Recent Comments

Prev  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next

Comments 2651 to 2700:

2651. Rob Honeycutt at 01:49 AM on 24 February 2023
      CO2 limits will hurt the poor
      

      To add to OPOF @63... The first task for yourself is accepting you will never change that person's mind. Once someone has taken a firm position, as they seem to have done, it is virtually impossible to alter their base conclusions. In fact, they will become more intransigent over time.

      If you're engaging with them one-on-one, the exchange will be a rather pointless task, other than what you may learn, yourself, through debunking myths. If you're engaging in a public forum, try to remember the other people who may be reading. There you might find minds that can be changed and people interested in the science.

2652. One Planet Only Forever at 00:03 AM on 24 February 2023
      CO2 limits will hurt the poor
      

      PollutionMonster @60,

      The 'car' issue could be directly addressed.

      Start with: AGREE with the person you are dealing with - Needing to own and use a vehicle is a very expensive requirement. It is a very "high cost of living" item faced by the poor.

      Then address effective solutions to that problem: Reducing the need for a personal vehicle. Bike lanes can be part of the solution. And improved and lower cost public transit is also helpful. (Note that making harmful fossil fuel cheaper by not requiring the effort and cost of making it 'harmless' to be paid is not a solution - It is the origin of the problem. Fossil fuels always should have been much more expensive)

      AGREE that a lack of use of Bike Lanes may indicate other systemic problems that need to be addressed to make it easier for poor people to live 'without a car' and with the freedom they can have by biking when the weather is not horrendous (when public transit would be the better option).

      AGREE that helping the poor should not be "Paid for by the poor".

      Some of those points or ways of presenting the case may apply to the Solar issue.

2653. John Mason at 16:39 PM on 23 February 2023
      At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
      

      Good points there, John. Thanks.

2654. John Hartz at 15:14 PM on 23 February 2023
      At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
      

      John M @ #2:

      Taking into account what you said, I would bold the titles of the two books and put the date of publication for each in parenthesis immediately after the title. Doing so would let the reader know how old the books are.

2655. PollutionMonster at 14:06 PM on 23 February 2023
      CO2 limits will hurt the poor
      

      I apologize that the inflammatory labels were too much, sorry you had to edit. Thanks for letting me know to keep the inflammatory labels down a bit. Still new here, I want to respect the rules, but gonna stumble some at first.

      Rob Honeycutt @61

      Thanks for the quick response. I want to focus on solar panels. That seems to be what the proverbial crankyuncles that I run into seem to be mentioning the most. I will put in fact, myth, fallacy, fact format a debunking. Though right now i don't have the scholarly peer reviewed articles to back up my conclusions.

      Fact: Solar panels are a cheaper energy source than fossil fuels.

      Myth:  CO2 limits in the form of Solar panels will hurt the poor of the first world.

      Fallacy: Cherry picking by using old data and omitting fossil fuel subsidies that can be used on clean energy. Hidden costs like healthcare and future generations having to clean up costs of pollution select evidence is used to come to the faulty conclusion.

      Fact: Solar energy is cheaper than coal.

      Analogy: Pretending that solar panels are still expensive is the same as imagining that all cell phones are still huge bricks.

      Sources: NPR, Nature, and popularscience.

      Solar cheaper than Coal NPR 2020

       Popular science solar panels got cheap, 2021.

      Nature 5.9 trillon fossil fuel subsidies.

      Let me know if there is anyway to improve this debunking, and of course I would appreciate a fact check.  The skeptic looks bad when the person who is denying climate science can prove them incorrect. Hopefully this is the correct thread to post this comment, seems the best to me, but I could be wrong. Thanks in advance. :)

2656. Rob Honeycutt at 10:32 AM on 23 February 2023
      CO2 limits will hurt the poor
      

      PM @60... Sounds like your climate denier needs to pick a lane (pun intended) and stick to it rather than Gish galloping through all the topics they don't understand. 

2657. PollutionMonster at 09:45 AM on 23 February 2023
      CO2 limits will hurt the poor
      

      I could use some help I got a sanctimonious belligerent trollish climate change denier [snipped] scolding me for not caring about the poor in first world countries. They won't even tell me what country they are from.

      They go on and on about bicycle lanes not being used and how the working class has to pay for them. That lashing rain, what in the world is lashing rain anyways, makes it too difficult to bicycle to work?

      Then, they go on and on about the expense of electric cars and solar panels. I've found the electric car and solar panel argument to be very common.

      Crank uncle: Electric cars and solar panels are too expensive for the poor!

      Thank you in advance. :)
      

      Moderator Response:

      [BL] Please keep the inflammatory labels down a bit.

2658. John Mason at 21:39 PM on 22 February 2023
      At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
      

      I kinda agree with that, John. Italics are typical in most media outlets. However, you'd do well to find second-hand copies of the books mentioned in this case since they were published almost 50 years ago.
      
      In the at-a-glance versions we avoid all things that could distract the reader: a link may break the flow of concentration as someone stops to think about clicking it or not. These are after all aimed at being inclusive and hopefully should be understandable to folk regardless of previous experience (or not) in the sciences.

2659. John Hartz at 14:45 PM on 22 February 2023
      At a glance - What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
      

      John Mason & Baerbel:

      I suggest a protocol be adopted to bold the title of all books (see second paragraph of OP) and embed a link to a publisher and/or online seller of the book into the title of each book.

      I also suggest a protocol to use italics for the title of all published papers (as was done in the third paragraph of the OP) and embed a link to the journal in which the paper appears.

2660. Rob Honeycutt at 02:38 AM on 22 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      PM @414... Oh, you'd hardly believe the number of times I've seen that line used. And, used seemingly in ernest, no less.

2661. PollutionMonster at 18:07 PM on 21 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      Rob Honeycutt @412

      That's an awesome example. "I don't deny the Earth has a climate." I love it! Thank you. :)

      Eclectic @413

      Thanks this helps me a lot.

      ""Denier" is a handy short label for those who are opposed to taking action for fixing the global warming problem. They themselves dislike it, and whinge greatly about the label"  Eclectic

      I won't visit or even mention the name of the website you mentioned. I figure it is just giving them more ad revenue. As for the part about Africa, I call what the climate change denier is doing as concern trolling. This argument also relies heavily upon climate myth #3 it is not bad.

