Scientific American: Even Believers Must be Compelled to Live Low Carbon Lifestyles

Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb
Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb. By Kuebi = Armin Kübelbeck – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Psychologists Claudia Nisa and Jocelyn J. Bélanger believe even people who say they believe in climate change are unlikely to make low carbon choices unless they are “nudged”, by removing or disincentivising the option of making high carbon choices.

Can You Change for Climate Change?

Probably, but research shows that most people need behavioral “nudges” to do so; just the facts aren’t enough

By Claudia NisaJocelyn Bélanger on December 23, 2019

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has scolded world leaders for failing to save her generation from climate change, rallying youth climate strikes and taking millions of people to the streets worldwide, demanding action. For many, Thunberg’s emotional oratory is a spark.

To us, however, Thunberg’s environmental actions are more impressive than her words. Thunberg crossed the Atlantic Ocean aboard a zero-emission sailboat to attend September’s climate talks in New York, eating freeze-dried food, not showering, and eschewing other comforts of air travel to spend 15 days on the high seas.

Thunberg’s sacrifice epitomizes the challenge underlying climate change: if global warming is to be curbed, comfortable lifestyles in developed countries must be amended. Put another way, it doesn’t matter how much uproar an activist’s speech creates because it distracts from the fundamental fact that the only way to save our planet is to change how we live.

But our research, which was recently published in Nature Communications, throws ice water on a theory that was already frosty. People do not change their environmental behaviors simply because they are told to. Rather, they must be enticed to make greener lifestyle choices with interventions sufficiently compelling to overcome the strong resistance to changing habitual, comfy habits. Identifying these motivators, and the psychology behind them, could help slow the climate-change crisis.

Read more:

The abstract of the study;

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials testing behavioural interventions to promote household action on climate change

Claudia F. NisaJocelyn J. BélangerBirga M. Schumpe & Daiane G. Faller


No consensus exists regarding which are the most effective mechanisms to promote household action on climate change. We present a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comprising 3,092,678 observations, which estimates the effects of behavioural interventions holding other factors constant. Here we show that behavioural interventions promote climate change mitigation to a very small degree while the intervention lasts (d = −0.093 95% CI −0.160, −0.055), with no evidence of sustained positive effects once the intervention ends. With the exception of recycling, most household mitigation behaviours show a low behavioural plasticity. The intervention with the highest average effect size is choice architecture (nudges) but this strategy has been tested in a limited number of behaviours. Our results do not imply behavioural interventions are less effective than alternative strategies such as financial incentives or regulations, nor exclude the possibility that behavioural interventions could have stronger effects when used in combination with alternative strategies.

“Choice architecture” sounds so innocuous, but in my opinion it is a deeply unpleasant form of government coercion.

For example, in 2012 Britain banned incandescent lightbulbs, following a phaseout which began in 2009.

The available alternative to incandescent light bulbs at the time was compact fluorescent lightbulbs like the one pictured above, which flicker and contain small quantities of toxic mercury.

I once managed to accidentally break two fragile compact fluorescents on one day, trying to replace a bulb in an awkward location. I was less than enthusiastic about splattering microscopic droplets of mercury around a confined indoor space used by my child. But the low carbon “choice architecture” imposed by the British Government didn’t grant me the option of choosing a safer but less energy efficient incandescent lightbulb.

Imagine if your entire life was constrained by a series of such “nudges”. The nanny state coercion might well drive you to reduce your carbon footprint – but I doubt politicians and bureaucrats would care about any problems caused by their restriction of your freedom, their imposition of “choice architecture”; the government’s desire to force you to cut your carbon footprint would override any personal concerns you might have about the choices they imposed on your life.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 6:40 pm

“..Put another way, it doesn’t matter how much uproar an activist’s speech creates because it distracts from the fundamental fact that the only way to save our planet is to change how we live…”

To me there is something seriously lacking in psychologists who actually believe the planet needs saving.

Have they not spent any time at all studying the psychology of mass hysteria and group-think? Have they not spent any of their training and professional careers studying the characteristics of cults and cult-like movements? Or are they just going along with the “save-the-planet” and climate alarmist narratives just to be “good citizens” and feel nice and warm and fuzzy about themselves inside?

As a skeptic myself, being treated as a psychology patient would result in a response from me that these psychologists undoubtedly would not appreciate (if you know what I mean). At my age, I’ve been around the block of life enough times now to know when to question mass hysteria and group-think, especially when it’s considered an Orwellian thought-crime or religious heresy to do so. Don’t try telling me that I can’t. Money, political ideologies and activist agendas can corrupt anything they touch.

Some might say that psychology isn’t really even a science. I am beginning to understand why some people would say that.

I’ve worked a good chunk of my life to achieve the quality of life I enjoy, and the psychologists in the posted Scientific American piece above

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 7:08 pm

Oops, problem with last sentence: I’ve worked a good chunk of my life to achieve the quality of life I enjoy, and the psychologists in this posted SciAm piece above are wasting their time trying to make me feel guilty about it.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 10:29 pm

CD in Wisconsin,


I want a survey to see how many of those psychologists are practicing what they preach. I suspect very, very few to zero. Does anyone think they’ve given up their smart phones and computers?

Bryan A
Reply to  KcTaz
December 28, 2019 11:58 pm

Given the Climate Hypocrisy of AlGore, LeoDiCrapio ER perhaps the only way to enforce a significantly lower Carbon Footprint on them would be to remove their Carbon Feet

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 7:43 pm

“Have they not spent any time at all studying the psychology of mass hysteria and group-think? Have they not spent any of their training and professional careers studying the characteristics of cults and cult-like movements?”

Of course they have. Where do you think they got their instruction manual? Remember propaganda? It was designed as a marketing tool until the NAZIs got hold of it.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 7:53 pm

The key word here is “belief.” In this crazy world, humans are free to believe whatever they want to believe, (but not necessarily free to act on those beliefs), — hence the plethora of religions. Minus the religious belief system of whatever traditional religion a human left behind — or was never exposed to, that human will generally replace it with a belief system espoused by the next charlatan that comes along. In some cases the human will make up his own syncretic system of beliefs.

Hence CAGW is just another religion, which unfortunately is becoming the state religion in some countries. As such, a portion of those countries’ taxes are becoming the tithes & offerings supporting that religion even though some of their population are unbelievers.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 29, 2019 12:43 am

Nope. You can have your own opinion, but not one that conflicts with reality. That’s cognitive dissonance AKA mental illness.

Ron Long
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
December 29, 2019 2:18 am

Chaswarnertoo, I am neither crazy or an expert on such, but I believe that occult ideation is more associated with low intelligence than mental illness. Sure, there is actual mental illness, but it cuts vertical across intelligence levels. See the story of the Manhatten Project, where they built churches and none of the scientists showed up.

Richard Patton
Reply to  Ron Long
December 29, 2019 12:53 pm

Occult Ideation is associated with *all* levels of intelligence. Germany’s intelligentsia were the first to fall for the German ‘superman’ theory proposed by Nietzsche decades before Hitler used it to advance his aims.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
December 29, 2019 12:57 pm

Very opinionated of you Chas; thanks for telling us what we can or can’t believe.

I bet you’re a riot at parties too.

People believe things for a reason, it’s not just random. Although when one believes a voice from authority it may seem random, because it has no foundation. Belief if more complex than your simple black & white thinking, at least as stated here.

Ronald Ginzler
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 8:13 pm

“Some might say psychology isn’t a science.”

All right, I’ll say it. Psychology isn’t a science. Name one scientific principle or truth that underlies psychology and makes it a science.

Reply to  Ronald Ginzler
December 28, 2019 9:53 pm

Psychology is a science, just not a very effective one. Like the weather, human beings are quite complex so it’s extremely difficult to make accurate predictions even about aggregated behavior such as voting percentages. Another problem is free will, which is not a factor with the weather.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Ralph Dave Westfall
December 29, 2019 4:08 am

Psychology ain’t falsifiable so it ain’t a science. Psychology is merely an ana, a compendium, of ad-hockery. Eschew ad-hockery.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ronald Ginzler
December 28, 2019 10:57 pm

Evolutionary psychology is getting very close, correlating genes with personality traits.

See Robert Plomin’s book, “Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are.” Matt Ridley’s review

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 29, 2019 9:39 am

I thought it “was in the pill you took today”.

(The secret? Don’t swallow.)

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 28, 2019 10:03 pm

They wanted a paper in Nature Communications. End of story. By the way, that is a gold-plated journal with a $5200 article publication fee. Authors there typically have more grant money and ambition than intelligence.

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 29, 2019 4:23 am

Individual actions have no effect what so ever. From:

“Going vegetarian actually is quite difficult: one large US survey indicates that 84% of people fail, most of them in less than a year. But a systematic peer-reviewed study has shown that even if they succeed, a vegetarian diet reduces individual CO2 emissions by the equivalent of 540 kilograms – or just 4.3% of the emissions of the average inhabitant of a developed country. Furthermore, there is a “rebound effect,” as money saved on cheaper vegetarian food is spent on goods and services that cause additional greenhouse-gas emissions. Once we account for this, going entirely vegetarian reduces a person’s total emissions by only 2%.”

Don Gleason
Reply to  huls
December 29, 2019 9:33 am

Lonberg nails it with this one. But we have to challenge the premise— why build a massive strategy for crisis when there aint one?

Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
December 29, 2019 7:37 am

“Save-the-Planet” ™ is a marketing meme and nothing more. It’s expressly designed to HYPE the very social-contagion group-think moral hysteria that we’re seeing (only in self-exalted circles). Convenient “universal cause” to be weaponized toward acceptance of totalitarian, globalist control over every aspect of our lives, to our general impoverishment. The key bit to know here is that since around 2012, leftist virtue-signaling is the new social climbing requirement. It’s a badge of liberal-arts educational cred. You have to make the gestures and obeisances to be members of the elite wannabe fan club.

“Saving the Planet,” conveniently coined on Madison Avenue, is something NO ONE could DARE avow opposing. Who, after all, is in FAVOR of cancer, or child abuse, or killing shelter pets? You would have to be a TERRIBLE, AWFUL person to oppose ANY measure that’s marketed under that catch-all “Saving the Planet” banner. The fact that “The Planet” is in no danger whatsoever barring an asteroid strike is entirely irrelevant!

The same Alinskyite spin job is being used to vilify any opinion to the right of AOC by tarring it “racist,” “misogynist,” “imperialist,” “transphobic” or God forbid “capitalist.” No one can be of good standing among The Best People of the Acela corridor or the aptly named Left Coast while harboring such anti-human ideas!

BTW, “Scientific American” has been publishing tripe for quite some time and deserves to be ignored,
like the equally fossilized vestiges of “Time” and “Newsweek.”

N. Jensen
December 28, 2019 6:45 pm

Complete nonsense !

I have personally changed my old lightbulbs with (always on) LED.

Saved a lot, and I am a firm disbeliever in the CAGV religion !

Reply to  N. Jensen
December 28, 2019 7:35 pm

“I have personally changed my old lightbulbs with (always on) LED.”

Ditto. We get a lot more light for less power, and I no longer have to care if I accidentally leave a light on all night.

People generally do things that make sense. They usually don’t do things that make no sense, unless forced to do so.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkG
December 28, 2019 7:38 pm

We have two decorative fixtures in our living room that take a smaller base bulb. Incandescents barely lasted 2 or 3 months. LED lasted 4 or 5 years.

Randy Wester
Reply to  MarkG
December 28, 2019 10:47 pm

Tje author’s point was that it didn’t make sense at that time, in that situation.

Incandescent bulbs giving off heat is only wasted energy if the space heat is more efficient than electric resistive heat, or the space is too warm.

The heating season here is more than six months long. I would never have used mercury CFL bulbs, but switched to all LEDs and LED flat screens when they became cheap. Sorry about all the rare earth mining and pollution they caused in China.

Reply to  Randy Wester
December 28, 2019 11:34 pm

Every bulb in my house is now LED – except for the “beauty bars” in the bathrooms during the winter (240 Watts of “waste heat” makes a big difference in a small enclosed space). The bulbs last somewhat longer, the fixtures also last longer – and I can put 100 Watt equivalent bulbs into my fixtures and lamps that are all rated to draw 60 Watts maximum.

I too switched to flat screens when they got to a decent price point. They last longer, too (I’ve had these for nearly twelve years now), but another reason is that they are SO much lighter. I have the image burned (pun intended) into my brain of a colleague many years ago running out the door with a 17″ monitor that was giving up its smoke. (Electronics actually run on smoke, you know. When they lose that smoke, they die.)

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Writing Observer
December 29, 2019 9:02 am

They should make burnt silicon vapes for overclockers to scare each other with.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Writing Observer
December 29, 2019 9:31 am

I heat my basement computer room with my computer equipment until it’s really cold out. I’m a volunteer cruncher for GPUGRID and Rosetta@Home, along with Asteroids@Home and Milkyway@Home. I have 20 threads of Rosetta DNA folding models running as I type this, also 2 NVidia GTX GPUs on the GPUGRID.
Am I hurting the environment?

Mark Luhman
Reply to  MarkG
December 29, 2019 9:21 am

Replacing any light bulb that has not failed with even a energy efficient bulb is a waste of money and energy. That is why I still have the junky CFL bulbs in my house, I have to use halogen in my older outside light fixtures, Arizona summers a to hard on CFL or LED lamps, they just weren’t design to work in + 100 F temperatures.

Reply to  Mark Luhman
December 29, 2019 10:49 am

Yes, there’s no point in replacing until the old unit has failed.
But, LED bulbs will work well up to about 60C with some degradation in light output.
Put simply, the colder it is, the brighter they will be.
Most LED’s are designed with an operating range of -25 to 40C

Reply to  Phil
December 29, 2019 2:10 pm

40C isn’t enough for an Arizona Summer.

Reply to  Mark Luhman
December 29, 2019 3:30 pm

Oh, certainly. I was thinking of the indoor lighting.

The yard lighting in the back are halogens, and I wouldn’t put anything else there. The two porch lights (enclosed, and only get slanting morning/evening sunlight) are LEDs – but 40 Watt equivalents. Just enough to not trip over a fool cat or the flower pots that the wife moves around all the time in the winter.

Actually, I wouldn’t use LEDs in any weather exposed lighting, even if I didn’t live in Tucson myself.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  N. Jensen
December 28, 2019 8:45 pm

“I have personally changed my old lightbulbs with (always on) LED …”.
That’s ok, presumably you made a free choice.
In Britain the sale of incandescent bulbs is banned, apparently.
That would rile any adult who doesn’t like being treated like a child.

Bryan A
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 29, 2019 12:13 am

Once they started rumors of doing similar in California, I went out and bought a couple hundred incandescent bulbs to store, before their priced spiked.

Reply to  Bryan A
December 29, 2019 1:20 pm

Strange logic to want to buy such inefficient bulbs that consume 100w of energy and last only about 1000 hours to provide the same amount of light as an LED one that consumes about 15w and lasts about 15000 hours. Do you have any left or have you burned through them all?

Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 29, 2019 3:23 am

Er, not quite. In the UK, halogen lamps are still readily available and they are still an incandescent type. So you can legally purchase and use them, period.

But with LED lamps available in a variety of colour temperatures, that last considerably longer, use much less energy, cost a little more and whole life cost is much less, why would you use anything else?

Kyle in Upstate NY
Reply to  Pumpsump
December 29, 2019 8:12 am

LEDs do not yet match the raw light quality of an incandescent. Some people can’t tell the difference, but others can.

Reply to  Kyle in Upstate NY
December 29, 2019 9:36 am

Agreed, CRI of incans is higher than LED’s and some folk just prefer the warmer colour.

Reply to  Pumpsump
December 29, 2019 10:23 am

You can also still buy heavy-duty incandescents, ostensibly for use in situations where other technologies are too fragile (including halogen, which has a much lower vibration tolerance). Aldi sold them until about 2 years ago. Other places still do sell them. I’ve got a bunch on the garage that I bought up cheap before the last price hike in 2012.

