Watch What Happens as the Truth About ExxonMobil and Climate Change Becomes Obvious To Us All
In response to my recent piece “Earth’s Warming Continues to Break Records,” frequent commenter Frank Eggers writes: The deniers may no longer be able to deny the warming, but they can continue to deny that human action is responsible regardless of how bad the warming becomes.
That’s a point, for sure. But here’s their real problem. It’s articles like this, a subject on which I’ve written dozens of times.
Big Oil’s actions, i.e., its conspiracy to suppress the truth about climate change, a fact they knew with absolute certainty 25 years ago, is about to become regarded precisely the same as the conspiracy that the tobacco companies embarked upon in the presence of the scientific evidence re: cancer that was piling up all around them.
Frank. Dude. You and I aren’t the only ones figuring this out. People all over the world are beginning to ask themselves, “Hey. Isn’t this a remake of a bad movie I’ve seen before?”
In the middle of the 20th Century, we realized to our collective horror that Big Tobacco was writing off the deaths of untold millions of people via the slow painful progression of cancer and the law suits that arose from those deaths as simple costs of doing business. This, btw, is a practice they still maintain today.
Here with the oil companies, hard to imagine as it may be, the situation is far worse from a moral perspective. In the 1980s, ExxonMobil decided to sell the sustainability of the Earth’s capacity to support human life in an effort to make huge sums of money, a goal that they have most certainly attained.
The evidence is overwhelming; I hope you’ll read the article I linked above. They even fashioned their business around this, lifting oil platforms to accommodate rising sea levels, and planning for decreasing costs of oil exploration as the Arctic melts. It’s so egregious that it’s hard to believe. But it’s true.
Watch what happens over the next couple of years as the world slowly comes to this horrible realization.
As I wrote in an email to my mother, these people need to hope there’s no hell.
Craig,
I’m sorry but I can’t understand your hatred and vilification for what oil company executives like Exxon’s former CEO, may or may not have believed 49 years ago, as helpful or productive.
Unlike tobacco, (you must have been living on another planet if even 50 years ago you thought smoking was good for you), oil is an essential product to civilization and has done more for human health and well being than any other man-made product.
The oil industry is inextricably woven into the health of the worlds economy. No nation is this fact more evident than the US.
More than 350,000 products are produced by the oil industry, including medicines etc.
I also fear ardent evangelical preaching by extreme climate change alarmist advocates, may excite converted “true believers”, but is counter-productive with the vast majority of the populace.
Preaching, “let’s get rid of evil oil” is all very well, until someone stops and asks “how” ?
That’s the problem with all extreme advocacy, with repetition, it begins to sound like an old fashioned ” hell-fire, revivalist preacher” railing against wicked heretics to a small flock of true believers, rather than a sensible debate among scientifically responsible people concerned with finding rational solutions to complex issues.
In times of crisis or change, there’s always a temptation to find a scapegoat. Someone must be to blame. In the case of oil companies, the ready made “villain” is perfect for the role !
But like most scapegoats, how much is true ? In the case of oil companies, there’s a lot of good, bad and just inevitable ! When all the conspiracy theories are discounted the credit ledger for the oil industry far outweighs the debit.
But does it all matter ? Is a ” villain ” even necessary ? Is all this moral and ideological outrage necessary ? Surely newer and superior clean energy technology must eventually replace fossil fuel energy, simply because it’s more economically competitive.
I’ve always disliked highly emotive terms like “deniers” because they are used to silence dissent and stifle debate by intimidation. They also trivialize a really awful chapter in human history.
I have no hatred for oil company executives of 40 years ago, and I have no issue with anyone funding research to support any scientific contention. (Especially, scientific research that challenges my own beliefs). I wish no one “in Hell” nor do I believe anyone should be penalized for just being wrong.
I believe that instead of wasting time and energy castigating an industry producing economic and essential products the world needs to maintain any sort of social cohesion, we should concentrate on identifying and achieving practical goals.
We should be applauding Chevron for it’s funding of the Geo-thermal industry at a time when interest in the technology was almost extinct . Chevron also provided most of the funding for research identifying the horrific environmental effects effects of using Marine Grade No 6 Fuel oil( bunker oil). This product is probably the most pollutant and toxic of all man-made emissions, yet the damage caused by this product is ignored by nearly everyone but Chevron.