      Sometimes the denier takes the moral grandstanding route, angry, and insulted when I implied they are a climate change denier. I usually, just apologize to be nice, but sometimes I think I apologize too much. Anti-vaxxers do this too.

      Caricature of a climate argument.

      me: "climate change can be prevented without pitting the enviorment versus poor people. I recommend the websites skepticalscience.com and crankyuncle."

      Sample denier argument: "You are calling me a climate change denier by linking to the two links above. How dare you insult me! Calling me a climate change denier is an ad hominem and dehumanizing language. You should be ashamed of yourself. I will not stand for such harassment, abusive hate speech, I am highly offended!!!"

      This moral outrage type of argument can be quite difficult to stomach. More so if they catch you off guard. Let's check my message, wait what? Let alone if I show any emotion especially anger.

      me: "Wow, this is tin foil hat level of conspiracy thinking gish gallop."

      Climate change denier: "Enough with the attitude! I wrote twenty pages and you dismiss my claims with a single sentence. You ignore all of my claims and make no effort. What do I get in response, snark? I find this disrespectful. Nobody listens to me. How dare you! "

      Pay attention to the self-pity in the above paragraph. I can practically hear them playing a violin.

      With your example of Africa the climate change denier tries to peg the skeptic as a member of the cabal, the denier as a member of the army of light, and everyone else as sheeple. That's why I think #3 its not bad is such an important myth to dispel.

      The idea that proponents of climate change action are cast as the villains and deniers the heroes bothers me. Taken a step further the climate change denier sometimes resorts to abusive ad hominems and even threats. Justifying their nasty remarks and threats because in their warped sense of reality they are heroes defeating a horrific villain and saving the sheeple.

      I call the tactic attack the skeptic. Sometimes I get a little scared when a denier uses violent rhetoric and graphic threats. At first I thought it was funny because it was so over the top. I though he was just poeing to be funny.

      Poe's Law

      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

      Pretty scary because this has been going on since about May 2022, I though if I ignored him he would just go away.

      But I guess that's pretty normal if you debunk climate myths long enough you are going to attract a tin foil hat Young Earth Creationist Christian zealot who really thinks God is on their side believes in Qanon and views the opposition as a satanic threat. How common is this?

      In conclusion, I think #3 myth it is not bad is a pretty good place to focus because climate change deniers love to declare themselves the heroes and vilify anyone who pushes climate change action.

      Simplest form:

      Climate change action advocate: "We should do something about climate change."

      Denier: "You monster! Groups x,y, and z will be harmed by your immoral and reckless actions. We should be completely passive and do nothing because climate change is good."
      

2662. Eclectic at 13:43 PM on 21 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      "It's Not Bad" is quite a general topic, and covers many Denialist areas.

      "Denier" is a handy short label for those who are opposed to taking action for fixing the global warming problem.  They themselves dislike it, and whinge greatly about the label : but after all, a label usually doesn't matter much ~ since every reasonable person can recognize an alligator / crocodile / caiman by sight, regardless of its exact label.

      No point in joining the bunfight at the famous blogsite WattsUpWithThat.   WUWT is 98% echochamber, and shows the interesting range of deniers ~ extending from the studious intelligent ones who are crippled by their own motivated reasoning . . . to the crackpots who deny CO2-physics and/or deny there is any true warming occurring.  And through to the paranoid political wingnuts who deny any AGW (or alternatively, claim that AGW is good for us and we should have more of it).

      At WUWT  there is a kaleidoscopic churning of all sorts of "reasons" why we should stay on fossil fuels and avoid renewables.  #Now, during the past decade (as car lithium batteries have soared in number)  WUWT  has ranted about the need to increase coal usage to: "lift those poor Africans out of poverty" . . . and even more particularly: "EV batteries are causing small Congolese children to work in slave-like conditions in the cobalt mines".

      The "poor Africans" argument I find remarkable, as it typically comes from American wingnuts who oppose any decent governmental help to their own American poor ~ and who themselves for the past half-century have have not lifted a finger personally to aid the African poor.  And even now they still do nothing to help these children ~ and they completely fail to see that it is sheer poverty which forces African parents to send young children to the mines.  Fixing the Root Cause is unthinkable.

2663. Rob Honeycutt at 11:33 AM on 21 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      PM @411...  Many who claim not to be a climate denier are merely stretching the definition to make that claim. As in, "I don't deny the earth has a climate." And then if you point out the absurdity of that definition and clarify they're a climate change denier, they respond with, "But I don't deny that the earth's climate changes; in fact it's always changing."

      Now, I generally try to skip all the inanities and go straight to the full scientifically accepted definition that... human activities, primarily through the burning of fossil fuels, are responsible for most or all of the warming of the past 50 years and best estimates show the earth will warm ~3°C per doubling of CO2 concentrations. 

      If they deny that, they're a climate denier. Plain and simple.

2664. PollutionMonster at 11:08 AM on 21 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      Eclectic @410

      Right now I am talking with a person who's position is ambiguous. The individual claims they are not a climate denier. Yet, they make many of the denier's talking points. Similar to dog whistling. My guess is they are a climate change denier, but won't admit it.

      Instead, hiding behind how much the "working class" is harmed by "rip off merchants". Sample argument below:

      "But I'm not a Trump supporter or a climate change denier I'm concerned about costs to the working classes you claim you are also yet you sound exactly like one of the rip off merchants who feign concern over the planet yet profit significantly from forcing people into green schemes they cannot support, you have no explanation on how it's in anyway reasonable to expect people to pay for electric cars or solar panels, you also want to punish them further by insisting they cycle long distances to work in every sort of condition." sample probably climate change denier argument

      This seems like classis motte and bailey strategy to me. My advice to you is push a little further than you feel comfortable into the innermost motte by pushing climate change action. Giving no place to retreat, this advice is from the skeptics guide to the universe book by Steven Novella, MD.

