While reading my
Twitter feed I was recently introduced to a brand new label in the climate
change discussion: “soft climate denial/denier”. The label, based on my
admittedly limited research, appears to have been introduced to our lexicon by
a person familiar to the readers of this blog, the inimitable Eric Doherty,
“Transportation planner & @TankerFreeBC Transportation Campaigner”. It appears
to be used to describe anyone, regardless of their stated opinions on climate
change, who disagrees with the user’s preferred policy options for addressing
climate change. The term is very interesting because, in my mind, it pretty
much typifies all that is wrong with the politics of climate change in our
modern Canadian society. Historically, political and environmental movements
have sought to open up their tents to encourage like minds to join their
causes. The basis for this was a recognition that in order to achieve gains in
a modern, democratic society you need to convince a majority (or at least a
plurality) of the population as to the righteousness of your cause. The modern
environmental movement, however, seems to have mostly abandoned this approach.
Consider me, according
to some activists I am described as a “soft climate denier”. Now consider
where I stand on the major issues. As I have described elsewhere at this blog,
I acknowledge the scientific principles underlying the theory of anthropogenic
global warming (AGW) and believe it is inarguable that anthropogenic climate
change is occurring. I have been clear that I believe that human causes are
responsible for the majority of the climate change observed in the modern era.
In this my viewpoint represents the “consensus” view, as per the most recent
IPCC report. My sole potential deviation from the general “consensus” is that
based on my technical knowledge, and on my reading of the trends in the recent
academic literature, I believe that climate sensitivity will eventually be
determined to be at the bottom end of the range reported in the IPCC Working
Group I Report. I am thus, in all respects, a purveyor of the “consensus” view
of climate change.
As I have pointed out
before, one of the goals of this blog is to help alleviate the root causes of
climate change (the anthropogenic increase in Tyndall gas concentrations)
through the advancement of regionally-appropriate renewable technologies. I use
the term “regionally-appropriate” here to acknowledge that not all technologies
are ideal in all situations. In British Columbia we have an abundance of hydro,
geothermal and wind resources. These resources are so abundant that our
government-owned utility (BC Hydro) already generates over 86% of its
electricity from hydro power (ref).
Moreover, with planned run-of-the-river and static hydro projects (Site C in
particular) we already have the potential to supply over 100% of our provincial
energy needs through the use of hydro power alone. That being said, numerous
wind energy projects are either operating or in development and some limited
efforts are underway to exploit the bountiful geothermal resources available in
the southern interior. One area where BC is not as well blessed is in solar
potential. While much of the Peace Region and southern interior gets plentiful sunshine,
other parts of our province are not as blessed. Consider the City of Prince
Rupert. Based on the references I can find it has one of the lowest average
levels of solar insolation in North America with an average value of
approximately 3.7 hours/day (ref). So while a photovoltaic power
installation might be an acceptable energy option in the Okanagan, in Prince
Rupert this might not be the case. I’m sure any number of readers are going to
disagree with me on this so let me explain my reasoning.
The first thing we
must recognize is that photovoltaic solar cells don’t just magically appear,
they have to be manufactured and the fabrication of solar cells is a very
energy-intensive process. It has been calculated that the total equivalent CO2
emissions for a square meter photovoltaic solar panel (imported from China)
adds up to between 1,243 kg and 1,809 kg of CO2 (ref is in German but translates nicely in
Google translate). In order for the solar panel to make environmental sense it
has to produce more energy over its lifetime than was used in its production.
Given the level of solar insolation and average lifespan of a solar panel in
Prince Rupert, covering your roof with solar panels will actually generate much
more CO2 than simply relying on the power supplied by BC Hydro. In
the reference cited above, the author actually examines photovoltaic solar
installations in Germany and establishes that in much of that country solar
energy may be less environmentally advantageous than producing the same amount
of energy using natural gas or even, surprisingly, high-efficiency coal power
generation. Thus in my mind further hydro generation or geothermal would be a
regionally-appropriate renewable technologies in BC while any solar installation
would have to demonstrate, on a case-by-case basis, that it actually improved our
net carbon position.
Being interested in
evidence-based decision making, I have striven to provide the most reliable
information on both the strengths and weaknesses associated with renewable
energy alternatives. Because I put all the information out there, my blog has
been cited both by people who support enhancing these technologies and by those
who challenge this orthodoxy. Apparently to some this is a bad thing. As an
example, I have been sent messages by observers when they see my work on
pipelines cited by “pro-oil sands groups”. The messages typically blame me
because my information is being “misused”. To be clear when they say “misused”,
it does not mean “used out of context”, but rather it means “used in context by
someone with an opposing viewpoint”. I find this complaint problematic because
one of the critical features of evidence-based decision making is that the
information generated in the process is intended to be used in making decision,
by people on both sides of the discussion.
Since I am admitting
my sins, let me admit to my biggest one in the eyes of the activists out there:
I am a pragmatist. I acknowledge that in the foreseeable future we are not
going to see a complete phase-out of fossil fuels for automotive, aviation and
cargo ship uses. We simply lack the infrastructure and technologies to provide
a viable alternative source of energy-dense fuels to power our trucks,
airplanes, diesels and other small engines. Since fossil fuels are going to be
necessary for the foreseeable future, I believe it is imperative to ensure that
our necessary fuel and crude supplies are transported in the most environmentally
sound manner possible, which in BC means by pipelines and double-hulled tankers
and not by rail. To double this sin, I am also something of a nationalist. I
believe that until the world can get a handle on controlling carbon it is
better that the fuels used in North American automobiles and the crude refined
in North American refineries comes from sources with North American
environmental standards rather than those of Nigeria or Venezuela and that the
profits from that production goes to help pay for our Medicare and not to fund foreign
dictators or export civil wars.
So let me recount my
myriad of "sins" in the eyes of the dyed-in-the-wool, dedicated, climate change
activists. I am a believer in AGW and the “IPCC consensus” but I do not
subscribe to the most extreme interpretations provided by the Bill McKibben’s of
the world. I have looked at renewable technologies in sufficient detail to
recognize that not all technologies are going to be applicable in all
situations and that any decision about renewable energy choices should be
informed by data rather than ideology. Most sinfully, I care enough about our
shared ecological heritage to be unwilling to sacrifice it on the altar of some
demonstrably ineffective attempt to “strangle the oil sands”. For these
heresies I, among many, am considered a “soft climate denier”. I am considered
unworthy to be heard in the councils of the pure and for some am considered no
better than the worst of the denialists out there, someone to be muted, blocked
or ignored. The problem is that if you are trying to build a movement to
address an important and far-reaching problem like anthropogenic global warming
it seems sensible to try and expand your tent. You should be looking to recruit
people like me rather than excluding us because we don’t pass some ideological
purity test. Unfortunately, that is not how the modern environmental movement
works, for them you are either with them in ALL things, or you are not.....
I've noticed the people who lean towards name calling and using the "denier" label are usually unable to grasp complex technical problems. Given their behavior pattern I would say a lot of PhDs with science degrees may be too narrowly trained.
ReplyDeleteI read what you have been writing and I tend to agree nearly all the time. So lease keep at it, and don't let them get you down. Lately I've felt the technical issues are discussed with more clarity and intelligence by people like you, so I've leaned towards writing feeble comedy. Try "I interview Ebenezer Rabbet", I'm sure you'll know the characters.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBefore I read your post I read this article http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-american-journalists-deal-with-climate-deniers/ about how the media should handle climate change issues in the US presidential election in 2016.
ReplyDeleteImagine that a Republican presidential candidate said what you said: “I am a believer in AGW and the “IPCC consensus” but I do not subscribe to the most extreme interpretations provided by the Bill McKibben’s of the world. I have looked at renewable technologies in sufficient detail to recognize that not all technologies are going to be applicable in all situations and that any decision about renewable energy choices should be informed by data rather than ideology.”
I believe that Grist would label the candidate as a climate denier. The article concludes “You can’t take sides in the fight between reality and ideological fantasy.” It is sad and, in the long term, counter-productive to developing solutions that any deviation from the dogma of catastophe is labeled as ideological fantasy.
CNY, it's mostly a political movement with a front line led by extreme characters.
DeleteMost sceptics view the world this way, or at least that's how they started. After a while you get fed up and decide you might as well be a fully fledged denier. After all, with the blind leading the blind, what does it matter which side you're on?
ReplyDeleteDear Buyer/ Buyer mandate
ReplyDeleteWe currently have Available FOB Rotterdam/Hosuton for JP54,D2, D6, JetA1 with good and workable procedure, whereby buyer will dip test in seller tank with proof of product.
Kindly Contact us via (anatolyvyacheslavoil@mail.ru) for SCO as soon as possible, so we can move to the next step.
Regards
Anatoly Vyacheslav
Email: anatolyvyacheslavoil@mail.ru
anatolyvyacheslavoil@yandex.ru
skype:anatolyvyacheslavoil