I use LED everywhere now, though. Buy them direct from china for about a quarter of the price you pay here, with a much wider variety of fittings and much brighter output. Anything from classic B22s to incredibly thin all-in-ones that practically disappear on the ceiling.

Reply to  N. Jensen
December 28, 2019 10:48 pm

The article was referring to this;
“I was less than enthusiastic about splattering microscopic droplets of mercury around a confined indoor space used by my child. But the low carbon “choice architecture” imposed by the British Government didn’t grant me the option of choosing a safer but less energy efficient incandescent lightbulb.”
I must say, I’ve wondered about this for some time and the fact that my city’s trash dept. tells us to throw them in the trash. Somehow, it just doesn’t seem right that I’m throwing things containing mercury and/or other dangerous metals into the landfill.

The Dark Side of LED Lightbulbs
…Ogunseitan adds that while breaking open a single LED and breathing in its fumes wouldn’t likely cause cancer, our bodies hardly need more toxic substances floating around, as the combined effects could be a disease trigger. If any LEDs break at home, Ogunseitan recommends sweeping them up while wearing gloves and a mask, and disposing of the debris — and even the broom — as hazardous waste. Furthermore, crews dispatched to clean up car crashes or broken traffic lights (LEDs are used extensively for automotive and traffic lighting) should wear protective clothing and handle material as hazardous waste. LEDs are currently not considered toxic by law and can be disposed of in regular landfills.
_According to Ogunseitan, LED makers could easily reduce the concentrations of heavy metals in their products or even redesign them with truly safer materials, especially if state or federal regulators required them to do so. “Every day we don’t have a law that says you cannot replace an unsafe product with another unsafe product, we’re putting people’s lives at risk,” he concludes. “And it’s a preventable risk.”

This was from 2012. Maybe they’ve changed? I don’t know but this does seem rather stupid to me and to be a product unlikely to be approved but for CC/AGW Alarmism and virtue signaling zealots.

Reply to  KcTaz
December 29, 2019 4:01 am

CFLs with their small mercury content are a low but possible risk of toxicity once broken. Any heavy metals in LED lamps are not in liquid form and pose almost no realistic hazard to users. Given the copious availability and superior performance of LED lamps, what is the fuss all about?

That article has all the tone and fact selection of an assassination piece from the CFL manufacturers of the time. Any heavy metals used are either in the soldering of the LED chips to the heat sink base or metals used in doing the semiconductor. The latter is a tiny tiny amount locked up in the LED emitter itself and the ROHS legislation now prohibits the use of lead in solder. The manufacturing processes in modern LED construction uses a very small amount of solder anyway, if at all, any more.

I would never remove your choice to purchase incan lamps, but why select what is an inferior product? For the record I don’t work for anyone who manufactures, designs, sells or promotes LEDs in any way.

Reply to  N. Jensen
December 29, 2019 4:01 am

The hardware stores around here offer LEDs of various sorts that will fit standard light bulb sockets. They aren’t cheap in the initial cost, but they last a good deal longer than incandescent bulbs and they do reduce my power bill a bit. So what’s wrong with that?

Reply to  N. Jensen
December 29, 2019 6:19 am

You saved them to save money and because they probably had other benefits like light quality etc. Everyone would do exactly the same to other technologies that were cost effect and offered benefits the current problem is they don’t which is why they have to try and force people to make change.

Larry Hamlin
December 28, 2019 6:48 pm

Stupid, stupid, stupid!!!

Charles Higley
December 28, 2019 6:59 pm

“Thunberg crossed the Atlantic Ocean aboard a zero-emission sailboat to attend September’s climate talks in New York, eating freeze-dried food, not showering, and eschewing other comforts of air travel to spend 15 days on the high seas”

Her carbon footprint for this voyage was greater than simply taking a plane flight. The movements of the crew to set up for the voyage and the boat’s next trip have to also be included. No, it was not a carbon-low trip, being on a high-end tech ship and taking over 20 times longer for the trip. The world simply cannot function using this level of travel and technology

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 29, 2019 4:38 am

yaeah and the freeze dried foods?
well thats NOT a process thats low energy either
fresh food would have been cheaper and more economical and less packaging as well
no showers for 15 days
welcome to a taste of how many people live with no water or low supplies, where a litre of water for a washdown is a luxury

Reply to  Charles Higley
December 30, 2019 7:32 am

The breakdown of emissions is approx as follows

Embodied construction emissions for using Malizia 2 for 10,000 km: 9 tonnes
Malizia 2 crew flights (7): 7-14 tonnes
Car journey across Canada and USA: 2 tonnes
Diesel use on la vagabonds (tanks were empty on arrival): 2 tonnes
Flights for vagabond crew (1): 1-2 tonnes

Etc (trains, food, hotels)
.when you calculate your emissions for a train or plane, crew and embodied emissions are included. It is only fair that the thunbergs should take responsibility, but they don’t.

Reply to  Dan
December 30, 2019 7:48 am

Quite frankly, all these international meetings should be done via Video Conferencing systems.
Be it a Climate change or a corporate (rape the planet) meeting, they all should be done from the branch offices using nothing more than a few watts of electrical energy (maybe a couple of kilos of CO2 instead of Tonnes) rather than transporting people half way round the world.

These days, there are no excuses for not using technology to reduce wasteful energy consumption.

Of course manufacturing the equipment uses resources, but no more than the average consumer piece of tech and far less that the extra Aircraft/cars required to transport people around when it is not necessary.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Phil
December 30, 2019 8:08 am

The same could be said for nearly all knowledge work.

Why build entire buildings in the centre of a city and expensive transportation systems to have everyone spend an hour or more every workday going to a ‘call center’ or a ‘College’ or an ‘office’ when they could probably work or think from home?

The waste is staggering when you add it up. It’s fun to point fingers at the hypocrites, but these non-virtual (and non-virtuous) conferences aren’t the biggest waste of energy. And the ‘conference centers’ and ‘stadiums’ are used the other 364 days of the year.

December 28, 2019 7:01 pm

OMG! I just want to destroy the earth as fast as I can. I saving up for a 40 year old diesel school bus that belches black fumes. And I’m switching to cooking outdoors on a wood stove. That way I can clear that old-growth forest next to my neighborhood. And as soon as find an oil-fired heater that’s going in place of the solar one in using now. And when the permafrost thaws that garbage mound is going into the ground by the pond.

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
Reply to  bluecat57
December 29, 2019 1:53 pm

Could you possibly make a dumber comment? I doubt you’ll try but I bet you could.

Reply to  F.LEGHORN in Alabama
December 30, 2019 3:19 pm

Are you really that stupid? How did you learn to read? Or do you not have any cognitive ability? It was humor, you imbecile.

Jeff Alberts
December 28, 2019 7:19 pm

“Even Believers Must be Compelled to Live Low Carbon Lifestyles”

EVEN believers?? ESPECIALLY believers!

J Mac
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 28, 2019 10:31 pm

Only Believers Must be Compelled to Live Low Carbon Lifestyles!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  J Mac
December 28, 2019 10:47 pm

Too right.

December 28, 2019 7:30 pm

“I’m sorry. I don’t take orders. I barely take suggestions.”

Rebel in Menopause

John F. Hultquist
December 28, 2019 7:34 pm

a zero-emission sailboat

These writers are dumber than schist.

We had a canoe at one time. Big deal. Climate didn’t change.

Reply to  John F. Hultquist
December 28, 2019 10:58 pm

Her trip to the US left a huge CO2 imprint. That it didn’t is a joke and, I suspect, her jaunt to Madrid was similar.

Let them sail yachts: Why Greta Thunberg and the environmental elite hate you — RT World News
…However, the young proselytizer will not cobble together a boat from upcycled oil drums and driftwood. Instead she’ll be traveling on the Malizia II, a 60-foot racing yacht.
Its crew are also a far cry from the ragtag band of crusties you might imagine. The Malizia II will be captained by renowned yachtsman Boris Herrmann and Pierre Casiraghi, grandson of Monaco’s late Prince Ranier III and actress Grace Kelly. The boat, too, was once named the Edmond de Rothschild, after the financial baron and founder of a fleet of racing yachts. Its construction cost upwards of €4 million.

