You're getting comments from climate change denialists who seem to be more vocal than from proponents of abundant, reliable, carbon-free energy. That would be nuclear. And, it's time for us to be a bit more vocal.
I see Dr. James Hansen as our flag carrier. Of course, the nuclear sector has far more engineers and physicists than climatologists or biologists.
We're working on the activism part, but it's an optimistic sort of activism rather than the negative denial and gruffness of a 62-year-old gray-haired guy who interiorly regrets his career in the coal/fossil fuel industry.
The problem is climate change is not the issue. The issue is the rapidly increasing demand for energy from the Developing Nations which legitimately & rightfully want to have a modern industrial economy, with education, pensions, health care, transportation, good housing and ample food supply. That will require a 5 fold increase in World primary energy consumption. There is no possible way fossil fuel can supply that level of energy, nor even fossil + renewables.
The only viable replacement for fossil fuels is nuclear energy and even our accessible land based fission resource (thorium & uranium) can supply level of energy for at least a 100Myrs. Fusion resources until the Sun consumes the Earth. Happy coincidence, nuclear has negligible emissions, including negligible GHG emissions. So that problem, whatever it is or isn't is rendered mute.
That is the harsh reality that nobody wants to talk about. Coincidence? Nope. This is deliberate. It is no wonder that the Malthusians running the Western World despise Nuclear Energy.
*Really* wanted to like your comment for the excellent first part of your first paragraph. But then you go off the rails with wild assertions that are most likely false.
When you take the trouble to learn about the subject then you will realize all that I said is true. All true. Sorry your knowledge is very limited at present, but in time you may learn.
Nonsense, in fact it is bluster. I have all kinds of humility, I have humility coming out of the yin-yang, but to those basic points I made, in this small field, I have studied that long enough and thoroughly enough that I am quite confident in my stated opinion.
I imagine you know some field very well, and could confidently make statements within that field that you are quite certain are true. At least 99% confident. That's all I'm saying here, don't blow it out of proportion by a 1000X.
“ I have all kinds of humility. I have humility coming out of the yin-yang”
😂😂😂
…and don’t forget fabulous persuasion technique!
You assert that RAPIDLY increasing demand will create a 5x demand, despite the fact that no one of any credibility asserts such a high figure any time soon. But again, glad you know so much more than the Alex Epstein’s of the world.
You assert nuclear (of which I’m a big fan) *replacing* fossil fuels, oblivious to multiple things, the first of which is that current powers for incredibly obvious reasons ain’t gonna let there be widespread nuclear reactors around the world. The second of which is that electricity can only provide so much of the world’s useful, usable power.
But either you ain’t read Epstein’s recent book, or you are somehow SO much smarter than he is and uniquely know how nuclear could *replace* fossils fuels and deliver 5x the energy in useful form over the next several decades.
And if you try to equivocate something like “well, the 5x would only be 100 to 150 years from now” and then you still claim with 99% confidence that nuclear is the *only* possible answer as a *replacement* for fossil fuel, well then you are Nostradamus with your ability to predict any and all possible technological innovations across so large a timespan…
I suggest if you want to be a moral, decent person you stop using the phrase “climate denier”. It is an affront to the Holocaust, taken as it is from the phrase “Holocaust denier”.
Beyond that - which alone should be reason enough - it serves only to shut down conversation, not to encourage it, let alone persuade.
I doubt you will listen to any of this, given your position. But hope springs eternal…
This was a good essay; very well-researched and really well-written. But with all due respect to Breakthrough Institute, Mr. Nordhaus, and staff, you should leave discussion, analysis, and hand-wringing about which computer model says what and why, and focus on direct evidence. The late Freeman Dyson said that existing climate models “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.” They are nothing more than a snapshot of an imagined future – one which must follow each and every assumption made in the model to come to fruition. They are little more than love notes between PhDs and those seeking recognition at the alter of climate.
The direct evidence of climate “change” is obvious. Climate change is not a global ecological or economic crisis. The past 100 years have seen remarkable growth and improvements in global life expectancy, per capita income, food security, crop yields, and various health-related metrics. We are safer from extreme weather, both cold and warm, and we are less dependent on the vagaries of weather for our food, lifestyles, and existence.