The emission from just 20 vessels, exceeds the toxic emissions from all the cars, trucks etc on the planet.
Each year, Americans spill more than 18 million gallons of highly toxic 2-4 stroke lawn mower fuel, just refilling their lawn mowers etc. That’s more than the Exxon Valdez oil spill ! The fumes, and toxic effect of US garden and small horticultural industry is enormous.
But where is the outcry from all those impassioned “green” advocates ? What’s the legislature of New York State doing about eliminating these sources of pollution?
Well, the answer is nothing ! It’s far more politically profitable to launch very expensive grandstanding, but futile lawsuits against Exxon.
For the cost of such legal action to the taxpayers of New York,(and the US taxpayer who ultimately helps pay Exxon’s legal bill) the state of New York could completely replace every garden and horticultural machine with a new zero emission model !
Craig, what is productive ? Campaigns of vilification against industries that are essential to the economy, while creating even more opposition from those who see the environmental movement as an increasingly radical, leftist, quasi-religion, with no economic credentials ?
Isn’t it better to focus on creating an image for the environmental movement as a dynamic place where exciting new environmentally positive technologies can competitively replace old fashioned, and environmentally negative technologies ?
Isn’t it better to sell new zero-emission technologies as evolutionary improvements, rather than get involved in bitter internecine witch-hunts which must inevitably become antagonistically political, and polarizing ?
Isn’t it better rather than telling people not to eat meat, as a “moral’ edict, wrapped in a disguise as environmental, to simply breed ruminants that don’t emit high levels of methane ?
( The issue of eating meat is then left to the conscience of the individual)
Wouldn’t it be better to encourage the use of clean tech dry-cleaning plant ? The technology exists, it just needs a little more focus making it fashionable, and a major source of pollution disappears.
Research into a better method of producing Portland cement, holds the promise of a huge environmental boon. Isn’t the pursuit and promotion of this technology far more beneficial to the environment than pursuing old vendetta’s ?
There are thousands of such projects, each one of which desperately needs advocates (and mentors) with the formidable talents you possess!
It’s just a personal viewpoint, but as I see it, you and I have only an uncertain number of years left. (I’ve already passed the age of my father when he died) I would rather spend my remaining years introducing positive improvements, even if relatively minor, rather than fighting quixotic “crusades”.
But that’s just a personal viewpoint.
These people knew 35 years ago that they were destroying our planet and hid that truth until now, at which point it may be too late to fix. I understand that oil has been essential to our economic growth. But had these people told the truth when they first learned it, we probably would not be experiencing our current catastrophe. If you don’t call that evil, what are you reserving the term for?
Btw, I too do not wish that anyone, regardless of how heinous their crime in this lifetime, to be sent to an eternity of torture. The whole idea is so incredibly twisted from the perspective of morals that it’s a notion totally unbefitting of decent people.
Craig,
“These people knew 35 years ago that they were destroying our planet and hid that truth until now, at which it may be too late to fix ”
That’s a very sweeping statement, full of passion, but very little reality and definition .
What ” people” ? The CEO and directors of Exxon ? Whom exactly ?
The reality is that some employee with some scientific credentials postulated a set of theories disputed by other equally reputable and well qualified scientists.
During this period M. King Hubbert’s theory of imminent “peak oil” was also equally popular in certain circles, and equally ardent, passionate academics, scientists and advocates were sure the world would experience irreversible shortages affecting all civilization by 1992, or 1998, well at least by 2002, or then again,…. and so on.
Fortunately, Exxon despite those theories and pressed on with it’s program of technical improvements to the extent we are now experiencing an oil glut in 2012.
There is no “heinous crime”, no dramatic felonious cover up. At the most, a senior Exxon executive chose to prefer the reports from one group of scientific advisers in preference of others.
The same information was available to governments, academic institutions, etc, all of whom also ignored these reports at first.
Fossil fuels and specifically oil as an advancement for humanity is an interesting proposition. If we cannot transition from this hydrocarbon for fuels and feedstock then the picture looks entirely different. At that point rather than “helping” humanity it would have been more like a drug that only brings us along a path to disaster.
Clearly oil has promoted economic expansion as well as being primarily responsible for quadrupling the world population. It seems unlikely that we could sustain the present overpopulation of the world without oil.
Therefore, it may be more correct to say that oil has helped individuals but its effect upon society may not be as sanguine.
It’s not just oil. We know processed food makes you fat. Sodas eat your teeth. Yet we still buy them. Most people don’t make better decisions when we know our consequences are soon to come. I’m not convinced society would have made better decisions if they thought the consequences were 50 years in the future. But like a cheating boyfriend, Exxon denied us the right to make that choice on our own. When they didn’t share info that would have supported what others were saying.
Wow, I like your point, i.e., it’s hard to blame people/organizations that sell us harmful products when we have the choice simply to not buy them, where those who deny us the choice are far more culpable.
Gina,
I wish that the term “processed foods” were defined more clearly.
I buy fairly large quantities of frozen vegetables. Perhaps they would be defined as processed foods but I don’t see them as a problem. What could possibly be bad about frozen peas?
I also buy breakfast cereal but am careful to buy only cereals with no added salt, sugar, dyes, or any other unwholesome ingredients. Are they a problem?
What about frozen orange juice? is that a problem?
Of course drinking sodas, eating candy bars, and eating processed meats is a problem and most likely accounts for the obesity epidemic. I think instead of simply using the term “processed foods” and saying that all of them are bad, we have to be more specific.
Marcopolo
You have a gentle voice that underplays the seriousness of the reality that confronts civilization.
The value of global fossil energy reserves is over 100 trillion.
In some economies (i.e. Saudi Arabia) this represents around 95% of their income source.
Corporations by build are designed to return profit to the shareholder … Individuals inside these corporations do object to some company practices and I have been given some inside information of corporate wrongdoings … It is important to realize that there are no Saints or Demons in these corporations.
I strongly object to the positions taken by “Big Oil” and countries like the Saudis who have been documented in how they obstructed the transition away from fossil energy consumption … Their actions hinder the free market movement away from fossil consumption … Also, their actions work to discount the future economy for short term gain.
The science of climate change is not disputed no matter how much one can wish it to be. If you believe that academics are pushing a global fraud for financial gain and chose to ignore the 100 trillion dollar plus fossil energy economy then I have trouble with your willful blindness.
The future is a renaissance ripe for human imagination and creativity that should be used to build a wiser and smarter world.
Anyone who stands in humanity’s way in trying to create this new world and works to obstruct the knowledge and understanding needed to move forward deserves the utmost scorn.
The future is too important to stand behind old models and understandings that we now know to be false and ultimately destructive.
Holy mackerel, Terry; that’s one brilliant presentation. Good for you in having that concept, and in expressing it so elegantly.
And yes, IMO, MarcoPolo is a very smart guy whose viewpoints on morality and social responsibility are lacking. In particular, he looks at the concept of “ideology” as if it were a disease. I don’t understand that, frankly.
Craig,
It’s not that I regard all “ideology” as a “disease”, but that I observe some people use ideological doctrines to suspend reality and commonsense in the pursue ideological goals.
This maybe harmless in an individual, but when practiced on mass can produce very disastrous consequences as the world has witnessed so many times.
My sense of morality and social responsibility may not be the same as yours, but that doesn’t mean I lack morality and social responsibility !
I believe it’s morally and socially irresponsible to spend vast amounts of (especially borrowed)public money to support industries or policies that only exist for ideological or political purpose.
No nation has a bottomless public purse. Monies taken to subsidize failed projects, must come at the expense of other vital government services, or the taxpayer.
Ethanol production from corn in the US is an excellent example. The industry was created back in the early 1970’s for reasons, which at that time, seemed logical and necessary .
Sadly, nearly half a century later the industry still exists even though to the original justification has long since disappeared. Worse the only remaining justification for the industry on environmental grounds have been proven to be erroneous.
Not only does US ethanol production does not benefit the environment, but has proven to be more harmful than gasoline and diesel !