      I've found very few climate change deniers will straight out deny warming. Instead, hiding behind more "moderate" stances. The result is the same whether a hardcore or moderate denier, slothful climate action. Anti-vaxxers do the same, "I'm not anti-vaxx I am anti-mandate and mask".

      I. Ban Gasoline leafblowers. One of my favorites to show climate change mitigation can be very small. Many people want to get rid of them anyways.

      II. Transfer fossil fuel subsidies to renewable. Showing the true cost of fossil fuels.

      I think you are 100% correct about persuading the onlookers. Good points on A, B, and C I will try them. C seem very interesting the part about denialists hating the idea of refugees and migrants. :)

2665. One Planet Only Forever at 07:41 AM on 21 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Evan,

      I think it would help to insert points along the line of your earlier post about the importance of watching the Keeling Curve for evidence that efforts to reduce climate impacts are being successful.

      Examples of the type of items to include would be trends of:

      • Fossil fuel consumption (burning of coal, oil, nat. gas)
      • CCS on fossil fuel use (the short-term helpful reduction of Carbon emissions)
      • CCS from the atmosphere (the CCS that needs to be developed)

      And the future of the trends should only be speculated about based on evidence of effective helpful transitions of social drivers as presented in the Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook: The plausibility of a 1.5°C limit to global warming - social drivers and physical processes (Story of the Week in the 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5).

      And the severity of the challenge can be highlighted by examples like the massive new coal plants in South Africa that are planned to be operated until the 2070s.

      Blooberg report: Giant New Power Plants Undermine South Africa’s Emissions Pledge

      Who will pay to compensate the investors and South Africans for their lost opportunity to profit and benefit from these facilities for 50 years?

      That is an absurd question. The people who made a bad bet should lose their bet. But all the people making Bad harmful bets know that the history of humanity is loaded with examples of wealthy people, and powerful large groups of people, being well compensated when they lose an opportunity to benefit from being harmful to Others (because they won't stop being harmful until they feel they are adequately compensated for not being allowed to continue believing and doing what they developed a liking for).

2666. Evan at 23:35 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Michael Sweet@28, I am not suggesting that renewables will replace fossil fuels instantly. Rather, when the NYTs report impressive-sounding renewable-energy growth numbers, I want the readers to put those number into context and not get lulled into a false sense of success. We have a long way to go, and we need the readers to know that ramping down fossil-fuel use will not occur quickly, nor will it occur without putting pressure on governments. Regardless of how cheap renewables are, there is likely to be active lobbying for years to come to sustain the fossil-fuel industry. You note the we all need to work harder to get governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels. I agree. We need readers to help apply pressure through their votes. What I want them to know is that although the renewable revolution is getting going, we are a long way from where we need to be and we need their help to get where we all want to be.

      I will consider your's and all of the other comments in the rewrite. I am not trying to contribute to doomerism. Just trying to make sure people understand the full scope of the problem, because there is no time to waste in continuing the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

2667. michael sweet at 23:13 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      I am sorry, FIgure four shows 14,000 TWh of energy, similar to the IEA.  I have difficulty reading series of zeros.

2668. michael sweet at 23:09 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Evan,

      Renewable energy has only been the cheapest energy for about 5 years.  For the first couple of those years renewables were only a little cheaper than fossil fuels and there were many locations where fossil was still cheaper.  Now renewables are the cheapest everywhere.   It takes 5-10 years to build most fossil plants.  It takes years to build the factories that manufacture the panels and turbines for renewable energy.  Your expectation that renewables will replace all fossil fuels instantly is misplaced.

      We all need to work harder to get governments to stop subsidizing fossil fuels and make it easier to install renewabes.  Environmental doomerism turne people off so that they do not take the actions necessary to turn the ship around before it hits the iceberg.

2669. Evan at 23:09 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Michael Sweet@26, you note,

      "The claim that renewables can only generate 30% of all electricity was shown to be completely incorrect years ago."

      I am not saying that renewables cannot generate more than 30%. I am saying that going beyond 30% on an annualized basis is difficult and will likely require storage. Figures that show renewables generating in excess of 30% on an annualized basis are, to my understanding, based on relatively short-term events and not averaged over an entire year.

      I am not trying to propogate doomerism. Rather, I am trying to convey to the readers the task that lays ahead if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Accord. You note yourself the headwinds we face ramping down fossil-fuel use. Yes, I made a mistake in my analysis summarized in the first comment, and I will correct this. I will refine the rest of the text. But the main conclusions remain. Getting renewables to the point where they begin to supplant, and not supplement fossil fuels is still ahead of us and will not necessarily be easy. I read your comment as saying essentially the same thing.

2670. michael sweet at 22:59 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Doug,

      I saw the reference.  The entire point of the OP is derived from figure 4  which is the construction of the author and has no reference.   Others have  pointed out why this figure is not even wrong.  According to the IEA report, global electricity demand will be approximately 29,000 TWh in 2025 not the 160,000 TWh shown in figure 4.  It appears to me that the author has added a factor of ten to the world energy demand which makes it appear that renewable energy cannot replace fossil fuels.  I note that checking the carbon intensity of the EU would immediately show that renewables have significantly reduced the amount of carbon released.

      It appears to me that MA Rodgers analysis of figure 4 is correct.  Wind and solar energy, especially solar which is the cheapest energy in the world today (only wind can come close to solar), are increasing exponentially.   Averaging in hydro, which for all practical purposes has not significantly changed in the past 10 years, makes an exponential increase turn into a small increase.

      In the OP it states "it is very difficult, without using energy storage, to generate more than about 30% of the energy from renewables."  In comment 8 says " Any of these projections are risky, because continued expansion of renewables beyond producing about 30% of power requires storage technology that must be deployed on a large scale and may compete for materials used in the transportation industry."  The published literature has analyzed this and there are sufficient materials for the foreseeable future available.  There are bottlenecks that have to be overcome as more renewable energy manfacturing facilities are built.  The claim that renewables can only generate 30% of all electricity was shown to be completely incorrect years ago.

      The International Energy Agency report that I cited covers the entire globe.  I used USA data to address the 30% claim because the data was the first hit on my Google search and met the criteria of wind and solar only.  It takes some time to find renewable energy data where the hydro has been left out.  The 30% claim was made without any supporting data.  Data proving the 30% claim is false anywhere shows the 30% claim is false for the entire world.  

      The OP is terrible doomerism.  The IEA data clearly shows that wind and solar currently replace essentially all of the increase in energy demand worldwide.  The question is: can the installation of wind and solar increase fast enough to meet climate goals.  Last year over $1 trillion (!!!!!) was spent by governments to subsidize the fossil fuel industry and only about 1/3 of that was spent (primarily by the free market) on building new renewables. How can the politics be overcome?  

      Renewables including storage are much cheaper than fossil fuels.  In addition, fossil pollution kills over 5 million people every year worldwide.  Switching to renewables will make everyone healthier because ofreduced pollution.  It has been shown that even 2% of EVs replacing internal comustion engines results in less hospital visits for asthma.

      The Paris accords could still be met if most governments worldwide subsidized renewable energy as much as fossil fuels.

      The OP should be removed from Skeptical Science since the conclusions are false.  It will be used as an example of environmental doomerism.

       

2671. Evan at 22:53 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Ubrew12, PrzemStep, and Michael Sweet. I placed a green-box message at the start of this post noting the error in my analysis and also noting that I will be redoing this post. Thank you for your comments and for helping maintain the high-quality readers expect to find at SkS.

2672. Evan at 22:02 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Michael Sweet, thanks for your comments. As ubrew12@1 pointed out, I did not properly account for efficiencies in comparing electric generation from fossil fuels to determine, as you also point out, that renewables are expected to cover the growth in electric energy demand over the coming years. Others here have pointed out other analysis they would like to see in such a post. I will be redoing this post to clean up the points everyone has made here. As much as it hurts to be reminded of weaknesses in my analysis and writing, I will correct them.

      None of this will change the basic points of this article, however, that percentages can hide real trends, and that renewable energy has yet to replace fossil fuels in any significant amount. Don't expect the fossil-fuel industry to just let that happen without a fight. One of my purposes in writing is to help the reader see the true magnitude of the problem we face so that they can properly gauage their response when they decide what to buy, and how to vote. Renewables meeting growing electric energy demand, instead of only 30% as I noted, may be a good thing in terms of our progress towards ramping down fossil-fuel use, but it is not a reason for too much celebration if we are to meet the objectives of the Parid Accord. We must do much much better. I want readers to be aware that we've done the easy work with renewables, and that what comes next will likely be much harder.

      So thanks all for your comments. I have work to do to rewrite this paper. I will try hard to regain your respect with the rewrite.

2673. Doug Bostrom at 18:05 PM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science New Research for Week #7 2023
      

      Thanks for making those excellent connections, OPOF, particularly forming the deep connection between Cameron & Carter's report and the HCF 'how are we doing?" cold bath.

      The Hamburg report is something we naturally want to turn away from, perhaps because it bolsters what for many of us has become more than a sneaking suspicion. 

      As we pointed out last week (?) when we featured it, it does hinge on a stipulation that is not even at this late date set in stone: "given the observable trajectories of social drivers." I wish we could feel more optimistic that we were collectively at the wheel and driving our society with a shared map. 

2674. Doug Bostrom at 16:35 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Although they're not obvious, Evan's data sources are in the figure captions for figs. 1-3. Although OWIND is not specialized along the lines of IEA or the like, it's not pitching data ideally suitable for producing "industry propaganda." OWIND's renewables projections seem to be substantially (for the precision required here given Evan's thrust) in agreement with the IEA, which admittedly have been conservative (as has been so much else assessment in this rapidly evolving scene). 

      This brings us to figure 4, which shows quite a bit of daylight betwen overall demand increase and the contribution of renewables to that— back to the point Evan is making about percentages. 

      Michael, using the conservative IEA source (it's better to pick one, and IEA seems to be a benchmark for most discussion) and so that we can better understand: do you think the overall demand projection in fig 4 is incorrect, given that the renewables portion appears largely commensurate with IEA's projection?

      I think Michael may have been typing in haste and dropped a clause when he wrote "Likewise your claim that renewables cannot generate more than 30% of all electricity was proven incorrect over 5 years ago when several countries exceeded that amount," because Evan did not make that claim.

      Also and notably with regard to the latter remarks, Evan's analysis is speaking of global energy demand, supply. It's not an apples-apples critique to employ a handful of wind-heavy US states to form a comparison with what's under discussion, the global situation. Not saying Michael's wrong, but it would be better to employ broader geography— the same whole globe that is the subject of Evan's analysis. Otherwise we're talking about quite different things.

      I'm pretty sure that whatever misunderstandings there are over this can easily be resolved with some collaboration. It's possible that Evan is wrong. That can more easily be established in an atmosphere of calm. I feel certain Evan would be fine with making his analysis better if such is shown necessary. Probably a good step would be to agree on data sources, make sure the subject being discussed is the same, and that what Evan is claiming is clearly understood.

2675. John Hartz at 15:25 PM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      I am pleased to report that there are countervailing forces to "Citizens for Responsible Solar" (see #13) and their ilk in the development of solar energy in the US. A major development is explained in the following article:

      Public Lands in the US Have Long Been Disposed to Fossil Fuel Companies. Now, the Lands Are Being Offered to Solar Companies by Wyatt Myskow, Clean Energy, Inside Climate News, Feb 19, 2023

      The lede for this story:

      As the nation looks to transition to more forms of renewable energy, the country’s millions of acres of public lands could be key, drawing concerns over how local habitats could be impacted.

      The folk at "Citizens for Responsible Solar" must be crapping in their kinckers,

2676. John Hartz at 14:56 PM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      Excerpted from the NPR article I cited in #12:

      "I think for years, there has been this sense that this is not all coincidence. That local groups are popping up in different places, saying the same things, using the same online campaign materials," says Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

      Citizens for Responsible Solar seems to be a well-mobilized "national effort to foment local opposition to renewable energy," Burger adds. "What that reflects is the unfortunate politicization of climate change, the politicization of energy, and, unfortunately, the political nature of the energy transition, which is really just a necessary response to an environmental reality."