Six sailors fly across the Atlantic to enable Greta’s climate trip

Greta Thunberg’s sailing ship for the climate, Malizia II, must return to Europe after it has reached New York. For this, four new professional sailors fly to the US. Their mission is to release the crew of two skippers on board and sail the boat back. Altogether, six sailors must take at least one trip each by plane.
Amid invited to the UN Climate Summit in New York in September, Greta Thunberg refused to go by plane and wanted a carbon dioxide neutral way of travel. Fortunately for her, the Malizia II team came to her assistance, offering to sail Greta and her father across the Atlantic. As a return, the boat became the nine o’clock news all over the world when Greta set off from Plymouth a couple of days ago.
Multiple times more emissions
. But going by sailing boat, might not be such a clever idea after all if the objective is to spare the climate. It turns out that Greta Thunberg’s trip adds many times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than if she and her father just bought two airline tickets. Her sail results in multiple flights across the Atlantic since all the sailors must take one flight each, reports.

Reply to  KcTaz
December 29, 2019 9:26 am

And she went from Lisbon, a coastal city, to Madrid, the highest capital in Europe, by a diesel train. Not a low footprint trip.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  KcTaz
December 29, 2019 1:03 pm

She should have stayed in school. Much more climate friendly and she would have learned something too.

She didn’t need to attend the summing on the other side of the world, she could have written a letter and sent that.

I laughed when I read that the boat was “zero carbon”. The mental dissidence in that is just amazing. It wasn’t even her boat, it had to be crewed by others to make the journey possible. So it goes from her, her father and aid, to a crew of 4 on top of that. So all up, it took (I believe) 7 people to help her get across the pacific. If she just jumped on a plane she could have done the trip in 4 hours and occupy a single seat.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
December 29, 2019 8:35 pm

She’s a minor who must travel with her parents, who are no doubt having their adventures documented by film crews. Get with the program here. It’s all about sudden celebrity and dramatic productions.

December 28, 2019 7:51 pm

You can be sure the Dumocratic Party candidate will provide lots of “disincentives” by making energy in all forms a luxury item so most of us won’t consume any.

Holding back this mob of crazed fanatics is the best (and one of the few) reason to Re-elect Trump, a person whom I otherwise, can’t support… but considering the existential threat posed by his opponents, there’s really no other choice… a point I’m sure he’ll hammer on relentlessly.

The Green Catastrophe crzies, of course , understand the stakes hence the hysteria stoke up to the hilt. The majority smell a scam, but Trump needs to frame this loud and clear in stark clarity

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Posa
December 29, 2019 8:09 pm

I often quip that one didn’t necessarily have to like Trump to vote against progressive Democrat socialism. That’s when the really brainwashed ones laugh and say “What do you mean? The Democrats fight for everybody’s rights!”.

December 28, 2019 7:55 pm

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a simple test to find out what a person really believes.

Don’t ask someone what they believe. Ask them what’s in their portfolio. That will show you what they really believe.

Reply to  commieBob
December 28, 2019 8:57 pm

Also, ask them what’s in their closet and their garage.

Chris Hanley
December 28, 2019 7:56 pm

Indeed “Choice architecture” “Energy demand management” and others are neologisms designed to disguise the coercive reality.
It’s high time people started nudging the busybodies out of their lives.
For a start psychology isn’t science:
“… psychology often does not meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability …”.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 28, 2019 11:26 pm

Chris Hanley,

Thank you. Excellent article. I have a degree in Sociology and a minor in Psychology and years of experience in social work from back when I was going to Save the World. It took me six months to realize that the world had no interest in being saved by anyone and certainly not by me but I stuck with it for a long time.

My second career was in healthcare. Psychology is not science. I find it appalling that when it comes to understanding the human mind and psyche, I feel we are no farther along than we were in the Middle Ages. In fact, with the sorry state of Psychology today, we may have regressed to the Dark Ages.
I do see a lot of similarity between the “science” of psychology and the “science” of climate change, though. So much so that a degree in Psychology and a degree in Climate Science are of similar usefulness to the world i.e none.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Chris Hanley
December 29, 2019 9:43 am

Yep so called green certified building use more energy that conventional build buildings. Greens do not seem to understand people don’t normally build building that take more energy that necessary to keep humans comfortable. You don’t have to force people to save money, and what you pay for something generally has an energy cost to it.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Mark Luhman
December 29, 2019 10:30 am

“green certified building use more energy that conventional build buildings” I noticed a nice plaque at Cross Iron Mills mall that it was LEED certified Silver. Years ago I was in the Calgary Costco and noticed I could see daylight between the tilt-up slabs. I don’t know the R-value of those slabs plus paint, but it wouldn’t be so good. I think that building is still there, and still not insulated.

One would hope that new mall is built a little better (it couldn’t be much worse?), and there are virtuous Tesla superchargers in the parking lot. But with no sign of solar PV on their 1.2 million square foot roof or any mention of a combined heat and power system, I imagine they get all the electricity from the nearby Enmax CCGT power plant or the Hanna coal power plant.

December 28, 2019 8:16 pm

Those bulbs contained about 5 grams of mercury which means every 200 globes in the landfill equal a kilo of mercury, and that’s just awesome for the environment. I wrote to Peter Garret to explain this to him, as he was at this time the self proclaimed Minister for Light bulbs in the then Australian Labor Party and received no response…so I upped it next time around letting him know exactly what I thought of him finishing my comments about his lying and hypocrisy as a Minister by saying “Who’s beds burning now asshole”…I did not receive a reply.

Bryan A
Reply to  Eric Worrall
December 29, 2019 12:10 am

I read somewhere that it’s sufficient to raise the ambient atmospheric mercury vapor levels to over 40,000 ppm in the immediate vicinity of a newly burst bulb

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Bryan A
December 29, 2019 9:36 am

Somehow I don’t think my mercury exposed from a CFL bulb is rater insignificance compared to the times I played with the vial of mercury I had as a kid ditto for the mercury were had in the chemistry lab. Any mercury I might have absorbed at the time would have been swamped out by the lead in my blood, a child of the fifties and sixties had lead blood levels several time higher their entire childhood then any of the children tested in Flint Michigan(that was due to leaded gas.) By the way the so called experts treat mercury and lead today non of us should have survived. The chicken little of the world rule, and waste tons of money on non problems, which could be better spent on real problems, after fifty years we still have Superfund sites that have not been cleaned up, an I won’t go into the stupidity of the out leaching land fills, which we are still using!

Reply to  Bill
December 29, 2019 6:12 am

I wouldn’t worry too much about CFL bulbs, they were only a transition technology between incandescent and LED lamps, they’ll soon be all gone.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Phil
December 29, 2019 9:02 am

What Phil says is true. However, when they were “the thing”, the U.S. EPA had a warning and a lot to say:

December 28, 2019 8:32 pm

It’s like Mr. Buckley said: “A liberal is someone who wants to reach in while you are taking a shower, and adjust the temperature of the water.”

December 28, 2019 8:53 pm

As always, the desire to control the behavior of others comes to the forefront.

Another Ian
Reply to  MarkW
December 28, 2019 9:48 pm

“Club and drag” – caveman style?

December 28, 2019 9:10 pm

Does that idiot know how ‘carbon intensive ‘ the process of freeze drying is?

Reply to  Alex
December 28, 2019 11:47 pm

Very high energy process, yes. Probably less so, though, than Saint Greta’s clothing – which was almost certainly more than half synthesized from petroleum and/or natural gas.

When Saint Greta begins wearing clothing made by hand shearing sheep (no electric, just muscle power), hand carded, spun and woven with foot powered machinery, I’ll give her a smidgen of credit. (I’m going to assume that a true Saint would not kill the couple of seals necessary to make actually waterproof “natural” clothing – leaving the lanolin in the wool does help some at least, if they are thick enough.)

Reply to  Writing Observer
December 29, 2019 7:49 am

“St. Greta” is a grumpy little girl whose acting skills were weaponized for a marketing stunt that fell flat. Her rant at the UN was the very moment the “climate” freakout passed the insanity rubicon for all to see.