This essay posits that in the long-run, there could be little difference between administrations; “economic growth rates, sectoral shifts in the composition of advanced developed economies, the business cycle, interest rates, and a range of other factors will almost always dominate emissions trajectories over the four or eight years that any administration will hold office.” I don’t dispute the obvious truth of this statement, but I also believe that an administration’s “tone” goes a long way towards creating those market atmospherics.
Biden guaranteed us, on the day after he took office, that he was going to put an end to fossil fuels. Essentially, he guaranteed his mission as President was to put 10 million Americans out of work. In 2020, VP Candidate Harris clearly stated her mission was to end fracking and promote a “Green New Deal.” In 2024, Presidential candidate Harris has backtracked on that statement, promising to expand energy production. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you” she now says. Yet, her VP candidate is clearly in the “end fossils, more renewables” camp. Because the two are not singing the same tune, I don’t believe either of them. The Harris “tone” suggests disaster.
Doomberg has said that most “people think of energy as a derivative of the economy, whereas we believe this is completely backwards – that the economy is a derivative of energy.” Our local, state, and national climate policies should eschew modeling results and predictions of catastrophe (or serendipity, for that matter), and focus on policies that help people adapt to and “weather” the extremes of climate and its endless cycle of change.
“One of the long-standing tropes of climate politics in the United States is that as every presidential election comes into view, the future of the planet hangs in the balance”
But it surely IS true that the short and medium- term future of Green crony capitalism hangs in the balance.
[Of course it’s really the other way around - climate catastrophism is the justification of anti-free market Marxists, socialists and “environmentalists” to have and wield authoritarian political power to make the rich Western world poorer.
The fact that it also causes the world’s poorest billions to be less able to improve their quality of life - or to adapt to any changes that might come about from “climate change” is in these folks eyes just an unfortunate side effect.
Leftists gaining and holding political power is the most important objective.]
You're getting comments from climate change denialists who seem to be more vocal than from proponents of abundant, reliable, carbon-free energy. That would be nuclear. And, it's time for us to be a bit more vocal.
I see Dr. James Hansen as our flag carrier. Of course, the nuclear sector has far more engineers and physicists than climatologists or biologists.
We're working on the activism part, but it's an optimistic sort of activism rather than the negative denial and gruffness of a 62-year-old gray-haired guy who interiorly regrets his career in the coal/fossil fuel industry.
The problem is climate change is not the issue. The issue is the rapidly increasing demand for energy from the Developing Nations which legitimately & rightfully want to have a modern industrial economy, with education, pensions, health care, transportation, good housing and ample food supply. That will require a 5 fold increase in World primary energy consumption. There is no possible way fossil fuel can supply that level of energy, nor even fossil + renewables.
The only viable replacement for fossil fuels is nuclear energy and even our accessible land based fission resource (thorium & uranium) can supply level of energy for at least a 100Myrs. Fusion resources until the Sun consumes the Earth. Happy coincidence, nuclear has negligible emissions, including negligible GHG emissions. So that problem, whatever it is or isn't is rendered mute.
That is the harsh reality that nobody wants to talk about. Coincidence? Nope. This is deliberate. It is no wonder that the Malthusians running the Western World despise Nuclear Energy.
*Really* wanted to like your comment for the excellent first part of your first paragraph. But then you go off the rails with wild assertions that are most likely false.
When you take the trouble to learn about the subject then you will realize all that I said is true. All true. Sorry your knowledge is very limited at present, but in time you may learn.
https://substack.com/@stu1217663/note/c-72722161
"Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it."
Glad to hear that you are infinitely more knowledgeable on this than, say, Alex Epstein.
Sorry you have no epistemic humility whatsoever. But in time you may learn.
Though clearly no time soon…
Nonsense, in fact it is bluster. I have all kinds of humility, I have humility coming out of the yin-yang, but to those basic points I made, in this small field, I have studied that long enough and thoroughly enough that I am quite confident in my stated opinion.
I imagine you know some field very well, and could confidently make statements within that field that you are quite certain are true. At least 99% confident. That's all I'm saying here, don't blow it out of proportion by a 1000X.
“ I have all kinds of humility. I have humility coming out of the yin-yang”
😂😂😂
…and don’t forget fabulous persuasion technique!
You assert that RAPIDLY increasing demand will create a 5x demand, despite the fact that no one of any credibility asserts such a high figure any time soon. But again, glad you know so much more than the Alex Epstein’s of the world.
You assert nuclear (of which I’m a big fan) *replacing* fossil fuels, oblivious to multiple things, the first of which is that current powers for incredibly obvious reasons ain’t gonna let there be widespread nuclear reactors around the world. The second of which is that electricity can only provide so much of the world’s useful, usable power.
But either you ain’t read Epstein’s recent book, or you are somehow SO much smarter than he is and uniquely know how nuclear could *replace* fossils fuels and deliver 5x the energy in useful form over the next several decades.
And if you try to equivocate something like “well, the 5x would only be 100 to 150 years from now” and then you still claim with 99% confidence that nuclear is the *only* possible answer as a *replacement* for fossil fuel, well then you are Nostradamus with your ability to predict any and all possible technological innovations across so large a timespan…
🙄🙄🙄
I suggest if you want to be a moral, decent person you stop using the phrase “climate denier”. It is an affront to the Holocaust, taken as it is from the phrase “Holocaust denier”.
Beyond that - which alone should be reason enough - it serves only to shut down conversation, not to encourage it, let alone persuade.
I doubt you will listen to any of this, given your position. But hope springs eternal…
This was a good essay; very well-researched and really well-written. But with all due respect to Breakthrough Institute, Mr. Nordhaus, and staff, you should leave discussion, analysis, and hand-wringing about which computer model says what and why, and focus on direct evidence. The late Freeman Dyson said that existing climate models “do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.” They are nothing more than a snapshot of an imagined future – one which must follow each and every assumption made in the model to come to fruition. They are little more than love notes between PhDs and those seeking recognition at the alter of climate.
The direct evidence of climate “change” is obvious. Climate change is not a global ecological or economic crisis. The past 100 years have seen remarkable growth and improvements in global life expectancy, per capita income, food security, crop yields, and various health-related metrics. We are safer from extreme weather, both cold and warm, and we are less dependent on the vagaries of weather for our food, lifestyles, and existence.
This essay posits that in the long-run, there could be little difference between administrations; “economic growth rates, sectoral shifts in the composition of advanced developed economies, the business cycle, interest rates, and a range of other factors will almost always dominate emissions trajectories over the four or eight years that any administration will hold office.” I don’t dispute the obvious truth of this statement, but I also believe that an administration’s “tone” goes a long way towards creating those market atmospherics.
Biden guaranteed us, on the day after he took office, that he was going to put an end to fossil fuels. Essentially, he guaranteed his mission as President was to put 10 million Americans out of work. In 2020, VP Candidate Harris clearly stated her mission was to end fracking and promote a “Green New Deal.” In 2024, Presidential candidate Harris has backtracked on that statement, promising to expand energy production. “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you” she now says. Yet, her VP candidate is clearly in the “end fossils, more renewables” camp. Because the two are not singing the same tune, I don’t believe either of them. The Harris “tone” suggests disaster.
Doomberg has said that most “people think of energy as a derivative of the economy, whereas we believe this is completely backwards – that the economy is a derivative of energy.” Our local, state, and national climate policies should eschew modeling results and predictions of catastrophe (or serendipity, for that matter), and focus on policies that help people adapt to and “weather” the extremes of climate and its endless cycle of change.
“One of the long-standing tropes of climate politics in the United States is that as every presidential election comes into view, the future of the planet hangs in the balance”
But it surely IS true that the short and medium- term future of Green crony capitalism hangs in the balance.
[Of course it’s really the other way around - climate catastrophism is the justification of anti-free market Marxists, socialists and “environmentalists” to have and wield authoritarian political power to make the rich Western world poorer.
The fact that it also causes the world’s poorest billions to be less able to improve their quality of life - or to adapt to any changes that might come about from “climate change” is in these folks eyes just an unfortunate side effect.
Leftists gaining and holding political power is the most important objective.]
Confirmation bias and motivated reasoning are unfortunately very strong… cheers for trying to take a sober look.
Global warming due to the rise in carbon dioxide levels is the greatest HOAX in the history of mankind!
ALL of our modern warming has been due to decreasing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution due to "Clean Air" legislation in the US and Europe!
SEE: Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming: https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf