Guest post by Robert Bradley, Master Resource
I have been studying the global warming debate from a physical scientific and political economy basis for 20 years. And I remain amazed at how the energy/climate alarmists will not concede (are ‘in denial’) that the human influence on climate can be positive, not only negative, from an ecological and economic perspective.
The work of leading climate economist Robert Mendelsohn calculates net positive externalities for much of the world from anthropogenic warming at the bottom of the canonic IPCC temperature range. And climate scientist Gerald North of Texas A&M convinced me that the models would eventually get to a warming range of 20C, plus or minus 0.250C, for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas in equilibrium. (Dr. North was my paid consultant back in my Enron days, tasked with helping me figure out just where the middle ground was in the contentious debate.)
Mendelsohn plus North: a net positive externality from manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And a win for fossil fuels even before getting to the political economy question of comparing ‘market failure’ against ‘government failure’ to evaluate the case for government intervention.
Now to the renewable energy debate online at The Economist magazine where I was invited to oppose the motion: “This house believes that subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”
In my opening statement, I argued that renewable energy was doomed by physics for reasons that were first comprehended by British economist W. S. Jevons in his 1865 classic, The Coal Question.
Noting the taxpayer and environmentalist backlash against wind and solar facilities, as well as the inability of intermittent energies to exist without fossil-fuel blending/firming, I found myself squarely back at the premise to the motion: that fossil fuels were bad.
With peak oil and peak gas waylaid by the shale revolution, and the statistics of less pollution alongside greater fossil-fuel usage, the question then got back to global warming (my rebuttal statement). My closing statement summed up my case for the increasing sustainability of fossil fuels, not only the failure of renewable energy.
Economist debate moderator, James Astill, is upset. After all, we should all know that the human influence on climate is severe and bad and government must do something! He complains:
In my previous offering, I confess I underestimated how relaxed our opposer, Robert Bradley, was about global warming. I thought he did not consider it a problem. It now seems he is rather in favour of it. “A moderately warmer and wetter world, natural or manmade,” Mr Bradley writes, “is arguably a better world.”
I said “moderate warming,” Sir. And I said “arguably,” Sir. Why is your world so black and white, and black in favor of energy statism? Given the public and political backlash against climate alarmism and forced energy transformation, and the very comments and voting cast in this forum, perhaps it is time to debate rather than assume.
Astill continues:
This shows how far Mr Bradley has strayed from the question in hand: concerning the desirability, or otherwise, of subsidising renewables as a means to stop the world burning fossil fuels. I do not blame him exactly. It stands to reason that no one untroubled by the prospect of global warming would bother himself with wonky, expensive renewables. But, alas, that does not describe this house. It assumes that a way to get the world off fossil fuels must be found.
Astill is missing the energy forest for the politically correct trees. Compared to dilute, intermittent, and environmentally invasive wind and solar power, fossil fuels are socially advantageous. And even assuming high climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, ‘market failure’ must be balanced with ‘analytical failure’ and with ‘government failure.’ No more assuming the problem, the solution, and perfect government implementation of the ‘solution.’ The era of magical energy postmodernism must end!
I invite readers of WUWT to visit, read, and vote. I like my case. As I conclude my final statement: “The best energy future belongs to the efficient and to the free.”
Realism and optimism, anyone?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wannabe Saviors must always have something to save the rest of us from. Otherwise they have no reason for existence. If nature doesn’t provide that “something”, then they must invent one. Hence political and religious movements and ideology.
The question is wrong.
It is a matter of time before nuclear fusion power is practical, if properly funded.
The question should be: What is the best bridge technology for the next 50-150 years?
A mix of fossil fuels and nuclear fission power, with an increasing share of fission. Between GE’s PRISM reactors and the thorium LFTR designs, the fuel and waste disposal issues were solved before 1980. Renewables are expensive and nearly worthless to the market because of their high integration costs.
Alternative energy only makes sense if you truly believe that carbon dioxide is the devil incarnate. If it’s not, there is no point whatsover for wind or solar.
It all comes down to E=MC2 or for non-nuclear, E=MV2. To get enough “E” you either need lots of “M” (mass”) or very high “V” (velocity). Wind has very little mass and thus must move very, very fast to produce much “E”. Or in practical terms you must litter vast areas of the landscape with windmills. Solar is fine with E=MC2 but the problem is the nuclear reaction is 92 million miles away and once again enormous areas of land must be covered with solar panels to produce enough “E”. The chemical reactions that release energy are far more efficient and of course, that’s why we’ve burned carbon based fuels for thousands of years.
