Reframing climate action: from sacrifice to liberation

 

Picture source: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black-friday-and-the-new-york-times/story-18615.html

By Harald Desing

Most people still perceive climate action as sacrifice: Giving up owning a car, reducing meat consumption or not being able to operate devices whenever it pleases. Therefore, we call for technological innovations to fix the climate. If only technology would be available to reduce energy demand while increasing comfort, convenience and fun: change would be easy. The world is waiting for self-driving, electric cars to replace individual fossil car ownership, artificial meat or substitutes to provide the same "meat experience" while avoiding animal farming, or "smart" devices optimizing energy use while anticipating our desires. Increasing convenience while saving the world – sounds good, at least as a marketing strategy.

The promise of progress, convenience and physical abundance has led to the emergence of technology and their wide spread adoption, which brought us precisely into the multiple environmental crises we are trying to solve now. Considering that more of it, just "greener", would solve this problem is simply naive. Any more growth in energy demand on a global scale will make it more difficult to transition. The top one percent of the world's population is responsible for 175 times the carbon emissions (and thus energy demand) of the poorest 10% – raising the energy demand of the remaining 99% to this level is simply impossible on our finite planet. Keeping up this staggering inequality is morally unjustifiable. It is thus inevitable to reduce consumption of the rich and affluent; those having a car, large homes, high meat consumption and many gadgets. At the same time, they are also those who are most hesitant to sacrifice their acquired luxury for the common good.

As long as a climate action is perceived a sacrifice, it is unlikely to happen. Therefore, I think we need to reframe climate action as a liberation of the stress and pressure of modern society. Consider the advantages of giving up your own car: it frees time you spend driving, searching for parking, maintaining, and working to afford it. Mobility will have to be reduced and wisely chosen, both of which comes naturally when switching to public transport. When necessary, nothing speaks against renting a car for those few occasions. Going by car is about 1000 times more dangerous than taking a train, thus public transit is not only less energy intensive, but also much safer. Traveling without aircraft for longer distances is necessarily slower and thus richer in experience, so travels will be less frequent but more consciously chosen and more memorable. Eating vegetarian or vegan actually enriches the menu and it is healthier. Deficiencies are not a problem when eating consciously, which has the additional benefits of valuing food more, paying more attention to local and organic sourcing and avoiding food waste. Living in a small space reduces not only the energy and material demand for heating, lighting and construction, but also the time you need to spend maintaining and tidying up. It furthermore prevents overconsumption, because little space cannot hold unnecessary and useless stuff. Would we make rational decisions and maintain a long-term focus, all of this would come naturally with minimizing costs and maximizing utility.

But we don't. Marketing has genius tools to manipulate human desires making one buy what one does not need or can't even afford. Individual decisions are more based on feelings and social dynamics, maximizing reward rather than wellbeing.

Just imagine we could use marketing tools for the opposite purpose: making it attractive to give up what we actually do not need and simplify and reduce energy demand and material consumption, while freeing up time and space for collaboration and community. Reverse marketing could become an essential ingredient for achieving an equitable and sustainable world.

The Miracle of Renewables

 

This is the translation (slightly retouched) of an article that I published in the Italian Newspaper "Il Fatto Quotidiano." Apart from a few insults from the usual people, it was a remarkable success. I had many favorable comments, personal contacts, and question on how to move on, in practice, to install renewable plants and produce energy. 

From "Il Fatto Quotidiano" Oct, 8, 2022 

By Ugo Bardi 

We all know that miracles are not so common and, if you have a major health problem, it is not likely that a little swim in the pool at Lourdes will be enough to solve it. However, it is also true that sometimes things change quickly, opening up new possibilities. That is what is happening with renewable energy. To speak of a "miracle" is too much, I know, but recent developments in technology have made available to us a tool that until a few years ago we did not even dream of having. And this may solve problems that once seemed unsolvable.

For years, I went around lecturing about climate change and other troubles ahead, pollution, oil depletion and the like. Usually, those who attended the lectures were people who were prepared for a not-so-optimistic message, but the problem was what to do about it. At the end of the lecture, a debate would follow in which the same things were said over and over again: riding a bicycle, lowering the thermostat in the house, putting double-paned glasses on the windows, using energy-efficient light bulbs, things like that.  

