I really dislike this type of viewpoint.... "x,y,z" needs to be done otherwise you aren't serious enough. The US lags in renewable manufacturing compared to China.
No. You worried we are going to have too much fresh water? Too many seawalls and barrier islands? Our vehicles are too efficient? Our electricity usage too efficient? We rely less on supply chains in adversarial countries? The cost of not doing enough far outweighs the cost of doing too little. Many of the same emissions that cause smog and other air pollution are from burning fossil fuels.
Green Index put out by MIT, the White House - other assessments. Essentially lagging behind in our country adopting green tech compared to other countries (I think we are near the bottom of industrialized nation). Our gov't invests very little compared to other nations. Other factors way in. This stuff always has some subjectivity. Any innovative technology is always going to be questionable with questionable future benefits. It's never clear if something will pan out, be made obsolete, or change the world. That can't be the reason to decide whether or not to invest in a technology. If that were the case, there'd have been no moon shot, no internet, and no many other things which were all risky technological pushes that requirement government investment and led to the US being leaders (and thus contributing to our GDP). What constitutes over investment? If you were to argue that the super collider was an over-investment that was good we scraped it, that $10 billion would have landed the US as the discoverer of the Higgs Boson and literally energized Texas as the center of the frontier in physics for decades to come. Maybe that's not enough, and I can respect that point of view. But the technologies we are talking about in regards to climate change, are exactly the kinds of technologies you need to prevent pain to the average Joe american. So on one hand, you have Koonin arguing against doing anything that will hurt people, and then on the other he is also arguing against investing in technologies to solve problems so people don't have to sacrifice. Do you see why I still think this ex-BP exec is just an shill for big oil?
this is a pretty huge characterization of Koonin's career, yes he worked for BP for five years I believe, while he was there he worked on renewables. This was AFTER a long career as an academic and then provost at CalTech. From there he goes on to the White House and then finally back to academia. He is not from what I can tell your run-of-the-mill "industry shill" and to portray him this way just seems like looking for an excuse not to consider his arguments on the merits. https://www.energy.gov/seab/contributors/steven-e-koonin
This is a bizarre view that we shouldn't be investing in things that have many other returns besides just addressing Climate Change. It makes the idea of "no regrets" investments sound rather hollow. As someone who's dealt with the PRC yes they are hypocrites for still burning a lot of coal but they are significantly investing in renewable energy and green technology. They already are the leader in solar panels. The market in green technology is huge and only growing. We can cede that to other countries but that will be to our long term detriment and will exacerbate problems that we see now regarding trade balances Global competition.
it is NOT an argument against investment. It is an argument in favor of smart investment, again as I've said many times, a no-regrets approach to investment and what Koonin labels a "low-risk" changes. If I made it sounds like an argument against investment, I apologize
for what it's worth, the smart investment vs. over-investment argument is covered by Lomborg in his book Cool It https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist's_Guide_to_Global_Warming
Then I don't get what you're debating with and why you are arguing that we should be "lagging behind".
I hear you, and yes I know he has an impressive track record, but his views also shifted a lot pre-oil exec and post. Also after BP he really advocated a lot of projects in the same vein as the ones that he was leading at BP - ones that the oil companies were investing in such as putting aerosol in the air to cool the planet (Now that's a far fetched technology that seems like a stretch to "over-invest" in). I'm not saying I am dismissing everything he is saying, I am just saying I do have some skepticism because of the contradictions that are coming out of this man, like the one I pointed out above. He's pushing back on what 90+% of climate scientists are saying as well as policy people who want to take action, as well as policy people who want to invest in technology. His book uses a lot of outdated arguments as well - arguments from the early 2000's that have already been shown to not be true. So there's that as well. I think you can make legitimate arguments on a case by case basis for doing x,y, or z instead of a,b, or c, it just seems to me that this isn't the guy to tie your boat to because there are a lot of strange things he does that makes me suspect of his underlying motives.
Really? I didn't know about his old ties to BP. Conflict of interest. I find it very strange that he would advocate aerosol as a solution. We have no frequent idea how that could actually negatively impact climate. Let's introduce another large human-induced variable into the complex climate interactions. Moving on from taking him seriously.
yeah, I am arguing actively that we should be lagging behind. You are truly the king of the straw man on this forum
I see the transition to new energy as big if not bigger than the transition to digital. We all know what happen to companies that were too sticky to the old stuff. This is a theme I often repeat. The US is in danger of that - it has some great pieces doing R&D but R&D only gets you so far. Kodak had plenty of R&D around digital film and sensors... but lack the imagination or willingness to see what was coming.
Here's a more specific and more recent Lomborg article with his actual arguments. People can judge for themselves. Welfare in the 21st century: Increasing development, reducing inequality, the impact of climate change, and the cost of climate policies https://adr.lu/wp-content/uploads/2...openhagen-consensus-center_bjoern-lomborg.pdf
That's why I can't take people who promote geo-engineering as a solution seriously without thinking they throw it out to sandbag or "look reasonable". They call a matter of CO2 not "settled science" for its sheer complexity then dump a bar napkin thought fart as a solution because no one gaf about its consequences...yet. The bias for petro $$$ is right under peoples noses but we all take it heavily for granted.
have a hard time reading? I suggested that it's at least theoretically possible that one could argue for that. Show me where I argue that
I cited your exact words. In that statement you're arguing for Koonin's position regarding technologies and specifically suggest that perhaps we should be lagging behind. If you don't stand by those words and are just playing Devil's advocate or for arguendo then that is fair. Never the less that was a direct quote from you.
also, "lagging behind" was Sweet Lou's phrase, not mine. As I recall I said "ok I'll nibble" and asked what specifically the US was "lagging behind" on--anything, examples could be renewables, solar, nuclear, carbon sequestration, anything specific. Lou responded with (I paraphrase), "you know, reports from MIT and other impressive-sounding institutions." Which is to say he did not provide any specific examples/metrics/criteria that illustrate a single specific case where the US is "lagging behind." I followed up with what was primarily intended to be a polite response, leaving the matter to rest there. You resuscitated the "lagging behind" rhetoric and are now holding me accountable for an argument I never made in the first place ("why you are arguing that we should be 'lagging behind' "). I really dislike engaging with you and against my better judgment I went against my instincts. I'll try to resist the temptation in the future.
