# What can be done (climate change debate)?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 10, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384 "2014-03-10T21:18:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 16\
**Page:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/381 "2014-04-09T14:17:15Z")

</div>

> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> I had a good look at it, and I am very hopeful for solar electric - much more so than I was five years ago. But I think you are greatly overestimating how quickly it will dominate.
> 
> First, one of the reasons solar panels are so cheap right now is because Europe created a bunch of subsidies for them, which caused a spike in production of the panels. Then the subsidies became unaffordable, and the result was a glut of panels. Lots of supply + lower demand == lower prices. But if solar really takes off, that bubble in supply will vanish, and prices may increase again.

Sure, everyone tried to get in the game to take advantage of the subsidies. It was a boom-bust energy cycle like you see in other industries. Yes, there was a glut, the stongest/best survived, and some went out of business. It had the intended effect though- the solar industry got off the ground.

Grid parity is a different phenomena. It isn’t something governments can revoke (unless we’re talking about ALECistan deciding to subsidize coal power to price out solar). Once a region goes past grid parity, that acts just like a subsidy, only the price difference is the money you save on energy costs from that point forward. It is happening all over the world right now.

> [@](#):
>
> Second, everyone in the alt-energy biz seems to underestimate lifecycle costs and ignore intangibles. They want to believe in this stuff, so they take ‘studies’ and data sheets provided by the manufacturers as gospel, rather than as advertising for a product they are trying to sell.

Cite? Things like degredation rates are determined by independent organizations. The guys with a high-quality product will tout those numbers, sure, but they aren’t coming up with them on their own.

> [@](#):
>
> When you are dealing with a low-intensity energy source like solar or wind, you generally need a LOT of infrastructure to get the power you need. That means the little details of construction become much more important. Stuff that never seems to make it into these analyses, such as dirt and leaves collecting on the panels, breakage, defect rates, ongoing maintenance, lawsuits, yada yada. In the mature energy industries, these costs have been internalized in the pricing. For solar and wind, we’re still discovering them.

Cite that these things haven’t been considered? I’m not sure I should take your word on this point.

> [@](#):
>
> Second, a massive changeover in infrastructure takes a long time. The average car on the road is about 12 years old. That means even if we came up with a cost-effective electric car tomorrow that had as much range as people wanted, it would still take 12 years to change out half the fleet. And that’s assuming 100% market penetration. In reality, what is likely to happen is that electrics and hybrids will slowly penetrate the market for passenger cars and light trucks, a few percent per year, over a period of a couple of decades.
> 
> As an example, the efficiency of new cars with turbocharged direct injection engines is WAY higher than the old cars. And yet, we still drive a lot of old cars and new car sales are still filled with big-engined muscle cars and big trucks. In fact, as engines have gotten more efficient the market has moved towards more horsepower rather than optimum mileage. Your average family sedan today has more horsepower than most ‘sports cars’ of the 1980’s.

I agree. But again, evs and hybrids are improving rapidly, while ICE-based vehicles are practically standing still. Gas likely won’t get cheaper, and will probably become much more expensive. Over 30 years I expect these things to catch on. Or maybe fuel cells will come along, you never know. But as long as the next generation of citizens is not as uneducated as the last, people will simply understand without being told that clean energy is the way to go.

> [@](#):
>
> Electricity is much the same. The numbers you posted for breakeven are not _wholesale_ prices. They’re comparing the cost of residential solar against retail energy pricing. But home solar is a very expensive and complicated thing, similar to doing a significant home renovation. That alone is going to act as a brake on solar adoption - it’s one thing to say that solar is at breakeven if it can return its capital costs in 10 years - it’s quite another to actually get people to go to the trouble and expense of installing the things - especially if it’s going to put them in a financial hole for years.

I guess you didn’t understand it. The study divides electricity costs into ‘industrial’ and ‘residential’ for every country, and treats them as separate markets. Grid parity for one happens separately than for the other.

As for residential solar, there are two things you ought to consider. First is the solar lease- I can cite specific examples if you want, but the gist is that the solar company pays all the upfront costs for the system, and the customer then pays the solar company a monthly bill that is lower than their electricity bill. So, $0 down, instant energy savings. ‘Financial hole for years’? You need to update your understanding of this industry, it changes fast.

Second is that many homebuilders are partnering with solar manufacturers and installers to make solar panels just another feature of new homes. This leads to standardization which lowers installation costs (which are lower anyway if you plan on panels from the start). This is just one of the factors driving residential solar prices down right now. Sure, that only applies to new homes, it is still a hassle to retrofit existing homes, and I agree phasing it in will take time. To repeat, I am looking at this over a 30 year time span.