It was a small reassuring ritual but, in practice, everyone knew that these were not real solutions. It's not that these things don't do any good, but they are mostly the spraying of a little green paint on a system that continues to depend on fossil fuels to function. Thus, we have been talking about double glazing and bicycles for at least 20 years, but CO2 emissions continue to rise as before, in fact, faster. Unless we get to the heart of the problem, eliminating fossil fuels, we aren't going anywhere. But how to do it? Until a few years ago, it seemed that there was no way except to go back to tilling the fields as our ancestors did during the Middle Ages. 

But today things have changed dramatically. You probably haven't noticed, caught up in the election debate. But whether the right or the left wins, it changes little: change, the real kind, is coming with renewable technologies. Wind and photovoltaic plants have been optimized, and factors of scale have generated massive production cost savings. Today, a kilowatt-hour produced by a photovoltaic panel costs perhaps a factor of ten less than the kilowatt-hour from natural gas (and also a fifth of the nuclear kilowatt-hour). We used to call renewable energy "alternative," but today it is all the others that are "alternative." Moreover, producing energy with renewable plants does not pollute, does not require non-recyclable materials, does not generate greenhouse gases, is not susceptible to penalties, and no one can bomb the sun to leave us without power. 

Now, don't make me say that renewables have automatically solved all the problems. It is true that they are cheap today, but it is also true that they are not free. Then, it takes investment to adapt the energy infrastructure across the country, create energy storage systems, and much more.  These are not things that can be done in a month, or even in a few years. We are talking about a decade, at a minimum, to get to an energy system based primarily on renewables. But it is also true that every journey begins with the first step. And now we see before us a road ahead. A road that leads us to a cleaner, more prosperous, and hopefully less violent world. 

I haven't stopped going around lecturing but, now, I can propose real solutions. And it is not just me who has realized the change. In the debate, today you can hear the enthusiasm that we can do something concrete. Many people ask if they can install photovoltaic panels at home. Others tell of having already done so. Some are mad (rightly so) at the bureaucracy that prevents them from installing PV panels on their roof or in their backyard. You also see the change in the discussions on social media. There is always someone who speaks against renewables by reasoning like the medieval flagellants who went around shouting "rememberthe  you must die." But there are also those who respond to them in kind, like, "so go ahead and live happily in your grotto with the other cavemen." 

If you have a south-facing balcony (and if your municipality doesn't get in your way), you can already install photovoltaic panels hanging from the railing that will help reduce your electricity bill. One little piece at a time, we will succeed!

Hating Renewable Energy: Something Went Wrong with People's Heads

 

I recently published a post on the current troubles with the supply of energy to Europe on my blog "The Seneca Effect." The post went viral, a little, and had more than 10,000 visualizations according to "Google Analytics." Most commenters agreed with my interpretation of the current political and strategic situation, but I also received a side stream of insults by people who, for some reason, objected to my statement that renewables are "much cheaper than fossil fuels and capable of replacing them." 

The commenter above said that I am a "complete clueless moron," another one said that I suffer of ignorant bias & agenda, others that I am in the payroll of the WEF, and another one asked "did they accept your application? How many virgins do you get?"

You can take these insults in stride, in a sense they are funny. But the Web is a garden of poisoned mushrooms and it takes little to become the target of a coordinated mobbing action, just like it happened recently to Prof. Desmet, in part with the same accusation, that is of belonging to the WEF.

Now, I understand that some subjects are politically charged, such as Covid vaccines, especially if they are supposed to be mandatory. And I understand that people feel hurt at what they see as an unacceptable intrusion of the state in their private sphere, and because of that, they will react strongly. Without going to the extreme of saying that vaccines are bioweapons designed to kill us, I agree with the idea that they should NOT be mandatory.

But, in this case, come on! All I said is that at present renewables are considerably less expensive than fossil fuels (and of nuclear energy, too). And I base this statement on the available data. You don't believe the data? Fine, then produce different data, but don't just react with insults. And don't react by linking to data that are, by now, obsolete. Most of the criticism against renewable energy is based on data that are decades old, often going back to the last century. 

On the basis of this, I think it IS possible to rebuild a functioning society based on renewables producing energy flows of the same order of magnitude as the present production (I recently coauthored a paper on this subject). I may be wrong, sure, and obviously it is not something we can do in a short time. It will take decades, at least. But I don't see why people should get mad at the idea that renewables can help us a lot in this difficult moment. Looks like you try to save someone who's drowning, and he refuses to touch your extended hand because you didn't disinfect it against viruses. 

So, what goes wrong inside people's heads? I think I should ask to my friend Chuck Pezeshky, an expert on empathy and how people deal with each other. Maybe he could write a post on his blog on this subject -- and I think he should. But, no matter what we say or do, I am afraid that plenty of people will keep insulting those who promote renewable energy. As long as they limit themselves to written insults, it is fine, but..............

