“Climate change: why the shift to clean energy will be more painful than you think”

Click above for article 

Maybe more painful than the average reader of the South China Morning Post thinks; but not more painful than I think! I’ve just finished Michael Shellenberger’s excellent Apocalypse Never, so I do understand why the shift will be “more painful”, as Daniel Yergin says, in in the article above.

Shellenberger describes himself as an “environmental humanist”. As such, we must “ground ourselves first in our commitment to the transcendent moral purpose of universal human flourishing and environmental progress, then in rationality.”

Facing climate change is a challenge, but not an existential one. We are not about to go extinct. 

The best tools to slow the change are nuclear and natural gas. Renewables like solar and wind have a place but are limited in various ways. The main thing is energy density — wind and solar are very energy dilute. 

I must say it’s refreshing to see someone like Yergin talking some hard realities, other than non-stop climate catastrophism that I’m seeing in all the MSM. Catastrophism that tells us the only solution to the “emergency” is to drop everything, to go “Net Zero” immediately, shift everything to solar and wind (no No nuclear! No Hydro power!) and to do so no matter the cost. Oh, and go Vegan.

Neither Yergin nor Shellenberger is a “climate denier”. They both accept — as pretty much everyone does now — that climate change is real and man-made. They both accept we must tackle it. The question is to weigh the costs of climate change as well as the climate change mitigation costs and get the best balance. Shellenberger argues that the catastrophists only look at the costs of climate change not at the costs of what they demand we do to stop it. (“Nothing is too costly if an asteroid is hurtling to earth”).

For Shellenberger emission reductions are best achieved with nuclear and natural gas, with some renewables like solar and wind. Also more HEP. For Yergin I’m not sure what his solution is, TBF. Except he’s pointing out that the “transition” — away from fossil fuels — will be longer and more difficult than many expect. True ‘dat. Especially since he doesn’t even mention nuclear, which is rather odd. I don’t get it.