I’m afraid that is all I have time for. I’ll be back.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\
**Post date:** [April 9, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/382 "2014-04-09T17:32:41Z")

</div>

> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> So let’s see…you want to take a stable population of wealthy and developed countries (Europe) with a high CO2 output per capita and compare them with developing countries (Asia) with burgeoning populations and a much lower CO2 output per capita so that you can point out how “this can be done.” You want to assign to countries like China all their per capita CO2 even when it’s created to make goods consumed in Europe (and not much vice versa). You want to let France have all its nuclear power when there isn’t a bat’s chance nuclear will get off the ground on a broader level any time soon. Along the way you want to label Asia as “the worst offender” when they consume far less and their main “offense” is to want to raise their standard of living to that of Europe. It’s like the fat guy showing the starving guy how easy it is to consume fewer calories…
> 
> … But I think if you are Asian, what you are thinking is that reducing CO2 is a fine hobby pursuit for the wealthy. And that as soon as you get wealthy, you may consider taking up the hobby as well.

Absent any constraints developing countries will naturally grow their economies in the cheapest and easiest ways they can. Given that the US, with the largest per-capita carbon footprint in the world, isn’t doing a damn thing about climate change, and outside Europe much of the west isn’t doing all that much either, I can hardly blame them. I’ve already discussed the general framework of a solution, and so have many others.

The developing countries are trying to replicate the western industrial revolution in a very different world than the one of the 18th and 19th centuries, and that implies constraints and responsibilities – as well as the availability of renewables – that didn’t exist hundreds of years ago. It may seem very charitable to give them a pass for irresponsibly forging ahead with grossly polluting industrialization, but the only reason their economies are thriving is because _ **we** _ are buying their cheap products. We – the western world – are the original polluters, still the biggest per-capita polluters, and now the enablers of third-world pollution. Don’t blame them. The solution starts here.

> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> In the interim you’ll consume whatever energy is necessary from whatever grid is economically viable, and that’s why the 2040 CO2 output worldwide is going to be about where the EIA predicts, I predict.

The graph is about growing energy consumption. If you look more carefully at the individual items, the worst, most polluting energy sources are growing most slowly (coal consumption actually starts to decrease) and renewables are growing the fastest. We may be able to slow growth in energy consumption, but the biggest gains will come from more rapidly phasing out the really damaging stuff in favor of clean energy.

> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> I was talking about environmental strides, since the context in which you raised the Republican congressional evildoers was over failure to act around ACC.
> 
> If you want to talk fiscal policy and blame Republicans, you have a friend here.
> 
> I loved Mr Clinton.

Fair enough. I thought you were still on about your national debt analogy. In this context, there is a sort of three-level ideological ranking in which the differences can be characterized thus: At the bottom of the barrel, Republicans simply deny the science of climate change and attribute it to a conspiracy of socialist academics, and carry on polluting with a vengeance. Democrats manage to summon up the courage to discreetly whisper about it (but not too loudly) and in the present political climate are terrified of actually doing anything about it. To get to the third tier – actually taking meaningful action on climate change – you need to get out of the US entirely, and primarily look at Europe.

> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> Politicians love trends, except ones [like this](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-28/merkel-s-green-shift-backfires-as-german-pollution-jumps.html).

So? Is anyone surprised that shutting down nuclear plants and burning more coal leads to more CO2 and pollution? Merkel overreacted to Fukushima and blew it big time, providing a case study on what _ **not** _ to do.

> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> But between you and me, when do you think that debt trend will start to show us actually paying down our debts instead of slowing the rate at which we increase them? When do you think the public will decide that slowing down the rate at which we borrow from our kids is not quite the same as actually not borrowing from them so that we can live better today?

When? When US politics and the entire agenda of domestic and international policies is no longer completely dominated by corporate interests and the 1%. As I’ve pointed out, other countries have a much better handle on the national debt.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/383 "2014-04-10T00:15:59Z")

</div>

> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> When? When US politics and the entire agenda of domestic and international policies is no longer completely dominated by corporate interests and the 1%. As I’ve pointed out, other countries have a much better handle on the national debt.

I am pretty sure I’m in the one percent so I guess I’m the bogeyman you are looking for. But from my perspective everyone else is also hoping to get to the one per cent and that’s why that energy curve won’t change.

We all need someone else to blame and it looks like you are choosing me and Mr Gore. I have assigned myself that bogeyman role already and I am at least encouraged that you are beginning to understand why CO2 will continue to rise as we all put our interest into getting into the one percent ahead of the interests of our descendants. Another name for it is the Tragedy of the Commons.

