But they just won’t listen, part one

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy (1894) “The Kingdom of God Is Within You”

You know you are in trouble when the opening lines of an article are quoting a 19th century Russian author and philosopher.? My suggestion is run for the hills, but here it goes. We have all heard the term climate denier. According to the Cambridge University Dictionary, the term climate denier is defined as: “a person who does not accept that climate change is happening, or does not accept that it is caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” ?More fundamentally, from the Merriam Webster dictionary the term denial is defined as: “a defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality.” I picked the use of the term from psychology. Denial actually can be a very strong motivation for us humans.

There are still many climate change deniers out there. I am not one of them. But if you are, this article is not about you. It is about some of the issues the other sides has with data. In doing a lot of reading for the Energy Transition podcast for the USC Ershaghi Center for Energy Transition (or E-CET) podcast (called Energy Transition Talk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCctVgTTfLA&t=921s ?, I have learned a lot from some very smart people about the energy transition. Not all of them have exactly the same opinion. Remember science experiments and forecasts but do not always get every detail right (remember we once all believed the sun revolved around the earth). Challenging the science is the way we are supposedly to do science and improve our understanding. Getting defensive about criticism about your latest model forecast is perfectly normal human reaction, but it is bad science.

I cannot stop thinking like a pessimistic, problem-solving engineer. Anyone of these challenges can probably be overcome with the right investments and innovation but they won't be easy. My engineer brain (rather than an activist brain, sorry Johanna and Josh) helps me to deal with the first question (is the climate warming and are human activities at least partially responsible) but it is also gets hung up on a second set of questions about just how will the humans on this planet change our energy consumption behaviors to create change. The original Climate deniers are out there and some of them have real questions about the science being done (there are a lot of assumptions in climate models), but this article moves forward onto several issues the climate activists and their politician friends seem to be denying as well. ?

I am going to use very useful information from a McKinsey and Company report on Climate Change to provide context for these issues, but the questions are mine, so blame me if you want to shoot at the messenger. I am trying to be objective but probably some of my critics may not be very nice. Here are some the issues that I am stuck on:

1)???? SCALE and COMPLEXITY: The scale and complexity of the challenges are HUGE (almost 75-80% of global energy today comes from fossil fuels). The good news is that we have the opportunity to rethink our energy ecosystem. The bad news is we must RETHINK EVERYTHING! Climate change could take a 100-years, just like the other lower carbon energy transitions that human have experienced over the centuries (biofuels to coal, coal to oil and natural gas, and now fossil fuels to renewables) and at each transition many people were brought out of extreme poverty. So, was that all such a bad thing?

(from McKinsey and Company) “One reason the net-zero transition has been slower than hoped is its unprecedented complexity. It calls for transforming not only energy systems but also materials, land use, and other systems—in short, the global economy—and doing so in a coordinated and integrated way. To successfully meet the global goals enshrined in the Paris Agreement will require a vast increase in total capital spent each year, from $5.7 trillion spent on low- and high-emissions technologies today to as much as $9.2 trillion, on average, spent over the next three decades. During that period, the low-emissions part of that spending would need to grow from approximately $1.5 trillion per year now to about $7.0 trillion, on average.”

2)???? LISTEN TO THE SCIENCE: We have not done a very good job of listening to the environmental scientists over the last several decades. We should have. The environmental models now suggest we will not make the 1.5 degrees C Paris Accord target – it is gong to take longer and we will need mitigation and adaptation in the meantime. Sorry Ambassador Kerry (and soon to be Mr. Podesta), WE ARE NOT GOING to MAKE 1.5! Current models say something like 2.5 degrees C is more likely (plus or minus 0.5 degrees C). The good news is that these models used to predict 3.5 degrees C a decade ago, so we are making some progress.