      Citizens for Responsible Solar was founded in an exurb of Washington, D.C., by a longtime political operative named Susan Ralston who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and still has deep ties to power players in conservative politics.

2677. John Hartz at 14:13 PM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      Just like Big Tobacco, the Fossil Fuel Industry will never throw in the towel and cease to spread pseudo-science poppycock designed to halt the growth of clean energy.  

      Here's another case in point:

      An activist group is spreading misinformation to stop solar projects in rural America by Miranda Green & Michael Copley, KEDM Public Radio/NPR National News, Feb 18, 2023

2678. michael sweet at 14:08 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      This blog post is over 10 years out of date.  It should be removed from Skeptical Science.  It contains no references to support the absurd calcualtions and conclusions.

2679. michael sweet at 13:59 PM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Evan,

      Your article on renewable energy is so bad that it is not even wrong.  Your claim that rneewables will only generate 30% of new demand for the next decade is simply fossil propaganda.  The IEA released their Electricity Market Report for 2023 on February 8.  Carbon Brief has a summary of the IEA report here.  According to Carbon Brief:

      "Carbon Brief analysis of the IEA figures shows that it expects global electricity generation to rise by 2,493TWh between 2022 and 2025.

      The IEA expects the growth in renewable generation to cover the vast majority of this total, growing by 2,450TWh. This is equivalent to 98% of the overall increase in global demand. my emphasis

      Do you really expect that renewables will replace 98% new energy demand for three years and then they will completely stop building renewables?  Obviously in 2025 the IEA expecte renewables to replace all demand and significant existing fossil power. Obviously after renewables replace all new demand they will begin to replace existing fossil power.  The Carbon Brief article cites several analysis that come to similar conclusions except they have renewables replacing all demand earlier than the IEA.  I note that the IEA has a long track record of underestimating how much renewable energy will be built in the near future.

      Likewise your claim that renewables cannot generate more than 30% of all electricity was proven incorrect over 5 years ago when several countries exceeded that amount.  According to The Motley Fool, using the latest year of data on the USA (fourth quarter of 2021 and the first three of 2022), ten states produced more than 30% of their electricity from wind and solar alone.  3 states produced over 50% and Iowa produced over 62%.   The analysis that I have seen indicate that over 80% of all electricity can be easily produced by renewables using existing fossil peaking plants as storage.  Since new batteries are cheaper than existing peaking plants, Utilities will be building out batteries as fast as possible to save money.

      Your post is a superb example of mathturbation.

2680. One Planet Only Forever at 10:12 AM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Evan,

      I agree with your reluctance to be 'too positive' about the transition away from fossil fuels.

      I have seen many reports indicating successful resistance to approvals of  new electricity transmission infrastructure and new renewable generation facilities. The Story of the Week and first two comments 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7   indicate that significant efforts to impede the development of renewable need to be overcome. That will require a significant systemic transition that dramatically reduces the success of efforts to delay the required rapid transition.

      The Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook 2023 that is Story of the Week in 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5
      robustly evaluated the current state of affairs and considers it very unlikely that the USA (and many other developed nations) will meet their current Paris Agreement NDCs. And those NDCs that are unlikely to be met are weaker than what is required to limit impacts to 2.0 C.

      The Hamburg Outlook appears to be a more justified perspective than perceptions based on speculation about the continuation of past rates of renewable development. It can be easy to produce a significant rate of increase when starting with a small amount. It is harder to continue that rate of increase, especially when efforts to resist the renewable developments are also increasing.

      One final point ... tragically there is very little discussion and leadership promotion of the benefits of limiting 'unnecessary energy consumption'. Admittedly there are many people who need increased energy consumption to live basic decent lives. But they are not the problem. Their per-capita energy demand will be small. The problem is the high energy consumers who believe that 'More consumption is necessary for them to enjoy their life' and everyone who aspires to develop to be Great over-consumers like them.

      If unnecessary energy consumption was significantly and rapidly reduced the curtailing of fossil fuel use would be more rapid sooner.

2681. Eclectic at 09:29 AM on 20 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      PollutionMonster @409 ,

      Good luck with your battle against the science-deniers.  As you have noticed, they use all sorts of poor logic and see-the-tree-but-ignore-the-forest stuff.  They are emotionally driven ~ as you must be, if you wish to entertain yourself by crossing swords with them in public.

      Your task of course is to persuade the onlookers, not the intransigent Denialists.   My humble advice is to Keep It Simple.

      A/  The observed Stratospheric Cooling is a great argument : being proof that it is not The Sun causing modern global warming.  And the Stratospheric Cooling was successfully predicted by "models" of 80-ish years ago.

      B/  The observed sea level rise is great proof of actual global warming (Denialists try to deflect on to the gray area of "but the rise is not accelerating" or the rubbishy "it's just rebound from the Little Ice Age".)   Also you can mention the coastal measurements by Kulp & Strauss [2019] showing that a 1 meter sea level rise would displace 230 million people (Denialists hate the idea of refugees & migrants).

      C/  When pressed to declare what the perfect climate is ~ I state the climate of 1950 A.D.  (Easy to defend.)

      These sorts of arguments suit my simple brain, and are difficult to counter by sophists, bloviators & other trollish propagandists.

2682. Evan at 09:13 AM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Doug@18, Good stuff and it seems plausible. Let's hope EVs continue to penetrate the market and V2G with it. Unfortunately we have to sit by and watch, for now, because of our old EV that has no V2G capability. The cost of being an early adopter. :-(

2683. PollutionMonster at 07:00 AM on 20 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      Eclectic@407 and MA Rodger@408

      Thank you both for the detailed responses. :) I am impressed. On other websites I may have been ignored or riduculed. Thanks again I read both posts entirely. This answers my question.

2684. Doug Bostrom at 06:36 AM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Evan, to your particular needs and thinking in terms of "improve averages," hopefully you have solar DHW in the picture? I seem to remember we've discussed this elsewhere, maybe. Anyway, a new-build is a perfect opportunity for laying pipework suitable for a "drain back" system, which if at all possible should be first choice of implementation, it being the least complex and most reliable available. Can you get all your hot water from the roof? No, likely not. However, in the case of our home which is massively shade-challenged and at 47N in a famously cloudy location we derive about 50% of our water heat gain from our drain back system, which is 2 square meters in size, uses only two wearing parts (bog standard hydronic circulator pumps, cheap) and no glycol etc., and is at 12 years of age with zero service. 

