World Renowned Environmentalist comes clean

I'm sorry, this guy is a self-proclaimed expert. Not exactly a peer reviewed science guy. Also, a huge difference between calling himself an environmentalist (whatever the hell that is) v. a scientist.

Failing to take action on climate change has to be the dumbest experiment in human history. There's no do-over. There is Mars though.....

Far from self-proclaimed if you bother to read about him. Moreover, he is doing anything but suggesting inaction on climate change, again, if you’d bother to hear him out. He’s talking to the experts, quoting from multiple peer reviewed internationally recognized scientific studies and government reports. In other words, he is the polar opposite of people like AOC and organizations like Extinction Rebellion. Unfortunately the grossly uniformed extremists have so thoroughly dominated the conversation for so long that even otherwise intelligent minds are closed and locked on the subject.

The book is excellent IMO. For me it dragged a bit in the middle but overall he covers the subject well and makes some very convincing points. He explains a lot of relevant history and the people who shaped the narrative back in the 70s including some dubious motives and conflicts of interest, and makes a convincing argument that the movement took a wrong term back then and has gone completely off the rails recently. He’s still a concerned ecologist and in no way denies climate change, but he makes the case that people have been badly misled about how best to deal with the problem and the urgency and consequences of not taking those drastic measures now.

I very strongly recommend this book to everyone. Whatever your position on the subject, or lack of one, I’m betting it will be at least somewhat altered by this book. That’s an impressive accomplishment.

https://climatefeedb...climate-change/

 

 

scientist opinion about this article 

"Shellenberger also falls into the trap of seeing a single technology (nuclear) as the one true solution to climate change, and mistakenly sees denigrating other clean energy technologies as the best way to promote it. The real world involves messy trade-offs and uncertainties, and decarbonization will involve a range of different technological solutions across industries and geographies rather than a single panacea."

 

Shellenberger's pro-nuclear stance really bothered me for this reason. No one, I mean NO ONE wants nuclear waste stored in their backyard so where does it go? 

"Shellenberger also falls into the trap of seeing a single technology (nuclear) as the one true solution to climate change, and mistakenly sees denigrating other clean energy technologies as the best way to promote it. The real world involves messy trade-offs and uncertainties, and decarbonization will involve a range of different technological solutions across industries and geographies rather than a single panacea."

Shellenberger's pro-nuclear stance really bothered me for this reason. No one, I mean NO ONE wants nuclear waste stored in their backyard so where does it go?

How much do you know about nuclear waste? How much space would be required if it could be made safe to your standard? What are the tradeoffs to eliminate nuclear? Can you really have an unwavering opinion without those and other answers? I think not. Did you read his views on any of those or is your mind made up?

https://climatefeedb...climate-change/


scientist opinion about this article

If all they read was the article then obviously they will say he’s simplifying and cherry-picking sine they come from a much lengthier book. I’ll read their opinions anyway, but it’s already a bit amusing since a large part of his complaint about the radical eco crowd is that they have been fed a bunch of carefully picked and frequently distorted cherries then run around screaming and preaching as if they had conducted their own research and have indisputable facts. Parrot-to-parrot transmission is rampant!

I double down on my post #3 above, especially if the guy is selling books. Who would ever prostitute their values and opinions for money, Lol.

Well, as expected they read only the article and then in many cases did exactly what they were accusing him of. What makes most of them less credible than they say he is, is the fact that they show no interest in picking apart the COUNTLESS and ongoing misrepresentations, exaggerations and outright lies from extremists the way they try to discredit him. Again and again their own words make it clear that if he is somewhat understating the impact or degree of something, the people he is criticizing are at least as guilty and the headline-hungry media further cherry picks and inflates from there. Have you even seen any of them even pretend to factor in things like continuous clearing and building of new homes in vulnerable areas (whether fire, flood, hurricanes, tornadoes)? Of course not because that would blunt their numbers and draw less media coverage. I live in hurricane alley and see the same BS all the time.

I’m not saying take everything he says as fact. Even some of the opinions in the linked article don’t agree on everything, but there’s a lot more to his book than the bullet points they purport to pick apart, including a lot of history behind the hysteria. And again, he’s not a climate change denier, he just thinks the hype has gone too far thanks to a relative minority of extremists who have succeeded in driving us away from nuclear energy entirely and toward ill-conceived unsustainable solutions. If these guys are so sure of themselves, let’s see their math proving that it makes ecological sense (land usage in particular) to try moving entirely away from nukes and fossil fuels. That’s a big part of the message. Likewise let’s see them refute his arguments about developing countries and how they can best climb the ladder. Can they really leapfrog on energy the way they might something like communications? He says not and makes his case, another big part of the book. But here’s the most important thing, if you choose to dismiss EVERYTHING of his that these few scientists (almost by definition myopic) are disputing from a brief article, the core of his arguments still stand and the critical conclusions are the SAME. But, the simple truth is that most people’s minds are already closed whether they admit it to themselves or not, so his efforts were a complete waste of time. I’ll bet you right now that a lot of his core points will prove true over time, but I’m confident that there will be creative ways to explain them away and blame someone else for the waste and failures along the way.

What if he's the extremist attempting to pose as a rational scientist?

How much do you know about nuclear waste? How much space would be required if it could be made safe to your standard? What are the tradeoffs to eliminate nuclear? Can you really have an unwavering opinion without those and other answers? I think not. Did you read his views on any of those or is your mind made up?

Radioactive decay is measured in 1,000's of years. Most SNF waste is currently stored at existing or non-operational generation plant's interim storage. There really is no long term storage plan in the USA. Yucca Mountain, NV has been discussed but is not the final answer, neither is the WIPP site in Carlsbad, NM. I'm not opposed to Nuclear as part of an entire comprehensive energy plan, but going single source is never a good plan.The last new plant to come online was in 2016 in Tennessee, before that was in 1996. I work in Energy Steve. I have an informed opinion. I have dealt directly with the NRC on several occasions. They are almost as bad as dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation and just as backwards. https://fas.org/sgp/...uke/IF11201.pdf

Radioactive decay is measured in 1,000's of years. Most SNF waste is currently stored at existing or non-operational generation plant's interim storage. There really is no long term storage plan in the USA. Yucca Mountain, NV has been discussed but is not the final answer, neither is the WIPP site in Carlsbad, NM. I'm not opposed to Nuclear as part of an entire comprehensive energy plan, but going single source is never a good plan.The last new plant to come online was in 2016 in Tennessee, before that was in 1996. I work in Energy Steve. I have an informed opinion. I have dealt directly with the NRC on several occasions. They are almost as bad as dealing with the Bureau of Reclamation and just as backwards. https://fas.org/sgp/...uke/IF11201.pdf

Good! You are surely in a tiny minority of people who know anything beyond what they hear from their favorite celebrity and news outlet. Although “I work in Energy” isn’t very specific, are you the Energizer Bunny when not at home?

I don’t recall anything about wanting nukes, or anything else, as a single source of energy, so why inject that as if someone has proposed it? Counterproductive.

Of COURSE there’s no comprehensive plan for dealing with nuclear waste, nukes have been in the crosshairs for decades and anything that suggests support for it of any kind is socially verboten. Meanwhile people seem willing to pour endless sums of public money into almost anything “green” on the chance that it will pan out, perhaps it’s time to lift the artificial stigma off nukes and take a modern look at what is by FAR, by multiple orders of magnitude, the most resource efficient means of generating clean power. At least give it a fair shake. Yes there are issues but few, very very few of the people dead set against nukes have even the slightest understanding of them or the real risks and benefits compared to alternatives on a scale required to eliminate them and fossil fuels. We need a very small but very safe place for nuclear waste. Do you know what percentage of available land would be required to replace them and fossil fuels with wind and solar farms? Any idea what all the environmental impacts of that would be, how long they last and what we do with endless square miles of those when they need replacing? You will NEVER hear those little problems mentioned by zealots because most don’t know or want to know. It seems almost incomprehensible to me that a large and growing number of people can place the environment and therefore energy production at the top of their global crisis list and yet dismiss without hesitation the one source of “clean energy” about which we actually know the most and which massively outperforms every other known option in its greenness.

It’s way past time to set aside the scare tactics of the ‘70s and ‘80s, separate facts from hype regarding prior accidents so productive lessons can be learned and acted on, and at least allow those genuine experts still willing to be heard supporting nuclear energy to present it as a fully vetted option alongside the rest as a major part of a truly sustainable green energy plan.