Climate change and social justice

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) recently released a called Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and responding to climate disinformation at COP26 and beyond. It highlighted a number of people who will be familiar to those who have followed the public climate debate, and used a taxonomy for Discourses of delay presented by Lamb et al. These discourses of delay are various narratives that can be used to argue against and, hence, delay effective cimate action.

There are a number of different climate delaying discourses, but one of them is an appeal to social justice. Essentially, arguing that climate action will have large costs that will pre-dominantly impact the most vulnerable. As highighted in the ISD report, this has led to environmentalism becoming a new front in the culture wars.

This issue is something I have pondered from time to time, but have never quite seemed to express my thoughts as clearly as maybe I should. I also worry that maybe it’s a form of just asking questions, so will acknowledge this in advance. I should also acknowledge that this falls well outside my area of expertise, so some of my terminology may be, un-intentionally, not ideal.

It seems clear that there are social justice issues associated with climate change. Some groups will be more severely impacted than others, and it seems likely that those who’ve contributed least will suffer most. So, it seems that if we want to develop climate policy that is fair, then these kind of social justice issues should be taken into account.

However, the more we focus on these kind of issues, the more we would seem to run the risk of falling into the culture wars and, potentially, validating what are probably disingenuous social justice arguments. For example, those (such as Alex Epstein) who seem to argue that we should expand the use of fossil fuels so as to deal with some of these issues. On the other hand, there probably are perfectly valid arguments for expanded fossil fuel use in some circumstances. Also, I certainly don’t think that those of us who have benefitted from the use of fossil fuels should be telling those who haven’t what they should do.

I’m not sure if I’ve expressed my concern all that clearly. I’m certainly not arguing against highlighting the importance of social justice when thinking about how to deal with climate change. Mostly I’m wondering how you do so without it ending up being counter-productive. Maybe one option is to highlight discourses of delay and identify who is spreading disinformation, and how they’re doing so. Maybe we just should just make the strongest arguments we can and shouldn’t really care about bad-faith actors. On the other hand, being aware can at least help to identify easily avoidable pitfalls.

I should probably stop there, as I’m not really sure what else to say. I’m actually on the train down to Cambridge for a few days, so am going to get out my book and relax for a while. However, if anyone does have any thoughts on this, I would be interested to hear them.

This entry was posted in Climate change, Philosophy for Bloggers, Policy and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Climate change and social justice

  1. “Maybe one option is to highlight discourses of delay and identify who is spreading disinformation, and how they’re doing so. Maybe we just should just make the strongest arguments we can and shouldn’t really care about bad-faith actors.”

    I think it makes sense to identify the bad faith actors and dismiss them quickly, then move quickly back to discussions based on good science and the discussions that ensue.

    I find most of the folks who argue against action on the basis that it will create social injustices are folks who are pretty invested in the status quo and seldom express any concern about social justice issues about the status quo. In short, if the position is inconsistent, the person arguing the position is likely a bad faith actor. Call them out, kick them out, move on.

    When I engage with these folks, I usually just say, yeah, your ideas are nonsense and you raise them in bad faith because you have every reason to know the ideas are nonsense.

    A certain failed US presidential candidate is the orange poster boy for bad faith purveyors of nonsense. Does anyone believe you can persuade those kind of actors to respect the truth and act/speak in good faith? I will allow for that possibility, but I think it’s a real long shot.

    Cheers

    Mike

  2. Willard says:

    Nobody needs to believe one can persuade those kind of actors to respect the truth and act/speak in good faith, Mike. That’s not the point of responding in the first place. This fact is well known since Antiquity at least:

    Rhetoric aims to study the techniques writers or speakers utilize to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric

    For instance, my response is not meant to convince you. You repeat the same comment in just about every single thread. You are not my audience.

    Climateball is a spectator sport.

  3. This post seems to be attracting attention from a particularly awful “skeptic” site, where I’m being referred to as a “poor girl” in the comments, which I assume is meant to be some kind of insult.

  4. I saw the one pretty crazy comment from a CS, as I recall. Looks like that poster got dispatched to the borehole and the comment got deleted. That’s a good approach with this kind of commenter in my opinion. The culture wars are going strong. I like the block or hush option wherever it is available. It’s nice to be able to slap a filter in place so that we don’t even have to jump over comments by folks who are habitually conflictual, problematic and/or just don’t seem to add anything useful to the discussion. A lot of folks feed on the conflictual back and forth. Don’t feed that energy, that’s my take. Poor girls unite!