      With regard to vehicle-to-grid, I'm thinking very much of "to grid" specifically, not "to home." Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) promises to replace the spinning mass advantages and overall rapid response capability of combustion thermal generation plant, with its capacity relatively easily scaled via voluntary subsidy of storage by vehicle owners, plant operators leaning farther into "make hay while the sun shines" with energy capture systems such as PV, wind. 

      V2G will not be as efficient  in terms of loss and material input as centralized storage systems, but it carries the unique advantage of self-subsidy that is to some extent invisible in our economics. 

      (V2G is in fact an argument for continued subsidy of vehicle electrification, if public policy wants to put its thumb on the scale of an already advantageous emergence.)

      Again, lest it be lost in the discussion, link to a paper penciling out where numbers on V2G may lead, quite swiftly. 2030? Probably not. 2040? Significant effects practically guaranteed, given the direction we're heading with vehicle electrification. This will result in retired combustion thermal plants, measurable retirement of the storage problem, leading to an accelerating process of improvement as depth of the resource grows, skill of use and confidence grows. Arguably it will help to bend the curves you've highlighted. 

2685. One Planet Only Forever at 06:13 AM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      I need to clarify that when I used the term "Education" in my comment @10 I meant: Learning/teaching that increases awareness and improves understanidng about what is harmful and how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others.

      I appreciate that some regional leadership try to manipulate their regional 'education' to impede that type of learning.

2686. Evan at 06:12 AM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Doug@16, your's and Jim's comments certainly resonate as an efficient power model where electricity is generated and stored locally. I sense there are some hidden gremlins in this, because when a central power source distributes power broadly, they are averaging out the demand over a broad user area. When individuals plan for the needs of a single house, then shortfalls must be either suffered through, or supplemented by generators. And surpluses do not benefit neighbors in the dark, unless connected to a micro grid, which requires a new level of infrastructure change.

      To me all of these sound plausible, but I sense that there are engineering and policy issues that will take time to resolve. As you note, the V2H model is easy, because we adapt one home at a time and solutions are already readily available. For some. But we are still in the early-adopter stage, so no idea how this will scale.

      Incidentally, we are building a house and I want it to be all electric. But in the end, we are having to run gas to the house because neither our generator nor any of the battery systems on the market can run the ground-source heat pump. Or so we've been told by the geothermal company doing the install. We don't have the money to try risky solutions, so we are putting in a gas-fired boiler that can easily be run by a modest battery system or by our generator.

      I trust that 10 years from now there will be better solutions for providing suitable backup for ground-source heat pumps, but apparently not at this stage. There's nothing better that I would like than to have a small battery system or a Ford Lightning truck running our heat pump in the middle of the winter when we lose power, but unfortunately our 6-year old Tesla does not have V2H. We are caught in a number of transitions. :-(

      Tell me if I'm wrong, because we have not yet installed the gas-boiler nor the gas line to the house.

2687. Doug Bostrom at 05:17 AM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      At the risk of swerving conversation outside of Evan's central point, Jim Hunt's remark about distributed storage is quite important. Perhaps going down this path may serve as a illustration that Evan's analysis is likely subject to emergent features, even while as a snapshot saying "we need to do better, faster" it should fall on listening ears.

      Electrification of automobiles is happening at a time when we're reevaluating the dependency we've formed on private automobile ownership, the broad negative effects of that. 

      A rethink and redo of our automobile accident is both independent of and connected with our climate problem. It's another heavy load of policy freight, among other matters.

      It needed decades and installation of a sprawling infrastructure and built environment to fold ourselves into what have effectively become prosthetic devices, machinery many of us must use in order to feed, house and clothe ourselves and our dependents. 

      It will require many years working at our fastest rate to undo our elaborate chain of dependency on automobiles. This work will need to incorporate and address not only purely material matters but also the economic dislocation problems attached to decommissioning the sprawling labor footprint of the automobile economy. It's not an easy problem at all, as a systems matter.

      Now, today, while we're only just beginning to deal with our lack of choice regarding automobile ownership and then on a continuum as we do deal that, we're going to continue to "need" a lot of automobiles.

      As electrification of automobiles progresses down the economic food chain, we'll be enrolling private automobile owners as volunteers in subsidizing improved grid compatibility with renewal energy sources. This will be an automatic process, more or less. The "vehicle to grid" horse is pretty much already leaving the barn, and the "subsidies" by private owners are as a matter of reality pretty much guaranteed, given that we're not going to see abandonment of private vehicles in many years, or even several decades.

      Something to think about when we hear strident calls for the unrealistic ambition of skipping from cars to no cars instantly, as part of dealing with our climate problem. Not only is that effectively impossible, but it might in engineering terms be a nonsensical trade. 

      Some background information here (open access, Nature Communications):

      Electric vehicle batteries alone could satisfy short-term grid storage demand by as early as 2030

       

2688. One Planet Only Forever at 04:46 AM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      John Mason @8,

      To be clear, I am not suggesting an end to human efforts to combat misinformation. And I am sure that constant human monitoring would be required to ensure that an AI ChatBot was as effective as possible. And human monitoring and input would also be required to identify and counteract 'novel developed attempts to impede the effectiveness of the helpful AI ChatBot'.

      Thinking a little more about it, it is likely that harmful pursuers of advantage in obtaining personal benefits to the detriment of Others are already working on developing AI ChatBots for their interests.

      As is often noted, there is an endless possibility for developing 'harmfully appealing misleading claims'. And the efforts to limit the harm are always too little too late.

      Trying to correct harmful misunderstandigs is fighting an uphill battle. There is a profusion of harmful misleading unjustified positive impressions and unjustified anxieties and fears (negatives) that impede learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. The Story of the week in 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7 and the first 2 comments are evidence of a globally coordinated effort to oppose the interests of the future of humanity. And the Story of the Week in 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5 provides a detailed evaluation of the success of such efforts impeding the achievement of the Paris Agreement objective, making that achievement 'not plausible' (Limiting impacts to 1.5 C not plausible even with significant systemic transformation starting today. And limiting impacts to 2.0 C requiring significant systemic transformations starting today).