A debate on renewable energy with Max Kummerow, Christian Breyer, and Ugo Bardi

We had an interesting debate on renewable energy in the forum 100%renewables, so I thought I could reproduce it here. Those who intervened were Max Kummerow, Christian Breyer, and Ugo Bardi. (their picture, above, are in the same order as the names are written. If you are interested in joining the forum, write to ugo.bardi(thing-a-ling)unifi.it 

 
On 04/09/2022 20:00, Max Kummerow wrote:


I am not clear why nuclear can't be part of the mix for base load, making the transition require less investment? Maybe that question answers itself--it might cost more to build nuclear plants than to oversize RE and build a more sophisticated grid and demand management approach. Anyway, Bill Gates is onto the cheaper, safer nuclear idea. Wish him luck.

A second quibble is that there are many processes, notably the manufacture of NH3 fertilizer by the Haber-Bosch process using CH4, cement manufacture, and cattle raising that generate greenhouse gasses, Also hundreds of other industrial processes, ag practices (soil abuse), forest clearing, etc. that cause emissions. Most of these can be addressed by improved technologies, I believe, but they are important. Half the world's food supply (grain yields, most used to feed livestock) goes away without N fertilizers. P and K are also essential plant nutrients with supply problems looming. So 100% RE is complicated.

But elephant in the room is growth. At present, world population is growing at 1%, and per capita incomes (equal to economic output/population) averages near 2% despite the economic cycle and pandemic variations. That adds up to approximately 3% growth in the human economy, doubling time 24 years. Say efficiency gains in use of energy and materials shave 1% off that, demand still doubles in 36 years. About 3 times per century. And then, of course, you have to double it all again in the first third of the next century. At some point about 1973, I think, this stopped working. Climate change can be looked at as a consequence of a supply constraint due to the limited size of the planet's atmosphere. Exponential growth goes from "abundant" to "all gone" in the last few doublings: Two from 25% to 100%. So hitting the wall is sudden and unexpected.

So why isn't everybody talking about reversing growth as the fundamental long-run solution for a prosperous, habitable, beautiful planet with abundance rather than scarcity? Reversing growth makes RE so much easier and a permanent solution.

I think the answer is that ending growth requires a shift in mindset, culture, practice, ideology, religion, worldview even more fundamental than the shift from the geocentric cosmology to the heliocentric solar system. Which took at least 150 years. Copernicus 1543 (sold by his editor as "another model, just a hypothesis"), Brahe data/Kepler theory, a better model, 1600, Giordano Bruno, 1600 "our sun and planets just one of many," Bruno tortured and burned as a heretic), Galileo (look through the telescope, moons of Jupiter, etc., threatened with torture and shut up), Newton, 1687 (Principia, calculus, law of gravity, laws of motion). And, by the way, 1992, Catholic Church admits it was wrong about Galileo, the earth does revolve around the sun. My point is that a major change in perspective takes a long time and has enormous consequences. We lost the divine right of kings as well as the Church as the monopolist divine authority. Science doubled life expectancy and increased incomes ten-fold, while population increased 16 times, so far (500 million in 1700, 8 billion in 2022, doubled in just 48 years from 4 billion in 1974.

The end of the growth forever meme began, maybe in Greek times (Ugo will know), but kicked off in modern times with Franklin who in 1751 wrote that doubling of population every 25 years in the colonies couldn't continue forever. Then Malthus proposed exponential growth encountering limits, 1798. J.S. Mill advocated on quality of life grounds for "the stationary state" in 1848. In the rush to invent technologies, mine coal, and steal whole continents from native peoples, Mill was Ignored, despite Jevons worries about British coal running out (it did, Maggie giving it the coup de grace)). Boosterism accelerated with 3 trillion a year (an old number, it's more now) paying for messages that mostly say "buy something, consume more, get richer." Economics and politics obsessed with economic development and growth. Then the ecologists with their depressing density dependent mortality, niche's, carrying capacity, limits to growth. The biophysical economists. But again, pro-growth didn't burn the MIT modellers at the stake after the Limits to Growth projected collapse in the 21st century, but they certainly did get dismissed and ridiculed and rebutted. I'm leaving out various scientists' warnings to humanity and other "growth has to stop" messages from scientists.

