especially investors (and, I believe, Americans), prefer good news and wishful thinking to bad
news; and that there are always vested interests to offer facile, optimistic alternatives to the bad news. The good
news is obviously an easier sell. Good news in investing in particular is better for business; good news on resource
limitation is better for the suppliers of resources; and good news on climate change – that it basically does not exist and
is even a hoax – is better for energy companies, among the biggest and most profi table of all companies. Historians
have pointed out the bias against the need for change: there are always clear benefi ciaries of the current state of affairs
but the benefi ts of a changed world in contrast will look vague and uncertain to the likely benefi ciaries. That is always
the case. What is less common, although not unique in history, is what we have today: the near complete control of
government by the powerful benefi ciaries of the current system.

[Pointedstick]

Broadly speaking, my reaction to climate change is not that I think it doesn't exist, rather, I believe that:

1) The geological record shows that this planet's climate has changed dramatically and rapidly in the past
2) If indeed this particular recent global rise in temperatures has been caused by humans, there is 0% chance humans will cease the activities that caused it

Thus my conclusion regardless of the cause is that the human race needs to become more resilient to the effects of climate change rather than vainly, wastefully, and pointlessly attempting to change or reverse what has already been set in motion. Even many climate scientists who believe humans have caused it are now warning that we've reached a "point of no return" where we can't stop it anymore. I think that we should begin to deal with the potential consequences rather than pretending that we have the political, technological, or economic will necessary to undertake the largest and most controversial project in human history with zero prior evidence of success.

[Mdraf]

I agree with Pointedstick here. In addition would like to point out that I'm at the ending stage of a 30 year career in photovoltaics (solar electric energy), so I'd be happy to address any  questions you may have re alternative energy, particularly solar. If I were to sum it up  in a single sentence it would be: Photovoltaic solar is cost-effective in certain specialized applications. It is not cost-effective connected to a national grid to provide bulk power.

[WildAboutHarry]

I agree with Pointedstick here. In addition would like to point out that I'm at the ending stage of a 30 year career in photovoltaics (solar electric energy), so I'd be happy to address any  questions you may have re alternative energy, particularly solar. If I were to sum it up  in a single sentence it would be: Photovoltaic solar is cost-effective in certain specialized applications. It is not cost-effective connected to a national grid to provide bulk power.

Agree with Ps as well.

Also, what happens to most of the solar energy that arrives on planet earth?  Most of it reflects back into space.  If not, the earth would get progressively warmer, right?  What happens when we capture solar energy in PV arrays to generate electricity?  We capture energy that would normally be reflected back into space and ultimately convert that energy to heat, warming the atmosphere.  So how does that help with global warming?

I am all for using solar energy, but as a way to "fight" climate change it seems a bit lame.

[Tyler]

Climate change aside, I find the article's argument that "good news is easier to sell" and that big corporations and politicians thus use good news to milk people for money and influence to be comically lame.  Classic case of projection.  Just turn on any news channel or listen to any political speech to see what people depending on ratings for a living have determined to be most profitable and influential. 

Adding to Pointedstick's points, even if anthropogenic climate change is 100% true, any proposed change to fight it is unmeasurable during our lifetime.  So how do we know any "solution" isn't really making things worse?  I prefer to spend limited resources making positive changes in environmental things we can measure right now (clean rivers, reducing smog, etc) rather then throwing billions away on a computer model. Preserving the ski season a few hundred years from now rather than providing clean water for the poor today is a very first-world-problem that can wait.

Also, knowing that the earth has been both much hotter and much colder than it is now, I find the conceit that the temperature today is the perfect one to set the thermostat to permanently to be quite the remarkable assumption.

[RuralEngineer]

Broadly speaking, my reaction to climate change is not that I think it doesn't exist, rather, I believe that:

1) The geological record shows that this planet's climate has changed dramatically and rapidly in the past
2) If indeed this particular recent global rise in temperatures has been caused by humans, there is 0% chance humans will cease the activities that caused it

Thus my conclusion regardless of the cause is that the human race needs to become more resilient to the effects of climate change rather than vainly, wastefully, and pointlessly attempting to change or reverse what has already been set in motion. Even many climate scientists who believe humans have caused it are now warning that we've reached a "point of no return" where we can't stop it anymore. I think that we should begin to deal with the potential consequences rather than pretending that we have the political, technological, or economic will necessary to undertake the largest and most controversial project in human history with zero prior evidence of success.

I agree with PS and add my viewpoint that what science I've seen on climate change from those proposing an anthropogenic source seem to be fairly shoddy considering the severity of the impact to humanity that they are proposing with their "solution."  If scientists are really going to ask us to trust them to gut our economies in order to avert some predicted cataclysm, they need to do their due diligence a bit better than what I've seen.

[Mdraf]

Also, what happens to most of the solar energy that arrives on planet earth?  Most of it reflects back into space.

Correct.  And even that portion that does make it to the surface of the earth is limited in its utilization.  There is a debate among PV scientists as to the maximum conversion efficiency theoretically possible, but even the most optimistic do not go over 40%. Actual factory production currently ranges between 16-21%

[notsheigetz]

I'm betting there are more than just a few climate change skeptics here, or at least those who are highly suspicious of the more alarmist varieties. There have just been too many wrong predictions in the past. I am actually old enough to have been in a high school science class when they were talking about the fast approaching new ice age. And then there was the "acid raid" that was killing all the trees in the Appalachian mountains. If you drive up there today you will still seeing them dying but now they know it's a disease and had nothing to do with acid rain.

And reading this article on overpopulation I was also reminded of the famous predictions of Paul Ehrlich in 1968 that the world would start running out of food around 1980. Instead, we now have an obesity epidemic in America.

So why shouldn't people be skeptical about these kinds of warnings?

[stone]

Also, what happens to most of the solar energy that arrives on planet earth?  Most of it reflects back into space.  If not, the earth would get progressively warmer, right?  What happens when we capture solar energy in PV arrays to generate electricity?  We capture energy that would normally be reflected back into space and ultimately convert that energy to heat, warming the atmosphere.  So how does that help with global warming?
I am all for using solar energy, but as a way to "fight" climate change it seems a bit lame.

After capturing the solar energy and using it to generate electricity and then using that electricity, the consequent heat gets radiated out into space exactly as does the heat that comes when we use electricity generated by fossil fuels.

I'm not so sure that we don't have the option of moving over to using renewable energy sources. The post war "green revolution" in agriculture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution came about because of idealistic ingenious people putting the effort in. Perhaps China will do the same with renewable energy and the free world will be left behind

[WiseOne]

Broadly speaking, my reaction to climate change is not that I think it doesn't exist, rather, I believe that:

1) The geological record shows that this planet's climate has changed dramatically and rapidly in the past
2) If indeed this particular recent global rise in temperatures has been caused by humans, there is 0% chance humans will cease the activities that caused it

Thus my conclusion regardless of the cause is that the human race needs to become more resilient to the effects of climate change rather than vainly, wastefully, and pointlessly attempting to change or reverse what has already been set in motion. Even many climate scientists who believe humans have caused it are now warning that we've reached a "point of no return" where we can't stop it anymore. I think that we should begin to deal with the potential consequences rather than pretending that we have the political, technological, or economic will necessary to undertake the largest and most controversial project in human history with zero prior evidence of success.

OK I'll bite...

Dealing with those consequences is going to get REALLY expensive.  Hurricane Sandy is costing a serious piece of change, for example.  There are plenty of changes that could be made that are practical, and might just save us a few of those mega-events.  Energy efficiency makes a lot more sense than solar in nearly all cases, but I also like the idea of turning cities into power stations with things like thin solar films attached to windows (cutting solar gain at the same time), and mounting windmills on tall buildings where it's often windy.  For one thing, this saves the energy that's lost in transmission from distant power plant sites.  For another, it REALLY sucks to be in a small apartment in 100 degree heat during a power outage, and any measures that reduce the chance of one of those is a Good Thing.

