Global warming alarmism exists (no, the world is not going to end in 12 years) and some liberals really do exploit it to try to advance their agenda, e.g., the Green New Deal. I’m not one of them. I believe global warming presents a surmountable challenge to society that people of all political affiliations can work together to address. Moreover, I’d argue that the conservative spirit can actually provide
Aug 27, 2023·edited Aug 27, 2023Liked by Dorian Abbot
This is a very nice essay. I especially appreciate the concise summary (at the top) of the Temperature Change that's been happening through humanity's history.
On a non-scientific note, I know plenty of conservatives who enjoy hiking and camping in Nature. Conservation of Nature is in the interest of most people of our Planet.
It was worth a try, but you missed the mark badly, mainly by appearing to make an argument from religious authority in favor of anthropogenic global warming and a threat of rising CO2, neither of which are supported by the data when examined objectively. I agree much more, though not entirely, with Bjorn Lomborg, and I was delighted that the National Review Institute give him a place on the stage at their Ideas Summit in Washington DC this spring: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5082433/user-clip-bjorn-lomborg-nri-summit
Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the environmental movement includes extremists who stoke fear in well-meaning but misinformed individuals, companies and governments to concentrate power in a global bureaucracy of unelected elites. The green political agenda is by far a much larger threat to humanity as a whole and individual liberty in the US than modest fluctuations in the concentration of a trace component of earth's atmosphere (CO2 is 0.04% by mole of air, and a relatively impotent greenhouse molecule at that.)
I endorse #2 of your 5 point plan. Restarting our nuclear power industry would be a great place for our political parties to find common ground and do something genuinely useful for the economy and the environment at the same time. The others are feel-good pseudo-solutions that appeal to progressives who always want more government and deny the amazing track record of entrepreneurs and free markets to drive the most innovative solutions to the problems facing humanity.
Thank you, Dorian. As long as every nation in the world is on board, adopting conservative solutions will work. Extreme events will always occur - not giving away hard-earned prosperity ensures that economic leaders (driven by compassion) will always come to help the less fortunate.
Nice essay. I completely agree with your recommendations for solutions, although I remain skeptical whether they will make any difference, especially given that the US is no longer the major producer of carbon dioxide and it's unlikely we'll get the rest of the world on board. But maybe we can by succeeding in a financially sound way with these solutions, thus incentivizing other countries to take note and follow our example. What is your current knowledge about the saturation effect of carbon dioxide? There are arguments that the relationship between the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and temperature is not linear, i.e., that each additional increment of carbon dioxide has less and less effect on global temperature? This has rung true to me because, as you know. carbon dioxide concentrations have been far higher in the past but far from detrimental to life on Earth.
I agree that the rest of the world needs to get on board. You are right that the surface temperature scales roughly with the log of CO2. That's taken into account in the projections I mentioned.
I find myself in complete agreement with the principles of conservatism and its obvious link to conservation, articulated succinctly and beautifully. With some trepidation, I nonetheless disagree with the good professor's simplification of climate science to suggest that utilizing coal and gas reserves will result in a 15-degree increase in average temperature. The rates matter, not just the loads. CO2 is not a simple control knob for global temperatures in the manner one might conclude from the simplified explanation.
"After all, the global environment is an extremely complex system that we don’t fully understand. If we start changing it thoughtlessly, shouldn’t we expect problems just like if we start changing society thoughtlessly?"
This is true, and an argument against attempts at forced decarbonization. Having said that, I think a Pigouvian and revenue neutral carbon tax, while still a significant market distortion, is as harmless a proposal as any I have heard.
Great article! I'm currently writing a resolution for Citizens' Climate Lobby to be used with local government and possibly the California Federated Woman's Club. What is your take on CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND?
The cultishly fervent Climatist sentiment we are relentless berated with--'Eat vegan bug protein and give up your cars you Gaia raping pond scum'--is fully counterproductive. Not to mind repugnant in its anti-humanism. Especially when this sentiment is disproportionately harmful to those already most vulnerable in both the developed and undeveloped worlds (e.g. increased energy and food costs due to idiot policy by wealthy urban "environmentally conscious" elites). Or when this sentiment drives absurd policy that sacrifices food security and farming communities (see attacks on Irish and Dutch farmers with little to no regard on where the replacement food is going to come from).
However, a measured and thoughtful approach grounded in the sort of view you suggest is on a different planet!
Great stuff Dorian. I'd love to read more of this kind of content.
Perhaps you can summarize your oppositions to the so-called Green New Deal. I am sure you have written about it elsewhere, but as it appears now, we are left to speculate about them, a little bit confused your 5-item suggestions appear (!) to overlap with the Green New Deal.