But the decroissance position is right. .There is no substitute for water. The planet is no bigger with 8 billion people than it was with 500 million 300 years ago. Growth has to stop. Relevant to the 100% renewables debate, so far, emissions have kept rising, more than doubled since 1990. So far RE has accommodated part of the rising demand. If demand were falling, the % of RE would be higher, dirtiest coal fired plants retired and a feasible target for 100% RE in sight. With growth continuing, 3x in a century, then 6x, 12x, 24x in the next century, I think we really do run out of lithium and cobalt. Or something else. The key insight of the 1972 LTG study was that a system dynamics modeling approach that linked various issues showed that if one thing doesn't get you, another will. Did anybody tell us about the ongoing extinction event? I'm a hobby farmer in Illinois on some of the best dirt in the world. I can tell you we are using it up. Unless we can lighten pressure on the earth, humanity is headed for collapse.

It took a couple of centuries, the Reformation, a few civil wars and several revolutions to move the earth out of the center of the universe. The Catholic Church, by the way, is playing a similar science denial role in the present transition to the no-growth version of humanity on a small home planet. The Church's irrational opposition to contraceptives and abortion leaves the world still growing at 80 million/year and poverty, violence and shorter lives the path to ending population growth. It is nice that they don't burn people like Aldo Leopold, Charlie Hall, or Ugo Bardi at the stake anymore.

Attached is a draft chapter from a book I'm working on that argues for completing the half-completed global fertility transition. About half of the world's countries (and population) have fertility rates less than replacement. Most of those are still growing due to 50 years of "population momentum" before young populations age after fertility falls. The other half still have more than 2.1 kids. Getting birthrates down in failed states where the medical system is dominated by the Catholic Church will be a challenge. So Africa's solution may be migration and higher mortality rather than birth control. Europeans would be wise to support global family planning initiatives. Africa is projected to double population from 1.3 to 2.6 billion by mid-century. I don't think Europe is prepared to accept the overflow.

The numbers in my Kaya projection table may be wrong or need updating. Help with that would be appreciated. Future growth rates are, of course, inherently uncertain in principle (see Popper on historicism). Opinions will differ and then reality will do something else. But I think the conclusion that ending growth will be necessary for the transition to RE to occur in time is becoming more likely as the world dallies.

_______________________________________________________

Comment by Christian Breyer

Dear Max,

renewables have NOT to be oversized. We regularly find a curtailment of about 3-5% of a well-balanced sector coupled with 100% renewable energy systems. That’s no oversizing, the self-consumption of thermal power plants is higher …

New nuclear power is simple extremely expensive, it costs 2-3 times what 100% renewables cost (including storage, grids, and curtailment). Why huge resources shall be wasted? Why not use such ‘extra’ resources for better education and health services?

Why 100% renewables should be complicated with respect to fertilizers? That can be done with renewable electricity, water, and air. That’s nowadays the least-cost solution and also the reason why green e-ammonia projects mushroom right now. More details can be found here (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261920315750). Bioenergy can be used for 100% renewables, but optionally – it is not necessarily needed.

Let’s not quarrel on growth, since we agree that we disagree.

The Kaya identity is one of the most important equations of all. This is the fundament of my research. What we learn there: the poor in the world have to become rich as soon as possible since rich societies have typically 1.5-1.8 kids per woman, that leads automatically first to population stabilization, then population decline. Integral international policy has to be to get the poor as fast as possible rich, and of course that on sustainable energy basis, and as soon as possible on a full circular economy.

The beauty of the Kaya identity is that we ‘only’ have to use CO2-free energy, then the (energy-industry related) CO2 emissions are zero. That’s the by far simplest way to get climate stabilization, all other parts of the equation are by orders more complicated to bring in the right direction.

We get by a factor 500-1000 more energy from the sun as a civilization ever needs, year by year. Based on that the energy-industry energy needs and emissions can be fixed, and finally we can switch to net negative emissions to get the mess tidied up again. That’s also not that energetically expensive, as the latest research reveals.

Some more details here:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910

___________________________________________

Comment by Ugo Bardi


Max, your reflections are similar to many things which have been said and promoted during the past 50 years or so. Already in 1972, "The Limits to Growth" had identified growth as the source of all problems and proposed to reduce it.

It didn't work -- not just that: it may have backfired when it generated a vicious backlash from many people who felt threatened. Imagine having to do with an addict and threatening him to cut his supply of cocaine. His reaction may well be to create a stock of it as large as possible.