PS Everyone hates corporations until they analyze their retirement portfolios. But I am not sure they are any more evil than the rest of us even if they are easier to blame.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/384 "2014-04-10T06:19:58Z")

</div>

> [@Sam\_Stone](#):
>
> Second, everyone in the alt-energy biz seems to underestimate lifecycle costs and ignore intangibles. They want to believe in this stuff, so they take ‘studies’ and data sheets provided by the manufacturers as gospel, rather than as advertising for a product they are trying to sell.
> 
> When you are dealing with a low-intensity energy source like solar or wind, you generally need a LOT of infrastructure to get the power you need. That means the little details of construction become much more important. Stuff that never seems to make it into these analyses, such as dirt and leaves collecting on the panels, breakage, defect rates, ongoing maintenance, lawsuits, yada yada. In the mature energy industries, these costs have been internalized in the pricing. For solar and wind, we’re still discovering them.

Getting back to this, it is annoying that you make such claims without any reference whatsoever. This condescending attitude you have towards the solar industry is simply unfounded. These are billion-dollar companies. You can look at their balance sheets and judge their profits for yourself. To suggest that the true costs are some kind of mystery is just silly. It may be a mystery to you, but look, I tell you something you don’t know, later you tell me something I don’t know, that’s how this board works. I don’t hate you for it, I just want you to see this issue more clearly.

> [@](#):
>
> But home solar is a very expensive and complicated thing, similar to doing a significant home renovation. That alone is going to act as a brake on solar adoption -

[No it isn’t.](http://sierraclub.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b96069e201901f05764e970b-pi) What is your source of information?

> [@](#):
>
> ```
> I'll bet you that 20 years from now you still won't see solar panels on more than a small percentage of houses - even if it's better than grid parity with a 5-year ROI.
> 
> ```

It depends what state you’re talking about, but I’ll take the bet. Even _Canada_ is projected to be beyond grid parity by 2020.

> [@](#):
>
> And there are very serious and reasonable concerns about safety, and the continual effort of cleaning them, and the ‘eyesore’ potential. Early adopters who put solar panels on their houses have often found that the panels actually lower the resale value of their houses.

I’ve seen the opposite claim. Early adopters… I guess it depends on how early. There are still systems around that were built 30 years ago. They’ve come a long way. Without more specifics, it is hard to say more.

> [@](#):
>
> You also have to remember that as alternative energy starts to cut demand for fossil fuels, that will drive down the price of fossil fuels, slowing adoption of the alternatives.

Not really. When oil drops below a certain price, many producers just stop. It isn’t economical to frack below a certain price, or to process tar sands below a certain price, or to deep-sea drill below a certain price. And supplies of cheap oil are limited and shrinking, so frankly there is a floor to the price of fossil fuels, unless demand drops dramatically, at which point we will have succeeded anyway. But now I’m not being specific enough- I’m sure I can find some data on this if you’re interested.

> [@](#):
>
> I’m actually very bullish on the prospect of a lower-CO2 future. But it’s not going to be because of one big thing. It’s going to be a combination of changes to society and technology that all drive us in that direction. VR improves telecommuting, which cuts driving. Small family units means smaller housing. New manufacturing techniques makes for more efficient new homes. Plug-in Hybrids and high efficiency engines are still gaining market share. Natural gas is displacing coal and saving almost half the CO2 per BTU. Etc.

I totally that there will be a range of solutions. For example, moving away from the suburban commuter model can be done in many ways besides telecommuting. Sourcing things more locally means our electric semi tractors won’t have to work so hard. Lots of things. I happen to think solar power is likely to be the single most significant solution.  
As for natural gas, the research seems to be mixed. [These guys](http://www.climatecentral.org/news/burning-natural-gas-benefits-climate-despite-methane-leaks-17061) reservedly agree with you, but there are a lot of caveats, the main one being that there really isn’t good data available wrt where methane emissions are coming from. The bottom line though is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel and ought to be tagged for massive reduction if we are serious about mitigating climate change. In the near term it looks like we’re going to burn a lot of it, so I file it under ‘resigned to the reality of these emissions.’

> [@](#):
>
> We’re getting there. But I have to say, I was in Germany a couple of years ago and there were solar panels everywhere. But I asked a few people, and didn’t find anyone who was happy with them. One homeowner I spoke to said the government basically lied to him about ROI and in real life he wasn’t getting anywhere near the savings the government said he would. And Germany’s electrical costs are killing them and hurting their industry. Change is hard, and even when things look superior on paper it takes hard engineering and a lot of experience in the real world before we really learn to do it right.

I don’t know what is up with this recurrent preachy tone, especially considering you are almost 180 degrees directly wrong. [Check this out.](http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/myth-busting-germanys-energy-transition/) I’d be happy to discuss those points with you. For now I will try to refer back to that if you persist in error, though I remain open to debate if you can produce a solid refutation of my claims, or better support for yours.