[stone]

Also, what happens to most of the solar energy that arrives on planet earth?  Most of it reflects back into space.

Correct.  And even that portion that does make it to the surface of the earth is limited in its utilization.  There is a debate among PV scientists as to the maximum conversion efficiency theoretically possible, but even the most optimistic do not go over 40%. Actual factory production currently ranges between 16-21%

But Mdraf, surely it doesn't matter at all if "only" 16% of the solar energy is converted? There is such a vast excess of solar energy that we could get all the power we could ever need from harvesting a tiny fraction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy:

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[8] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[13][14] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[15] The technical potential available from biomass is from 100–300 EJ/year.[10] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,[16]

[Xan]

Hurricanes have been hitting North America since long before global warming (note the marketing switch to the convenient, impossible-to-disprove "climate change").  There's zero evidence that Sandy was caused by it.  Predictably, all the climate "experts" expected huge storms to constantly be barraging us, and predictably they were exactly wrong.  Of course, it feels like they were right every time there's a storm; people don't often remember that time there wasn't one.

[stone]

All those against developing renewables: Are you also skeptics about fossil fuels running out?

[Mdraf]

Also, what happens to most of the solar energy that arrives on planet earth?  Most of it reflects back into space.

Correct.  And even that portion that does make it to the surface of the earth is limited in its utilization.  There is a debate among PV scientists as to the maximum conversion efficiency theoretically possible, but even the most optimistic do not go over 40%. Actual factory production currently ranges between 16-21%

But Mdraf, surely it doesn't matter at all if "only" 16% of the solar energy is converted? There is such a vast excess of solar energy that we could get all the power we could ever need from harvesting a tiny fraction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy:

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[8] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[13][14] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[15] The technical potential available from biomass is from 100–300 EJ/year.[10] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,[16]

The article you cite includes all forms of solar energy including heat and photosynthesis.  I was talking only about photovoltaic. The problem is not the theory. The problem is that we don't yet have the technology to harvest all that solar energy in an "energy efficient" way. In other words we would burn more fossil fuels' energy to create solar panels that would deliver that same energy in their useful lifetime (20-25 yrs).

Clue: when you read articles about alternative energy pay special attention to the word "potential".

[notsheigetz]

All those against developing renewables: Are you also skeptics about fossil fuels running out?

I didn't hear anybody say there were against developing renewable energy sources but I don't like throwing hard-earned money down the drain on bondoggles like Solyndra if that's what you are referring to.

And yes, I am starting to be a skeptic about fossil fuels running out. There are those who believe oil actually is a renewable energy source and didn't just come from a bunch of dead dinosaurs after all.

Actually I'm just a born skeptic about most everything.

[WildAboutHarry]

After capturing the solar energy and using it to generate electricity and then using that electricity, the consequent heat gets radiated out into space exactly as does the heat that comes when we use electricity generated by fossil fuels.

All those against developing renewables: Are you also skeptics about fossil fuels running out?

A bunch of solar energy simply reflects off the surface of the earth and back into space without heating anything (or only trivially so).  Collecting, storing, and using solar energy is different.  It is basically like photosynthesis, the process that produced fossil fuels in the first place.  Obviously without the benefit of oxygen production.

I haven't seen anyone offer anything against renewable energy sources in this thread.  I do not believe they are the panacea for energy independence, global climate change, etc.  And of course fossil fuels will never "run out."  They will simply become too expensive to extract and use.

[stone]

Wild About Harry , I'm sorry but I don't think providing for all of human kinds energy needs by solar power would make any significant dent in the proportion of solar energy that gets reflected back into space. You said that solar power could heat the earth by reducing the proportion of solar energy that gets reflected back out. I think that idea gets the proportions involved massively out of whack.