(from McKinsey and Company) “Despite all the good news, numerous estimates, including a recent one from the United Nations, show that emissions are not on track to reach net zero emissions of CO2 by 2050—which, most estimates suggest, would be needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. We examined 23 “current policy” scenarios from the IPCC, McKinsey’s Global energy perspective 2023, the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), and the International Energy Agency (IEA). In none of the scenarios do global emissions of CO2 reach net zero, even by the end of the century. In the IPCC scenarios, the median level of warming by the end of the century is 2.9°C, and in the more recent McKinsey, NGFS, and IEA scenarios, it is 2.3°C, 2.8°C, and 2.4°C, respectively.”

3)???? CLIMATE FINANCE: Where is the money going to come from? The world has other needs to like sustainable development in the Global South, wealth inequality, and the debt crisis many nations find themselves in. Not paying for wars would help. We never seem to run out of bullets and bombs. Climate finance is linked to many efforts in the developed world, but finding the funds for the Global South is a challenge (how long did it take for the Loss and Damage fund to gain commitments? In the end UAE, Italy and Germany came up with most of the funds.

(from McKinsey and Company) “Even though wind and solar generate electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels do, they will require additional spending as their share in the overall generation mix rises—for storage; other “firming capacity,” which is electricity that can be used at times when solar and wind are not providing enough energy; and grid infrastructure. If the costs of technologies, such as batteries, do not decline as expected, or if grids are not designed thoughtfully, the delivered cost of electricity could rise. For materials, decarbonizing the production of steel, aluminum, and cement could increase production costs by 15 percent or more by 2050. If costs of energy and other products were to rise, economic growth could suffer, posing a particular problem for developing countries. And as we mentioned above, the scale of spending needed for the transition could stretch public finances.”

4)???? ENERGY DEMAND: Look at Demand as well as Supply. Our personal behavior is a big factor is how far and fast the energy transition will go. Right now, the tremendous growth in renewables is just an “additive” solution not a “replacement” solution due to growth in overall energy demand due to sustainable living standards efforts. Coal use is still growing as well as demand for Oil and Gas (not in the Global North, but in India, China, and a couple other large countries in southeast Asia). It is hard to back off from energy dense sources in many areas of the world (replacing fuels with electrons). In our seven billion human population on the planet, almost 800 million still do not have access to sustainable energy of any kinds and several billion don’t have access to sustainable energy and even clean water. More people still die from respiratory disease from cooking indoors with wood, charcoal, and dung than from extreme weather events. We cannot leave these folks behind AGAIN.

(from McKinsey and Company) “The good news is not limited to commitments and laws; solid, measurable progress is being made as well. Innovation has made many new technologies more viable. For example, solar power and wind power account for more than 10 percent of electricity generation and 75 percent of new electricity-generating capacity. Electric vehicles (EVs) make up about 15 percent of new vehicle sales, and the range of the average EV has increased nearly three times during the past decade. Large-scale plants are being built for such newer technologies as low-emissions steel production and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). Businesses are starting to reallocate resources from high-emissions to low-emissions products. Climate-related venture capital investments reached $70 billion in 2022, almost double the 2021 amount. The global financial sector is strengthening its response to climate change; annual global investment in transition technologies has doubled, from $660 billion in 2015 to more than $1 trillion today. And new market instruments, such as advance market commitments, are emerging to spur innovation.”

5)???? MORE THAN EMISSIONS: This is not just a challenge of emissions, as big a challenge as that is. It is not a war on carbon (and the fossil fuel industry). The target is at least threefold: climate change, affordable and accessible energy (energy security) and a just transition (according to Dr. Scott Tinker, energyswitch.org), or fourfold (per McKinsey and add competitiveness to the mix).

(from McKinsey and Company) “The net-zero transition is too often regarded as a singular problem. In fact, it is four connected challenges. Reducing emissions of GHGs is indeed at the heart of the transition. But if the transition is poorly executed, it could compromise three other important objectives: affordability, reliability, and industrial competitiveness. Those objectives enhance economic well-being on their own; moreover, compromising them would make the emissions reductions themselves less likely to endure.”

I have four more points to make but I will leave you to think about this list and come back next week with the rest of the discussion.

?