Why not go full Trump?
I hear this blabber all the time, but of course, I have something called, um, "facts" and references.
I keep them around handily whenever I hear the same bullshit - which I've been hearing for almost half a century, beginning with Amory Lovins in 1976. Of course, I was a stupid kid then, without any critical thinking skills, so I believed that horseshit.
I'm an old man, not some fucking child hearing for the first time how so called "renewable energy" would save the world.
As an old man, who has spent 30 years in the primary scientific literature reading on topics on energy of the environment, I hold in contempt hand waving at the expense of all future generations.
These are not "talking points." "Talking points" are for fucking lazy people with no real information, no data, but with an unsupportable agenda.
You know, someone who thinks, it's fine to put "only 0.8 grams" of lead on the roof of every person on the planet, because they claim, without fucking shred of information, with no understanding of the (often noxious) chemistry of element recovery, and no economic knowledge of how far dead solar cells will have to be trucked to recover "only 0.8 grams" of lead, these kinds of people, with no interest in the world, they do, um, "talking points."
I'll pull out the normal references with which I respond to people whose contempt for future generations makes them think oblivious with respect to what they are doing to the future:
The death toll from air pollution while we all wait, as expectant assholes, for the grand renewable energy nirvana that has not come, is not here and won't come:
Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 (Lancet 2016; 388: 1659–724) One can easily locate in this open sourced document compiled by an international consortium of medical and scientific professionals how many people die from causes related to air pollution, particulates, ozone, etc.
It works to between six to seven million people per year.
This means that in the last decade, while we wait for the grand so called "renewable energy" nirvana, more people have died from air pollution than died in World War II.
We have spent, in the last ten years alone, more than two trillion dollars on solar and wind energy, more than three trillion dollars in this century, this on a planet where 2 billion people lack access to basic sanitation:
The amount of money "invested" in so called "renewable energy" in the period between 2004 and 2018 is over 3.036 trillion dollars; dominated by solar and wind which soaked up 2.774 trillion dollars.
Source: UNEP/Bloomberg Global Investment in Renewable Energy, 2019
How much energy has this grand investment produced, and how does it compare to the growth of the use of dangerous coal, dangerous oil, and dangerous natural gas?
In this century, world energy demand grew by 179.15 exajoules to 599.34 exajoules.
In this century, world gas demand grew by 50.33 exajoules to 137.03 exajoules.
In this century, the use of petroleum grew by 34.79 exajoules to 188.45 exajoules.
In this century, the use of coal grew by 63.22 exajoules to 159.98 exajoules.
In this century, the solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal energy on which people so cheerfully have bet the entire planetary atmosphere, stealing the future from all future generations, grew by 9.76 exajoules to 12.27 exajoules.
12.27 exajoules is slightly over 2% of the world energy demand.
2019 Edition of the World Energy Outlook Table 1.1 Page 38] (I have converted MTOE in the original table to the SI unit exajoules in this text.)
And yet we hear from people who have obviously never looked in their lives at read data, and who supply no references that solar and wind are means of addressing the growth in the use of dangerous fossil fuels, and that anyone who looks at data, is engaging in "talking points."
When confronted with hand waving airheads who have no interest in the fate of humanity, I often point to this paper, co-authored by one of the world's most famous climate scientists, Jim Hansen, about how many lives nuclear energy saved, and how many billions of tons of carbon dioxide it prevented from accumulating in the atmosphere, by his calculation (in 2013) about 31 billion tons:
Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895)
Maybe there are people with solar cells on the roofs of their McMansions who "know more than the scientists" about climate change, and can confidently say that this paper, published in one of the most prestigious Environmental scientific journals in the world is "propganda."
Of course, I feel differently about what propaganda might be. To me, "propaganda" usually consists of slinging nonsense invectives by people who have no information at those who do, say like, um, "much misinformation, lack of context, and propaganda, with just enough facts to make it plausible."
As for context, the data on the accumulation of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide speaks volumes. I've analyzed it extensively, for several decades. But any asshole interested in humanity could do the same, if they gave a shit, which clearly they don't.
The data pages of the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Web Pages, with data going back as far as the 1950's are here: Data: The complete Mauna Loa CO2 records described on this page are available.
We hit 417.43 ppm of CO2 in the planetary atmosphere this spring, in the week beginning May 24, 2020.
In the 20th century the average rate of increase in the dangerous fossil fuel waste was as follows:
1961-1970: 0.898 ppm/year on average.
1971-1980: 1.339 ppm/year on average.
1981-1990: 1.554 ppm/year on average.
1991-2000: 1.541 ppm/year on average.
In the age of the rise of "renewable energy will save us" beginning with Germany:
2001-2010: 2.038 ppm/year on average.
2011-2018: 2.418 ppm/year on average.
The 20th century average annual increase overall: 1.31 ppm/year
The 21st century average annual increase overall: 2.12 ppm/year
The last 5 years annual average increase: 2.55 ppm/year
Are we tired of so much winning yet? Do we care a shred for the planet we are leaving behind for our children, our grandchildren and their great grandchildren?
Well, I think the data speaks for itself, even this superficial evocation of it. Of course, if one isn't lazy, one can dig really, really, really, really deep into data, the chemistry of silicon refining, lanthanide mining, child slaves digging cobalt in the Congo for lithium batteries for "green" energy storage, the use and source of methylethylketone electrolytes in those batteries, leaching from lead mines, well, it goes on and on and on and on, but one would have to give a shit to look.
Propaganda?
There are two kinds of Trumpers in my view:
One of course consists of those who believe and support his lies, for the most part poorly educated racists. Everyone who writes here is well aware of these types.
The second, somewhat more subtle sort are those who "reason" like Trump, who believe that if they simply make stuff up and repeat it over and over and over in contradiction of the facts, it should be believed.
Anyone, I do mean anyone, who embraces the obvious lie that so called "renewable energy" is doing a damn thing about climate change or about the growth in the use of dangerous fossil fuels is engaged in Trumpism of the second kind.
Facts matter. They are clear, and they are unambiguous. Little bourgeois brats crowing about the solar cells on their roofs don't cut it if the issue under discussion is the most critical of our times, climate change.
I trust you had a very pleasant lazy weekend contemplating the solar cells on your roof by the barbecue. I had more serious things to do.
= new reply since forum marked as read