Two things. Germany’s solar push started in 1991. The solar industry was much more immature then, meaning it was more expensive and the panels were not as efficient. Thanks to Germany’s initiative, the solar industry developed much more rapidly than it otherwise would have. The result is that nearly any nation could expect a better solar system than Germany’s if they start today with the same motivation and expertise. Even so, renewable power in Germany is taking over the power market, contrary to some claims made in this thread, and is driving the overall cost of energy down.

> [@](#):
>
> Except that overpopulation is not a problem. Birth rates have been crashing around the world. The exception is in some of the large predominantly Muslim countries, and I assume that’s for religious and cultural reasons. You’re not going to change that with ‘education and birth control’.
> 
> Bullshit. First of all, ‘getting aggressive with evangelicals’ sounds a little intolerant to me. Second, it’s not evangelicals who are against birth control - it’s Catholics. And Muslims. And inner city blacks. How come you’re not calling them out? Perhaps your biases are coming into play?
> 
> In any event, the first world isn’t your problem. We’re barely reproducing at replacement rates. We don’t have to do anything at all.

I’m thinking of places where families have a half-dozen or more children on a routine basis. Maybe that is some places in the US- strict Catholic families, inner-city situations, Mormons… they all need better education and access to birth control. Not that we’ll force anyone to have less babies, but that educated women who have available birth control tend not to have so many children on their own.

But I’m thinking more of India, or Bangladesh, parts of Africa, some Muslim countries. Perhaps my biases are coming into play- I think plenty of evangelicals oppose birth control too. We can’t let them mis-educate foreign populations such that they stumble into population crises. But drawing that line is pretty tricky- anyway, Chief Pedant asked me to consider population. I’m more concerned with clean energy.

> [@](#):
>
> And this is the crap that makes the right so suspicious of the environmental movement. As the old joke goes, environmentalists are watermelons - green on the outside, and red on the inside. It’s amazing how often the ‘solution’ to environmental problems turns out to be the same laundry list of changes the left has been wanting to make for the last century.

Who says I’m an environmentalist? I’m certainly not a Communist. Another thing I’m not is a millionaire or a big corporate representative, so we might as well ignore whatever inclinations toward government action you think I have- I am not someone government will respond to. I can’t effect a government solution.

> [@](#):
>
> Taxing the rich isn’t going to fix the environment. Better education would be nice, but is not even remotely correlated to teacher salaries. You want to improve education overnight? Fire the worst 10% of teachers, and spread their kids around in the classes of the rest. That bottom 10% is doing tremendous damage, yet they sit fat and happy, protected by union rules better suited to assembly line workers than for creative work like teaching our children. While you’re at it, get rid of the teacher’s unions, break the archaic credential system, and base teacher pay on merit.

Taxing the rich more is a good idea, but really a topic for another thread. Improving education is kind of the same thing- I don’t have a strong position on the details of how to provide the best education to the people who need it most.

> [@](#):
>
> Just what form will your ‘encouragement’ take? Because people have been encouraging vegetarianism for a long time - people just don’t want to do it. Them’s the breaks.

Like this: “Hey, **Sam Stone**. Have you heard about the environmental benefits of a vegetarian diet? It is wayyyy more energy efficient, which seems to be important these days, no? Personally, I don’t eat much red meat anymore. I am cheap and bag my lunch as much as I can. My go-to is a turkey sandwich. Recently I switched to Tofurkey- tofu turkey- and guess what? It costs less than half as much, and it tastes exactly the same. Now I feel better. You could do it too. Tell your friends! :)” I’m not going to impose some kind of government restriction- again, I do not have in my grasp a single strand of governmental authority.

> [@](#):
>
> That’s why I said you can start with 3rd world countries that are more politically stable. But we’re not talking about thousands of these things in a country - we’re talking about dozens. And they’re buried underground, sealed, and can be encased in as much concrete or steel as we need to ensure their security.
> 
> Is there a risk? Sure. There are risks with all energy sources. Do you have any idea how many people will die per year if we put solar panels on millions of homes? Falls are one of the prime causes of accidental death. So how do I keep my panels clear of snow? Or leaves? Or dirt? _Thousands_ of people per year will die as a result of solar power.

30,000 people a year die because of guns. Until solar power kills more people than that, people either have to forget about the ‘dangers’ of solar power or get serious about a solution to gun violence.

All nuclear power creates waste with a half-life measured in thousands of years. I’m not confident humans can control toxic waste for that long. Solar doesn’t produce anything near the waste of nuclear or any other form of energy production (though it isn’t an angel, either). So personally I focus on solar, if other people can get nuclear plants approved then more power to 'em. Worldwide trends seem to be going the other way.

> [@](#):
>
> It’s not clear at all that they ‘goosed’ the market. In fact, they may have hurt it. Your Q-Cell link is for a company that already declared bankruptcy. Something like 15 solar companies have gone bankrupt as a result of fluctuating subsidy prices. The current glut of panels and depressed pricing may be inhibiting further investment.

