Sorry if I was unclear. Mervin’s linked video shows how certain information was cherry-picked by Bjorn Lomborg to misrepresent electric cars. If you think Lomborg presents reliable information, I would very much recommend watching the full video.
As far as who has or hasn’t supported misinformation, you have to look at specific actors. People have written whole books about what has happened. For instance, in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, climatologist Michael Mann recounts the personal and professional attacks he and other scientists endured.
Some fossil fuel industries have used front organizations to pay denialists. For instance, between 1998 and 2014, Exxon Mobil gave over $31 million to 69 such organizations, and since 1997, Koch Industries has given $100 million to 84 such organizations. Exxon Mobil has since stopped this practice, and only a few fossil fuel industries fell in with the denialists. The Shell Oil Company actually supports a nationwide carbon tax.
Yes, you would think such people would be more cautious and sensible, but not all have been. I think many are simply incredulous that scientists are so confident about what is happening, so they look for problems even before they try to understand the science. Scientists are painting a fairly fantastic picture of what is happening, compared to what we are used to.
That is very true. I described The Merchants of Doubt book and movie several weeks ago in this thread. (And several years ago, but the post is now gone). Denialists use the same playbook used by the tobacco companies,who successfully avoided regulation for decades. The most notorious of the denialist groups is a think tank called The George C. Marshall Institute.
It is obvious that many initiatives and innovations are required to address these difficulties, including political, economic and technological ideas. Some of these include reducing the carbon footprint in our daily lives, utilising renewable power generation where it is economically competitive, increasing the efficiency of fossil fuels electricity generation with the goal of zero-emissions plants, enlarging carbon sinks such as forests, and developing power distribution systems that better enable communities to meet the variable demand for power. The nature of the problem requires a worldwide effort that ultimately is about the human spirit and the belief that we can share the challenges together, and together achieve our collective goal. Such a collective effort would ensure energy security, provide access for all nations to reliable and affordable energy, and enable economic growth, while protecting the planet for future generations.
“Caring for God’s creation is one of the most important mandates that he gave us as his children.”
Evangelical Scott Rodin used to be against environmentalism, but while pursing an advanced degree in theology, he started to realize what it meant to be a steward of the earth.
This Yale Climate Connections podcast is only about 1.5 minutes long. Or you can read it.
You bring up a good point in that a burning or rotting tree releases as much CO2 as it sequesters in its life, but if we made an effort to reforest unused land worldwide it would make a huge difference.
I was just reading RJS’s blog about the groaning of creation, and while the whole article is great, I was struck by her quote from Isaiah 24:
The earth is defiled by its people;
they have disobeyed the laws,
violated the statutes
and broken the everlasting covenant.
Therefore a curse consumes the earth;
its people must bear their guilt.
It seems that curse placed on creation was not God’s, but rather was Adam (mankind) himself. We ourselves are placed directly in the place of responsibility.
Yes-- looking back, 10% emissions savings is rather pessimistic and should be corrected given the updates. 30% is still not great but batteries are getting better. Elon Musk-- his ventures in solar, batteries, electric cars-- it’s startling how one man can so throughly innovate an industry and produce a win-win solution on first principles.
I think the video oversells the “cherry-picking” aspect. He was doing a side-by-side comparison of cars.
This nature article (commentary here) elucidates the carbon budget. I think it helps but the simplicity of the plot is a bit alarming.
It’s the 50th anniversary of the mission to the moon. It still genuinely feels like one of the greatest technological achievements of humanity, accomplished in a time of overwhelming existential threat and uncertainty. Reflecting on technological progress since then, some say that the digital age has been a failure of the human imagination: we have settled for innovations in bits (which gave us tweets and emojis and general dystopia) when we should have made commensurate progress in atoms. Perhaps the climate crisis is what galvanizes us to aspire towards more meaningful progress. What would be a moonshot equivalent in climate change? It’s worth noting that the likes of Musk and Bezos are serious about space travel. Bezos’s vision is to eventually take heavy industry out to space, and keep earth as a natural/residential zone. I think that would be great-- earth is so much better to live on than mars.
E.g. what would it take to create a mass revival of phytoplankton in the oceans, enough to make a difference in CO2 levels (and also replenish marine biomass)?
Back to the original topic, do you think there is enough emphasis on tech innovation when we talk about climate change? To me there is a Biblical mandate for it. We should side with “positive humanism” rather than the abject negative kind.
The technological knowhow is available - new coal power stations that can be converted into zero-emissions by recycling CO2, electric/hybrid cars and transport with very low emissions, reforestry, high efficient buildings/cities, and renewables, just to mention some.
The scale of the problem and the changes needed on a global scale involving a widely divergent national economies, however, are the major barriers. The world needs to adopt a well developed plan that takes all variables into account - then we will see progress. Until then individual effort may make a difference.
It is clear that the climate is changing. Temperatures are clearly raising on a global average compared to the last 100 years. Just the same the US Midwest experienced record cold weather this winter. Then huge rain during the spring. All around the world we are seeing weather anamolies flooding, snow, freezes, heat waves that are unusual for a particular region. For example North Africa and parts of Middle East have had unusual snow and rains while droughts impact large parts of India. This is due to changes in the earths jet streams. The forces and factors controlling the jetstream and ocean currents are not completely understood. This is the most immediate concern with climate change. We have an unsustainable growing human population that struggles to manage its food production. These changes in the jet stream are negatively impacting the planet’s food production. We are heading to a food crisis this decade. For example,It is clear that our Midwest corn production will be significantly below average this year due to the winter and spring events. It’s inevitable that these jetstream changes will cause whole regions to suffer lower than average food output effecting large populations especially those at the margins already experiencing shortages. This will as in a past famines result in human population dislocation and social unrest. I think that we should focus prioritizing our efforts on this developing crisis.