Many people identify a major global issue of our time that is anthropogenic climate change. This is one issue that has frustrated many advocates, scientists, academics, politicians and the general public for decades now, which continually tell us that we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels and how we could achieve this. But despite all the effort put in to make this happen the results have been disappointing or an absolute failure depending on your view.
The prevailing way the problem is identified and described tends to be:
- we have a problem of anthropogenic climate change
- it is caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
- fossil fuels are a major emitter of greenhouse gases
- globally we have to stop using fossil fuels
The way the problem is framed then leads to how a solution is formulated.
- we must use renewable energy which produce no or minimal greenhouse gases
- we must educate the public of the issue
- we must have national and global agreements to limit GHG emissions
The ways to rid ourselves of CO2 in the atmosphere that is advocated by environmentalists, academics, scientists, and concerned citizens include, but not limited to the following:
- Global agreement such as Kyoto or similar IPCC agreements
- National and global targets/time frames
- Gas as a transition path
- Energy efficiency to buy time
- Go for low hanging fruit
- Energy Conservation
- Renewable energy
- Geo-engineering
- Multiple reports from environmentally focused groups
- Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) versus carbon tax
- Carbon credits (gaming the system and exemptions)
- Carbon offsets
- Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
- Mitigation versus adaptation
- Carbon capture and storage
- Nuclear energy
- Gross feed in tariffs versus Net feed in tariffs
- Stabilize population growth
The above typically require some sort of government intervention by way of policies whether they mandate a particular change or attempt to encourage the desired change in business. Individuals are not ignored in this mission as they also have responsibilities along the lines of:
- Understand the science
- Stop the climate change denial of what the science is telling us
- Stop gambling on the future and understand risk
- More ethical/moral response
- Understand the difference between ETS and Carbon Tax
- Change our current consumerist worldview
Those advocating fundamental change to renewable energy have used some interesting analogies and frames:
- Need to go into emergency war footing response
- Follow initiative and efforts transforming economy during World War II
- Follow initiative as per Marshall Plan post World War II
- Effort of putting man on the moon
- People have house or health insurance, and renewable energy offers an insurance for the world
- If I had cancer and a treatment was offered with only small chance of success would I take it? Therefore we should take the treatment offered to save the world
- Technology not taxes
- Quoting Margaret Mead. Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has
And of course terms and phrases thrown around include:
- Sustainability
- Innovation
- Rational (as opposed to irrational or emotional?)
- The science tells us ….. which is usually countered with let the market decide
What those terms actually mean in practice is of no concern when used to justify a particular stance a person is attempting to justify. The term speaks for itself with no further discussion! See section on Innovation on this web site.
On a global scale have we succeeded in curbing our CO2 diet sufficiently? How promising does the future look even with the impending UN Climate Change Conference (COP26)?
The seriousness of the issue is highlighted by the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and the UN chief’s statement ‘Code Red’ for human driven global heating, warns UN chief. With other warnings that Time is running out and that The assessment is based on improved data on historical warming, as well as progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused emissions. Bleak indeed! The UN understanding of the physical science of climate change may have improved, but has the UN understanding of human behaviour in the real world which is far from perfectly rational improved?
NOTE The concept of human rationality will be addressed on this web site in the future to show the many myths regarding rationality that the many advocates of change have. While the truth of human rationality is better appreciated and understood by some anthropologists, psychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers etc.
Any internet search for global conferences related to climate change, environment, sustainable development etc. will yield an extraordinary number of publications dealing with the history of these events that go back decades. To draw a line in the sand by choosing just one such conference that was first to actually suggest a target and time frame for CO2 emissions was held in Toronto, Canada in 1988:
Reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 20% of 1988 levels by the year 2005 as an initial global goal.
That was 1988 with how many targets and time frames proposed either globally or nationally since then? One other point that is overlooked Many countries have net-zero pledges but no plan of how to get there and have yet to square with the public that bills and taxes need to rise. (1)
What if the basic question of what is the best way to get the world off fossil fuels is the wrong question to begin with?
I am going to suggest this line of thought needs to change, not because it is factually wrong, but because it has not resulted in any substantial progress however you look at it. After more than three decades this line of thought has actually become an impediment to change. To that end I will be asking another question and attempt to find clues to a way forward or some may say arranging a new reality.
References
- The Economist, “The energy shock”: 16 October 2021
Wicked Paths 