  5. Susan Anderson says:

    I’ll try to return and take some proper time to document more later, but it is important to remember that in almost all cases climate injustice falls on the poor and disadvantaged. You mention this by saying “those who contribute least suffer the most,” but it looks to me like you then forget that this has been going on for decades, and is largely caused by climate inaction, not by climate action.

    One clear example is where people live. Those who can afford to live far from the toxic waste of fossil infrastructure, which affects the air people breathe and the water they require. Those who can afford to don’t have primary dwellings in flood zones and other vulnerable areas. A secondary effect of this is that insurance and assistance generally go to those who have facilities to make claims and first world credentials help them get assistance. One example in Florida is the gentrification of inland neighborhoods where those with limited means were forced to live, which are now more desirable because they’re inland. Hurricane Harvey affected a lot of refugees from Hurricane Katrina, because that’s what happens to poor people.

    It’s almost all trickery, basically. Climate organizations I know here focus intensely on helping with jobs and infrastructure to help victims. In almost all cases poverty and ghettoization make climate change and the toxic waste of modern manufacturing (consider plastics and toxic fires, for example, along with refineries and other fossil infrastructure) a threat to life and health for the less fortunate.

    Where modernization leapfrogs past fossil in places like India and Africa, benefits accrue.

  6. Susan Anderson says:

    Being attacked is rather a compliment than otherwise.

    Jeff Goodell’s The Water Will Come might be instructive.

  7. Susan,

    but it looks to me like you then forget that this has been going on for decades, and is largely caused by climate inaction, not by climate action

    Indeed, a good point.

  8. dikranmarsupial says:

    Even within the developed world, if the wealth were distributed more evenly it would be easier to make progress on climate as more of us could do things like get electric cars or buy good quality repairable goods, eat more sustainably produced food etc. If your focus is on avoiding poverty for your own family, worrying about less fortunate parts of the world and future generations is a luxury you may not be able to afford. I don’t think we should assume that the super-rich are going to make up the difference. This isn’t a call for a “Marxist” redistribution of wealth or anything like that, it’s not something I would like to see, just an observation. After a decade of austerity in the U.K. and the current “cost of living crisis” there isn’t much appetite for increasing taxation on fossil fuel. If some ultra-rich chap (or chapess) has a Bugatti Chiron, it doesn’t take that many ordinary commuters to exceed their fossil fuel use.

  9. Dave_Geologist says:

    They probably think you’re Kate Marvel ATTP 🙂 .

    Treat it as a compliment!

  10. Tom Fuller says:

    The poor get it in the neck both coming and going. They are more vulnerable to the hazards caused by fossil fuels, including climate change, but long before that. They are so far the sacrificial lambs to the fight against climate change.

    Not a surprise, but it has led many (including myself) to focus on addressing poverty first, the biblical admonition notwithstanding.

  11. Tom,
    Some of us would argue that it’s possible to find ways to address climate change that also helps to address poverty.

  12. Ben McMillan says:

    I think the idea of appealing to social justice, when arguing for action on climate change, is really targeted at communities in less well-off countries, and at younger people, who feel a sense that they are facing consequences largely not of their making. i.e. about winning allies rather than wrong-footing opponents.

    And it is pretty inevitable that any political fight is going to center around basic principles like justice, prosperity, and freedom so these have to be contested whether or not your opponents have counter-moves. Actually the opponents seem to mostly want to fight on terrain of prosperity/freedom, which tells you something about where they think they have the strongest game.

    More bluntly, Lomborg-style fake-skeptics are going to attack on social justice stuff regardless, so this is a conflict zone already. Trying to find the perfect battle ground and ceding everywhere else seems like a strategic mistake. Although it makes perfect sense for people who want to just talk about science to just talk about science (especially if this is their forte).

  13. Tom Fuller says:

    ATTP, of course it is possible to fight climate change and poverty at the same time. I just don’t see it being done at the wholesale level. My own very ‘retail’ efforts are small and won’t change the world. But I try and fight climate change and poverty as well.

    What irks me no end is the amount of rhetoric I see that says it is possible without talking about mechanisms and specific programs. (There is some, of course. Just not much.)