Solar has about 1/10th the energy density of wood, wood is about half as energy dense as coal,coal about 1/2 that of gasoline and of course the really winner is nuclear power which is around 2 million times as energy powerful as gasoline.
Those who advocate wind or solar simply have the laws of physics against them. They can’t break those laws without destroying the landscape and/or the economy.
The Econiomist is firmly in AGW camp, see its Climategate reporting. Somebody from there heavily invested into the green chimera, just like the BBC Pension fund managers.
It was because of environmentalist entryism in the Economist that I cancelled my subscription to that newspaper after more than 20 years of readership.
They don’t seem to be missing me.
Voted; No.
fascinating to see the moderators non-moderating stance. Where is the balance in his summing up? That’s par for the course with our warmist friends I’m afraid. And they wonder why we laugh at them.
“….The moderator role may be played by any person who (1) has offered to be moderator for the question, (2) is (one of) the most knowledgeable of such people, and who (3) does not have any strong feelings about the topic, with special weight given to someone who declares no partiality at all……” from http://www.textop.org/wiki/index.php?title=How_to_construct_a_debate_summary#The_moderator_role
Don’t be–if you’ve studied this movement as long as you claim, by now you undoubtedly understand it has little or nothing to do with promoting humans. It has everything to do with suppressing humans. (But really, since these people hate other humans so much, why don’t they internalized their loathing against themselves and not vent it on others–although their real goal is to control others for their personal gain.)
“And I remain amazed at how the energy/climate alarmists will not concede (are ‘in denial’) that the human influence on climate can be positive, not only negative, from an ecological and economic perspective.”
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?
That is such an elegant argument. Thank you, Mr. Bradley.
I just posted @Economist:
Dear Sir,
Thomas Gold provided (when he was still alive) plenty of evidence that the whole meme of “fossil” fuels is erroneous. Subsurface hydrocarbons are the best sources of abundant, cheap energy. That, when burned, they release carbon dioxide, the gas of life, is a net positive for life on earth, including human life.
If you believe humans are a cancer on the surface of the earth, you will support the misanthropic campaign against energy from subsurface hydrocarbons.
If you believe that the most important resource on this planet is the curiosity, inventiveness, and intelligence of ordinary and extraordinary humans, you will continue to burn subsurface hydrocarbons in support of human progress.
W. Earl Allen
Broomfield, CO, USA
Astill’s premises are articles of faith. He will not be moved by logic, reason, or evidence.
Robert,
Going to the link given and under
“Thoughts?
Vote now or add your view”
I clicked and — nothing happened! Perhaps I need to register or something. Of equal note: About twice each year The Economist sends a high quality color packet of material inviting me to pay to have their views sent to me on a regular basis. In the interest of knowing what they are up to, I suppose I ought to do that. I don’t. I throw their high carbon impact waste into my recycle bin. Should anyone at The Economist care to search their files and remove my name from their solicitation list, please do. Gaia approves.
Voted: No.
Bertram Felden says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:14 am
“It was because of environmentalist entryism in the Economist that I cancelled my subscription to that newspaper after more than 20 years of readership.”
I too gave up my subscription to the Economist on this basis. Previoulsy I had been impressed by their highly skeptical views of scientific pronouncements of doom, even one article which catalogued the route from interesting science, through press alarmism and government intervention to the inevitable climb-down and grudging acceptance of reality. That this article appeared early on in the switch from catastrophic cooling to catastrophic warming (somewhere around the mid 90’s I suspect), encouraged me that they would such science as skeptically as they treated economic projections and political promises.
Sadly, this has not proven to be the case and thus we have loaded “questions” in the debate such that a supposedly impartial moderator can dismiss the arguments provided by Mr Bradley as peripheral to the argument. In one sense, this is correct, but only because the question itself is so loaded as to be meaningless. Although I applaud Mr Bradley for his efforts and his argument, he has accepted the flawed premise that the world must be “weaned off fossil fuels” simply by taking part in the debate.
This is where a good deal of the problem lies at present – the ground rules for the debate are being set by people with an interventionist agenda and so the questions already loaded into accepting positions that should be challenged from the outset. Rather like the old favourite “Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?” discussing the best way to wean the world off fossil fuels is not something that can be asked until we know that utilising fossil fuels presents a problem (i.e. that there is no evidence that you are beating your wife in the first place).
