110 Comments

We have a society that is being run by a literal cabal of necromancers, gaining wealth by tapping into the energies of the long-ago dead. Who wants to help overthrow the necromancers?

Expand full comment

Noah - I appreciate your writing on this. I started digging into the chart that you posted from Lazards that shows the massive drop in Solar PV costs. Using the information they provide, I don't see how you can say "As a result, decarbonization no longer involves a large amount of economic sacrifice — just a lot of willpower and investment."

There are two points that I would love to understand how we solve:

1) First, from Lazards info, the cheap price of solar is based off Solar PV which is based on Solar farms in high efficiency locations. Distributed solar costs rise significantly (about the same price they list as Nuclear which is currently uneconomic). Solar farms as opposed to distributed Solar makes a difference because they need a very large amount of land to replace current fossil fuel production in the US (somewhere between Maryland and W. Virginia). To be clear, distributed takes even more, but then your just attaching it to everything you build - its just much, much less efficient and therefore more costly.

2) Even if you assume you have the current lowest price available for solar, you still need to address the storage issue. From the same Lazard report, it lists the costs of storage. If you add that to the costs of the cheapest solar, the price goes back up to being more expensive than Nuclear which again is consider uneconomic.

Now maybe your point is that technology will continue to improve these and drop the costs even further, which very well may be true, - I'm personally very interested in geothermal - but its an assumption that we'll continue to make progress and that we haven't picked the lowest hanging fruit and further improvements won't be increasingly expensive.

Expand full comment

The transition to EVs would be massively sped buy policies like a strong carbon tax, which the public opposes. Same for the power sector and other industries. The public bears some blame here because they (in fossil fuel states) are to the right of the major publicly traded companies. Just as the taste for SUVs has thus far negated benefits from EVs. Senators like Ted Cruz are significantly right of companies like Chevron or Shell and he reflects the attitude of the Republican base in fossil fuel states. So the public, as Yglesias points out, definitely bears some blame. Pointing to Exxon’s 90’s era disinformation, while obviously egregious, is given way too much weight in terms of it’s assumed efficacy.

Expand full comment

Great article Noah! Agree with most of it. Something I think that may have been subtlety implied but needs more attention about "who is the problem" is lobbyists. The lobbyists (of the fossil fuel industry) are the ones who are amplifying the disinformation campaigns, the lobbyists are the ones that are bridging the gap between the fossil fuel industry / players themselves and the politicians who are stonewalling action.

In Bernie Sander's most recent op-ed, which he published on Fox News to reach an audience that doesn't normally hear from him, he said "At a time of record-breaking forest fires, drought, rising sea levels and extreme weather disturbances the fossil fuel industry has, since 2000, spent more than $2 billion on lobbying to protect its special interests and prevent the federal government from making cuts in carbon emissions to protect our planet." Link to op-ed below.

Like most things in American government, the problem is the money in politics. Take that out of the equation and I truly believe that the truth will bubble up to overtake public opinion, which in turn will cause the representatives who are voted in by the public to follow that public opinion. With money in politics, it skews the game and pushes politicians to follow other interests than what the public wants .... something other than the glaring truth.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/sen-bernie-sanders-biden-3-5t-plan-working-families-democratic-unity

Expand full comment

Yet classical economics - postulating the efficiency of self-interest in "invisible hand" markets - IS to blame.

Explanation:

1. Renewables plus storage is still more expensive than coal/gas/oil; if it were not, the fossil industry itself would voluntarily make the transition ....provided profits could be maintained.

2. Compensation for displaced fossil employees - for the enforced closure of their profitable industry - is necessary, to remove opposition to the transition from this quarter. Where's the money coming from?

3. Orthodox economists want carbon pricing, as the mechanism to release private sector investment in renewables, but that will increases prices for consumers. Politicians and the (self-interested) electorate hate this idea.

It's time economic heterodoxy became mainstream: the public sector ought to be able to *fund itself*, rather than being required to tax or borrow from the private sector.

Note: the public sector possesses its own treasury and central bank, because government (the public sector) is required to issue the nation's currency and create a 'clearing union' for private sector banks, aka the reserve bank. Hence government should NOT need to tax or borrow in order to spend, rather the function of taxation (in various forms) should be confined to controlling inflation.