    I love the Green New Deal. Remember that? Kinda disappeared pretty quickly, didn’t it? The reason I loved it is that they got the balance right. One third of the funds were for fighting climate change. The rest was to help addressing the economic plight of the poorer in America.

    I don’t see the Republicans discussing its disappearance from the political agenda, which does not surprise me. But I don’t see Democrats discussing it either, which just pisses me off.

  14. Fergus Brown says:

    Leaving aside the vexed questions of US politics, What we have here is in my opinion a false dichotomy, initiated in the public domain by Lomborg et al around 2009.
    The argument depends on the assumption that money has to be spent on climate action or poverty reduction, or perhaps on one or the other first.
    Then there’s the point that mitigation action is one banana, and adaptation action a different banana. The poorer nations and their peoples have little impact on mitigation and limited internal consequences, if international policy is managed realistically. But mostly they are asking for adaptation revenues, which they desperately need but don’t have.
    Finally, developing countries are better able to develop along environmental and climate positive pathways if they don’t have to depend on exploiting/exporting resources and have other means to manage the coming crisis. Costa Rica comes to mind.

  15. Susan Anderson says:

    Tom Fuller, good points. The Green New Deal hasn’t disappeared from my part of the universe, but it is frustrating not being able to do much (and why isn’t the former guy being tried for sedition, same problem; in the UK it’s BJ). Politics being what they are, every little development is used to bolster the status quo. Biden, being a traditional type and getting older (we don’t get nicer as we get older, we get more like ourselves) consulted with Larry Summers (who, for heaven’s sake, is promoting crypto, now there’s an environmental crime x100). Back in Obama’s day, they got rid of Van Jones very quickly (and caving on that was a crime, as was letting Al Franken be thrown under the bus in the name of “principle”). The promoters of tax cuts for the rich and deregulation and short-term profits don’t miss a trick; anybody who makes progress gets all the tried and tested arguments with a little extra thrown in to remove them from effective action.

  16. Bob Loblaw says:

    Fergus Brown on Lomborg et al: “The argument depends on the assumption that money has to be spent on climate action or poverty reduction, or perhaps on one or the other first.”

    When I first read some of Lomborg’s stuff, the problem that struck me was that the argument basically went like this:

    1. Fixing climate costs more than fixing [topic of chapter 1] directly, so we should fix [topic of chapter 1] first.
    2. Fixing climate costs more than fixing [topic of chapter 2] directly, so we should fix [topic of chapter 2] first.
    3. Fixing climate costs more than fixing [topic of chapter 3] directly, so we should fix [topic of chapter 3] first.
    4. Fixing climate costs more than fixing [topic of chapter 4] directly, so we should fix [topic of chapter 4] first.

    N-1. Fixing climate costs more than fixing [topic of chapter N-1] directly, so we should fix [topic of chapter N-1] first.
    N. Fixing climate costs more than fixing [topic of chapter N] directly, so we should fix [topic of chapter N] first.

    …and Lomborg never gets around to looking at “Sum(1 to N). Fixing climate costs less than fixing [topics of chapters 1 tp N] directly, so we should fix climate.”

  17. Willard says:

    For what it’s worth:

    With potentially $3 trillion to $10 trillion of earnings before interest and taxes up for grabs, decarbonization could present a material economic and humanitarian opportunity.

    https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/investing-in-decarbonization

    Costs come with benefits.

  18. I often think that this is akin to the whole “stocks and flows” issues. Spending money to deal with some issue isn’t simply money that disappears. The money that is spent drives economic activity aimed at dealing with the issue, but that economic activity can itself have other influences (technology development, job creation, etc). This doesn’t necessarily mean that this was the optimal way to spend the money, but it’s not the case (as I think others are suggesting) that spending money to try and deal with one issue means that there can be no impact on other issues. Things are connected in ways that it is possible to try and do more than one thing at one time. I may not have expressed this all that clearly 🙂

  19. Willard says:

    There is a more obscure way to underline the overall incoherence in the Lomborg Collective’s playbook:

    Here is Ruddiman’s wording of [Bjorn]’s pet argument:

    [Bjorn] asks whether it makes more sense committing a relatively large amount of money to try to reduce future global warming by suppressing carbon emissions or spending a smaller amount to deal with many of the problems that currently afflict humans and the environment.

    In my opinion, this argument sells well because it combines three ingredients. First, it reminds something that is plausible: we must tackle other societal challenges, which are important and less expensive. Second, it provides a dilemma: either we tackle these challenges or suppress carbon emissions. Third, this dilemma implies that if you are for suppressing carbon emissions, you are against tackling other societal challenges.

    There is an obvious problem with this argument. If these important societal challenges are inexpensive, tackling them should not prevent us from suppressing carbon emissions. When trying to put forth a dilemma, one usually tries to argue that doing both prongs is impossible. [Bjorn] can’t do that, since he wants to convey the idea that not trying to solve important societal problems first would be inhumane, as they cost next to nothing compared to cutting carbon emission.

    The simplest way to deal with [the Lomborg Collective’s] arguments is to agree with the most plausible premises and rebut the dilemma. We could also put […] societal matters into perspective: no environmental challenge matters if there is no environment left.

    Source: https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/1581464321

  20. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    “…I certainly don’t think that those of us who have benefitted from the use of fossil fuels should be telling those who haven’t what they should do.”

    Climate change: Bonn talks end in acrimony over compensation. June 16, 2022
    Two weeks of climate talks in Germany have ended in acrimony between rich and poor countries over cash for climate damage.
    Developing countries say they are reeling from climate change caused by richer countries’ emissions over hundreds of years.
    They hoped to get compensation onto the official agenda for discussions by world leaders in November.
    But here in Bonn they couldn’t get the US and the European Union to agree.
    “The climate emergency is fast becoming a catastrophe,” said Conrod Hunte, lead negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS).
    “Yet within these walls the process feels out of step with reality, the pace feels too slow,” he told delegates at the end of the meeting.

  21. izen says:

    @-TMCG
    “But here in Bonn they couldn’t get the US and the European Union to agree.”

    The US response to a rise in the cost of fossil fuel is to encourage greater production to increase supply and cut fuel tax to drive down prices. The EU response to reduced Russian supply is to re-open coal plants.

    When faced with a possibility of reduced quality of life, both chose to increase CO2 emissions to try and offset it while maintaining the status quo. This is what ‘fair’ means for the US and EU. no change or reduction in quality of life for those that can afford it. At present the social/political system does not allow any consideration of change in the underlying structure of society to ensure a fairer distribution of wealth while reducing CO2 emissions.
    Eventually the realities of climate change will force such a change. Either by enlightened governance or chaotic revolution.
    Take your pick.

  22. Ben McMillan says:

    Climate justice is not really “think of the poors”: the point about a “justice” focus is that it is about what rights and responsibilities we all have, and making and following agreed norms.

    i.e. we don’t have the right to impose climate damages on others just because it makes our lives easier. Actively making other peoples’ lives worse is a different category of harm (treated differently by law) to passively allowing people to suffer when we are not to blame for that suffering. We have zones of responsiblilty and that limited agency and independence is a crucial aspect of human social interaction.

    This is very different to the bland utilitarianism promulgated by economists (or the even hollower version Lomborg is holding out), and more in line with the kinds of ethics people actually adhere to. The focus is very much on who is being harmed, and by whom, and the lack of consent when environmental damage is inflicted.

    In the end, the people being harmed need a seat at the table, and not just a voice, but the power to say no.

    Note that thinking about whether something might be “counterproductive” to some goal is thinking about ends rather than means: it might be the right thing to do regardless, which is what a justice-based approach is about.

  23. Susan Anderson says:

    Just one of vast numbers of examples: Pollution Is Killing Black Americans. This Community Fought Back. African-Americans are 75 percent more likely than others to live near facilities that produce hazardous waste. Can a grass-roots environmental-justice movement make a difference?

  24. The biggest climate social justice issue is denying economic fossil fuels to poor people for a trivial and often perverse trivial negative effect on CO2 concentration. Stupid climate policies result in poor people choking on wood and dung smoke because they can’t have propane. They get stuck doing inefficient, land wasting agricultural drudgery because they are denied tractors. Now in the ultimate climate social injustice we’re likely to see major food shortages due to lack of fertilizers made from demonized natural gas.

    You people need to read the work of people who do real world analysis like Alex Epstein, Mark Mills, Robert Bryce, … Doomberg!

  25. Mike,
    Personally I prefer engaging with those who recognise that there aren’t simple answers to complex problems and understand that there will also be an element of nuance. YMMV, of course.