Let’s PLEASE stop giving her attention–daylight, pixels, ink, and air. Ignored, her 15 minutes are over.

Grumpy Bill
Reply to  Alex
December 29, 2019 4:08 am

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one to pick up on that.
She and her crew should have been eating nothing but smoked or salted meats and sun dried fruit.

Reply to  Grumpy Bill
December 29, 2019 7:00 am

If they wanted to avoid the planet-smashing impact of freeze-drying, their provisions should have included pemmican, prepared in the traditional manner of course. 😉

Clarky of Oz
December 28, 2019 9:19 pm

Nudge nudge!

Here in Melbourne, Australia, we were visited by a government sponsored team to change all incandescent light bulbs to Compact flouros .
Free at no cost to me. This was about 5 years ago. A few months ago another team came around to change all the flouros to LED. They even did the halogen down lights the first mob could not do. New lights Right through the house for no cost to me. I expect someone’s paying for it is taxation though.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
December 28, 2019 10:47 pm

Nothing is “no cost”.

John Adams
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
December 29, 2019 6:54 am

Ya think?

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Clarky of Oz
December 29, 2019 9:40 am

Replacing the lamps in all probability cost more energy that running the old ones till they burned out. Those programs were pure stupidity.

Reply to  Clarky of Oz
December 29, 2019 10:42 am

You’re paying for it in taxes Clarky. Have no doubt. The Government earns no money, it just spends it.

Robert of Texas
December 28, 2019 9:23 pm

All of the history of mankind is rife with trying to control what others do and think… It’s a basic human instinct – try to make others do as I believe (but likely I do not do).

The mystery lies in that some humans seem resistant to trying to control everyone else – it’s like some people are born immune to this impulse while others are consumed by it, with all the shades in between. Progressives are defined by their group think and attempts to control everything. Now they are trying to control the Earth in the most basic primitive form around – sacrifice.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 28, 2019 11:35 pm

Robert of Texas “The mystery lies in that some humans seem resistant to trying to control everyone else – it’s like some people are born immune to this impulse while others are consumed by it, with all the shades in between.”

I, too, often wonder about this. I suspect it started when Man decided to establish civilization. I often think the Hunter-Gatherers were quite likely more civilized than “civilized” Man.

Reply to  KcTaz
December 28, 2019 11:52 pm

@KcTaz – I would suggest adding a study of anthropology to your other specialties.

Pat Frank
Reply to  KcTaz
December 29, 2019 12:43 am

A collectivist psychology was probably a survival trait during our time living in small groups. Cohesive loyalty was likely important when competing with rival bands. The collectivist psychology will have a normal-like population distribution of impulse. Maybe with a small standard deviation if collectivism were strongly selected.

Those more than 1 sigma to the high side will be strongly motivated toward moral collectives.

Two sigma out will be the obligate collectivists. It will be at the level of a visceral need linked to survival. They’ll likely to want to impose their morality on everyone. For their own sense of primal security.

Two sigma to the low side will likely include obligate individualists. Able to keep their heads down in moralizing societies, but always heretical.

One sigma low are the adaptables; collectivist or individualist societies, and they can find their way along.

HD Hoese
Reply to  Robert of Texas
December 29, 2019 7:53 am

From the Scientific American article “…just the facts aren’t enough”—
“… the fundamental fact that the only way to save our planet is to change how we live…..People do not change their environmental behaviors simply because they are told to…..Policy makers can lead by recognizing that people will not easily alter their high-carbon habits; they must be nudged.”

I live where David Middleton just showed a US map where the average wind speeds are high, no surprise there to sailors, southern Texas coast. What have been forced (a level above nudged) on residents include windmills (wind does die and some claim you can select to buy the blowing induced electrons), ethanol, recycling, light bulbs (rescinded), toilets, among many others. SciAmer has a nearly two generation history of questionable scientific journalism, I have one somewhere from the 1980s on the ocean dying. It may be more true that the problem is that they have called “Wolf” too often and don’t know it. They clearly don’t know what a fact is.

Insufficiently Sensitive
December 28, 2019 9:25 pm

People do not change their environmental behaviors simply because they are told to.

Right. They have to be forced to live correctly, as determined by the unelected Great Leaders and demogogues who eagerly pop up all over the internet. Let the Wild Revolution start!

Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
December 29, 2019 6:20 am

No they do so when a compelling economic argument for the change exists 🙂

December 28, 2019 9:54 pm

“if global warming is to be curbed, comfortable lifestyles in developed countries must be amended.”
But it’s ok if you are one of the 200 million plus living a comfortable lifestyle in India or China?
The population of the world’s developed countries is currently a little over 1.3 billion people or just 17% of the world’s population.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Robber
December 28, 2019 10:58 pm

Suppose we were to make contact with an intelligent race from beyond Mars’ orbit.

If these beings had no American Dollars and I do, does that mean I am opressing them because of our inequality? Was I opressing them before I knew they existed?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Randy Wester
December 29, 2019 6:38 am

No, you were not oppressing the aliens either before or after you learned of their existance. To oppress someone, you have to take some action against them. Your living without knowledge of the aliens, no matter what your financial situation, is not an action taken against them. You are an innocent man.

Hope that helps. 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Robber
December 29, 2019 6:27 am

The authors seem to think it is an easy thing to “amend” the lifestyles of the Chinese or the Indians or me, for that matter. It’s not going to happen. Trying to force things like this on people is going to be a big problem for those who think like the authors.

December 28, 2019 10:24 pm

“Imagine if your entire life was constrained by a series of such “nudges”. The nanny state coercion might well drive you to reduce your carbon footprint – but I doubt politicians and bureaucrats would care about any problems caused by their restriction of your freedom, their imposition of “choice architecture”; the government’s desire to force you to cut your carbon footprint would override any personal concerns you might have about the choices they imposed on your life.”

Well, there is hope. Macron has learned about what happens when you “impose” a financial penalty to enforce a low carbon lifestyle. They are called Yellow Vests.
Germany is learning, too.

German Wind Industry In A Coma: Tenders For Wind Energy Projects “Have Fallen To New, All-Time Low”
…After the installation of thousands of megawatts of German wind power capacity led to instability in the power grid, exploding electricity prices and the destruction of natural landscapes and biotopes, protests against wind projects ratcheted up to the point where the government was forced to scale back on subsidies two years ago.
The result: investments in wind parks, once seen as the future of Germany’s energy supply, have since collapsed.
What did they achieve after building all those windmills at tremendous cost to the German taxpayer & destroying the environment?
AFTER hundreds of €BILLIONS of taxpayer’s hard-earned money spent on sunshine and breezes, Germany’s Energiewende program has been exposed as a catastrophic failure, with carbon dioxide emissions higher now than in 2009,
the year before massively subsidised ‘green’ energy was signed into German law.
“You can’t diet by eating more diet snacks. Likewise, you can’t reduce fossil fuel usage by using a lot more fossil fuel to do “green” things.” Imagine that?

Reply to  KcTaz
December 28, 2019 11:58 pm

Except the German grid is not unstable…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  KcTaz
December 29, 2019 6:47 am

Where’s Griff? We need Griff to explain this alarming situation in Germany. Windmills down, CO2 up, and Germany hasn’t even come close to supplying its electricity with “renewables”.

What’s going on here, Griff?

Germany raises the cost of electricity for every German, and German industry, which causes the German industry to seek more favorable economic pastures, and all this because German politicians have the lame-brained idea that they can power their whole eonomy with windmills, and now, only a small percentage of the way there, the wheels are starting to come off the Windmill Delusion. Delusion is finally running into Reality.

December 28, 2019 11:58 pm

Nobody in the UK buys CFLs any more.
Our electricity demand is still falling even with a growing population thanks to LEDs etc (most of our street lighting is now LED)

We moved on, like from Betamax to VHs (and now blueRay)

And we now get more power from renewables than gas/coal for most of the year… and are still moving on.

Reply to  griff
December 29, 2019 9:18 am

Nope. The UK gets about 6 times more energy from natural gas, as a heating/cooking fuel, than the capacity of the grid.