Allencic says: November 16, 2011 at 8:11 am:
A beautiful little essay, sir or madam!
May I borrow it?
Robert, this argument will continue. As RockyRoad points out, the physical limitations and lack of practicality of renewable energy does not dissuade these people. The multiple advantages of cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy means nothing to these people. They are misanthropists. They hide behind issues such as ecology and peak this or that, but, in the end, if the cause advances human suffering and/or death rates, then they are squarely for it.
A warmer and wetter world would from a bio diversity point of view obviously be beneficial. It is no coincident that bio-diversity is greatest in the tropical rainforest and at its least extensive in frigid cold conditions.
If one traces the history of civilasation, it will be seen that it eminates from warm climes. The only norther covilasation of note were the Vikings and again it is no coicidence that they florished during the Viking warm period.
It is a scam that moderate warming (by which I mean up to 6 degC and possibly a little higher) would, on an overall basis, be anything other than good for planet Earth.
Robert,
I visit your website often. Excellent work, Sir!
Roger Longstaff,
I have to give credit where credit is due. I took my info from the best single article on the renewable energy question I’ve ever read. It’s by William Tucker in the November 16, 2011 “Energy Tribune”. I’ve forwarded to too many friends and colleagues to count. It is excellent, clean, simple and true. In other words, unlike almost everything the enviro camp proposes.
Just google William Tucker Energy Tribune November 16, 2011 and It’ll pop up.
Important post, Robert.
By the end of the day, it’s a discussion between the “we can do”-people and the “oh no, its all dangerous”-people. In average life, the oh-nos just do nothing meaningful, but complain. No harm.The AGW-oh-no people are far more dangerous. They condemn use of energy, sitting in their comfortable environment, but want stop others reach that stage. I’d call this inhumane.
Decades ago, when computer memory was extremely expensive, an article opened with a headline saying “What if mass storage were free”. Enlightening, and became sort of true.
Think further “What if energy were free”.
I’d call that progress, we’ll get there and am sure we’ll handle the resulting “problems”.
Money = energy
Subsidies = money
In the final analysis, we will burn that energy no matter what. All “renewable energy” subsidies do are to take energy and move it from a concentrated, efficient state to one that is lesser.
It belongs in the laboratory, not in production. You’ll know when it is ready for primetime because the world will demand it and you will be able to tax the hell out of it.
To Jon (8:21 AM):
I certainly agree that humans have destroyed a great deal of the natural world. There are very real ecological problems that need to be dealt with. Overfishing and species extinctions are major issues to me, for example, but I’m not going to make a long list here.
That said, under normal circumstances the earth should be a degree or more cooler than we are, and heading down into the next ice age, absent GHGs and black carbon and other positive climate forcings.
Irony abounds, and it is possible that moderate warming could actually be quite helpful, should it remain moderate, in keeping us out of the slow slide into the next ice age. If anyone thinks that there might be starvation with increased warming, ask how much starvation there would be in a considerably colder world with shorter growing seasons. The CO2 increases certainly will create better growing conditions, everything else equal, purely due to fertilizing effects.
In the long and big picture, we humans stumble blindly — yet we might just stumble into something positive, again should warming remain moderate.
Roger Longstaff says re:Allencic’s comment, November 16, 2011 at 8:11 am:
“A beautiful little essay, sir or madam! May I borrow it?”
Yes, Roger, I noted it, too. Very succinct. An impressive piece.
Jon says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:21 am
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?
————————————————
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that elephants have had on our planet … can you list any?
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that parasites have had on our planet … can you list any?
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that glaciers have had on our planet … can you list any?
Glaciers, parasites, elephants, and humans are products of and contributors to Earth’s systems. They likely could not agree on the meaning of ‘positive’. Current medical treatment for congestive heart failure is listed as positive on my list. My best friend and spouse has a new valve in her heart and an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) next to her collarbone. These followed the use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). And that followed (. . . insert long list here . . .). All of these amazing things followed human’s investigations of and use of Earth’s resources. Maybe you have to have seen someone you love on full life support for 8 days to appreciate such things and think of them as positive.
But having responded generally, notice the specific use of the term “climate” in the phrase you quote from Mr. Bradley. If humans manage to warm the world a bit by keeping the concentration of CO2 above 170 ppm – that might be considered positive for all life on Earth. Mr. Bradley also used the phrase “economic perspective.” I am not interested in living in a pre-stone-age economy. I think you have selectively mischaracterized his thesis.