We are slowly learning how to manage complex systems, but it is something that will take a long time to complete, and perhaps it will never be. The main point is, I believe, that we have limited power to manage such enormous systems as the ecosphere and the human economic power. The only hope we have is to identify trends and encourage them or discourage them. There is just no way to force the system into what we want it to be. It is what Jay Forrester had named "pulling the levers in the wrong direction." The more you push, the more the system drags its enormous (planetary scale) feet. Try it with your dog, and you'll see how it works, even though the dog has much smaller feet.

So, I think there are two major trends that we can encourage -- and even if we don't, they will encourage themselves well enough.

One is the demographic transition. It is a small miracle that it exists: it was never planned and a lot of people opposed it as much as they could. And they still do. But to no avail. Birthrates are dropping like stones: right now we are at 2.4 children per woman, the trend is very clear, even in African countries, although they are arriving later than in the other continents. The population is going to stabilize and then, hopefully, will slowly decline. Every time I think of this, I am amazed. Think of what the world would be if every woman, everywhere, wanted to have 10 children as their grandmother did! I don't know if there is an inner wisdom in the human species that's being tapped right now, or if it is a gift that Mother Gaia gave to us, who knows? But it is like that. We don't need to do anything about that, just wait for the trend to unfold.

The other trend is renewable energy. Another miracle. Think if it didn't exist, if it was still true that renewables would cost 50 times more than fossil fuels, as was the case 50 years ago (more or less). What would we do now? Would we have to go for a plutonium-based economy as it was fashionable at that time? Think of what's happening near the nuclear plant in that unnameable place in Ukraine. Then multiply that by a factor of 1000, and add that the plants would be fueled with plutonium. Unimaginable, or perhaps even too imaginable. Instead, we have an energy source that not only is cheap and efficient, but -- and this is the true miracle -- it is self-limiting! You can't go in overshoot with renewable energy, You have limits to the area you can cover with panels. So, you can have a large amount of energy, and you can also afford to leave in peace a very large fraction of the ecosystem to stabilize itself and provide us with those (horrible name) "ecosystem services" that nobody cares about, but will when they are not available anymore.

So, what do we have to do, in practice? Regarding population, there is little that we can do, but I think we have to explain that, even though there is such a thing as "overpopulation," there is no such thing as "population overgrowth." We have already seen in a not-so-remote past how easy it is to get into "extermination mode" when people were convinced (maybe even in good faith) that there existed such a problem as the lack of "vital space" (call it "lebensraum" or "posto al sole" as you like). If the meme of lebensraum starts diffusing again, then it is not impossible that someone will concoct again some kind of "final solution" and try to put it into practice. Hopefully, that won't happen, but it might.

Then, mostly, we can and we ought to push for renewable energy. We can do that, and I see that people understand what I am telling them when I speak about renewable energy (not all of them, but the smart ones. And they are not a minority). And after that I have explained to them the idea, they ask me what they can do to install PV panels on their roof, or invest in renewable energy. Compare this with what happens with climate change. People may (sometimes) understand what you are telling them. Then they will go home with their SUV and turn the TV on. And they won't do anything against climate change, because there is really nothing that they can do, except cosmetic actions of no importance on the overall effect. But every PV panel installed, is a small, but effective, step to limit global warming. And the natural stabilization of the growth of PV panels will also limit and eventually stop, economic growth, at least intended as the growth of material consumption.

Is all that enough? No, but in this way, it is realistically possible to have an impact. Once people have renewable energy, that will generate a market for a more efficient distribution system, for storage facilities, and all that. Then, the market for fossil fuels will gradually vanish We can use electric power to make fertilizers, in a stabilized economy, that will also reach a stable level, reducing the damage created by eutrophication. And stabilization will also make water available not such a pressing problem as it is now. No more wars? Probably not: humans are warlike creatures. But for sure, most recent wars have been for fossil energy.

Overall, I think that during the past two decades or so we have seen the opening of possibilities undreamed before. We have a chance. A fighting chance. We have to fight for it. And we can even win the battle!

________________________________________________

Good news from Italy: The 30 MW Wind Plant on the Appennini Mountains has been approved

It is with immense joy that I learn and share:

"The council of the ministers, after a proposal by president Mario Draghi, has approved the project of the new wind plant "Monte Giogo di Villore" of 29.6 MW of total power to be located in the towns of Vicchio and Dicomano, including the associated infrastructure to be built in the towns of San Godenzo, Rufina, and Dicomano, as proposed by AGSM AIM S.p.a.

And, with immense gratitude, I thank the many passionate people who spent their time to support this project!

Marco Giusti, director of engineering and research in the AGSM AIM s.p.a