And all of you, I do appreciate that it is important to be skeptical about everything. I value your opinions. That is why I aired this here.

[Libertarian666]

I believe the climate is changing, and that this is going to cause major problems for those who live too near sea level (much of the human race) due to sea level rise.

I don't believe there is any chance of stopping this by restrictive measures such as carbon taxes, which are just another way for the power elite to grab more of the human race's output.

However, my understanding is that solar shading by large space mirrors could slow or stop this trend. We need a good reason to start the large scale exploration and utilization of space anyway.

[MediumTex]

Okay, to start with I do not have any strong political or ideological beliefs about climate change, other than the general reluctance of most creatures to soil their nests.

The problem is that the climate change activists apparently believe that the governments of the world are the agents of change that will be the ones to act to help achieve the climate change objectives that are important to the activists.

I see a couple of problems with this approach.  First, every time in history that governments have tried to change the world to make it a better place, the effort normally ends up with a huge amount of stolen property to fund the effort and a huge body count when the effort finally comes to an end. 

Even when you believe your country is on the right end of these global efforts such as the U.S. was in WWII, consider that the U.S. ultimately felt justified in committing what was surely the worst terrorist act in modern times by dropping two nuclear weapons on civilian populations.  In other words, the U.S. position in its efforts to be the global "good guy" in WWII led it to justify nuking two entire cities. 

Is it crazy to think that if a group of countries thought that it was justified in its climate change prevention efforts, it might assume that this effort justified certain coercive steps to help people see the error of their ways when it came to contrary opinions about how climate change should be balanced against other interests?

If you think that this sounds unrealistic, imagine how FDR would have reacted in 1940 on the campaign trail if you had asked him what the chances were that within five years the U.S. would be dropping two "super bombs" on Japanese cities, slaughtering tens of thousands of women, children and other civilians.  Remember that one of his campaign slogans in 1940 was "He Kept Us Out of War."  Something tells me he would have said such an idea was preposterous, and that slaughtering civilians was simply not something that the U.S. would ever be involved in.

So back to climate change.  If we are skeptical of the government's ability to improve human nature or society through ever more intrusive policies, why wouldn't we be be VERY skeptical of the government's ability to effectively manage the forces shaping the earth's climate?

In other words, even if we acknowledge that climate change is a big problem with its origins in humanity's industrialization, I still don't know if I would have much faith in the efforts of a few countries around the world who desire to set the environmental agenda for every nation in the world.

If we acknowledge that the government's main tool is coercion and the threat of coercion, what would be the logical response to "renegade" nations that chose not to adopt world environmental requirements?  I am visualizing economic sanctions that would ultimately be followed by military action.  What would happen if a group of nations got tired of such "environmental hegemony" and decided that it wanted to shake the bonds of "climate change tyranny" and was willing to do it through rebellion and terrorism if necessary.  Visualize groups like the Founding Fathers in the U.S. who might engage in acts of rebellion simply because they were sick and tired of arbitrary confiscatory policies of a foreign nation who felt entitled to tell the whole world how it was going to live.

I appreciate Jeremy Grantham's views, but he has been saying this stuff for several years now and he is starting to take that tone of "I know more than the rest of you and therefore you have to listen to me."  The thing that I think Grantham misunderstands is that simply identifying the problem doesn't mean that your solutions (or anyone's solutions) will actually work.  In fact, sometimes the "solutions" to one problem create vastly greater problems as the unintended consequences begin to play out.  I have no reason to think that coercive international climate change prevention efforts wouldn't create a clusterfuck of unintended consequences, up to and including regional or international military conflicts.