I’m willing to suspend the ‘goose the market’ point until I can come up with something more convincing. But I’m not worried about bankruptcies in a booming market like solar. The culprit in that case is capitalism itself.

Solar investment is doing great. [Saudi Arabia is investing $109 billion](http://www.peninsulatimes.org/2014/03/20/kingdom-launches-new-solar-energy-bids/), for starters.[Look at the trend in the global industry!](http://dqbasmyouzti2.cloudfront.net/assets/content/cache/made/content/images/articles/NEWCumulative_global_PV_to_1H_2013_580_333.png)

> [@](#):
>
> Got a cite for that? I did some research on this today, and what I’ve found is that there is evidence of some methane leakage at the wellheads of some sites, but it’s not clear how much of that is making it into the upper atmosphere. Also remember that methane has a short half-life in the atmosphere so even though it’s a potent greenhouse gas, it’s not as critical to long-term warming as CO2.

I see a lot of debate on this point, but so far it isn’t clear. You may be right that oil drilling produces more methane than fracking. Maybe natural gas really can be superior to coal and oil in terms of GHG.

> [@](#):
>
> Really? Do we understand the implications of going from 1-2% solar to 50%? How many rare-earth materials are required?

Trace amounts of silver, but finding ways to cut the silver required is one of the things driving the drop in price of pv. Cadmium and tellurium, but apparently those aren’t very expensive (though cadmium is toxic. These are required for thin film, not silicon pv modules). I’m not aware of any rare-earth metals required.

> [@](#):
>
> How much mining?

Really? We’re replacing oil and gas, and you’re worried about the mining impact from silicon, the most abundant element in the Earth’s crust?

> [@](#):
>
> What will that do to the efficiency of the power grid if it lowers the duty cycle of current plants?

It is going to piss off a lot of utility-industry monopolists if they can’t make like the fittest and adapt. At high % of solar saturation I expect electricity delivery will be more storage-node oriented than today’s grid model, which I concede presents its own can of worms, but nothing like AGW does.

> [@](#):
>
> How many people will die from falls from high-mounted solar panels?

I don’t know. How many people will die when the next Assad type of guy gasses a bunch of rioting refugees?

> [@](#):
>
> If solar costs us $50 billion per year that could have been spent on R&D, health care, other environmental cleanup, is that better?

I don’t have a taxation, government solution. It is a voluntary, free-market affair. As you know, no investment is without risk, up to and including the loss of principal. If you think it is a bad bet, you may want to hold back and do more research.

> [@](#):
>
> You shouldn’t make sweeping statements about what is ‘obviously’ true. We’re mucking about with complex systems here, and real-world engineering is a lot different than thought experiments on paper. We’ve had this debate many times, but the utopians never seem to learn. High-speed rail is a perfect example of ‘simple’ ideas turning into disasters once they meet the real world.

Solar is an example of a smashing success. What’s your point?

> [@](#):
>
> I prefer it when people put their money where their mouths are. If solar PV is obviously the way to go, the first leading indicator should be a flow of investment money into the field. I haven’t checked, so many investment growth in solar IS exploding. But do you know?

Personally, I’m overweight in pv investments, though not absurdly so. As for the world, check out [this Bloomberg article](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-09/energy-investors-are-an-uncertain-kitten.html). While you’re looking at this article, scroll down to ‘global power generation additions’. Note the whopping projected additions by wind and especially solar by 2030.

But if I were a prophet when it came to predicting investment behavior, I’d either be rich now or am going to be rich in the future. I guess we’ll see.

> [@](#):
>
> Again, the ‘grid parity’ I’ve seen referenced is parity with _retail_ prices, not wholesale prices. That’s fair for some analyses, and not fair for others. For example, if solar is ever going to replace major grid sources as part of the base power load, it will have to compete at the wholesale level.

[Here’s a solar plant that is being constructed as a commercial base-load competitor.](http://social.csptoday.com/emerging-markets/abengoa-wins-tender-concentrated-solar-power-plant-chile) They’re back to CSP here, but hey, if they can make a buck without poisoning 10,000 square miles of ocean, why not? Point is, it _is_ replacing major grid sources as part of the base power load, right now, in many countries.

> [@](#):
>
> Also, some of those ‘grid parity’ studies make assumptions like, ‘Assuming we can get a carbon tax of at least $40/tonne placed on fossil fuels…’ That’s a big assumption. We need to compare apples to apples. If we’re going to rely on taxes and subsidies to force a form of ‘parity’, then that’s not sustainable growth.

Come up with a specific example and we’ll talk about it. My cite above takes into account varying electricity costs around the world, subsidies here, no subsidies there. Need specifics.