But this huge, uneconomic industry with endless billions of public money wasted on failed projects, staggers on relying on the powerful support of a coalition of ideologues and self-interest to force politicians to continue support.
Governments must weigh carefully the exp0enditure of public money. In not the “governments money” it’s money provided by the taxpayer, on trust, to invest in providing for the well being of all the taxpayers, and with the approval of the majority of taxpayers.
Here’s the problem: We the People need to do something about the ever-expanding collapse of the Earth’s environment. Is government regulation the ideal answer? Of course not. But you’re more than smart enough to know that, in the absence of some major force coming together and making a change of course, we won’t have a civilization here in 75 – 100 years. Some people don’t concern themselves with these matters, but I’m not one of them.
Craig,
75 to 100 is not very long, but it’s long enough. Huge numbers of intellectuals and others, including scientists, were absolutely convinced that the planet would endure catastrophic nuclear war that would destroy the planet by 1980 at the latest.
(remember the 50’s ban the bomb marches?)
But here we are in 2016 and while Nuclear weapon proliferation remains a concern, planet wide destruction seems only a remote possibility.
Making a call for “change” is all very well, but the next question is what change, how can it be implemented and at what priority.
That’s where I take issue with ideologues, and vague dreamers. I want to see the detailed of any proposal, the method of implementation and strength of competing proposal or existing solutions.
I was an early investor in Tesla, and recommended Tesla to clients. I understood Tesla’s business model and the quality of management and CEO. I also estimated that Tesla would gain a lot of idealistic shareholders driving the price ever higher, and a COE who understood the business of running a fast growing corporation.
I refused to join the rush to invest in Better Place, because it made no business or logistical sense. I believed both management and investors were delusional, even if that included opposing a hero of mine, Carlos Ghosn.
Better Place ended badly, despite Billions in private and public funding. (none of my critics ever apologized).
I don’t believe a huge “revolution” would be beneficial, especially one with vague ideological goals.
IMO, the answer is “evolution” replacing old environmentally harmful practices and industries with newer, more competitive technologies.
I understand that engineering a 30 ton Fire Engine, capable of traveling at 80mph and able to pump tons of water for many hours, is completely beyond any ESD yet developed. As a result the production of gasoline and diesel will continue for some time to come.
Instead I would rather turn my attention to replacing 2-4 stoke garden and horticultural equipment.
The technology exists, the “green products” are even quieter, more efficient, and easier to use. The products don’t need government subsidies, (although some noise abatement reg’s wouldn’t hurt!:).
An addition to the significant environmental benefits,it would also help popularize electric as a replacement for fossil fuel.
As I have said before, just the spillage from 2-4 stoke fuel in the US each year is more environmentally harmful than the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon spillages.
But where is the support for these humble, but achievable goals? I think it get’s lost amid the din from your moral crusade to castigate Exxon (who don’t care) about the opinions of some long retired CEO.
I believe if we concentrate on promoting smaller, humbler, but realistic and practical goals, we can win acceptance for greater and more important projects. We can also help economic growth, without disruption.
The current gold standard for companies to evaluate investments is internal rate of return. That method attaches far less importance to income and expenditures far in the future than in the near future. Thus income and expenditures beyond 50 years in the future receive just about zero attention. Obviously internal rate of return ignores the welfare of future generations. So, from an investment standpoint, it would make no difference if the world as we know it ceased to exist in 50 or more years.
Clearly internal rate of return is not an appropriate way to evaluate investments which would greatly affect the quality of life of future generations. For that reason very long term considerations require government intervention.
@ Frank,
Private investment is never very long term, although in the past some bond issues were considered prudent as secure long term income producing investments with a negotiable cash face value.
Most investors seek a fairly quick return on investments, either in the form of dividends or as increasingly valuable assets. Large scale investment is usually opportunistic and those who invest in the more idealistic projects must be offered substantial government guarantees or incentives.
Of course philanthropic investment does exist, and is very laudable, but in general the pressure is on investor to make profits in a relatively short time.