Woodrow Wilson had the "world changer" delusion that became more messianic as his commitment to it and sacrifice for it increased.  I see echoes of Woodrow Wilson in many climate change activists today, including the underlying sense that they may secretly feel that "by whatever means necessary" is the right approach to helping people on the other side of the climate change debate see the error of their ways.

I am sure that human combustion of carbon-based fuels has altered the earth's atmosphere in some way.  If you think about it from a high level, it's pretty easy to see that the world's habitability for humans was caused (in part) by the natural carbon sequestration that occurred when the dinosaur-era organic material was buried and thereby created atmospheric changes conducive to human evolution. Since we are one of the by-products of this natural carbon sequestration process, our re-introduction of this carbon into the atmosphere at some point WILL make the earth's habitat less habitable for humans, but the earth has had periodic ice ages for millions of years, and it seems to me that the next ice age will dramatically reduce the earth's human carrying capacity anyway, so I would probably be more concerned about global cooling than global warming (though I am aware of the theories about global warming being the catalyst for another ice age).

One of the really big picture questions presented by the climate change debate is the ultimate fate of humanity.  Are we a transitory dominant species (as all dominant species that came before us were transitory), or is there something special about us that will prevent us from meeting the same fate as all of our predecessors?  I am inclined to take a more humble (as opposed to hubristic) position on our ultimate fate, whether it is caused by natural climate change (which is what has typically happened through history) or human-caused climate change (which would apparently be unique in the earth's history).

One of the really interesting questions that this discussion raises is whether there is a religious-like conviction held by the climate change activists that the entire human race is immortal, even as they scoff at the idea of individual human immortality.  If, however, one fully internalizes the concept that the human species from start to finish will probably just be a tiny blip in the earth's history, then the climate change issue somehow becomes less worrisome.  It's not that you wouldn't want to do something about it if you could, and you will certainly remain on the lookout for solutions that might actually work, but if we fail to modify the climate in a way that will facilitate our maximum survival time as a species, the fact that the size of our "blip" in the earth's history might be 20% smaller or larger than it would otherwise be is an entirely different matter from the idea that humanity will ultimately dominate the universe for millions and millions of years unless we fail to fix the climate change issues we are facing in 2013.  In other words, it's a big deal, but it's not THAT big a deal (IMHO of course).

But the bottom line for me is that the government has repeatedly shown itself to have a poor ability to solve even simple problems like delivering health care or keeping the proverbial potholes filled.  What makes us think that it will be able to control the future of the atmosphere of the entire earth when the government meteorologists do well to predict what the weather will be doing a week from now?

[Tyler]

All those against developing renewables: Are you also skeptics about fossil fuels running out?

I'm not at all against developing new energy technologies. I am, however, against overblown end of the earth arguments to push particular political agendas.

I always find it curious that the typical environmentalist ostensibly worried about CO2 emissions and peak oil is not nearly as excited about the shale/natural gas boom that has been enabled by new fracking technologies. Ironically, the United States is in track to be the only country to ultimately meet the stated carbon reduction goals of the Kyoto Protocal, and they did it without even signing up. Strangely, new energy technology driven by smart individuals has been far more effective than international monetary redistribution schemes created by self-serving politicians. Go figure. And yet many want to cripple that new technology in favor of their own pet projects.

It's almost as if many people are actually most interested in a particular solution, and search for the problem to justify it. That's not science. That's pure political activism bordering on religious devotion.

[Libertarian666]

All those against developing renewables: Are you also skeptics about fossil fuels running out?

I'm not at all against developing new energy technologies. I am, however, against overblown end of the earth arguments to push particular political agendas.

I always find it curious that the typical environmentalist ostensibly worried about CO2 emissions and peak oil is not nearly as excited about the shale/natural gas boom that has been enabled by new fracking technologies. Ironically, the United States is in track to be the only country to ultimately meet the stated carbon reduction goals of the Kyoto Protocal, and they did it without even signing up. Strangely, new energy technology driven by smart individuals has been far more effective than international monetary redistribution schemes created by self-serving politicians. Go figure. And yet many want to cripple that new technology in favor of their own pet projects.