> [@](#):
>
> You will never see 90% adoption of solar. There are just too many industries and activities that need highly concentrated sources of energy. We already talked about the non-feasibility of electric tractor-trailers. Shipping is another one. Heavy industry, cold climates, areas that don’t get much annual sunlight…

I think your listed obstacles can be overcome, but yeah, I don’t think 90% solar will happen because it won’t be necessary. More of a theoretical possibility.

> [@](#):
>
> The pattern for solar is that it will achieve grid parity in some isolated places like California where electricity is already very expensive and sunlight plentiful. Areas that use more expensive energy sources might come next. But changeover takes a long, long time.

Um, global grid parity in all but a few countries takes only until 2020. I’m willing to reconsider my position if you can come up with something more convincing.

> [@](#):
>
> Changeover also involves risk. Low-intensity energy sources require a lot of capital investment in infrastructure. That means the total cost is highly dependent on things like long-term interest rates and the stability of prices of raw materials and alternative energy sources.

Meh. Fossil fuels are reliably dirty and expensive. The financing terms are set in advance. It is a different economic model than drilling. You put up infrastructure; it produces power for 30+ years without any fuel. The uncertainty is in the final size of your profit.

> [@](#):
>
> As an example, here in Alberta we made a very large ‘bet’ on oil sands in the 1980’s when gas prices went through the roof. That made oil sands profitable even though it cost more to extract, and investment took off. Then the price of oil collapsed, and devastated our industry. So the next time oil prices started climbing, the investment stayed away for a long time, fearful that it was just another fluctuation. Even though prices dropped below our cost floor again, it took another 20 years to attract big-time investment because of worries that the price would drop again.

You should abandon your oil-sands projects and focus on solar power.

> [@](#):
>
> Even when an energy source becomes cheaper, it doesn’t get adopted until the long-term ROI makes changeover cost-effective. We have trillions of dollars of sunk costs in the current infrastructure. You will see movement to solar piecemeal as old power plants face upgrades or obsolescence. Then solar might be considered as an option to refurbishment or building a new fossil plant. But you’re not going to see the widespread destruction of a well functioning fossil fuel infrastructure just to transition to a fuel source that is slightly cheaper in the long run. These things take time.

I agree, to a point. A coal plant can have a lifetime of 50+ years, sometimes quite a bit more. Refineries cost a fortune. Our ships, not to mention our trucks and cars, mostly aren’t set up to run on electricity. On and on. People aren’t going to be willing to just up and walk away from it all. But at least the world has a modern-age project that doesn’t involve blowing each other up.

> [@](#):
>
> If I were to make a bet, I’d say that once solar hits price parity at the retail level we might see adoption go up by 10% or so in the next decade. After it hits price parity at the wholesale level things will pick up, but I’d be shocked if solar ever supplies more than maybe 50% of our total energy needs, and more likely 25%.

On a good day, solar + wind already produces over 40% of Germany’s power. We haven’t even seen the alt energy storage revolution yet. I bet renewables are going to be rather big.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/385 "2014-04-10T17:36:53Z")

</div>

> [@Chief\_Pedant](#):
>
> I am pretty sure I’m in the one percent so I guess I’m the bogeyman you are looking for. But from my perspective everyone else is also hoping to get to the one per cent and that’s why that energy curve won’t change.
> 
> We all need someone else to blame and it looks like you are choosing me and Mr Gore. I have assigned myself that bogeyman role already and I am at least encouraged that you are beginning to understand why CO2 will continue to rise as we all put our interest into getting into the one percent ahead of the interests of our descendants. Another name for it is the Tragedy of the Commons.
> 
> PS Everyone hates corporations until they analyze their retirement portfolios. But I am not sure they are any more evil than the rest of us even if they are easier to blame.

Well, for my part, I’m at least encouraged to have your tacit agreement with my points about what can be done about third-world energy consumption and limiting the growth of fossil fuels. At least, I take it from the absence of any argument that you agreed with my points.

Now to the points that you did raise here. First of all I don’t “blame” the 1% or corporations for anything, nor do I “hate” corporations – I’m not a Marxist, for Christ’s sake. What I blame for many of our present ills is a corrupt political system that has permitted many of these moneyed interests **to completely control the political system** and to align it with all of their mercenary interests. This includes things like loosening pollution regulations on power plants (I believe that one was called the “Clean Air Act” :mad:), allowing more coal plants to be built, subsidizing fossil fuels, failing to make truly meaningful investments in renewables, discouraging US participation in climate treaties, and above all, promulgating the most egregious denialism about climate change. The tragedy of the commons is occurring because of the tragedy of a failed democracy, which is almost entirely in the hands of a ruling oligarchy. In jurisdictions where this is not the case, by and large a good deal more progress has been made in renewable energy and CO2 reduction. Here, this is apparently going to have to wait until a sufficient level of climate catastrophe starts to make denialism politically unpalatable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/386 "2014-04-12T10:57:57Z")