Also, separating carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is rather impractical (too expensive), mostly because it exists in such tiny amounts (less than 1/1000 on a molar basis).
Thank you for this nice, succinct essay on an important topic, one of many that have been written. I'm glad you wrote it and agree with almost all of it. A couple places I would think differently than your essay are 1) it didn't mention Hardin's *Tragedy of the Commons* which is as central to the problem as greenhouse gases. 2) a serious problem with nuclear is another aspect of human nature: humans tend to war with each other. I don't see how to add nuclear electric power without elevating the risks associated with wars. I like to say that I am all for nuclear in the sense that there currently exists a very safe nuclear reactor that can deliver power very reliably and wirelessly to anywhere on Earth: the sun.
This Nuclear Reactor has been giving Energy for our Planet reliably and wirelessly since its beginning. Through Photosynthesis, it has provided us with all the Fossil Fuels which we use today.
Solar panels are surely not effective in the vicinity of the polar circles. However, extracting Energy out of Hydro Streams and Aero Winds is quite popular in Scandinavia, and it is the Energy of the Sun which triggers all such fluid motion on our Planet.
The Sun already provides ample power to Scandinavia and to the rest of the Earth. (Imagine turning off the Sun, and you'll agree. Actually, you know what would happen from your own experience: it gets colder quickly as soon as the Sun sets.)
Dorian summarized the technical issues well enough. The more difficult issues are very deep and mostly about human nature.
I guess we're not communicating well. My point was to take a step back metaphorically speaking and see solar power for what it is: a very reliable, clean, predictable, and free heat source for Earth. So much so, we take it for granted. It's the primary source of global heating. There's less solar power per unit surface area, proportional to the cosine of the latitude; that's been appreciated for centuries. Of course you're correct that photovoltaics are going to be less cost effective at higher latitudes, and there are all sorts of fussy details.
In the grand scheme of things, human behavior (in all its complexity and nuance) is the most significant parameter in all this. Enough from me on this.
Oh, I'm all for solar, and if you're saying it should replace nuclear wherever possible, I fully agree. But it is simply not the case that it can "...deliver power very reliably and wirelessly to anywhere on Earth..."
This is a very nice essay. I especially appreciate the concise summary (at the top) of the Temperature Change that's been happening through humanity's history.
On a non-scientific note, I know plenty of conservatives who enjoy hiking and camping in Nature. Conservation of Nature is in the interest of most people of our Planet.
It was worth a try, but you missed the mark badly, mainly by appearing to make an argument from religious authority in favor of anthropogenic global warming and a threat of rising CO2, neither of which are supported by the data when examined objectively. I agree much more, though not entirely, with Bjorn Lomborg, and I was delighted that the National Review Institute give him a place on the stage at their Ideas Summit in Washington DC this spring: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5082433/user-clip-bjorn-lomborg-nri-summit
Thank you, though, for acknowledging that the environmental movement includes extremists who stoke fear in well-meaning but misinformed individuals, companies and governments to concentrate power in a global bureaucracy of unelected elites. The green political agenda is by far a much larger threat to humanity as a whole and individual liberty in the US than modest fluctuations in the concentration of a trace component of earth's atmosphere (CO2 is 0.04% by mole of air, and a relatively impotent greenhouse molecule at that.)
I endorse #2 of your 5 point plan. Restarting our nuclear power industry would be a great place for our political parties to find common ground and do something genuinely useful for the economy and the environment at the same time. The others are feel-good pseudo-solutions that appeal to progressives who always want more government and deny the amazing track record of entrepreneurs and free markets to drive the most innovative solutions to the problems facing humanity.
Thank you, Dorian. As long as every nation in the world is on board, adopting conservative solutions will work. Extreme events will always occur - not giving away hard-earned prosperity ensures that economic leaders (driven by compassion) will always come to help the less fortunate.
Nice essay. I completely agree with your recommendations for solutions, although I remain skeptical whether they will make any difference, especially given that the US is no longer the major producer of carbon dioxide and it's unlikely we'll get the rest of the world on board. But maybe we can by succeeding in a financially sound way with these solutions, thus incentivizing other countries to take note and follow our example. What is your current knowledge about the saturation effect of carbon dioxide? There are arguments that the relationship between the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and temperature is not linear, i.e., that each additional increment of carbon dioxide has less and less effect on global temperature? This has rung true to me because, as you know. carbon dioxide concentrations have been far higher in the past but far from detrimental to life on Earth.
I agree that the rest of the world needs to get on board. You are right that the surface temperature scales roughly with the log of CO2. That's taken into account in the projections I mentioned.
