Renewable Energy Has Won the Battle, But Not the War
Many readers have correctly noted that 2GreenEnergy has taken on a more political tone as the years have gone by. The reason is summed up in my most recent book: Bullish on Renewable Energy, and in this article in Forbes.
Based purely on market economics, renewable energy has won the battle associated with low-carbon energy. How much commentary does the world need on a game that’s fundamentally over?
Per the piece linked above, “The cost of renewable energy is now falling so fast that it should be a consistently cheaper source of electricity generation than traditional fossil fuels within just a few years, according to a new report from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).” From there, electric transportation will be in a similar position in another decade or so, and be in place to drive out oil.
But herein lies the rub: the world is a very long way from implementing all this goodness. Big oil, which virtually owns the U.S. executive and legislative branches of the U.S. federal government, will find a way to create laws that will enable them to extract and sell hydrocarbons long past the point they become start to become economically unattractive.
Right now, we have:
• Energy Secretary Rick Perry inventing new ways to subsidize coal. We just can’t get enough of those oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, heavy metals and radioactive isotopes.
• Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke holding a fire sale of public lands for the oil and gas industry.
• EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt ripping out as much environmental regulation as he can get his hands on.
• The President of the United States opening up continental waters in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Arctic to oil and gas exploration.
OK, so what happens when Trump and his goons leave office? In truth, I have no idea, and neither do you. Having said that, there is no reason on Earth to expect that this malaise of ignorance and corruption is going away anytime soon.
Craig,
It’s really sad you persist in viewing energy as a sort of “war” with “goodies and baddies’ and a moral dimension. It’s also sad that you merge technology and political ideology to the point where you alienate many who would otherwise be interested in emerging technologies, but have no wish to find themselves committed to a “crusade” pursued with religious fervor.
\
People don’t consume oil products because ” Big oil, which virtually owns the U.S. executive and legislative branches of the U.S. federal government” that’s a silly absurdity !
People consume (including you) oil products because no realistic alternatives exist.
There’s no “war” , except in your imagination. There’s no enemy, except yourself as a consumer. These extravagant claims only detract from any real progress.
I disagree. Here’s a conversation that I just had with our mutual acquaintance Liz Spenser:
Liz: I’m tired of the polarisation of political discourse and people on all sides claiming the moral high ground for their argument.
Craig: I hear you, but I think there really IS a moral high ground associated with environmental stewardship, equal protection under the law, strong public education, universal healthcare, favoring diplomacy over war, etc.
Craig,
Yesterday I was reading an old report by one of my predecessors, and it brought back nostalgic memories of the now largely forgotten excitement surrounding a report provided to President Nixon in 1970 by two very highly regarded “Climate Scientists of that era and co-signed by a ‘consensus’ of the 42 leading world scientists in what was then a fairly new field.
The report concluded with great certainty and and urgency the planet was entering a period of “Global Cooling”. By 2020, the report cautioned, large parts of Asia, North America and Europe would uninhabitable due to excessive cold. The process would be irreversible unless the world population was immediately decreased.
In the years that followed, print media and television documentaries, films etc rushed to sensationalize the coming ice age. Even the CIA got in on the act, informing the President and cabinet of a “growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”.
I suppose the culmination of excitement was 1974 with the smug pronouncement by journalist, TV personality, broadcaster and all round eco-pest, Magnus Magnusson, during a BBC Horizon episode “it is prudent to believe the next ice age is already upon us begin to bite at any time now” !
Alarm bells, Alarm bells !
A Newsweek cover story read,“The central fact is after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the Earth is cooling down”. ” Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the twentieth century, with catastrophe in the early twenty-first century ”.
One of the strategies suggested by the President’s Scientific Committee and the leading “Climate Scientists of the time to ward of impending doom was (apart from drastic population control) was to increase coal production and creating a large stockpile in a southern clime. The president was also urged to encourage Texaco, Exxon (at that time the still merging Mobil, Humble Enco Esso and Standard Oil of New Jersey) Chevron etc to create a massive strategic oil reserve in order to fight “Global Cooling “.