</div>

> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> Well, for my part, I’m at least encouraged to have your tacit agreement with my points about what can be done about third-world energy consumption and limiting the growth of fossil fuels. At least, I take it from the absence of any argument that you agreed with my points.
> 
> The tragedy of the commons is occurring because of the tragedy of a failed democracy, which is almost entirely in the hands of a ruling oligarchy. In jurisdictions where this is not the case, by and large a good deal more progress has been made in renewable energy and CO2 reduction. Here, this is apparently going to have to wait until a sufficient level of climate catastrophe starts to make denialism politically unpalatable.

I’m not too sure what I tacitly agreed with, but I’m delighted that you overtly agreed we’ll have to wait until a sufficient level of climate catastrophe starts to make denialism politically unpalatable.

I’ve spent a good amount of time posting that ACC Alarmists need proximate, severe, obvious, accurately predicted AGW-direction events to move the polloi. Otherwise they’ll just keep electing leaders based on whether or not their other more proximate interests such as unions, social security, healthcare, neato weapons and potholes are taken care of.

The notion that the polloi really want to protect future generations against a tragedy caused by current largesse extends about as far a post-documentary discussion on a polar bear’s ice floe loss. It certainly does not extend to actual sacrifice. After a good hobby worry over the situation, it’s back to real tragedies, such as still needing a new purse to match one’s dress on prom night.

We are all consummate consumers, and what we intend to consume is everything that lets us live richly now. This is as true of the 99% as it is of that evil cabal of corporations and politicians catering to the 99% so that they can continue to be elected.

I’m tickled you are figuring this out, even if you are confused enough to blame the 1%, the corporations, and the “system” instead of putting the blame squarely where it actually belongs: me and Al “Strawman” Gore. (Plus you, probably, if we looked under your covers. Human nature blames the next guy over, but few of us actually escape hypocrisy.)

PS: Democracy will always fail when the public is allowed to vote themselves current largesse paid with future debtors. But it beats the alternative of hoping successive dictators will be benevolent. If there’s enough capitalism to create wealth, the timing of consequences for voting self-interest may be extended beyond to a longer time frame than more socialist systems. Some capitalist systems might be so financially successful they can even indulge in a few hobby goodwill pursuits. But what will not happen in any democratic system is a sustained mass vote for sacrifice now against some far off consequence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\
**Post date:** [April 14, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/387 "2014-04-14T16:45:07Z")

</div>

As to what can be done, [the IPCC WG3’s report on climate-change mitigation strategies is now out.](http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/ipcc_report_the_top_10_ways_to_avert_a_climate_catastrophe/) Full report [here](http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf) in pdf.

> [@](#):
>
> It’s not going to be easy: the 1,250 experts who wrote the report concluded that in order to avoid what’s generally agreed to be catastrophic warming, global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 are going to have to drop to about 40 to 70 percent of what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they’ll have to be at zero, or possibly even less than that (more on that below).
> 
> But it is possible, according to the thousand-plus scenarios run by the scientists. And it’s even affordable, they insist: taking action will depress annual economic growth rates only by about .06 percent. By the end of the century, the New York Times notes, countries that pay that expense now will likely be richer — do nothing, and they’ll be almost 5 percent poorer than they otherwise would have been. Speaking to reporters Saturday, Charles Kolstad, a lead author of the report, emphasized this above all else: “The longer we wait, the costlier it will be.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\
**Post date:** [April 15, 2014, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/388 "2014-04-15T16:53:33Z")

</div>

Unfortunately, I’d say it’s unlikely that any public support will be broad enough to deliberately depress annual economic growth rates, period.

I don’t think the average guy living as richly as he can now will be compelled to action by the concern that in 85 years, our descendants will be 5% poorer. My grandkids are going to be a heck of alot poorer than that even without ACC amelioration, just from the reckless borrowing my generation is doing right now. We just keep making excuses about how it’s OK to borrow like mad “for now” and assume they will muddle through somehow.

Throw in wolfpup’s theory that political decisions are actually driven by a self-serving cabal of corporations and the 1% without any regard to public good, and I’d say the data above is not going to move the behavior needle, even if the climate scientists also turn out to be incredibly prescient economists as a sideline pursuit.

Sure; the longer we wait, the costlier it is predicted to be.

But not for us.