I find myself in complete agreement with the principles of conservatism and its obvious link to conservation, articulated succinctly and beautifully. With some trepidation, I nonetheless disagree with the good professor's simplification of climate science to suggest that utilizing coal and gas reserves will result in a 15-degree increase in average temperature. The rates matter, not just the loads. CO2 is not a simple control knob for global temperatures in the manner one might conclude from the simplified explanation.
"After all, the global environment is an extremely complex system that we don’t fully understand. If we start changing it thoughtlessly, shouldn’t we expect problems just like if we start changing society thoughtlessly?"
This is true, and an argument against attempts at forced decarbonization. Having said that, I think a Pigouvian and revenue neutral carbon tax, while still a significant market distortion, is as harmless a proposal as any I have heard.
Good points and I see that Lawrence Krauss also shared your essay in his Substack page. Thanks Dorian for the logical arguments
Great article! I'm currently writing a resolution for Citizens' Climate Lobby to be used with local government and possibly the California Federated Woman's Club. What is your take on CARBON FEE AND DIVIDEND?
The cultishly fervent Climatist sentiment we are relentless berated with--'Eat vegan bug protein and give up your cars you Gaia raping pond scum'--is fully counterproductive. Not to mind repugnant in its anti-humanism. Especially when this sentiment is disproportionately harmful to those already most vulnerable in both the developed and undeveloped worlds (e.g. increased energy and food costs due to idiot policy by wealthy urban "environmentally conscious" elites). Or when this sentiment drives absurd policy that sacrifices food security and farming communities (see attacks on Irish and Dutch farmers with little to no regard on where the replacement food is going to come from).
However, a measured and thoughtful approach grounded in the sort of view you suggest is on a different planet!
Great stuff Dorian. I'd love to read more of this kind of content.
Perhaps you can summarize your oppositions to the so-called Green New Deal. I am sure you have written about it elsewhere, but as it appears now, we are left to speculate about them, a little bit confused your 5-item suggestions appear (!) to overlap with the Green New Deal.
How about extracting the surplus carbon we put in the air by breeding plants with more, or more efficient, chlorophyll.
Norman Borlaug bred wheat into hardier varieties that fed many more people and won the Nobel prize for it.
Couldn’t we do something analogous with green plants?
Yes, but you have to find a way to sequester the dead plants so that they don't decompose and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere.
Also, separating carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is rather impractical (too expensive), mostly because it exists in such tiny amounts (less than 1/1000 on a molar basis).
Hi Dorian,
Thank you for this nice, succinct essay on an important topic, one of many that have been written. I'm glad you wrote it and agree with almost all of it. A couple places I would think differently than your essay are 1) it didn't mention Hardin's *Tragedy of the Commons* which is as central to the problem as greenhouse gases. 2) a serious problem with nuclear is another aspect of human nature: humans tend to war with each other. I don't see how to add nuclear electric power without elevating the risks associated with wars. I like to say that I am all for nuclear in the sense that there currently exists a very safe nuclear reactor that can deliver power very reliably and wirelessly to anywhere on Earth: the sun.
This Nuclear Reactor has been giving Energy for our Planet reliably and wirelessly since its beginning. Through Photosynthesis, it has provided us with all the Fossil Fuels which we use today.
"...a very safe nuclear reactor that can deliver power very reliably and wirelessly to anywhere on Earth..."
Solar might never be cost effective in eg. Scandinavia.
Solar panels are surely not effective in the vicinity of the polar circles. However, extracting Energy out of Hydro Streams and Aero Winds is quite popular in Scandinavia, and it is the Energy of the Sun which triggers all such fluid motion on our Planet.
Well, fossil fuels too then.
The Sun already provides ample power to Scandinavia and to the rest of the Earth. (Imagine turning off the Sun, and you'll agree. Actually, you know what would happen from your own experience: it gets colder quickly as soon as the Sun sets.)
Dorian summarized the technical issues well enough. The more difficult issues are very deep and mostly about human nature.
No, solar has struggled to get off the ground in high latitude countries. Various other renewable sources are preferred...
https://www.statista.com/topics/5896/renewable-energy-in-scandinavia/#topicOverview
I guess we're not communicating well. My point was to take a step back metaphorically speaking and see solar power for what it is: a very reliable, clean, predictable, and free heat source for Earth. So much so, we take it for granted. It's the primary source of global heating. There's less solar power per unit surface area, proportional to the cosine of the latitude; that's been appreciated for centuries. Of course you're correct that photovoltaics are going to be less cost effective at higher latitudes, and there are all sorts of fussy details.
In the grand scheme of things, human behavior (in all its complexity and nuance) is the most significant parameter in all this. Enough from me on this.
Oh, I'm all for solar, and if you're saying it should replace nuclear wherever possible, I fully agree. But it is simply not the case that it can "...deliver power very reliably and wirelessly to anywhere on Earth..."