      A significant systemic transformation could be one powerful ChatBot developed collaboratively by the UN (UNICEF, UNDP, UNEP, ...). That could help the 'effort to educated people' on the many matters of concern regarding the future of humanity, not just the climate impact challenge. But I would suspect very few current day powerful governments would support the effective development of something like that. They almost all have their power because of a lack of eductation of the population that gives them the power they have.

2689. Evan at 01:45 AM on 20 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      MA Rodger @13 thanks for the input. I understand the component curves for solar and wind, but also know it is speculative and risky to extrapolate continued high growth rates out as far as you are. I am not an expert in this area, but still wonder about material supply limitations, such as might occur when we start ramping up EV production. The curves you show remind me a lot of early-adopter curves when the renewable energy was picking low-hanging fruit, with no need for storage, and no competition from major EV manufacturing. The future requires more difficult renewable installations, with storage, and competing for resources with EV manufacturing. Hence, the landscape of the future is likely much more difficult than the past, even with the broad expanses of the Sahara. Even if Texas has the requisite land available, politics could get in the way.

      I am not trying to make specific predictions into the future, but rather to indicate to readers that despite the impressive-sounding numbers being reported, the renewable-energy revolution we've all been dreaming of has not really yet begun. Perhaps we are meeting the electric-growth demand, but likely no more. The real point to readers is that if we are to keep those solar and wind curves pointed skyward, that will likely only happen if voters opt for the kinds of policies we need to keep the curves rising. It may be that the impressive growth represents low-hanging fruit, and that future impressive growth numbers require much more willpower than we've collectively been called on to give.

      So I accept your comments and those of PrzemStep as a need to revise the analysis, but I am cautious about using a component analysis based on 10-year growth as a solid indicator of where we will be headed. Perhaps use it as a best-case scenario, bordered by a more conservative approach such as I showed. In 5 years we can update and see which of the scenarios has been followed.

      My point is not to be optimistic nor pessimistic; It is rather to indicate to readers that we need to do much better than we have if we are to meet the Paris goals by 2050. Otherwise readers might assume that with all of these curves currently headed skyward that we are well on our way, when in fact, it appears to me that we are just exiting the starting gate in a very long race.

2690. BaerbelW at 00:13 AM on 20 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      OPOF @6

      Thanks for the link to ScienceUpFirst which looks pretty neat! I see that they already list The Debunking Handbook as well as the COVID19-Vaccine Communications Handbook under their debunking and credible resources listing respectively. As I'm a big fan of networking, I filled out their contact form and hope to hear back from them.

2691. Jim Hunt at 23:29 PM on 19 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Al@13,
      
      Have you ever considered that "distributed energy generation" associated with "distributed energy storage" in the form of both static and mobile batteries might well prove to be easier to implement than centralised bulk storage and distribution of assorted gases?
      
      

2692. MA Rodger at 22:51 PM on 19 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Rob Honeycutt @10,

      In terms of storage, I would expect excess electric power would be used to provide storeable things like hydrogen or ammonia. There will be losses in the conversions but the 'storage' problem is overcome, as would be the 'transport' problem.

      Evan @8,

      The point by PrzemStep@2 that individual forms of renewables should be projected individually is entirely correct. The OurWoldInData renewables page presents some very useful numbers on this.

      

      Myself I see the big player in future being solar as it has less restrictions on its useful location. Its generation has been growing on average 30% annually since 1990 but in recent years this has dropped to perhaps 20% annually. A 20% annual increase woud give solar 200,000TWh/y by 2050 and if we could get back to increases of 30%/y that would be perhaps the 160,000TWh/y by 2032.

      I see it as really depending on when we manage to put ideas like nuclear to one side and appreciate that 'mass' solar is the way to go, with for instance the Sahara powering Europe. (Some have already arrived at this conclusion with a £18 billion project to link Morroco with UK.)

      Or Texas powering the US. I remember some time back a provocotive statement saying just 10,000 sq miles (or was it kms) of solar farms in Texas would provide the US with all its primary energy needs. The response from denialists was that 10,000 sq miles was far to big an area to cover in solar farms to which the reply was that it wasn't so big when 10,000 sq miles of the US had been strip-mined for coal. And now that strip-mined coal was gone. Solar farms are somewhat more sustainable than strip-mining as a power supply. (Whether numbers are here correct, or were ever correct, I know not.)

2693. MA Rodger at 21:57 PM on 19 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      PollutionMonster @406,
      I think I concur with Eclectic's 'snake pit'.
      Zhao et al (2021) is a paper those climate deniers would find useful as it does show that for the period 2002-18 globally there was a decrease of 275,000/y deaths correllating with cold weather while the increase due to hot weather rose 113,000/y, simplistically suggesting AGW is 'good', although as today cold deaths are found to be much greater (4.6M/y) than hot deaths (0.5M/y), this finding is not so surprising.

      In terms of this sort of analysis, this is very early work and likely an inaccurate account of the impact of "non-optimal ambient temperatures" on mortality. Note that a similar study Burkart et al (2021) drew criticism for its methods which found 1.3M/y cold deaths & 0.34M/y hot.

      And given the numbers involved with global mortality, it is not difficult to establish large numbers of deaths in such simplistic correlations. The premature deaths due to pollution resulting from fossil-fuel-use is a case in hand. And when these studies point in the direction of 'hot is bad' or visa versa, they will be happily wielded by either 'warmists' or 'deinialists' with little thought to what is being 'wielded'. (Regarding 'visa versa', note Wu et al (2022) from the same team as Zhao et al finding an increase in excess deaths over the same period (2000-19) of +0.16M/y due to "short-term temperature variability".)
      Much of this 'wielding' is remarkably poor. Note this Bloomberg headline - the 'subscriber only' article also covers Zhao et al (2021) and the actual account may be less ridiculous than the headline.
      