The UK grid would have to be about 7 times larger than it is, if all natural gas were replaced with electricity.

This does not count transportation fuels, either.

Reply to  Les Johnson
December 30, 2019 6:25 am

I think there would have been cold turkey for lunch on Christmas Day if one relied on wind power to provide the electricity for cooking it.

Global Cooling
December 29, 2019 12:29 am

Carbon economy is better. You can be carbon neutral, high carbon and economically sustainable at the same time.

I have LED lights at home because they require less maintenance work. Reduction of maintenance is the driving force for electric cars as well as.

I use mulched Siberian willows from my property for heating in winters. Fireplaces are the best places for bush fires.

December 29, 2019 12:58 am

In the UK we call these people Champagne Socialists, who tell the plebs how to live their lives while they, the patricians, continue with their champagne lifestyle.

Reply to  StephenP
December 29, 2019 4:07 am

Think they are actually Chardonnay Socialists, a few notches down from the Champagne variety. But no less objectionable.

Reply to  StephenP
December 29, 2019 6:23 am

Actually the are just the inner city narcissists AKA imbecile pratt’s.

Eamon Butler
December 29, 2019 2:52 am

Greta’s example is more a demonstration of why most people (of sound mind anyway) will not be making the prescribed changes to their lifestyles. It might be a trendy thing among the gullible, to sing her praises, but, follow her example??? No chance, there’s far too much hypocrisy to lose.

Eamon Butler
December 29, 2019 2:58 am

I think the Mafia had an expression, ”you may need an attitude re-adjustment” These ”nudges” are essentially, putting a gun to our heads.

December 29, 2019 3:23 am

What do they mean “Even believers” – I’m of the mind that ONLY climate change believers should be compelled to live low carbon lifestyles. They’re the ones preaching it.

December 29, 2019 3:44 am

The Wizard Of Baca Grande
I leave the Baca with Strong, retracing our route of a week earlier. We pass the Lazy U Ranch and turn south on Highway 17. The desert slides by. Strong tells me he has often wished he could write. He has a novel he’d like to do. It’s something he has been thinking about for a decade. It would be a cautionary tale about the future.
Each year, he explains as a background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEOs, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leadings academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich counties? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?” And Strong, driving as I take notes, looks at me. Then his eyes go back to the Highway 17. The man who founded the United Nations Environment Program and who wrote parts of the Burndtland Report and who in 1992 will try to get the world’s leaders, meeting in Brazil, to sign just such an agreement, savors the questions hanging in the air. Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
Strong resumes his story. “The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“This group of world leaders,” he continues, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries…” And Strong makes a light motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.
I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it.
“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” he says.

Davos Forum Elites to Demand Immediate Global Action on ‘Climate Change’

December 29, 2019 5:23 am

It’s better to look at the root cause of the environmental issues we’re facing than to be looking at carbon taxation that simply allows corporations to win twice.

The biggest cause of global pollution is excessive production for consumerism.
Put simply this is because they produce far in excess of what is actually needed the global needs can be sustained with production levels of at least half of their current rates.


Because of the use of “planned obsolescence” a mechanism that artificially reduces the functional life of a product such that you are forced to replace it frequently , for example a washing machine can easily be designed to run for 25-30 years, but in fact fails in as tittle as sis years, just after the five year warranty runs out! This is deliberate design function to ensure future sales of replacement product.
It is also exasperated by the fact that spares are often difficult to obtain and with many products are impossible to repair due to the design of the product that prevent basic repairs from being carried out.

LED lamps are another example, after 40 years of electronics experience, I know that LEDs have an extremely long life if the electronics are properly designed 30,000 hours plus should be expected, but manufacturers are now bringing that down to less that 10,000 by designing the power supply to fail earlier with underrated components that will fail in about 10,000 hours.
These are just two examples of domestic devices that are designed to fail before their time to increase the profit margins for businesses and their shareholders.
In other areas, millions of plastic products are made with plastics that are designed to deteriorate far quicker than necessary to produce repeat purchases,
Shoes have soles made of materials that wear much faster than they should.
Cars used to be really bad before there was a consumer backlash in the 1970-80s after many deaths caused by cars that were designed to rust quickly getting involved in crashes and causing deaths by completely crushing as they were weakened by corrosion, or in some cases causing crashes by breaking up while being driven.
Then there is “perceived obsolescence” where consumers are being pressurised into replacing stuff that is perfectly functional with the latest and greatest model, which is usually the same as the previous one except for some more go-faster stripes or similar. The fashion industry is the worst offender here.
Then there is all the “single use” plastics to reduce costs in a fast food restaurant for example, to avoid paying for someone to wash dishes afterwards.
Finally to add insult to injury, there is a whole “recycling & waste management” industry created to get rid of all this rubbish.

People just need to know what is happening in the world, whinging about climate change is a cop out, they need to be looking at their own consumerism and the corporate greed that is feeding it.

Jeff Id
December 29, 2019 5:30 am

“Probably, but research shows that most people need behavioral “nudges” to do so; just the facts aren’t enough”

Such utter crap. They won’t read the facts on their own or they pretend the facts don’t exist. If the facts were on their side, it would certainly be enough to convince most people to do something.

No change in sea level rise for 150 years
no increase or decrease in hurricanes, droughts, floods, penguin happiness or any of the factors we hear about
Climate models have failed statistically to predict temps even over 30 years. – they run way too hot.

No facts = no response from thinking public.

Lectures from self important know-nothings are only irritants.

Peter Morris
December 29, 2019 5:42 am

My mother once asked my great-grandmother to write out her daily activities before the advent of modern conveniences. Her description is an accurate depiction of late 19th/early 20th century life in the rural South.

It’s not something I want to go back to, and clearly these clowns don’t, either, since zero of them have adopted anything close to a zero carbon lifestyle.

This is a naked power grab, and these Lysenkoists hope they’ll be among the accepted elite.

December 29, 2019 6:54 am

The amount of mercury in CFLs is TINY. However, skeptics seem to love blowing it all out proportion thinking that somehow makes them look smart and the Climate Cult look stupid. It doesn’t. CFL’s were never a threat, ever. If one is dealing with a “zero mercury” climate fanatic, the tiny amount could be relevant. Otherwise, another cult-type over-reaction by the so-called science side.

F.LEGHORN in Alabama
Reply to  Sheri
December 29, 2019 2:45 pm

True but that doesn’t make them safe. A few years ago I got tired of having to get a ladder to change bulbs downstairs every few months. So I bought cfl bulbs. Couple weeks later I just happened to be looking up and saw smoke coming from one of them. By the time I got to the switch it was a jet of flame. I got very lucky, but I won’t count on that again.

December 29, 2019 7:58 am

Lifestyle Nudges? Nudges will do absolutely nothing to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2050.

Eating tofu burgers instead of actual burgers would6put the slightest dent in the problem.

The Climate Alarmists invented a problem that’s too big to actually fix.

A FIX would require:
• Commissioning over 25,000 New Nuclear Power Plants (each 1Gw) Globally.
• Retooling the entire global Auto Industry AND the Electrical Grid for EV Transportation.
• Heavy Equipment and Agricultural Machinery require conversions from diesel (batteries won’t work). Little is being done there.
• Inventing an ENTIRE INDUSTRY for Synthetic Liquid Aviation Fuel (for converting electrical energy into aviation fuels). That’s not even on the drawing boards yet…why not?
• Immediately halting the plans for adding around 700 hundred of Coal Plants in Asia and Africa. So far…little talk and no action….why not?
• Refitting hundreds of millions of homes for electric heating.
• Railroad fuels? Synthetics diesel fuels required. Where is the serious work being done about that?
• The entire global shipping fleet (and Navy’s) requires conversion to ?what…nuclear?…from burning oil. Plus, the entire nautical recreation fleet needs refitting for synthetic fuels (or sails?). Nothing serious is on the drawing board that could possibly be online by 2050 for any of this.