I strongly agree with your assessment of ethanol. Regulations requiring its inclusion in gasoline were enacted with good intentions, but we know what is said about good intentions. There was too little thought before the regulations were enacted. Now we have an entire industry which was created as a result and which has become so powerful that getting rid of the ethanol will be very difficult. In fact, it will even be very difficult to oppose successfully regulations requiring that even more ethanol be added to gasoline.
That just shows the folly of enacting regulations with inadequate thought.
FWIW, I’m more forgiving of the decision to go to ethanol, which was made when the issue of energy independence, and we hadn’t twigged that we have an environment mess on our hands.
Craig,
I think your reply highlights the problem ! Whatever the reasons for ethanol and no matter how valid they may have seemed 50 years ago, today the industry is more environmentally harmful than the oil industry, economically unjustifiable, and even mandated.
Consumers loath the industry, but it owes it’s existence to a coalition of deluded environmentalists, and powerful lobbyists.
It’s the industrial personification of Frankenstein’s monster !
Marcopolo,
I am absolutely certain that many people will strongly disagree with me, but I see part of the problem as being the current phobia against nuclear power. Including Dr. James Hansen and the other scientists mentioned in the following articles, there are many scientists see nuclear power as essential to minimizing CO2 emissions:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/03/climate-scientists-support-nuclear-power
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
More articles can easily be found by using the search string “scientists for nuclear power” with google.
I greatly fear that making it taboo even to mention nuclear power will greatly exacerbate our climate change problems. That is just as damaging as the antics of the Koch Brothers, Exxon, etc. Climate change is already occurring and dealing with what is already inevitable will require more power for cooling and sea water desalination.
Also, the Union of Concerned Scientists has modified its previously firm position against nuclear power as shown in the following link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-power-and-global-warming#.VszUJ1K5DHg
Frank, thank you for a cohesive and practical observation.
Here is a link to an article about the historic energy transitions by the following two authors:
Michael Shellenberger is President of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy NGO based in California.
Rachel Pritzker is President of Pritizker Innovation Fund, a philanthropic foundation supporting technological innovation for human development and environmental progress.
And here is the article:
http://seekerblog.com/2016/02/24/why-energy-transitions-are-the-key-to-environmental-progress/
Frank,
Once again thank you for your reference to an excellent article.
The authors display a comprehensive understanding of social condition and realities often absent in renewable advocacy.
That’s the point I have been trying to explain to Craig. It’s my belief that the danger of attempting to resolve environmental issues by conducting a ” Crusade” against oil companies in particular, and preaching social “revolution” achieves very little.
Just as it’s a tad hypocritical to fly to Paris to complain about the evils of oil companies, on an airliner fueled by oil.
In my opinion it’s better to be defined for what you support, than what you’re against.
Fighting expensive battles about what some long retired Exxon executive thought nearly half a century ago,for the political benefit of an ambitious small time politician, just detracts from advancing projects which can make a practical environmental impact today.
Marcopolo,
I hope that I have not created the impression that I am totally opposed to renewable energy. Although I do not see it as practical as a major source of power for most large prosperous countries, there are circumstances where it is the power source of choice. There are people whose quality of life has been greatly improved by renewable energy.
Here is a link to the part of the Fiji Electrical Authority which covers their renewable energy projects:
http://www.fea.com.fj/about-us/renewable-projects/
With the exception of their wind energy project, which was probably a boondoggle, they have done a reasonably good job of using renewable energy projects to get electricity to small villages in remote areas. It appears that their micro hydro projects have been especially successful. They seem to do a thorough evaluation before building a system. Even though the power is not 100% reliable, the renewable projects still greatly improve the quality of life.
@ T
Thank you for your reply.
I don’t doubt your sincerity or convictions, but I think you are someone who tries to reduce complex realities to simplistic generalities.
The ” Saudi’s” by which I take you mean either the government of Saudi Arabia or the Saudi Arabian Oil Company ( Aramco) have no interest in promoting the use of “fossil fuel” . Armoco may promote the use of it’s brands of petroleum products, but has no interest in promoting natural gas or coal. (both “fossil fuels”).
In fact until very recently, Oil needed no promotion. With no practical alternatives and a seeming dwindling supply, oil rich nations were in the envious position of being able to concentrate on maximizing profit by raising prices to meet ever increasing demand.
Fossil fuel reserves may be worth 100 trillion, (or considerably more)but that’s not a pile of cash! To realize that 100 trillion involves vast investment and the cost of enormous sums to fund a highly complex, labour intensive industry that require the enterprise and hard work by millions of human beings.
You talk about a transition from oil to alternatives as if that were logistically and technically feasible today, and only not in existence due to the resistance of sinister ” fossil fuel” interests who should be the object of scorn by all right thinking people.
Sadly, that’s not the case. Although some progress has been made in some aspects of generating renewable, or at least cleaner, energy the demand for oil, and to a lesser extent coal, remains strong, particularly in applications where no practicable alternatives exist.
To the romantic idealist, existing realities may be just merely tiresome bagatelles impeding progress to a Utopia that may one day exist. However, the rest of us continue with the responsibilities of providing for the well being and needs of the existing economy that allows the population to survive.
Fraud and deception, even well meaning delusion, can’t be excused no matter how you agree with the motives, or detest the opposition. Science shouldn’t be confused with “faith”.
Again, your desire to generalize leads you astray. I did not maintain “that academics are pushing a global fraud for financial gain “.
What I did observe was that around the science of “global warming/climate change” has arisen a huge group of assorted academics (not necessarily qualified in the relevant scientific disciplines)advocates, politicians, advocacy groups and organizations, lobbyists, bureaucrats, investors, huge corporations, cranks etc, all of whom need the most alarming claims of “global warming/climate change” to justify their existence, and self interest.
It would be very surprising if among such a collection of self interest, a degree of corruption and self-delusion didn’t exist!
Doses that mean all scientists and academics, are corrupt or deluded ? Of course not, but it’s important that those that are are quickly discovered and exposed and their contribution discounted.
Attempting to simplify the scientific aspects of climate change into a moral philosophy or quasi-religion to justify a particular lifestyle is very human, but ultimately counter-productive.
Our society here in the US, in particular, has long labored under many severe misapprehensions.
Chief among these, in practical terms, is that we are and have always been a democratic republic. Yet our founders only appealed to the myth that all men are created equal, while at the same time enshrining slavery and granting suffrage only to white male landowners.
Another harmful falsehood inculcated throughout our society is that capitalism and democracy are compatible or complementary (they are even still mythologized as being one and the same, despite the roaring evidence to the contrary in China).
In reality, capitalism has – by design – always favored those with great wealth, and it operates according to predatory principles by which cooperation for mutual benefit applies only to trusts and cartels as convenience dictates.
Another important delusion is that self-interest and competition are the instrumental forces behind human progress. On the contrary, our history shows that humankind emerged from the savagery of an animal existence by sharing and cooperating, not through greed and conflict.
How does all this apply to energy? The controlling interests in our society have not yet decided it is to their private advantage to shift from filthy and toxic prehistoric sunlight to the clean modern stuff (in any form).
However beneficial renewables will be to our United States, and to general health and well-being for ourselves and our progeny and the world at large, there is a substantial transition cost for all such firms (if indeed they choose to participate in the transition). They continue to regard these resources as competition. Their formidable lobbying power ensures that attempts to wisely subsidize the scale-up of the most well-proven renewables (and related infrastructure) will continue to be sporadic, unpredictable and anemic.
We may also expect the campaign of misinformation and concealment of the damage their products do, and the campaign to discredit alternatives, to endure long past the tipping point.
The challenge before us as a civilization is that we must transition to alternatives before the combined costs rise beyond our reach.
Exxon-Mobil and its ilk are quite well organized, and not for altruistic public benefit (obviously). If we logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans want to see our national security and political sovereignty preserved, and if we want to defend ourselves and our posterity against the lethal ravages that fossil fuels inflict upon the biosphere and the economy, we had best get organized.
Yes. Though this is not a piece of cake, as “logical, critically thinking and imaginative humans” tend not to organize well.
Our energy choices are only just over half the problem. The other is ecological strangulation by roads, and worse, deforestation (for stupid things, even). Roads kill species and thus impinges other species which will be seen from a geologic point of view as being “just another” partial dieoff – cause and effect. Nobody really thinks that we can continue the fenced yards complete with the raid and roundup forever, do they?
It’s painful to think that humanity will be too stupid to learn how to “print” solar and batteries for the cheap – and allow self driving cars to evolve into self flying pods. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with spitting out solar and batteries?
Actually, there are a few possibilities that could be “wrong”, but (better) solutions to these will be created given continuous science research.
1, Not enough energy return for energy input.
Solar will get about 10 to one, if it doesn’t already. However, if (in the extreme exaggerated case, for sake of argument) we’d have to store 9/10ths of it (because we’re afraid of power lines), then all the energy in for all the EXTRA capacity buildup FOR all the extra battery storage would most certainly be more than the energy out.
2, It would be wrong if we couldn’t deal with the chemical wastes.
3, It would eventually become wrong to cover more than a certain percent of the land, however, it’s obvious that this would be no problem until actual whole “full on” percentage points are reached (in which case, we could support many tens of billions at high standards of living)!
4, A localized heat island effect (in deserts, especially).
5, Problems like carports (built specifically with solar panels in mind) causing shadows on congested snowy roadways, causing accidents due to ice in subfreezing locations. Just a few deadly mishaps due to ice caused collisions would make this style of solar alone, more deadly than any recent nuclear mishap.
Solutions abound for all of these. Everything new gets more efficient, then different distribution and living systems further improve where efficiency alone levels off. Reversing urban sprawl, would reduce per capita energy requirements considerably.
Subsidy needs to be prioritized for pure research and (manufacturing ability) development. More efficient panels and batteries make room to glean more energy from even lower capacity factors. And longer powerlines make better use of extra built up solar capacity. As for excess infrared making the panels too hot to touch, there are three solutions: efficiency, color (or partial transparency) and photonic materials which actually convert infrared into a different infrared wavelength which does not get absorbed by any greenhouse gases (and which would dispose of extra heat straight out into space)! As for alpine areas, wouldn’t it be best just to put them where it’s warmer (or on an already built roof)? The reason for concern is because the big panels at the local schools (Southern CA mountains) cause huge shadows which prevents the sunlight from melting the snow ice (and get this) where kids, cars and buses interact. Before built, there was plenty of sun to melt the frozen run off (and no posts to watch out for).
Oh, and for chemical wastes, I believe that since we seem to know how to deal with fission and actinide wastes, we should be able to deal with “solar manufacturing wastes”. Both nuclear and solar has a correspondingly small amount of wastes per unit of energy gained over lifetime. They’re both deadly if not dealt with properly. Nuclear’s “disappears” in time but solar’s should be recycled much easier.
And, I forgot recycling of the actual PV… Should be a no brainer for kids who already know how to make and program robots 20 years before the fact…
We can make perfect our energy infrastructure and STILL kill off much of the biosphere (in time). The solution is in the flying “car”, an old and now mostly given up on, idea.
Computers already are at the point of making possible self driving cars, problem is, the humans are in the way. All computer cars will “know” where they are and what their responses will be within milliseconds, but will not “know” whatever human responses will be in any (possible) accident scenarios.
Physics and psychology will forever deny the perfect automated roadway system unless we relinquish ALL control over driving. There will be no human “control” when “cars” go to the air, and they will fly below that of conventional airspace and around airports, helipads, etc.
Nuclear will not be needed for energy generation within the next couple of decades (assuming the solar growth rate actually slows a bit, even!). Perhaps, still needed for medicine and space exploration, until replaced with fusion. On Earth, even fusion might not be able to economically compete with solar and batteries (by that time)!
We need to prevent politicians (and their “disciples”) from causing major cuts in funding for pure science research and machine automation/”printing” manufacturing style. The want for clean energy and efficiency shall be an accelerating catalyst for creating an Anthropocene that’s actually ecologically acceptable past the mere human timescale – and the ability to completely wean ourselves from what is still, a very necessary commodity – fossil fuels.
I am with you Craig.
David Crosby – What Are Their Names
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heEEw_I2in0
Thanks. As it happens, David Crosby lives in my little cow-town in California; I’ve met him. He’s hard to miss with that unique face and hair.