      The impact of temperature directly on mortlity is surely today not as great as the indirect impacts described in the OP above although quantifying it all will be always controversial. (But should they be. I recall an argument we presented to a UK enquiry over an off-shore wind farm. Using even the smallest estimates of AGW deaths, we suggested the wind farm [Navitas off the Dorset coast] would globally save a very significant number of lives globally, that is very significant to such enquiries. Sadly the denialists won the day with the enquiry although the reasons given for the decision were entirely flawed.)

      However, the direct impact of temperature should be a concern. Zhao et al point out "At a global level, the results indicate that global warming might slightly reduce net temperature-related deaths in the short term, although, in the long run, climate change is expected to increase the mortality burden." And the question, of course, is how big that "increase" will become. Myself, I would add that if AGW were allowed to intensify to +6ºC, we can say that the tropics will become a death zone for anybody outside an air conditioned environment. And +6ºC is not such a crazy number if we do nothing about AGW.

2694. Jim Hunt at 20:42 PM on 19 February 2023
      The Problem with Percentages
      

      Evan@11,
      
      You are wandering into my area of "professional" expertise!
      
      Do (in situ) EV batteries need to supply "grid-level storage" (AKA V2G) in future?
      
      How about "microgrid-level storage" (V2B) or even "nanogrid-level storage" (V2H)?
      
      Ex EV batteries are certainly already being used to provide "stadium-level storage":
      
      https://V2G.co.uk/2018/06/3-mw-xstorage-now-live-at-the-johan-cruijff-arena/

2695. John Mason at 19:13 PM on 19 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      OPOF - interesting idea but I think the human input is required for now, since it understands the illogical motivations behind the denial of reality.

2696. Eclectic at 17:53 PM on 19 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      PollutionMonster @406 ,

      you are getting down into a snake pit, if you aim to argue on the basis of AGW causing today's excess heat deaths / hurricanes / wildfires / tropical diseases / etcetera.   Best not to go there.

      Sure, basic science and common sense tells you that these problems will worsen in the future as global warming increases.  (Though I gather that hurricanes are expected to get fewer but stronger.)  And the tropical zone has large populations of great poverty who will struggle to achieve the necessary medical treatments, house-cooling, and other counteractions to deal with a hotter local climate.

      But the current statistics are very noisy, and it is easy for a "bad faith actor" to cherry-pick and confuse the situation.  (And some even believe their own propaganda.)  Every lot of data you supply will rest on a poor statistical foundation ~ and both you and he simply cannot get a knock-out "win".   You will need great skill to extricate yourself from the pig-trough of Mine Versus Yours versions of recent & historical data.   Find a better battleground !

2697. PollutionMonster at 16:39 PM on 19 February 2023
      It's not bad
      

      Hello, this is my first post. I've already taken the edx101 denial course and have been prebunking and debunking climate change myths since 2016. /waves

      I was posting and was called out as being an "alarmist" on another website. First, I would like a second opinion. Afterall, I could simply be incorrect.

      Second, if I am correct, I could use some help debunking the claim of a climate minimalizer.

      https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/climate-change-heatwaves-deaths-temperature-b1880153.html

      I claimed that there were five million annual deaths from climate change. Referring to the link above from theindependent which references a lancet peer reviewed article, linked below. The other person went to the peer reviewed article and rebutted by saying the theindependent was incorrect and the lancet article does not state there is five million deaths and concluded there were zero deaths from climate change.

      https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

      I then posted other articles about how many climate change deaths annually there are with a range between 150,000 and 8 million if you include co2 pollution deaths.

      Anyways they got real technical which I wasn't prepared for. Focusing on association as opposed to causation. I think the correct answer is five milllon from climate change and eight from fossil fuel emissions. They say zero deaths. So who is correct am I being alarmist or are they being a denier, or are both of us incorrect? Thank you. :)

2698. One Planet Only Forever at 14:18 PM on 19 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      As a 'way-outside' thought, that I have no technical ability to evaluate or help develop: Would it be possible to develop an AI ChatBot that would seek out misleading Social Media content and respond appropriately with content from SkS, Climate Feedback, Science Up First, NASA, NOAA, ....?

      Such an effort is likely to trigger some powerful counter-measures trying to limit its effectiveness (maybe arguing that all-Bots-are-bad). But identifying (exposing) people who would try to fight against 'helping people be better informed' could be helpful.

2699. One Planet Only Forever at 14:06 PM on 19 February 2023
      Skeptical Science News: The Rebuttal Update Project
      

      In addition to the uptick in media rebuttals of misleading claims (mentioned by John Hartz @4) there is a new Canadian development trying to combat misinformation that started in 2020. It is called Science Up First (website https://www.scienceupfirst.com).

      Their initial focus was on health issues, particularly COVID-19 misinformation. But they are expanding their scope.

      Their "Shareable Content" (see their webpage) includes a presentation of a climate science related example of how they try to counteract misinformation. I am not an Social Media participant so I do not know how to share it here. But it can be found by going to their "Shareable Content" and selecting either the "Data Misrepresentation" or "Environment" sub-sets.

      Mayby synergy could be developed between SkS and Science Up First as part of the Rebuttal Update Project, or be developed as a separate project.

2700. One Planet Only Forever at 13:12 PM on 19 February 2023
      2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
      

      I just read this NPR report about how pursuers of benefit from fossil fuel use appear to be coordinating misleading 'local' campaigns against renewable energy developments.

      An activist group is spreading misinformation to stop solar projects in rural America

      The following is a quote from the article about the group coordinating opposition to Solar developments:

      "Analysts who follow the industry say Citizens for Responsible Solar stokes opposition to solar projects by spreading misinformation online about health and environmental risks. The group's website says solar requires too much land for "unreliable energy," ignoring data showing power grids can run dependably on lots of renewables. And it claims large solar projects in rural areas wreck the land and contribute to climate change, despite evidence to the contrary."

      The success of this type of 'claimed to be grass-roots' campaign is a reason that the "Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook 2023" (Story of the Week in 2023 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #5) indicates there is a very low likelihood that the US will meet its current Paris Agreement NDCs (NDCs that need to be ratcheted up if global impacts are to be kept below 2.0 C).

Prev  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next