“… they fall dramatically short of the reductions required to reduce CO2 emissions enough to prevent a scenario where global temperatures rise two degrees Celsius. I mean, these commitments won’t even be a third of what you need … everything that’s hard has been saved for post-2030 and even these 2030 commitments aren’t enough. And many of them won’t be achieved.”
Bug: Not promoting your most important statement right off the top
“… this one is a world problem. Carbon is not a local pollutant. It mixes in the global atmosphere in a matter of days. So it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a coal plant in China or a coal plant in the U.S. The heating effect for the entire globe is the same.”
Bug: Optimism Bias
"The world 30 years from now is going to consume twice as much energy as it does now."
Bug: Your belief that only huge corporations can play
"But it’s not at all clear that we will get grid-scale economic storage. We’re more than a factor of 10 away from the economics to get that."
An interruption about the ads for this story in The Atlantic:On my browser screen, on every page, the text was interrupted with many slick animated banner ads from Boeing, selling military planes. Nice of them to sponsor this, but aircraft are part of the problem. Already the entire aeronautical industry has been removed from facing any pain at the Paris talks.
Their industry sector is off the table. So no curtailment of flights, no airport taxes, no extra taxes on flying planes directly above functional railroad transit systems. Reducing all aviation, including military, is inevitable. Boeing wants to keep going, but they should be making high-speed trains instead.Psst, Boeing knows that advertising influences cognitive bias.
Bug: No interconnection with the population issue
"… the world is going to consume much more energy 30 years from now than it does today."
Bug: Calling out electric cars as bogus
"… because the electricity infrastructure is emitting more CO2 than you would have if you’d had a gasoline-powered car."
Bug: On what it will take to accelerate the transition from carbon-emitting energy
“Realistically, we may not get more than a doubling in government funding of energy R&D, but I would love to see a tripling, to $18 billion a year from the U.S.”
Bug: On the dangerous certainty of environmentalists
“There’s a lot of uncertainty in this, but on both the good and the bad side.”
Bug: Wrong use of terms
“Like, in the near term, the Pacific oscillation, this El Niño thing, has a much bigger impact on current weather than climate change has had so far. Now, climate change keeps climbing all the time – it just keeps summing, summing, summing, and adding up. So, as you get up to 2050, 2080, 2100, its effect overwhelms the Pacific oscillation.”
Bug: Stop calling for miracles.
“And when you put all those requirements together, we need an energy miracle. That may make it seem too daunting to people, but in science, miracles are happening all the time.”