Climate fear 1

Maybe you noticed that recently some celebrities are publishing books that seem to deny a cause they used to believe in. Today's post is about a climate environmentalist who did that. 

Michael Shellenberger does have Climate (global warming) credibility. Back in 2008 Time magazine named him a hero of the environment. 

But now he is apologizing for scaring people: On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

About half the people surveyed believe that climate change is going to lead to extinction of human beings, all because of fear tactics used by climate change activists according to Shellenberger.

He wrote an article summarizing his argument and published it in Forbes magazine. Forbes left it up for a day, Sunday, and then took it down. Why?

(cont'd tomorrow)

Climate fear 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

Shellenberger's book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, is being praised by environmentalists who agree that climate rhetoric whips up inappropriate, non-factual fear.

Mr. Shellenberger wants to correct false claims of alarmists. Here are a few of his points:

• climate change is not making natural disasters worse
• carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations
• wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels

As a consistent activist, he's been on a mission over the past few years to save nuclear plants, which are emissions-free.

Much more information is available at the website of his organization, Environmental Progress.

Climate fear 3

Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe published a new book, Weathering Climate Change, on the same topic as last Friday's post. He agrees with Michael Shellenberger on his primary points, that climate change is indeed happening and that environmental alarmists have whipped up counterproductive hysteria over it.

A little history will help. For over two million years ice ages have periodically taken over, spreading sheets of ice and snow on 2/3 of the planet's surface. They happen every ~100,000 years, triggered when earth's mean temperature rises 2-3C over average. Ice cap melt leads to more precipitation; more snow starts a runaway cold trend because it reflects the sun's heat.

A new ice age would have started a couple thousand years ago, but human activity produced a warming trend to offset the historically normal cooling trend.  It resulted in 9,500 years of extraordinary temperature stability . . which is going to end.

(cont'd tomorrow)

Best option 2

(cont'd from yesterday's post)

So solar/wind power are not the solution to climate change concerns of environmental activist Michael Shellenberger. To summarize his TED Talk posted yesterday, that's because:

• they require very large land masses and transmission lines
• they are dangerous to large birds and other endangered species
• electricity is generated only 10-30% of the time
• they are expensive
• they require 17x more materials to construct than nuclear plants

Safety and waste disposal are the biggest worries about nuclear power. But compared with all other power sources over time, nuclear has caused the fewest deaths per unit of electricity. Nuclear waste is the only waste product of power generation that is safely contained.

image

Both governments and companies are returning to nuclear. British jet engine maker Rolls-Royce is working on reactors. Bill Gates is partnering with a South Korean company. The U.S. government this year awarded $60 to various different nuclear projects. 

Go here to get caught up on innovations for nuclear power -  SMR's (small modular reactors) and thorium-based reactors. It's not your grandpa's nuclear reactor anymore.

from Bloomberg

Best option?

Nuclear was so "yesterday," according to some people. But today . . it's that negative attitude which is so "yesterday," so out of touch with today's realities. Nuclear energy has big, new support from surprising sources.

Michael Shellenberger dedicated himself to environmental causes in his thirties, and he has the credentials. In this TED Talk, he explains why wind and solar power are not the solution he thought a few years ago. They won't produce the environmental benefits he wants to see.

(cont'd tomorrow)

Next nuclear

A disaster in Chernobyl in 1986 poisoned public perception of nuclear power plants from that time on, only to later be compounded by the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Fear of meltdown, fear of radioactive waste became very present in our imaginations. 

If there's any future for nuclear power, questions of safety must be fully addressed with believable safeguards. The image of serious danger is probably at the root of Germany's total rejection of nuclear power.

Funding of plant construction is problematic too, the cost of a new nuclear plant from design to operation is an average of $6 billion U.S. dollars. That's up front money - before it is actually selling energy to customers and generating some income.

image

But in spite of these challenges, nuclear research goes on because of the big advantages: consistent, dependable energy and no carbon emissions. (Michael Shellenberger summarizes the situation here.)

Tons of money is being spent to solve the issues of safety and cost. Fusion instead of fission, small modular reactors, molten salt reactors, all have potential. Tomorrow's post is about another effort that looks like it might succeed.

(cont'd tomorrow)