It's almost as if many people are actually most interested in a particular solution, and search for the problem to justify it. That's not science. That's pure political activism bordering on religious devotion.

Most of the environmentalists I know (not a large number) are quite excited about gas fracking. Not in a happy way, though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GASLAND

[WiseOne]

But the bottom line for me is that the government has repeatedly shown itself to have a poor ability to solve even simple problems like delivering health care or keeping the proverbial potholes filled.  What makes us think that it will be able to control the future of the atmosphere of the entire earth when the government meteorologists do well to predict what the weather will be doing a week from now?

Actually, I doubt that government is going to be the primary agent here.  It's going to be individual and market changes, in response to public opinion about climate change.  It'll be people choosing to buy a small efficient car rather than another SUV, getting an energy audit on their home, and spending a bit more to get energy star appliances knowing that it will save money down the line.  One rather nice example:  a small town in Western Massachusetts was planning to raise taxes to balance the school budget.  At a town meeting, it was decided to make a concerted push to reduce energy consumption in municipal buildings instead.  The energy bills were cut by $30,000 and the tax hike was averted.  Score!

Instead of spending so much effort trying to pretend science and logic don't exist, perhaps the Republican Party would get more mileage (pun intended) out of acknowledging climate change and promoting non-Big-Brother approaches to dealing with it.

[Pointedstick]

If we acknowledge that the government's main tool is coercion and the threat of coercion, what would be the logical response to "renegade" nations that chose not to adopt world environmental requirements?  I am visualizing economic sanctions that would ultimately be followed by military action.  What would happen if a group of nations got tired of such "environmental hegemony" and decided that it wanted to shake the bonds of "climate change tyranny" and was willing to do it through rebellion and terrorism if necessary.  Visualize groups like the Founding Fathers in the U.S. who might engage in acts of rebellion simply because they were sick and tired of arbitrary confiscatory policies of a foreign nation who felt entitled to tell the whole world how it was going to live.

Anyone remember this video made by the 10:10 Global environmental group?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co

The fact that this video ever got past the "terrible idea" stage of brainstorming is shocking to me.

I get a very ugly "anti-human" vibe from an awful lot of the true believers in anthropogenic climate change that reminds me from my college days when I knew a lot of self-loathing vegans and environmentalists who were bubbling up inside with repressed violent tendencies.

[MediumTex]

I get a very ugly "anti-human" vibe from an awful lot of the true believers in anthropogenic climate change that reminds me from my college days when I knew a lot of self-loathing vegans and environmentalists who were bubbling up inside with repressed violent tendencies.

On behalf of the cows, pigs and other tasty animals of the world, we are prepared to effect change by whatever means necessary.

[stone]

I agree that some renewable energy enthusiasts are evil and stupid. Same thing with some climate change skeptics. Nevertheless it is very foolish to let that cloud our judgement.

I agree with WiseOne that our own personal choices can collectively make a huge impact. My worry is that many people won't choose for themselves to cut down their own personal carbon footprint because so much muck has been thrown at the whole climate change idea.

I'm not sure that government always acts in as malign or ineffectual a way as Medium Tex says. What about the post-war "green revolution" in agriculture? What about eradicating small pox? Doesn't eradicating small pox perfectly fit the bill of a grandiose multinational government led project -just the kind of thing you are slagging off?

I don't think developing renewable energy sources and conserving energy need entail coercion of other nations. The wealthy free world could pretty much solve the problem on our own by sorting ourselves out. China emits a lot of its CO2 due to making stuff we consume and anyway China seems the country most open to renewable technologies.
We DO now get embroiled in wars with other countries so as to secure access to oil in exchange for USD. It seems to me that oil and the currency hegemony an oil based western world requires are far more war inducing. By contrast renewable energy could allow peace and energy security.