Further note: ANY spending whether private or public has the potential to cause inflation; the nation's spending choices ought to be in the hands of an informed electorate, not solely in the hands of private sector players who are by definition self-interested; only the public sector can and ought to consider community well-being ...and (gasp) *global* well-being, in the case of issues like pandemics and AGW climate change.

With this awareness, public sector investment in renewables COULD flow as quickly as required, indeed as quickly as possible, all the while continually lowering prices for consumers, as more and more of the economy is fueled by sun and wind. We agree ...why hold back the transition to *cheaper* energy? (Some 'opportunity costs' might be involved, but if we are indeed cooking the planet....)

As for CCS: storing CO2 underground is conceptually untidy/unsatisfying; will the stored gas stay in place, how much underground space is required for vast quantities of gas, etc. Storing nuclear waste underground in the form of syn-rock seems more feasible. Workable CCS technology is probably as far away as nuclear fusion technology; we don't have the time to wait for either of them.

To conclude with the issue of "justice": justice requires a balance of public and private sector interests as outlined above. MMT describes the mechanism to effect this balance.

"It's all about (the funding mechanism), stupid".

Expand full comment

This is just delusional. Mr. Smith frequently claims that technology has made solar and wind energy cheaper than fossil fuels. If this were true, then utility regulators throughout the world would be requiring all new generating capacity to be solar or wind. This is not the case.

Mr. Smith doesn't mention that wind energy requires "hot backup" to pick up load whenever wind drops off. This "hot backup" is almost always gas turbines. Germany has calculated that every 100 MW of on-line wind energy requires 80 MW of spinning reserves to keep the system from collapsing.

Mr. Smith invokes batteries, but doesn't even attempt to assess their viability as large-scale storage. Getting the US through an average night would require something like 55 million MWHr of storage. This would require all the lead, lithium, or nickel production in the world for years to produce enough batteries. By the time the batteries were all built, it would be time to replace them, since they would only last 5-7 years before normal degradation made them incapable of holding a charge. And it would leave no lithium, nickel, or lead for any other uses, and no batteries for the rest of the world.

Mr. Smith claims that green energy would create more new jobs than the jobs lost in the fossil fuel industry. I suppose this is true, but what it really means is that green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels - rather than paying 100 oil workers to give us a certain amount of energy, we'd pay 200 (or whatever number) of solar workers to produce the same amount of energy. If you look at these two numbers in isolation, you still might think you're ahead on jobs, but the higher costs would have to be paid, and that would mean less money to spend on other things, which would mean jobs lost in other fields.

Who is the real problem? I guess you first have to define what the problem is. If the problem is that no one is working seriously to implement a zero-emissions economy, the problem is physics. If the problem is that no one is listening to the alarmists, then the problem is that the alarmists' predictions of doom keep not coming true.

The most delusional part is the claim that the fossil fuel industry spends its ill-gotten wealth pulling strings to prevent climate action. There is far more money available from Messrs Gates, Musk, and Bezos, pushing ever more government-controlled resources to subsidize unprofitable alternative energy, than the fossil fuel industry can use to block them.

Expand full comment

Another point is that a large part of the reason some of the *other* agents have been less helpful than they could be is the fossil fuel industry (FFI) manipulating them. The FFI funded anti-AGW research for many years, creating individuals with interests in minimizing AGW, literature denialists can use to minimize the effects, and (I believe) a general culture that has caused predicted results to tend to undershoot the actual outcome, because researchers think their work needs to be super-defensible against denialist, but not activist, criticism. Likewise the public is less concerned than it should be partly due to aggressive disinfo. And I strongly suspect they fund bad actors amongst the climate activists, not because I have any direct evidence but because it's become common in politics and the cost is below rounding error for what they already spend on disinfo and bogus research.

Expand full comment

The right answer is tech to solve this. Full stop.

Doing new laws has so many veto points in a divided society that you can say, fairly safely, relying on a political solution to anything other than an immediate threat is a fools errand.

I don't have to get Joe Manchin's approval to invent a 10x more useful solar panel. I just need to find some clever engineers, give them a goal and some money, make the R&D happen, and figure out a way to deploy the technology that requires as few votes as possible.

What will save the climate is the fact that most of the CO2 comes from sources for which there are more efficient options, right now, in 2021. And as batteries get better, solar gets better, etc - people will adopt those things regardless of the benefit, as they are simply better for the consumer.