I think those numbers are so unfrightening to the average guy that he’s going to read the article and go right back to planning how to fund both his upgrade to first class air and his new golf clubs. Plus get the government to provide more services.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ralfy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ralfy/32/600_2.png) [@ralfy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralfy)\
**Post date:** [August 24, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/389 "2014-08-24T05:49:27Z")

</div>

Details are given in the IEA 2010 report, but likely suggestions will be difficult to follow due to the importance of fossil fuels in manufacturing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/390 "2014-08-27T11:18:59Z")

</div>

According to [this](http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/26/damage-from-global-warming-will-soon-be-irreversible-says-leaked-un-report/), it had better be something big and soon, or else nothing else matters.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/391 "2014-08-27T16:15:44Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> Humans risk causing irreversible and widespread damage to the planet unless there’s faster action to limit the fossil fuel emissions that cause climate change, according to a leaked draft United Nations report.

[http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/26/damage-from-global-warming-will-soon-be-irreversible-says-leaked-un-report/](http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/26/damage-from-global-warming-will-soon-be-irreversible-says-leaked-un-report/)

The actual problem is simple enough, assuming that report is 100% true. Has anyone who wrote the report reduced their fossil fuel consumption? Have the UN members limited themselves? Is anyone on the IPCC taking a sailboat the next time they want to travel half way around the world? Has everyone concerned about global warming become a vegetarian? (animal production exceeds transport in producing GhGs)

Are you eating locally? Organic only? Growing your own food? (at least a little herb garden on the window sill). Do you walk, bike or car share/public transport when you travel?

Have you shut off your electric, and use only solar and wind power? This winter, will you heat only with renewable energy?

Has anyone? Is there even a single test area where anyone is trying to live a reduced fossil fuel lifestyle? (aside from the majority of the undeveloped third world)

Has a single concerned scientists, or his family, even begun to live like they insist we must do? Or is it all hand waving and hand wringing and “you people need to do something”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/392 "2014-08-27T16:51:03Z")

</div>

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> [http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/26/damage-from-global-warming-will-soon-be-irreversible-says-leaked-un-report/](http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/26/damage-from-global-warming-will-soon-be-irreversible-says-leaked-un-report/)
> 
> The actual problem is simple enough, assuming that report is 100% true. Has anyone who wrote the report reduced their fossil fuel consumption? Have the UN members limited themselves? Is anyone on the IPCC taking a sailboat the next time they want to travel half way around the world? Has everyone concerned about global warming become a vegetarian? (animal production exceeds transport in producing GhGs)
> 
> Are you eating locally? Organic only? Growing your own food? (at least a little herb garden on the window sill). Do you walk, bike or car share/public transport when you travel?
> 
> Have you shut off your electric, and use only solar and wind power? This winter, will you heat only with renewable energy?
> 
> Has anyone? Is there even a single test area where anyone is trying to live a reduced fossil fuel lifestyle? (aside from the majority of the undeveloped third world)
> 
> Has a single concerned scientists, or his family, even begun to live like they insist we must do? Or is it all hand waving and hand wringing and “you people need to do something”?

Hare Red Herrings the only fish they are allowed to eat? 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/393 "2014-08-27T17:25:15Z")

</div>

\*\*Are \*\*Red Herrings, not hare… (sorry bugs)

A little bit more on why that point from FX is made as a distraction, when the issue of acid rain came the solution was not to demand the people to change first, that is because it was mostly industry and energy producers (as in this case) the ones that are the worst and more important offenders.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in fuels for vehicles and coal that power plants use are the main reason for the acid rain, and the successful control of the emission of those compounds did not require us to do sacrifices ahead of time, the solution involved the removal of those compounds before using them or by capturing the emitted materials.

The sacrifice for all does come by paying a slight increase in our energy costs after solutions like cap-n-trade or emissions taxes were imposed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/394 "2014-08-27T20:41:36Z")

</div>

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Has anyone who wrote the report reduced their fossil fuel consumption? Have the UN members limited themselves? Is anyone on the IPCC taking a sailboat the next time they want to travel half way around the world?

The constant repetition of the _tu quoque_ fallacy (alternately, “the red herring fallacy”, or “the Al Gore gambit”) is as tiring as it is stupid.

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Has anyone?

According to some of your posts, you have. Even though, according to most of your other posts, climate science is wrong about everything. 😃

> [@FXMastermind](#):
>
> Is there even a single test area where anyone is trying to live a reduced fossil fuel lifestyle?

Yes. It’s called “Europe”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/395 "2014-08-27T20:42:03Z")

</div>

And that’s the real answer: we’ve done this already! We reacted to acid rain, and we reacted to the breakdown of the ozone layer.

We, as an industrialized species, are capable of fouling our own nest…and of cleaning it up again.

Remember Lake Erie in the 1970’s?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384/397 "2020-04-08T12:32:01Z")

</div>

Reported

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-can-be-done-climate-change-debate/683384.md?page=19)