  26. Ben McMillan says:

    Monbiot on climate justice:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/24/rich-nations-climate-debt-cancelling-debts-emissions-global-debt-swap-campaign

    I think the people that are pushing the climate justice idea see it as a feature, not a bug, that it also tends to pull other justice issues into the frame. The way they confront glib nonsense from the likes of Lomborg is to actually take these issues seriously, and centering the voices of the people who are impacted (rather than what looks like pretty obvious concern trolling).

    The idea that most of the initial effort on mitigation needs to be mostly in more developed countries is exactly because of the other issues faced by less well-off nations.

  27. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    As Russia tightens “its natural gas squeeze on Europe”, countries including Germany, Austria and the Netherlands “are restarting mothballed coal-fired power stations or raising limits on their output”, says a Financial Times editorial
    .
    Meanwhile, the FT’s Energy Source column warns that “the odour of rich-country hypocrisy is what might be most damaging, making global climate co-operation harder”. It continues: “How can western leaders call for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, for example, or seek to halt financing for hydrocarbons projects in poor countries, while the Biden administration and European Commission sign deals for more American [liquefied natural gas], western governments slash fuel taxes and G7 leaders plead for more crude from Opec? Should poor countries without adequate electricity avoid coal while Germany, the world’s fourth-largest economy, starts burning lignite again? It’s a question that might hang over the debates at this year’s UN climate conference in Sharm el-Sheikh. Putin will be delighted.”

  28. dikranmarsupial says:

    and the U.K. may be opening new coal mines,

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61904622

    a week is a long time in politics, six months is an eternity

    The PM told leaders and delegates that the “anger and the impatience of the world” would be uncontainable “unless we make this COP26 in Glasgow the moment that we get real about climate change”.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-59118835

  29. dikranmarsupial says:

    It is amusing though that their solution to the “levelling up” (social justice) issues in the U.K. is to send northerners down t’ pit! ;o)

  30. jacksmith4tx says:

    All this backtracking on emissions just re-enforces my view that we will again turn to technology to fix the problems we are knowingly creating in the first place with our technology. It’s either geoengineering or genetic engineering or likely both. Elon Musk will be on Mars.

  31. mrkenfabian says:

    If fixing poverty were a fossil fuel industry priority they would forego their current super-profits to ensure low cost supply. Or pay more taxes towards welfare programs to relieve price pressures on the poor. They will not, because relieving poverty is a side effect (for as long as the immediate benefits exceed the cumulative harms) of expanding fossil fuel use not the intent; profit is the intent and they employ armies of accountants and lawyers to ensure as little trickles down as possible.

    Irrespective of the short term pains and short term responses to sudden and unpredicted reduction of fossil fuel supply the long term solution is building a lot more clean energy that doesn’t rely on fossil fuels.

    Renewed and expanded commitment to renewables and other clean energy is going to be better for long term poverty reduction and energy inequality than any protecting and expanding fossil fuel use, especially given the high prices and price volatility of fossil fuels. The “never again” motivation is going to combine with climate concerns to make the current fossil fuel energy crunch a driver for longer term investment in clean energy.

  32. Dave_Geologist says:

    Mike:

    And there was me thinking they couldn’t afford propane or tractors. Ah, of course, because that’s the truth.

    Flat-Earther or Straw-Manner? Can’t make up my mind.

    Ah. I presume Doomberg is the fabulist Lomborg. Got it. Flat-Earther.

  33. Dave_G,

    No, Doomberg is a very popular Substack energy commenter. You people are choosing to be blissfully ignorant of energy reality:

  34. dikranmarsupial says:

    “In an earlier brainstorming session, we fleshed out the concept of a character based on Chicken Little, the paranoid bird that believed the sky was always falling.”

    Yawn, sorry any thing that starts with that sort of caricature is not worth bothering with. I prefer my factual information with minimal rhetoric thanks.

  35. Willard says:

    What an intriguing web our Canman weaves:

    In 1993, Bryce wrote a piece for the Christian Science Monitor about George W. Bush’s jump into the Texas gubernatorial race arguing that Bush would “pose a formidable challenge” to then Democratic Governor Ann Richards. Bryce also referred to Karl Rove a “savvy political consultant.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bryce_(writer)

    No more peddling, please.

  36. Susan Anderson says:

    re Mars, my all-time favorite comment (though it’s trillions, not billions):
    Two planets. Earth and Mars. One is habitable. One is uninhabitable. We trash the habitable one, while spending billions trying to work out how we can live on the uninhabitable one.
    “Ladies and gentlemen, for your morbid entertainment, I present, human stupidity.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/29/the-ancient-battles-continues-between-birds-just-being-alive-and-humans-arsing-about-in-space#comment-152213115

  37. Bob Loblaw says:

    That’s a quote worth saving, Susan.

  38. Dave_Geologist says:

    Apologies, my mistake. Straw Manner then.

    Unless of course you did Due Diligence before your OP and found a credible climate-change plan from a credible source (IPCC, other UN Agency, major NGO, EU, major donor nation, Green New Deal, etc.) which calls for people burning dung chips in their hearths to continue to do so until they have a green alternative; and no tractors for poor farmers. Or which implies that (flat CO2e for developing countries, no allowance for them not being the cause of the problem and emitting more during catch-up, no money or technology assistance from rich countries to ease a managed transition).

    if you did do Due Diligence, it should be the matter of but a moment to find the quotes and post them (with web address and page number of course). Even if you didn’t save them, your browser will have saved the page in its History, and CTRL-F dung ain’t hard.

    Of course as far as credibility goes, Straw-Manner and Flat-Earther both rate the same: a big fat Zero. Personally I’d rather be the latter, because at least that’s a position of integrity and good faith, albeit an ignorant one. YMMV.

    You people are choosing to be blissfully ignorant of energy reality. Guess that’s why you have to resort to making shit up.

  39. Susan Anderson says:

    To be hopeful in bad times is not just foolishly romantic. It is based on the fact that human history is a history not only of cruelty but also of compassion, sacrifice, courage, kindness. What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something.

    If we remember those times and places, and there are so many where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction. And if we do act in however smaller way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future. The future is an infinite succession of presents. And to live now as we think human beings should live in defiance of all that is bad around us is itself a marvelous victory.

    quote from Howard Zinn, “You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train” cited (near the end) in this Ezra Klein interview of Dahlia Lithwick – https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/26/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-dahlia-lithwick.html

  40. Susan Anderson says:

    Our very own aTTP lives that. Spare your blushes, it’s only the goddam truth!

  41. izen says:

    “No, Doomberg is a very popular Substack energy commenter. ”

    I have been watching some Doomberg over the last few days, I think I see why you find it persuasive.
    The rhetorical appeal to ‘physics’ certainly sounds good. the actual references are somewhat short of substance or accuracy however. The 2nd LoT does say that disorder increases overall, but the interesting bit from the human perspective is the way ordered saystems can be constructed from that disordered flow. It is how we get from spem/egg to adults after all.

    Then there is his/her four point plan.
    Gas production in the US was only profitable when the price reached a certain level. No gas production company made money and many went bust until oil and gas prices rose. It was the oil production that subsidised the gas production at low cost gas. Unless a high price of gas is advocated I see prospect of profitable gas production.
    Nuclear always looks like a good low CO2 source of baseload power. Certainly extending the life of existing plants is a better idea than building new plants. AFAIK there are no new builds that have been completed on time or within budget. They are predominately over both. But extending the old 70s plants has problems. the safety features were more primitive then and the aging of the material infrastructure is making them more dangerous.
    Doomberg favours solar panels over wind turbines which seems a little parochial. The UK is getting between 12% and 50% of its electrical power from wind, with solar averaging less than 10%. The idea of bringing the production of solar panels back to a high wage economy would seem to fly in the face of the Bastiat principle of only making things were it is cheapest to make them.
    Hybrid electric vehicles are a reasonable idea, if the recharging is from low CO2 sources and the fuel is not fossil derived. Although even biofuels are competing with food agriculture which as he/she quite rightly says is at present very dependent on fossil fuel derived fertilisers and pesticides.

    So Doombergs’ 4 point plan looks more like fiddling with edge issues mixed with fantasy. A classic example of appearing to propose solutions while covertly supporting the status quo.
    I may have missed his/her calls for more effective insulation for private dwellings and public buildings, and/or the advocacy for sustainable agricultural practises, if so please feel free to direct me to them.
    But overall it presented a very US centric, status quo advocacy that would do little to reduce CO2 emissions in any timescale compatible with limiting climate change. But perhaps this is a feature and not a flaw for the intended audience.