Imagine the world where solar is so cheap, battery storage is so plentiful, that you can charge your Tesla for free and never pay for mobility again. That is the world I want.

Expand full comment

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Upton Sinclair

For many, it is easy to dismiss the fact that 90 corporations are responsible for 2/3rds of carbon emissions and who spent the last 30 years spreading disinformation about climate change, the impacts of climate, the cost of doing too much compared to doing too little.

When the same 90 corporations still spend a lot of time deflecting blame back onto the general public when they ask "What have YOU done personally to save the planet?" we get think pieces about how individuals and the fecklessly performative protesting Leftie aren't doing enough of the serious work to restructure a culture built upon endless extraction and consumption in a decade's time.

I'm not as optimistic as Noah that that billionaires like Musk are going to do much to save the planet when the very same cohort profits mightly from the very economic model of extraction and consumption that needs to change. Insisting the Ubermensch of Tech will save us from ourselves is wishful thinking.

Green technology can bridge the gap as we increase nuclear energy and if you want to ease the economic transition of O&G workers into green infrastructure, they could easily start by retrofitting the tens of thousands of gas filling stations into charging stations and upgrading utility infrastructure. Decarbonizing our energy systems can be done and decarbonizing our transportation systems (including cars) is already happening. But we need a big political push for that to happen. And with the GOP standing athwart the path of progress, we're looking at another decade of bullshit resistance, status quo-ism, and passing bills that label pipeline protestors as domestic terrorists.

Expand full comment

I guess what I don't understand is if investment in these technologies is all upside with no tradeoffs, then why aren't private companies rushing in to invest in them?

Expand full comment

Is the problem the Carbon in Coal,or the burps and farts, of the 300 million bovine of India ?

Climate Change due to carbon and methane is irreversible,because the Alt-options,have a huge cost,which humans cannot and will not bear.

Let us Say that humans eat synthetic meat and milk - and it comes free ! That will ruin the agri-economics,as plant wastes and residues and oil cakes will have no use - and so,agri prices will have to rise 2-3 times - and no one will pay for that ! AND THEN ALL THAT AGRI WASTE WILL HAVE TO BE BURNT !

The solution is to eat synthetic meat and gene modified agri crops - which creates less waste,lesser need for water and fertilisers,lesser time, lesser sunlight and photosynthesis, higher yield,and which is cropped throughout the year.That is another quantum leap.

But that is what is happening.Uncle Bill is into Synthetic meat and Gene modified agri - and if you cut down the population,and the hunan life span - then you have a solution

Humans will NOT pay for Climate Change.

And that is Y,substituting the food inputs of cattle,will not work - as the existing agri economics,will be blown up,and agri prices will have to triple.

The OTHER solution is to breed a new DNA of livestock - which has much higher yield,lower cost of maintenance,no impact of disease,higher potency,engineered to a new diet and more beef

TRUTH IS THAT INDIANS HAVE A COSMIC BOND WITH DUNG !

Hindoos eat Cow Dung,Cock Dung, Bird Dung . Goat Dung ,Cow Piss and Goat Piss and Elephant Piss ! dindooohindoo

Elephant Urine

Elephant urine “gajamutra” is used as an alkaline decoction preparation for a supposed cure to malignant sores. [ Ci.9.16 ] [ Ray 131 ]

Goat Dung and Urine

Goat droppings “ajashakrt” are prescribed as an accessory to surgical cauterization and is used for cauterizing diseased skin.

Cock Dung and other Birds’ Droppings

The dung of a specially fed cock “kukkutapurisha” is prescribed as an ingredient for a plaster used to cure malignant skin diseases [ Ci.9.15 ] [ Ray 132 ] Vulture droppings “grdhrapurisha” is an ingredient of a plaster fro bursting of non-boils [ Su.37.9 ] [ Ray 132 ].

Mr Haq said that a Minister said that the solution to jobs in India - is to gift a cow to Indians who have no jobs ! The man is right ! At least then,Indians can gp to the GCC to clean camel dung - like this brilliant Goan ! dindooohindoo

http://www.navhindtimes.in/goan-youth-trapped-in-saudi-desert-village-as-a-camel-herder/

AND THAT IS ALSO WHAT IS SAID BY A GOAN MINISTER PRATAP RANE - A GOAN ! HE SAID THAT GOANS EXCEL IN TOILET CLEANING,IN UK AND EU ! THAT IS DUE TO THE TRAINING IN COW FARMING AND COW SHEDS AND COW DUNG,AND COW URINE !

https://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/national-pratapsingh-rane-controversial-remark-goans-abroad-do-toilet-cleaning-jobs-congress-rahul-gandhi-456890

India CANNOT and WILL NOT make any carbon commitment !

There are 300 million cows in Hindoosthan ! 1 cow eats and excretes 15-20 times - w.r.t an Indian, every day.In addition,the live stock pullulates at a much higher rate.Besides,the daily water needs of a cow,is 100 times that of an Indian !

So the population of Hindoosthan is 1.2 billion humans,and 5 billion quasi Hindoos = approx 7 billion = close to the world HUMAN population !

THAT IS THE PROBLEM !

300 MILLION COWS TO 1.2 BILLION HUMANS,IS 1:4

AS TIME PASSES,THE INDIANS WILL BE AT 2:4 (vs the cows) ,AS THE NEED FOR MEAT AND MILK,WILL RISE EXPONENTIALLY - AND CANNOT BE IMPORTED !

THAT IS THE DIS-ASS-TER ZONE ! dindooohindoo

AND SO,WE HAVE TO ASK THE BASIC QUESTION - WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF HUMANS FARTING IN GLASGOW ?

Expand full comment

What people miss is the progression of yield and costs,in the Re sector.

In the last 15 years,year by year,what has been the yield increase in energy generation in each source ? Is the incremental growth slowing or stagnating ?

Let us look at the BOM (Bill of Material) of the Components of each RE source.The Component costs might have declined - but that is not relevant.What is relevant is the purchase rates of the MATERIALS USED IN THOSE COMPONENTS.It is the PURCHASE PRICE PER KG OF THAT MATERIAL - AND NOT THE PURCHASE COST OF THAT MATERIAL IN THAT COMPONENT

You will find that the PURCHASE PRICE PER KG OF THAT MATERIAL is INCREASING.

THAT IS BAD NEWS

WHEN RE IS SCALED UP SHARPLY - THESE RAW MATERIALS WILL EXPLODE OR BE NOT AVAILABLE.

EVEN THE DECLINE IN THE RAW MATERIAL COSTS IN THE COMPONENTS HAS STAGNATED (INSPITE OF MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION.NANOTECH.AI AND VALUE ENGINEERING ETC.).THIS ALSO MEANS THAT THE COSTS OF THE MATERIALS WILL EXPLODE IF THE RE IS SCALED UP !

THE WORLD HAS NO PLAN !

CAPITALISM HAS ENSURED THAT TECH AND COMMERCIAL EFFICIENCES IN RE TECH - ARE AT THE MERCY OF THE MARKET - WHICH IS AT THE MERCY OF BANKS. Y WILL BANKS ALLOW THE SUCCESS OF RE POWER,IF IT IT BLOW UP CONVENTIONAL BUSINESSES - TO WHICH BANKS HAVE TRILLIONS OF USD OF EXPOSURE ?

NATO and the West,know that there is no solution and that RE is a diversion.The West has to be free of OPEC and PRC.E-Vehicles,are a mortal threat,to the Western Economies.So the West is comfortable with OPEC and GCC.

The Only Solution is Population reduction,and Climate Change is an EXCUSE,to reduce the population - but in that process,the players will try all the options (knowing that they will fail - as they fund the options !),and ultimately convince the masses,to bite the poison pill

But then people ask - Y do the players fund all the alt-options, knowing that it will fail ?

It simple - the players want to be SURE,that all the options will fail - and so,they fund each leg of it - so that they have the results of all the research,and intelligence on the options - to navogate the minds of the hapless populace. dindooohindoo

Expand full comment

Shifting to E-Vehicles , with the E - from Renewables, places the security of the US, in the hands of the PRC.With OPEC, the USA has no risk,as the US controls all the key players of the OPEC, and all the nations of the GCC.

Will the US accept that ?

E-Vehicles and charging might be scaling up rapidly,BUT WHAT IS THE PROGRESSION ON THE MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION OF RARE EARTHS AND OTHER MATERIALS SUPPLIED FROM PRC ?

Reduction in Oil prices only helps PRC !

Is the US pushing E-Vehicles - only because it allows it to import dual use rare earths and materials for use in military and space applications ?

What is the Plan B of the US for the rare earths ? Moon or Mars ? dindooohindoo

Expand full comment

Yeah, I agree that the fossil fuels industry is a major part hindering the transition to green energy... but, there still is the fact that, in the short-term, renewable energy (with a few exceptions, such as hydro power and maybe geothermal energy), will be more expensive than fossil fuels ... not long-term of course, but most people don't think long-term...

I mean, just look at countries that use a lot of (non-hydro) renewable energy, like Germany or Denmark. They have among the highest energy prices in the world...of course, countries like Canada or Norway, Sweden etc. with lots of hydro power have much lower energy prices...so as long as Germany and Denmark can be used as negative examples to opponents of renewable energy, then a transition will be slower... just look at the energy crisis in Europe this autumn...

And I think that voters should definitely be blamed, because, as I wrote above, they think short-term, and that means renewable energy prices look more expensive than they really are... and, at least in the US, Canada and Australia, climate change and what to do about it has become a culture war issue...so it will be harder to change people's opinions on it, based on their "tribal affiliation"... similar to how the greens in Germany are set on opposing nuclear power no matter the benefits...

Expand full comment

Are you not suspect of the American Petroleum Institute's job numbers ... !?

Expand full comment

Nothing like 2 weeks span of radiation poison. First time in years I have lost some much hair. Chunks are coming out of my head. Tummy aches from stress and hissing in my ears. Weight gain even though I hardly eat or drink the water here anymore. Clearly digestion issues play a key roll in the bigger picture. Identity theft and stolen checks by none other then babysitting house mate. Seasons Only 10 months without a job and every inch breathing down my neck. Tactics displayed are the scariest most desperate I've ever seen. Never know who's knocking at the door , could be a gun or someone to walk thru my house unexpected since its being shown to public. At least we know that the awful echo and hollow sounds do actually come from a real well. Turns out I was correct and the house sits on a well. Too bad none disclosures are apparent. Wouldn't matter anyways , no one listens or helps or even comes around ever. You wouldn't guess I were even a real person or a wife of someone. Of course I don't do any banking or have personal accounts b.c I know how to manage money. I did receive a letter from the state unemployment saying they paid an overage on my unemployment over a years worth of checks. Oddly enough I never applied or received one single payment in my life from said government and or state offices. I figured I know who cashed in on that past years spoils. Still here sure I am and tattoo the one who holds a leash round my neck, still here . I wouldn't want to ruin the story for the audience and alert anyone that out look not so good. I believe your sun and moon will die by strife and choice. Tried to do that much, only they shocked

me back to life over and over and over again. No rest In peace for me , I am . the wicked suffer and greater then ever known to a human in history. Bringing the dead back to life and for torch. Please make positive I'm totally dead before you wish my way ended. There's a sun shining but its not me. 11 hour 24 hour days now and have been for each new year . rounded the 3rd year in hell. 4th martial anniversary. Reruns aired. Who am I really? I am not a cloned robot or a SIM twin. She's a real alive women. Her name printed on my hand , take a closer look. Can you believe God sent his messenger to save the universe the 4th coming of Christ and not one person knew how to save a life. Climate change in your dreams maybe, I think it's a sign or may be a fire signal. HEAVEN CALLED SHE SAID ITS DEAD. THERE IS NO HEAVEN OR SAVIOR FOR YALL . ps, inner ramblings diary. 2016. Well dear random House 2021 never wrote a word sure did read what you said and you know who needs to make it up if you have too. How is that reflection looking back at you? I won't ask how do you sleep at night, I can tell you don't sleep , or have actual brains, bones. Steel cage isn't a steel trap, it's cranium that surrounds twitch supporting the brain steady equally stable. That's why we don't smash babies on the head or shake them about, it kills and causes brain damage. Thankfully nanny cams are about in teddy bears ECT. I still suffer from the concussion, I don't receive a dime from insurance though.

Don't worry I will not pursue an eye for an eye nor a tooth for a tooth. Gizmo. Congratulations on your hard work. You won the worst faux plastic pop cycle sicko a goat couldn't quit of gandered, tic tac toe , Larry curly moe, the ring finger queen.

If you don't know what this means clearly it's not for you to read move on. Ty. Love ur bestie. Slip Knott nurses or tuna in the sea? Chicken shit? I like ham okay but my favorite is turkey. F.U. from us both love THE brushers family.

Expand full comment