Weak Media Coverage of Global Warming and Environmentalism Generally
After Amory Lovins’ lecture yesterday, he took questions, including one from me, which I prefaced by saying, “I think I speak for almost everyone in this packed auditorium when I say that I wish there were a way of making you king of the world.” I got a chuckle, and an instant rejection from Lovins. “I’m not interested,” he smiled.
But I’ve come to understand that most people don’t even know who he is. I spoke this morning with two different close friends, both well-educated people, neither of whom had ever heard of him. And that, in turn, is a function of the fact that our media covers issues of global warming and environmentalism more generally in a very cursory and erratic fashion.
To be sure, this is a big part of the problem. Here we have the most important event in the history of humankind, and, though we hear about it occasionally, most people really know very little about it, because the media largely ignores it.
We could same almost same thing about our unsustainably huge and ever-growing deficits and debts. I posted recently at Facebook about how politicians and media are mostly ignoring our most important problems and solutions opportunities. Got one response from a wise computer programmer who says politicians and marketing right now is mostly about promotion of certain sellable and/or profitable things. So we see the biggest promotions in the energy scene for things like solar PVs, nukes, hybrid and electric vehicles, geothermal HVAC, etc., not the more needed ideas generally of how to cut substantially our energy use from the get-go, which may actually involve buying less stuff, not more. There is a huge mini-movement about energy and climate change which says we need to minimize and reduce our footprints, not just grow into different shoes.
Going back to early 80s when I first was introduced to Lovins, he has advocated for less conventional energy use, not for particular ways or products. His now infamous “negawatts are cheaper than megawatts” maxim is contrary nowdays to just about every RE-advocacy group I encounter. They are lobbying heavily for more subsidies and more support to sell and install more RE, not to reduce energy use, not even to reduce conventional energy use. A NABCEP installer I know in KY says every time he even mentions efficiency upgrades, he typically loses the customer and potential sale. Americans don’t want to use less, but that’s what we / they need to do. I’ve done it. Lovins has done it. It is happening, but only among a few of us.
When Obama won in 2008, I had hopes he would pick Lovins for Secretary of Energy, but instead Obama picked another guy who was more focused on energy products and processes. We’ve all heard Obama and others like Gore say USA should become the leader of selling and spreading green products and technologies around the world. Well, okay, but that doesn’t automatically mean less conventional energy will be used as a result.
I teach energy courses in Ohio and KY to professionals including architects, engineers and contractors. I show exactly how it is possible, if not typical these days, to grow our RE sector while also continuing to grow our conventional energy sector. A lot of this is because the conventional energy players have lobbied to avoid losing market share. I’ve seen conventional utilities engage well-meaning energy groups in Ohio and KY, convince these groups that they are interested and even willing to donate to help. In the end we have portfolio standards which grow RE but do not even place moritoriums on continued growth in conventionals. Happening in Ohio. Happening in KY soon if its new portfolio bill passes. All because the RE lobbyist don’t measure or mandate real reduction in conventional energy generation or use as part of their RE plans and practices.
Lovins measures and reports reductions in conventional energy use and supply. I do the same. I don’t report how many solar panels or how much insulation and caulk or how many so-called green labels. On my projects I report how many less conventional kWhs, how much less oil and gas. That’s the correct and most focused way to say what we want.
And you’re right that Lovins doesn’t want to be in politics. He doesn’t lobby either. He’s focused and doesn’t want to get distracted.
Craig,
To be perfectly blunt, it’s probably a good thing that the media did not focus much attention on the issue during the 90’s and early 00’s. Had Avory Lovins been made king of the world ~2000 AD, we would have wasted several trillion dollars on hydrogen cars which would all be defunct by now, then wasted several trillion dollars in algae projects which would be producing a few hundred thousand (total) bbls/year.
Every single model concerning climate change from the 80’s was horribly wrong, as were the models from the early 2000’s (the 80’s models overshot, the 00’s models far understated future warming). To be fair, climate studies are extremely complex and we are in a near-constant state of discovery… so there should be some slack given for early mis-steps. But economics is pretty well understood, and the overt embracing of complete nonsense technologies has hurt the credibility of the movement at large.
We live in a society where science is under attack and cannot afford to be wrong… certainly we cannot afford to be stupidly wrong; but the environmentalist movement – driven largely by emotive arguments – is perfectly happy to be wrong on the specifics as long as we are at least progressing (becoming less wrong) as the years go by. That has proven to open the movement up to some sharp attacks.
It’s telling that less people are worried about global warming now than they were 6 years ago – even though since that time we’ve had far more data showing inconclusively that the problem is far worse than we were projecting 6 years ago. But wrong is wrong, and the fact that we were wrong – even though it’s worse than what we originally claimed – is causing us problems.
Perhaps it’s better that the news has been less focused as we figure out within our own society – the environmentalist movement at large: recearchers, spiritulists/animists, techno-fanboys, hunters, PETA, conservative Christians, and everything in between – how we can unify a message that resonates and is highly unlikely to be wrong.
Right now, unfortunately, while the media is ignoring the arctic, the heat waves, the impossibly warm winter, and other frighting signs… as well as ignoring the brilliant continuing work in climate change modeling… The media is hyper-fixated upon electric cars… so we get to be wrong at least once more.
Great points. You’re absolutely right about the hydrogen economy, to be sure.
That we have to be absolutely right about anthropogic global warming caused by GHGs, though, doesn’t seem correct to me. In fact, I might say the opposite: we should be taking action even there is a small chance we’re right, just as we buy insurance to protect us against things that are extremely unlikely. Here we have an incredible calamity that has a very probability associated with it, and we’re doing essentially nothing about it.
Craig,
Note that there is no chance whatsoever that the Earth will not undergo warming… and I certainly agree with you that only a fool would refuse to be concerned about global warming unless or until the climate change models agree 100% with observed trends.
The problem is that we clearly live in a world controlled by fools.
Ergo, the problem becomes one of messaging and discipline. That was what I was trying to say.
🙂