  42. Willard says:

    FWIW, the biggest wind farms are in Texas and they’re cheaper than gas:

    The 2020 report on energy costs by Lazard found that the unsubsidized levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for onshore wind is 2.6 to 5.4 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), and the median unsubsidized LCOE for offshore wind is 8.6 cents per kWh. In comparison, the analysis finds that the lowest-cost conventional source, Gas Combined Cycle, has a cost range of 4.4 to 7.3 cents per kwh.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States#Largest_wind_farms

    So I’d say that the author being promoted right now ought to be more Texas-centric.

  43. Russell says:

    Why are there no wind farms in the Khyber Pass? Could a Discourse of Delay be responsible:

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/06/elsewhere-in-news-afghanistan-coal.html

  44. Dave_Geologist says:

    izen: going to the fringe so the rest of us don’t have to.

    Why is it that people who invoke the laws of thermodynamics to deny evolution, climate science, or whatever, obviously have (a) no grasp of classical thermodynamics, (b) no understanding of how post-mid-19th-century advances like quantum mechanics changed (some) things, and (c) no understanding of the concept of closed vs. open systems?

    Dunning-Kruger I suppose. Plus 99% probably didn’t invent the drivel they spout, but are parroting something they read on a website, didn’t understand, and whose glaring flaws they didn’t spot.

  45. Russell says:

    Dave, pleas don’t go all soft-rock over Izen’s riff.

    If you want to lay into folks who didn’t invent the drivel they spout & are parroting something they read on a website, didn’t understand, and whose glaring flaws they didn’t spot, you can do the Lord’s work over at WUWT & The CO2 Coalition .

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/06/tenure-track-camp-counselor-just-says.html

  46. izen says:

    @-R
    “Dave, pleas don’t go all soft-rock over Izen’s riff.”

    I may be misunderstanding you and Dave, but I thought he was heavy metal harmonising with my take.
    I too find the misuse of the 2nd LoT annoying. I would not accuse Doomberg of lack of understanding it, just a glib reference that failed to apply to the case she/he was making.

    I must admit I also got irritated by the vocal processing (it could be overloading a cheap mic) and the green chick animation. While I appreciate the benefits on anonymity, such artifice seems excessive.

    I still think my conclusion is valid. Their analysis is facile, but probably this makes it acceptable for the intended audience.

  47. Bob Loblaw says:

    I basically figured that the “violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics” argument was mostly a cut-and-paste from evolution deniers. It worked to convince the flocks of creation science affectionados, so why would it not work in the climate “debate”?

    Back in the old Usenet days, I remember commenting on an evolution/creation science debate (probably on talk.origins) about a second-law argument. Usenet exposed your email address, so I received an email from some religious nut with a second-law axe to grind, wanting to send me all sort of religious crap. I had some back-and-forth with him – him trying to explain how evolution violated the 2nd law, and me explaining how the 2nd law did not mean what he was claiming it meant. He ended up trying to make some sort of argument that – similar to the 2nd law of thermodynamics – there was a principle in terms of information content/theory that evolution violated. Advanced organisms had “more information content” than simple organisms. and this was impossible in an analagous view of the second law.

    He did not respond to my last email, where I said “so, when you claimed it violated the 2nd law, you were not actually referring to the 2nd law. Why are you lying in the name of the Lord?”

  48. Russell says:

    Izen, soft rock sedimentary geology is the ground state of petroleum exploration geologists.

    Hard rock is where most geophysics and heavy metal comes from, with the exception of Al Gore’s unadvertised lead -zinc-cadmium mine and the rest of the tristate district- cue long and rocky discourse from Dave.

  49. David B Benson says:

    And then there’s the
    big rock candy mountain

  50. Dave_Geologist says:

    Yes izen, I was agreeing with you and thanking you for saving me the effort of visiting drivel-land myself.

  51. Dave_Geologist says:

    Short one Russell 😉 .

    You forget that my ground state is hard rock. Very hard rock. 2By old roots of an accretionary complex and continental arc for my undergraduate mapping. Geophysics and geochemistry final year options (seismic processing and interpretation, and did granite-greenstone belts have plate tectonics?). 1By old metasediments and granites for my PhD. I was only moonlighting in the oil industry.

    And actually, about half my time there was spent with the job title of geophysicist. And about a third on hard, fractured reservoirs which included 3By old TTG basement. Even one of the sediments was very hard rock. Quartz-cemented sandstone often has a higher UCS than granite. And as for the Stotfield Cherty Rock*… although that was never successfully exploited as a reservoir. As the Total Chief Geologist said on a field trip: “If it rings like a bell when you hit it with a hammer, it’s not a reservoir”.

    * How cool and serendipitous is that? 🙂 Stotfield ‘cherty rock’/silcrete – A ‘new’ lithic raw material from Scotland. I’m currently reading about tool use in primates and early hominids/humans! The real thing is apparently too hard to work with, err, stone tools, but there’s a sweet spot on the edge which can be used to make blades. And apparently heating silcrete in a fire makes it more workable. I wondered why I hadn’t come across it, but of course East Africa is too wet so you get calcrete instead, and anyway there’s plenty of easily worked obsidian around. It was apparently the preferred material in South Africa and Botswana. The local volcanic rocks (Karoo) are too old and any obsidian present would have degraded to uselessness. There’s a climate connection: the Karoo LIP is blamed for the Toarcian mass extinction (global impact, although not one of the Big Five).

  52. izen says:

    More rocks….

  53. Dave_Geologist says:

    Rock rocks. And rocks rock. 🙂

  54. Russell says:

    Here’s a refresher course for Izen:
    Petrology for Deconstruction Majors

    Trinitite
    The first rock in the Anthropocene geological column
    This violet to green, obsidian-like lithic, is an un-natural glass emplaced in a shallow anticline in the White Sands of southern New Mexico. With a tritium age of 6.1 milli-eons, it is a few weeks older than the Hiroshima District exposure of the Terminal Showa formation in southern Japan.Younger deposits are known to exist in Kazakhstan ,the Lop basin in China, and synclines in India and Pakistan. A calcian variety has been reported from some recently vanished French atolls.
    All are highly enriched in transuranic elements and look far older than their years.

    Saddamite
    More mafic than Maccadamite, this high-temperature no pressure metamorphic exists atop the holocene tar sands of Kuwait. Consisting of quartz grains in a matrix of carbon black with fossil impressions of boots, coots and camel tracks, its petrogenesis defies explanation, but high porphyrin levels suggest a marine Cretaceous origin ,but no explanation exists for the infernal thermal fluxes required to pyrolize so much carbon

    Cryabase
    Is the only terrestrial rock consisting entirely of condensed air. This paragon of igneous minimalism contains native oxygen and nitrogen, argon snowflakes ,and minute crystals of Freon, neon, and radon. Found as aircicles and frost sills on liquid hydrogen tanks. it is more dangerous than asbestos in the view of Space Shuttle pilots ,and difficult to collect, as geologists picks embrittle severely at frozen air temperatures. Licking field samples to check color is highly inadvisable.

    Apocryphite
    Phenomenally microcrystalline cold and dark variety of cryabase. A report in Science in 1983 suggested that minute amounts in atmospheric suspension can lower global temperatures below freezing for 40 days and 40 nights, but the type specimen remains unpublished.

    Apocryphite , initially misidentified as Saganite, seems structurally related to Imhofite and the War of the Worlds symplectite near Grovers Mills N.J . Immense deposits reportedly exist beneath the Enron gas dome and the Busang Borneo megagold strike, but none has been offered for sale . The facies distinguishing feature is that while seeming refractory at a distance, its members melt under examination.

    The Ground Zero Gneiss
    Thus far known only from lower Manhattan and the Pentagon basement, this unique migmatite exhibits a portlandite matrix with corrugated layers of galvanized iron , asbestos fibers, heavily mylonized gypsum and blocks of carbonaceous schist with angular markings. Unlike graphic granites, which resemble garbled cuneiform, the GZG graphitites are highly legible, and appear to pertain to world trade.

    The Tora Bora Metapeltites
    Cave entrance exposures near the Waziristan-Pakistan syntaxis have yielded fugitive traces of these rare products of repeated shock and awe.

    It features deformed clasts of lead, depleted uranium, and boron carbide and asbestiform kevlar. Analytical petrologists once hoped to collect the $50 million reward offered for a specimen of the elusive organic phase binladenite in amounts sufficient for positive DNA identification.

  55. Susan Anderson says:

    Please forgive me for not resisting this throwback to my art school days. Sadly, though it’s reacting to a dark time, things are a lot worse now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.