President Nixon thanked the authors and replied ” The administration is seized of the matter”.
Curiously the end of the Vietnam War saw the demise of the “Global Cooling scare (but it’s hard to see the causal reasoning).
It’s less than 50 years since the alarmist were screaming about “global Cooling”, and all that hype seems completely forgotten.
Looking back on these old news stories, makes me wonder if back then you were an ardent crusader for Global Cooling ? 🙂
Yes, “science” has been wrong before, and some people take this as an indication that it’s never to be trusted in the future. Of course, even these idiots lack the courage of their convictions. Do they refuse medical treatment when they’re seriously ill or severely injured?
Craig,
Yes, you are quite right, but it also means a healthy degree of skepticism should be exercised and questioned.
More importantly, when castigating Exxon for it’s supposed suppression of “Global Warming in the 1970’s it should be recalled that the prevalent alarmist theory of “Global Cooling” was also widely accepted, along with various other experts with variations in between.
A theory also widely debated in scientific circles at that time and currently making a bit of a comeback in some scientific quarters is to what degree the planets climate is governed by the axis of the planet while orbiting the sun. (the Planet’s slight wobble etc).
The point is, with so many conflicting theories the worst accusation that could be leveled against directors of Exxon is they picked the wrong horse in a pretty wide field.
That’s the trouble with grandstanding lawyers like New York Attorney-General Eric Schneiderman, these historic cases fall apart once all the political hype and fever is subjected to close scrutiny.
Craig,
Tonight I attended a fascinating lecture by a highly regarded herpetologist, who has dedicated his life to studying Frogs and amphibians.
He complained of going from being a idolized hero of the Green-Left to a despised heretic over night. The Professor and his team of dedicated scientists have been reviled and attacked by outraged students, former colleagues, greenies of all descriptions and even fellow scientists for announcing they got it wrong.
For many years the consensus of opinion what frog species were dying out because of human activity. Everyone accepted the consensus extinction was due to a combination of loss of habitat, pollution and of course global warming/climate change etc.
Turns out the real problem is two types of bacterial fungi and one virus that have evolved (as bacterium are wont to do, and these diseases are the true agents of destruction.
What’s even more shocking is this information has been available for over fifty years but generally ignored in order to continue finding a man made reason for extinction.
And you ask why the public is becoming cynical……
Yes, people tend to cling to their beliefs even when evidence suggests they are false. Those interested in this phenomenon should check out the work of economist/psychologist Daniel Kahneman.
Craig,
Yes indeed, Daniel Kahneman’s contribution is considerable.
I wonder what pollution does to an amphibian’s immune system – its ability to defend itself against fungi, viruses, and bacteria.
Similarly, bees are shown to be compromised by neonicotinoid pesticides, though the bees most often die of more obvious secondary causes.
Cameron,
It’s really difficult to determine the effect of pollution on insects. Scientific research is often misled by the desire to find a ‘moral” cause created by human activity.
Obviously some human activity, pesticides etc, do affect the wild population, but it’s also true that long before humans existed all species experienced disastrous health effects, even extinctions, caused by viral and bacterial mutations.
Some insects, (cockroaches etc) seem impervious while other creatures prove exceptionally vulnerable and suffer greatly.
It’s hard for humans to accept a completely random process lacking in logic. We always try to attach deeper meanings to purely evolutionary events. The search for a deeper meaning or logical explanation is part of our quest to control both our destiny and that of the natural world.
Since learning to control fire, humans have enjoyed remarkable success in escaping the random effects of evolution and built ethical codes and beliefs to govern our desire to achieve control.
Our success at controlling the natural world, sense of responsibility and knowledge of our errors, can blind us when it comes to dealing with random acts of evolution. The knowledge that frogs are dying because a microbe, for no discernible or logical reason. evolved to drive the frog population extinct, will spur one group of researchers to find a way to “control” or eliminate the errant microbe, while others, with equal ardour, strives to prove a human contributing factor and concentrate on “controlling” any supposedly errant human activity !
It’s not just the frogs who are an interesting species 🙂 !