The Total Climate Story just doesn’t hold together:
• The science doesn’t prove worsening extreme climate events EVEN IF we get the 3 C warming…which we are not seeing.
• The warming isn’t happening at the “promised rate”.
• None of their predictions are on track. Almost all the predictions have been wildly inaccurate.

There are no actual consolidated Plans out there that even come close to eliminating CO2 emissions at any time scale…let alone the REQUIRED 20 years.

The Climate Story doesn’t hold together under the most casual scrutiny. The EMERGENCY they invented is too big to fix.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  DocSiders
December 29, 2019 9:59 am

“Retooling the entire global Auto Industry AND the Electrical Grid for EV Transportation.” Presently don’t work in cold climates period. When near or below 0 C and they are toast, long charging times and short run times, real short battery life. I lived in North Dakota and Northern Minnesota most of my life a month without see a high temperature of 0 C is not uncommon, a month of not above 0 F can happen and has happen and I have lived it as well in 72 hours of the high not above -22 F.

Reply to  Mark Luhman
December 29, 2019 10:57 am

EV battery designers factor in the cold weather when they design the battery packs, they incorporate heaters that prevent the batteries from getting too cold. Fast Charging technology has come a long way in recent years and a fast charger can add about 100km range in less than 15 minutes also many of the newer models have a range that exceeds 500km, that’s enough to get coast to coast (in Ireland) . It’s only cars that have now been designed well enough that fail in weather extremes.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Phil
December 29, 2019 12:15 pm

Yes, they have battery heaters. BUT our Tesla took about 100 minutes this morning to get warm enough to START charging at minus 11C, drawing 10,000 watts, so the first 17 KWH just heats the battery enough to put in another 20 KWH, and then it will take about 5 KWH to warm the interior. As you start driving, the wind cools the battery and the cabin, so it takes about 80% more electricity to go a given distance. I suppose it might go farther if we wore the ‘ski-doo suits’ but that’s not happening.

You won’t see that properly explained on the sales website, just something vague about ‘some range loss’ occurring in colder weather. And some people will tell you that you can get by with only 110V, 1500 watt charging. Not in winter, if you want to go somewhere more than about once or twice a week.

It’s far less expensive ($10 for 200 KM winter / $8 for 400 KM summer) to drive on electricity than gasoline (and not because of avoiding the various fuel taxes) over the whole year. In summer it’s practically free driving, in winter it’s just pretty good.

Contrary to what some ‘greens’ believe, currency is pretty much used to exchange time and energy. Those pieces of paper printed by the Government aren’t free to make, and making twice as many dollars to pass out doesn’t make everything cost half as much in time and energy. An easy way to tell whether you’re saving energy / cutting emissions is whether you’re spending more, or spending less. An Tesla is might be more fun, but probably not ‘greener’, than a Civic. (unless you plan to drive it 80,000 KM a year).

Reply to  Randy Wester
December 29, 2019 1:43 pm

You should be leaving it plugged in if you know the temperatures are going to drop so far that it takes 100 minutes to reach fast charging temperatures. Batteries don’t perform well at all at the temperature extremes, so we all need to ensure that they are kept within their optimal operating temperature range. A granny cable should be enough to maintain the battery temperatures during periods of extreme cold.

It’s a bit like using anti-freeze in an ICE vehicle, there are ways to keep them running in extreme conditions.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Phil
December 29, 2019 2:17 pm

It is plugged in, all the time that it’s home, which has been two days. The battery heating is automatic, the controls are dumbed down to setting the charge level.

If it got below minus 30, the battery heater would turn on at any charge setting. Attempting to charge from a 110v / 1500 w cable in minus 10C mostly just wears out the coolant pump.

Not every great idea for air-conditioned California makes sense anywhere it snows from Sepember to April. PHEVs are easier to live with in the cold, still cut fuel use by 80% or more, need 1/8 the battery size.

D. Anderson
December 29, 2019 8:36 am

“Need behavioral nudges”

From the barrel of a Kalashnikov in the spine.

David LeBlanc
December 29, 2019 8:38 am

Everything I like is illegal, immoral or a high-carbon choice.

December 29, 2019 9:40 am

I think that the climate cognoscenti might find that no nudge would be needed if they, themselves, lived as if they believed the endgame of their religion. They don’t. When they jet off to meetings when they could meet online, when they have celebrities attend, flying in private jets, and when they enjoy fabulous meals, while selling the idea that the entire world must change or catastrophe, the are hypocrites, and seen as such. The idea that there are two levels of compliance with their prophecies (one for the rich and shameless, along with the “right” intelligentsia, and one for the rest of the world) is what keeps them from getting anybody else from going along with this farce. Get out there, live off the grid, avoid travel, and eat larvae for a few years, you might find it easier to convince others that you believe what you say.

Randy Wester
Reply to  max
December 30, 2019 11:27 am

I hear the provincial and federal Government types preaching about sustainability, I see the Hollywood types jabbering about the amazing transition to alternative energy, but at Government buildings or movie theatres there are zero Electric Vehicle charging stations, no solar PV panels on the roof, no-one adding insulation. Do they believe this propaganda, or not?

J. Pyle
December 29, 2019 9:49 am

These left-wing movements are always carried forward by people who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. As long as they repeat the same climate change talking point mantras, they are fully welcomed into the collective.

Why doesn’t the collective take action regarding acolytes who continue to sin through high-carbon emissions? Because power. It’s all about power. It’s nothing to do with carbon or the environment.

December 29, 2019 10:02 am

The two basic truths about Scientific American is that it is neither scientific nor American.


December 29, 2019 10:31 am

People… why is this so difficult?

TAX the ‘bad’, and SUBSIDIZE the ‘good’ with funds raised.

This changes — rapidly — what the public will, and won’t do. Thing is, tho’ it is “hard” pölïtically, the subsidy algorithm has to take ALL of the sin-tax raised, and apply ALL of it to subsidizing the “angel products”. And that amount will change with time.

Thing is, this scheme will also rapidly find a balance point that disincentivizes sin-product purchases and incentivizes virtue-product purchases. But ‘incentivizes’ less and less and fewer of the sin-products are sold.

IF THE BALANCE isn’t “where desired” then the TAX RATE can also be adjusted … quarterly … to further disincentivize sin-products and reward virtue-product purchases.

Because consumers are really, really, really, really sensitive to the ‘price of replacing a function’ in their ongoing lives. Counting on that, with the above mechanism, allows for a graceful, stately and comprehensive replacement of products with others. And no one is actually harmed.

However, if we’re really being sanguine about this topic, then something I wrote on another blog-site seems pretty much on point…

| How about … some REAL world solutions?
| № 1 — accept that AGW is real, but nowhere-near as bad
| as feared.
| … so, ‘mitigation’ requires WAY less mass-sequestering,
| in general.
| № 2 — fertilize the all-but-Fe rich, ironically sterile
| ocean … with Fe.
| … cheap, easy, next-to-zero technology development. Just
| scatter FeSO₄ out there, maybe from blimps in the wind from
| 25,000 ft. Cheap, easy, isn’t bothered by being slow. Could
| be done without pilots, probably. Solar cells on blimps allow
| for in-situ helium tank pumping (to reduce lift, when load
| is dropped).
| № 3 — reflect sunlight in the deserts, or oceans.
| … Its really easy to make specular corner-reflectors, and
| pave thousands of square km with them. Or float ’em out at
| sea, reflecting incoming sunlight at high efficiency. Increasing
| Earth’s albedo, reducing fraction ‘kept here’ to warm the globe.
| № 4 — nuke oil fields.
| … The big guns of last resort, taking out the largest CO₂
| contributer, IF THE ABOVE don’t mitigate “the reduced problem”
| entirely.
| Or, finding this ethically questionable, then a worldwide
| moratorium on new-oil ventures. Pushing “peak oil” past its apex.
| DITTO for coal.
| Natural gas seems fairly innocuous.
| Anyway, a bit ‘crazy’, but not really … except for № 4,
| all the rest can be done, starting today. Famously, it
| has been said, “give me an oil tanker full of iron, and we
| can create an Ice Age”
. Gives pause, doesn’t it?

Just Saying,
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-

Randy Wester
Reply to  GoatGuy
December 29, 2019 1:19 pm

“People… why is this so difficult?”

Because the world can’t be so neatly divided between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ as you seem to think (especially for any length of time, or with any general agreement on what ‘things’ are good and bad, let alone agreement on the meanings of ‘good’ and ‘bad’).

Governments are just starting to figure out that ‘vaping’ is harmful, and slapping a tax on the stuff. It took a couple hundred years to work out that smoking tobacco might be ‘bad’, but maybe a sickly life and an early death is better for the planet, right?

So as to your No. 1, right. AGW is Nowhere near as bad, almost certainly not ‘catastrophic’, probably not all that permanent. It might be 100, 1000, or 10,000 years from now, but someday the human race will be desperate for a way to warm the Earth to stave off the next ice age. I also know that Global Warming won’t go out of control and bake everyone, because the Earth was once a molten ball of rock, shrouded in steam and CO2, yet it cooled to the point there were 3,000 metres of ice at the 49th meridian.

As to the rest maybe ‘first see rule 1’ is enough of an answer, but:
2. no. If you’re going to haul anything in solar-powered Lighter-than-air craft, why not people, food, or trade goods? If it would truly be awesomely beneficial to spread iron sulphate dust on the ocean, maybe figure out a way to use it as an energy carrier (H2S and iron?) and dump the exhausted effluent into the most deficient parts of the shipping lanes?

3. No. Instead, put silicon solar PV out in deserts, if, as, and where useful or needed. And make every Cadmium-Telluride thin film solar site, a superfund site, now.

4. no. We don’t need to re-enact ‘Fires of Kuwait’ ever again. Let’s keep nuclear weapons ready in reserve, in case someone again starts another unprovoked war of conquest and we are forced to turn their capital city to radioactive glass as a permanent warning.

And you’re confused. Oil fields produce oil and associated natural gas, not CO2. Oil fields could even be used to sequester CO2. If we want to reduce CO2 accumulation, we would need to both collect higher royalties at source, and further tax the consumption of fuels at use. I don’t see reducing CO2 emissions as a high priority because (1 above), but when / where fossil fuels are too cheap they are often wasted, and there are far worse known problems (pandemic flu, antibiotic resistance, normal catastrophic weather)

Reply to  Randy Wester
December 29, 2019 3:44 pm

Friend, I do truely appreciate your reply . And while you handily castrated ideas № 2 thru № 4, I have to take a wee bit of umbrage at “And you’re confused. Oil fields produce oil and associated natural gas, not CO₂. ”

That argument is like saying, “sugar doesn’t substantially contribute to rapid tooth decay”, or “mining coal doesn’t contribute to atmospheric acid rain”; sure, the twice-removed part of that line of reasoning is true. But not following the causality chain is where I’m taking issue.

As you read most-everything I wrote, don’t dismiss “the nuclear option must be the last option” (paraphrased) as part of № 4. Let us consider a world-of-countries where Europe, Russia, most of the Americas forms a hard, binding, policed agreement to phase out CO₂-emissions-from-fossil-fuel over say 50 years. By the end of the century. Something like that.

And there are — because countries are sovereign — a few notable hold outs, that’ll do nothing of the kind. China, the African post-banana republics, a fair amount of equatorial South America, ‘cuz of Venezuela and yes, México. Because they produce oil, and have a socio-economic drip of money derived therein, which otherwise they’d not have, and would all become Haiti.

So, what to do about these hold-outs?

Its like when one’s next-door neighbor decides to dispose of her trash by just piling it up in haphazard stinky fœtid piles … and then she gets all up in a snit ‘cuz you are finding fault with her garbage disposal choices.

Just Saying,
-= GoatGuy ✓ =-

Randy Wester
December 29, 2019 10:11 pm

No, I pretty much stand by the statement about oilfields. My Tesla has a gearbox on each motor filled with oil, the coolant is a secret but probably several gallons of a natural gas derived glycol, that cools batteries filled with a petroleum derived electrolyte, in which I sit on a plastic seat and roll on petroleum tires down a tar and gravel road. And this is the future, remember.

Getting rid of the oil wells is not the way to free up time and energy to apply to scaling up battery production and silicon solar PV deployment.

We just didn’t fix the air pollution problem from the oil supply end. The Arabs tried in 1973, but pollution standards starting in 1969 made the actual change. (And the per mile standard made cars smaller, but new tech made them so clean they got bigger again)

You can’t build a battery that hasn’t been invented, or energy transmission without losses an massive amounts of metal. You can’t cut off electricity once it’s engineered in and necessary, so phasing out coal is not an easy problem.

We can make transport fuel and coal taxes higher. It would raise enough to maintain our sorry roads, and higher electricity prices would pay for CCGT plants. It’s not likely that anyone will start refining their own transport fuel from their own well. But good luck in China and India, with that tax thing.

December 29, 2019 10:54 am

“…People do not change their environmental behaviors simply because they are told to. Rather, they must be enticed to make greener lifestyle choices with interventions sufficiently compelling to overcome the strong resistance to changing habitual, comfy habits….”

We must punish not only apostate Unbelievers but also True Believers into proper, acceptable behavior patterns.

ColMosby - the Gray Ghost
December 29, 2019 10:59 am

Give people a better option : build a few nuclear plants and don’t bother about changing your behavior

Rudolf Huber
December 29, 2019 3:00 pm

This is a bit like going on a diet. Believe me, I know what I am talking about here as I am struggling with excess weight for the last 30 years. You start off with great intentions, make plans, plan on how you will manage your calorie intake in order to drop the pounds. Then you start to implement. On day 3 you are a nervous wreck, on day 5 you climb up walls and on day 7 (if you last that long) you wonder about the nutritional value of the wooden tabletop. Good intentions are a dime a dozen, implementation is almost always much less than perfect. Life without fossil energy is pretty brutish. The activists have no idea. I strongly support to help them getting one.

December 29, 2019 4:34 pm

“Psychologists Claudia Nisa and Jocelyn J. Bélanger believe even people who say they believe in climate change are unlikely to make low carbon choices”

This pair are some kind of stupid.

1. They ‘believe’ this? So, no research just a feeling? Someone told them?
2. Multiple surveys and papers tell us sceptics are the ones doing something about reducing their footprints. They recycle, get solar, reduce waste and more. The true believers do none of it, vis-a-vis all the celebrity houses we see with no solar and no wind turbines.

Why do such idiots get published?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  MarkMcD
January 9, 2020 1:54 pm

MarkMcD December 29, 2019 at 4:34 pm

“Psychologists Claudia Nisa and Jocelyn J. Bélanger believe even people who say they believe in climate change are unlikely to make low carbon choices”

They recycle, get solar, reduce waste and more.

The true believers do none of it, vis-a-vis all the celebrity houses we see with no solar and no wind turbines.

Inside this celebrity houses we see with no solar and no wind turbines where there’s often a tanning salon with sun beds / tanning beds, outside parking turboprops.

Russ Wood
December 31, 2019 3:15 am

My son’s rented flat had dimmer switches on all of the main lights. Since he couldn’t get the landlord to change the switches, or even allow me to change them, he was forced to buy dimmable lightbulbs. Do you know how difficult/expensive those are? If he could have bought the ordinary old type, everything would have been fine – but no. And turning the dimmer circuitry with CFLs loaded just blows out the bulbs!

January 1, 2020 5:29 am

CFLs always were a dumb idea. Why should you have to throw away the ballast when changing a fluorescent lamp? Though I quite like the way they start dim and take a minute to reach full brightness.

Johann Wundersamer
January 9, 2020 1:19 pm

Claudia F. Nisa, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Birga M. Schumpe & Daiane G. Faller


“With the exception of recycling, most household mitigation behaviours show a low behavioural plasticity. The intervention with the highest average effect size is choice architecture (nudges) but this strategy has been tested in a limited number of behaviours.”


Eric Worrall:

“Choice architecture” sounds so innocuous, but in my opinion it is a deeply unpleasant form of government coercion.


Yes, +

“Choice architecture” sounds so innocuous, and too this is reminiscent of the Russian dystopian science fiction “We”:

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights