I got a proposition for you. Give all your socks to me in exchange for selling them back to you with money that I will lend you in exchange for an ever increasing fraction of the equity in your house. :)
Well you can go on about who gets wealthy if you like but it seems to me Oil companies and their shareholders are no better at "our best interest" than any one else or company you care to name.
Ok so the current energy technologies used is producing and working for populations... but does that mean we don't engage in development of alternatives because the last time I looked most forms of pollution is detrimental to growth and development. We need clean air, drinking water. Acknowledging though that we have improved with the existing, i.e. sulfur extraction filters on coal fired power pplants. Research and development for cleaner, so called greener outcomes can also generate jobs, industries, some apparent and usually, some that are not.
Agree and disagree. I would agree the art of net0 should be to push new tech with timing tailored to match the market and the technology development path. LEDs are a great example. The timing of the prohibitions against sale of incandescent bulbs was not before practicable LED products were foreseeable but also did not wait until an LED market was already displacing incandescent bulbs. And nobody was forced to replace their incandescent bulbs. I would EV cars are about in the same position and receive about the same pushback (now conveniently forgotten) that LED bulbs received. Heat pumps I would also say the same as the technology improvements that enable water heating to 60+degrees C in turn enabling retention of radiators is new and not widely appreciated. Does this justify displacing a “still useful ” gas infrastructure? In mind yes simply because it does not require a new infrastructure (grid). And so it goes. The net0 argument is more nuanced than Matts simple hypothesis.
Our emissions are ~0.8% of the global total. What ever we do will make no difference and the rest of the world is busy burning hydrocarbons and emitting CO2, so the only viable strategy for climate change is adaptation. Net Zero is worse than climate change.
Atmospheric climate change is being mitigated and has been since we started moving from wood to coal as a primary source of energy. Each transition achieves more energy from less resources. Energy costs encourage efficiency. These factors have now been going on for centuries. No current government plan to mitigate ACC, notwithstanding decades of “investment” in green energy has reduced the use of fossil fuels. We burn more coal, oil and gas than we ever have simply because developing nations are constantly improving their quality of life. And that is a good thing. Meanwhile the energy transitions will continue, powered by economics, not government regulation. For more on energy transitions, read “Energy and Civilization” by Vaclav Smil.
What damage Johnny Boy. You’ve been on quite a rant here? I’ll answer some of your questions- 1.5C is more than acceptable/ 3mm per annum sea level rise / 98% decrease climate related deaths in the last ~ 100 years. These all point to adaptation as the logical response.
If it spares us from trillions in ‘Green’ landfill, so much the better!
And you are not counting the tremendous value on the other side of the ledger. We live decades longer than our pre-oil ancestors. Deaths from natural disasters are significantly smaller than a century ago. Extreme poverty is less than 10% from a decade ago. The list is long but someone like you consumed with religious fervor won't be able to see it. Too bad. Glad I live in a optimistic world instead of your dead world.
When an individual uses the term 'denier' in a discussion about Climate Change, it reveals a lot about a driven narrative.
With all due respect, I would suggest doing a LOT more research than you have undertaken to this point. I would start by getting access to Alex Epstein's research. He has a Substack and has written well-researched books, the latest being 'Fossil Future'. Hopefully, you can arm yourself with knowledge before you enter into these discussions. If anything, it is extremely important to understand the morality of human flourishing. Best wishes in your research! :-)
I did, for the record, score the highest SAT score in my State for class of 1980 (and natch Mensa) .. but also for the record, I also believe high IQ people are the blindest to pragmatic reality and thus stupid from an evolutionary perspective (my lower IQ brother is at the very top of his field in fantasy art and had a top ten New York Times bestseller in the last two years - and it very much is due to the ability to not be distracted by every thought or data point or subjects outside of his very tightly focused expertise. I on the other hand have had as many careers as fingers and my wealth extends only to having avoided all debt.
The most effective and inspiring President of my lifetime (I voted for Obama and Reagan once each, both ultimately thwarted in their goals) is a complete amoral near moron (in contrast to the smartest in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter, who failed to undam one river and inexplicably gave away the Panama Canal to criminal who eventually died in a Florida prison for drug trafficking).
So yes, I agree with you. And consider it a compliment.
Sometimes I think the whole world has gone mad, except for thee and me, and sometimes I'm not so sure about thee.
Matt Ridley, what a breath of fresh air to see you on Substack. Thanks.
I got a proposition for you. Give all your socks to me in exchange for selling them back to you with money that I will lend you in exchange for an ever increasing fraction of the equity in your house. :)
Well you can go on about who gets wealthy if you like but it seems to me Oil companies and their shareholders are no better at "our best interest" than any one else or company you care to name.
Ok so the current energy technologies used is producing and working for populations... but does that mean we don't engage in development of alternatives because the last time I looked most forms of pollution is detrimental to growth and development. We need clean air, drinking water. Acknowledging though that we have improved with the existing, i.e. sulfur extraction filters on coal fired power pplants. Research and development for cleaner, so called greener outcomes can also generate jobs, industries, some apparent and usually, some that are not.
Hi Matt. Can you reference the specific leaked report? This is mad. Thank you 🙏
Agree and disagree. I would agree the art of net0 should be to push new tech with timing tailored to match the market and the technology development path. LEDs are a great example. The timing of the prohibitions against sale of incandescent bulbs was not before practicable LED products were foreseeable but also did not wait until an LED market was already displacing incandescent bulbs. And nobody was forced to replace their incandescent bulbs. I would EV cars are about in the same position and receive about the same pushback (now conveniently forgotten) that LED bulbs received. Heat pumps I would also say the same as the technology improvements that enable water heating to 60+degrees C in turn enabling retention of radiators is new and not widely appreciated. Does this justify displacing a “still useful ” gas infrastructure? In mind yes simply because it does not require a new infrastructure (grid). And so it goes. The net0 argument is more nuanced than Matts simple hypothesis.
Actually, no it’s not. There is no rational basis for Net0, only an ideological basis.
Our emissions are ~0.8% of the global total. What ever we do will make no difference and the rest of the world is busy burning hydrocarbons and emitting CO2, so the only viable strategy for climate change is adaptation. Net Zero is worse than climate change.
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/net-zero-cure-worse-than-climate-change-disease?r=nhgn1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Here:
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/gcb-2024/#:~:text=Datasets,Budget%202024%20v1.0
Atmospheric climate change is being mitigated and has been since we started moving from wood to coal as a primary source of energy. Each transition achieves more energy from less resources. Energy costs encourage efficiency. These factors have now been going on for centuries. No current government plan to mitigate ACC, notwithstanding decades of “investment” in green energy has reduced the use of fossil fuels. We burn more coal, oil and gas than we ever have simply because developing nations are constantly improving their quality of life. And that is a good thing. Meanwhile the energy transitions will continue, powered by economics, not government regulation. For more on energy transitions, read “Energy and Civilization” by Vaclav Smil.
What damage Johnny Boy. You’ve been on quite a rant here? I’ll answer some of your questions- 1.5C is more than acceptable/ 3mm per annum sea level rise / 98% decrease climate related deaths in the last ~ 100 years. These all point to adaptation as the logical response.
If it spares us from trillions in ‘Green’ landfill, so much the better!
Cheers Johnny😘🖖
And you are not counting the tremendous value on the other side of the ledger. We live decades longer than our pre-oil ancestors. Deaths from natural disasters are significantly smaller than a century ago. Extreme poverty is less than 10% from a decade ago. The list is long but someone like you consumed with religious fervor won't be able to see it. Too bad. Glad I live in a optimistic world instead of your dead world.
When an individual uses the term 'denier' in a discussion about Climate Change, it reveals a lot about a driven narrative.
With all due respect, I would suggest doing a LOT more research than you have undertaken to this point. I would start by getting access to Alex Epstein's research. He has a Substack and has written well-researched books, the latest being 'Fossil Future'. Hopefully, you can arm yourself with knowledge before you enter into these discussions. If anything, it is extremely important to understand the morality of human flourishing. Best wishes in your research! :-)
You have an issue with Austin Community College?
Indeed
I did, for the record, score the highest SAT score in my State for class of 1980 (and natch Mensa) .. but also for the record, I also believe high IQ people are the blindest to pragmatic reality and thus stupid from an evolutionary perspective (my lower IQ brother is at the very top of his field in fantasy art and had a top ten New York Times bestseller in the last two years - and it very much is due to the ability to not be distracted by every thought or data point or subjects outside of his very tightly focused expertise. I on the other hand have had as many careers as fingers and my wealth extends only to having avoided all debt.
The most effective and inspiring President of my lifetime (I voted for Obama and Reagan once each, both ultimately thwarted in their goals) is a complete amoral near moron (in contrast to the smartest in my lifetime, Jimmy Carter, who failed to undam one river and inexplicably gave away the Panama Canal to criminal who eventually died in a Florida prison for drug trafficking).
So yes, I agree with you. And consider it a compliment.