The high priests of the new religion of environmentalism with their shouts of climate catastrophe just need to shut up. Similarly, the climate deniers, with their heads in the sand because green issues are a bastion of the liberal left, also just need to shut up.
I believe in science. My academic studies focused on the sciences. But I’m experienced enough to know that claims of “based on science” are often less sacrosanct than the general public typically understands. Biases, so some degree, creep in virtually every scientific conclusion – especially when the funder of the studies are looking for desired outcomes and bury them when they don’t match.
HOWEVER, the science on climate change, no matter how you slice it, points a big fat red arrow in the direction that sumpin ain’t right. Setting aside the breathless cacophony of alarmist data and hair-on-fire claims, let’s simply look at it this way: If you dig deep into the earth and bring tons of carbon to the surface, then burn it into the atmosphere; and if you do this on a massive scale for decades, then you can be pretty confident the chemistry of the atmosphere will get tipsy. We can argue about the intensity of consequences, but it’s not an intellectual stretch to suggest we may be experiencing implications.
The climate issue needs to be reframed because it is currently defined too narrowly and is intentionally half-baked: “Kill all fossil fuels and pour massive money into solar, wind, and electric vehicles!” It’s more complex than this. Unfortunately, climate issues are driven by advocating parochial interests rather than solving real problems.
And the recently concluded COP 29 tin-cupping conference was colossal charade of diplo-blah-blah that congratulated itself for an accomplishment that wasn’t even in the right zip code. A massive redistribution of $500 billion annually from rich countries to poor countries not only fails to fix the problem, the checks will never be written. Like, never ever. Having China (and Saudi Arabia) excluded from the financial hook is politically tone-deaf. Then, enter Donny “I actually like it warmer” Trump and the arduously negotiated communique will be dropped faster than a Marjorie Taylor Greene application at a Mensa review board.
Successfully “solving for x” (as my middle school math teacher would say), requires targeting the right x. The most critical calculation is not the amount greenhouse gas emitted, but the gap between the output we put into the air compared to the amount that is pulled out. In 2022, for example, carbon emissions totaled 43 gigatons of CO2. If 43 gigatons were sucked out, we wouldn’t have a crisis. But the carbon intake (sink) only totaled 22 gigatons of CO2 (about 10 from oceanic and about 12 terrestrial). Doing the math here…, uuumm, it’s tough to spin a 100 percent annually deficit into anything but ruh-roh.
To erase (or invert?) the carbon exchange deficit, we must not only lower the emission but increase the sink. We are badly aimed at reducing the CO2 we push out and we are not even pretending to care about what is pulled in.
The total US energy consumption in 2023 was almost 94 quadrillion BTUs – 38% from petroleum, 36% from natural gas, and 9% each from coal, renewables, and nuclear. The Zealots au Green need to accept that we are not going cold turkey off fossil fuels. Get over it. But we can manage a faster pace. With natural gas 55% cleaner than coal and 25% cleaner than oil, accelerating a conversion to natural gas is a no-brainer since it is already online. Heaven forbid if political realism is brought into the argument, buuuut and the United States sits on the largest recoverable reserves in the world. Excluding the exploitation of that resource is a total non-starter on economic and national security grounds. Is natural gas the solution? No, but it’s a bridge to the solution.
While electric vehicles may be the chariots of choice for the climate clergy, we must realize that while the vehicle itself may be emission-free, they are merely rolling batteries that are charged with the original source of energy from… wait for it… big fossil-fuel power plants. Yes, the net savings on emissions is substantial at say 60% — but it’s not 100%. For those Prius-driving advocates bawling in mighty protest about the evils of converting to natural gas, eeehhh, the EV emission reduction rate is about the same as converting from coal to gas. Are electric vehicles a magic bullet? No, but it’s a nice, shiny one.
Solar and wind power have become increasingly competitive on the basis of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), with capital and production costs at a fraction compared to just 15 years ago (applause please). It may come as a shock to some, however, but the sun doesn’t shine at night and the wind doesn’t always blow. Despite wishful thinking, neither is a suitable option for base load energy production and will never be the dominant source of power. But they are nice supplements. Solar and wind don’t have the scale to be the answer, but they’re an important part of it.
Nuclear. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are starting to get attention and might be a game-changer, especially with smaller footprints, innovative designs, and advanced safety features. The hypocrisy is dripping from the traditional environmental religionists who bellow with doomsday prophesies about the existential threat and the imminent extinction of life on our planet only to dismiss SMRs (despite the science!) because it doesn’t fit their political agenda or leftist sensibilities. You can’t prophesy about the inexorable death of the planet then turn around and say nuclear isn’t an option because it’s not your ideological cup of tea. (Same argument with hydro.) Is modern nuclear technology our savior from the climate cliff? Possibly. Watch this space.
The carbon intake side of the coin is largely ignored as an option for emphasis. What attention it gets is on preserving what we have (rain forests et al) but little on what more we can do. Global energy demand will continue to grow despite improved efficiencies, digitalization, and new storage options. Closing the carbon exchange gap needs the escalation of massive new carbon sinks, both naturally and artificially. Combatting deforestation for sure, but also increasing urban greening (a beautification bonus) and sharpening non-urban vegetation strategies could edge up the numbers. Getting the big volumes, however, requires development and deployment of artificial carbon harvesting through several new and emerging technologies. If we created a problem by pushing it out there, why can’t we solve the problem by sucking it back in?
If the climate evangelicals are so certain of the existential nature of the threat, why is the emphasis so heavily focused on solar, wind, and EVs when objective calculations suggest that beating the “climate crisis” requires multiple actions on several fronts while these three politically favored solutions are a mathematical supplement? The answer to every question, my friend, is money. Lobbyists for solar, wind, and EV lobbyists earn about $200 million per year (and growing). It’s been a pretty good return on investment as Uncle Sam subsidizes solar and wind at the tune of $16 billion a year and with many billions more for EVs in direct subsidies and tax credits. Lobbyists for SMR and carbon capture have much skinnier children with government subsidies for both combined being under $4 billion.
Sadly, the holy grail for the climate priesthood is not the achievement of real outcomes but to passionately sermonize for actions that best churns the money in their direction. Worshipping at the altar of science is great when the dough funds your flavor of science, but mention somebody else’s math or science (nuclear, artificial carbon capture, natural gas) and its burn-‘em-at-the-stake-level heresy. So just shut up. The climate challenge is totally solvable if the enviro-nuts and climate deniers collectively just get out of the way.
