A major issue which concerns me these days is climate change. My view differs from most in the mainstream. I am neither a climate denier of the “Drill, Baby, Drill” variety nor am I one who feel that we will become carbon neutral in the U.S. by the time some politicians are promising (2045-2050).
Let’s back up for a moment with an interesting story about the possible origin of the term “Climate Change.” Frank Luntz has been a long time Republican political strategist and pollster. As a political news junkie, I have seen him in action for a few decades and I must say he moderates focus groups better than anyone whom I have ever seen. In 2002, he is said to have penned a memo about climate science and recommended that candidates stress that there was no consensus about global warming among the scientific community. So, prospective lawmakers should challenge the science but instead of talking about global warming or lack of it, soften the message by using climate change as the topic title. It was felt to be less catastrophic a term than global warming. Interestingly, it has caught on all over the environmental spectrum with even rabid climate activists often saying climate change.
Full Disclosure---I began investing in windmill farms in 1985 and solar companies in 2002. Lesson learned was do not get stung in a good cause. Since then, both are producing energy at competitive levels and many mainstream providers and regulated utilities are getting into the game in a big way.
So, why do I worry? The plans to go carbon neutral are ambitious, probably unrealistic, and damned expensive (will cost trillions if existing blueprints are followed). Where will that money come from?
To me, there are practical approaches that are ignored. A major one is nuclear power which is clean but largely ignored by environmentalists. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom recognized this and extended the state’s last Nuke (Diablo Canyon) to shut down in 2030 instead of 2025. The federal government helped with funding.
We have perhaps the world’s largest supply of natural gas which burns twice as cleanly as coal and 34% cleaner than oil. Wind and solar are great, non-depleting and non-polluting but they are intermittent, so they lack 100% reliability. Natural gas is generally used as a backup. However, there is a hold on building natural gas pipelines in the US, particularly in the Northeast. We, as much of Europe, have dodged an energy bullet this year with a mild winter (to date) in the East but next year may be different. Natural gas has been described as a “bridge between fossil fuels and renewables.” Why not build the bridge (gas pipelines) where they do a great deal of good over the next 20 years?
Years ago, I thought that the US government would attack the energy issue as they did in World War II with rationing and the Manhattan project. It has not happened perhaps because of strong lobbying by fossil fuel producers. Putting solar panels on all new government buildings, and offering stronger tax incentives for renewables and electric vehicles for citizens would be a great start.
Also, many of the carbon neutral plans do not discuss improvements in technology. Again, souped up incentives for battery development, charging stations for personal vehicles that worked quickly, transmitting electricity over longer distances are all discussed but could turn the corner or help slow down climate change.
There is also the global human element that does not get enough attention. We seem to be getting more erratic weather patterns with more droughts, high temperatures and freak storms. This is affecting people. As the Colorado river recedes, do you really want to retire to Tucson or other low rain areas?
Ever hear of Lampedusa Island, Italy? Probably not. It is a geographical oddity as it is an Italian island that is 80 miles from North Africa but 130 south of Sicily. In recent years, thousands of desperate people leave Libya, Syria, Eritrea, and some west Africa nations in search of a better and/or safer life. The little island cannot handle them and the Italian government, already struggling financially, cannot absorb all the visitors to Lampedusa plus other refugee entry points. Italy is not alone. Many are trying to get access to Spain and parts of eastern Europe and Turkey.
Yet, global warming appears to be responsible for the long-term drought in western Africa in particular. Once rich farmland is turning to wasteland and farmers cannot afford fertilizer in many cases. Many millions may have to move north or starve in the years ahead. This is a major humanitarian crisis in the making. Private charities can help people landing in tiny Lampedusa but if it runs into millions of people, Europe cannot absorb the refugees nor afford to feed them.
So, yes, I worry about climate change. The US seems hideously naïve about not expanding natural gas usage and Europe faces problems ahead far beyond Vladimir Putin’s energy shutoff after his Ukrainian invasion. Like it or not, anyone reading this will likely still be using some fossil fuels their entire lifetime unless there is some surprising breakthrough with hydrogen-based fuel or battery technology.
If you would like to contact Don Cole directly, you may reach him at doncolemedia@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment