The one and only solution

Continuing from previous post in which I described the start of a television news item on the modeled impacts of future weather on Europe. After that introduction, an expert was brought up to explain the paper a bit more, in this case Serge De Gheldere. As far as I know, he is an engineer (specialized in material technology and product design) who got his climate training from no one less than Al Gore, so I was a bit puzzled what his expertise was concerning this specific paper.

He first explained the outcome of the paper (translated from Dutch):

The heat is clearly the effect that will make the majority of victims. Flooding by rivers, by sea, but also by forest fires and extreme weather, storms etc.

Again that certainty of something that results from a complex, chaotic system, based on a lot of assumptions and projected fifty to eighty years in the future…

According to the study of the European Commission, a tad more than 99% of the risk could come from heat waves, but I am not really sure though whether the public would understand that this second array of scary extreme events only has a risk of less than 0.5% to make victims. If one hasn’t read the paper, it would not be clear from that broken second sentence that it doesn’t relate to the first one.

The expert then cranked it up a notch:

In addition to the weather-related aspects there is the danger of failed harvests, for example, by the heat, by water scarcity. We can look at new types of viruses that are going to thrive and insects etc. And all this is likely to lead to conflict, because people are going to move, going to look for the places where the life is still good.

As far as I can see, these were not described in the paper. Already after the first sentence, improvisation starts. Only negative things of course. Climate change (whether caused by natural variation, by humans or by both) is a complex issue and most probably there will be winners as well as losers, yet we are told that there will only be losers in the case of climate change.

Then the journalist took over, saying that it would be Southern Europe that will be affected most, but hey, we will get our share too:

Southern Europe would be most severely affected by extreme weather, but also deaths could rise spectacular with us.

There is a sprinkle of hope though:

The study starts from the assumption that no measures will be taken, but we can do something.

Aha, we can do something. Now it get interesting. This is the solution as proposed by the expert:

The beauty is that if we manage to move away from fossil fuels, here in Flanders and Europe and the world, that we actually will have a better kind of life, that we do not pay more for our energy, better houses, no particulates. That is actually something we want anyway.

It is as simple as that! We just have to move away from a reliable, high density energy source that is the life blood of our current economy to an intermittent, low density energy source that needs backup, and all will just be fine again. I have no problem with better housing, less particulates and so on, but he seems to forget that there will be a host of issues before we get there. This is an overly rosy view of the reality of transitioning to intermittent energy sources that require some expensive technologies (energy storage) or drastic changes in how/when people use energy.

Therefor I a not really sure what he meant with “do not pay more for our energy”. In Dutch, this construction can have two different meanings: “don’t have to pay anymore for our energy” or “don’t have to pay more for our energy”. Initially, I assumed the first. In combination with what follows (better homes), I assumed he was talking about passive houses with limited heating needs. However, it is more likely that he meant that we don’t need to pay extra for our energy. Anyhow, I think they are both examples of wishful thinking.

In the end, it is the usual story that we get from our media. On the one hand, climate change is proposed to only have negative consequences. On the other hand, the solution is straight forward and is positive for everyone involved. It is even our desire to go there and it will not cost us more. Therefor it seems the ideal solution. But this solution is only ideal because the expert focuses solely on the negative aspects of climate change and contrasts this with only the positive aspects of the solution.

Sadly, that is the current normal in climate communication.

2 thoughts on “The one and only solution

  1. poitsplace

    It’s like that cartoon where they say “What if it’s a hoax and we make the world better for nothing”

    only you look at the list…

    Energy Independence
    Preserve Rain Forests
    Sustainability
    Green Jobs
    Livable cities
    Renewables
    Clean Water, Air
    Healthy children
    etc, etc

    But once you really start to think about it, you realize it’s nothing like it’s billed…it’s just unsupported bullet points. Some we already have. Some make no sense. Some are literally the polar opposite end of the spectrum from what their suggested paths would produce.

    As with your author, it’s all ideology little attempt made to connect the dots..like when people used to say “hydrogen” with no thought given to the fact that you still needed all the energy to make the hydrogen.

    Like

    Reply
  2. manicbeancounter

    Looking at the negatives reminds me of a pre-release of an AR5 global warming impacts graph back in 2011. For Northern Europe there are two positive impacts – increased water supply and increased wheat yields. They forgot to mention that increased average temperatures can be a bonus as well.
    https://manicbeancounter.com/2011/10/03/climate-change-impacts-in-ar5-%E2%80%93-it-is-better-than-we-thought/

    I also find a huge problem with cutting greenhouse gas emissions as the only policy. This policy is highly indirect, relying for success on the vast majority of countries drastically reducing their emissions, despite those covering at least 3/4 of the global population having no commitment to even stop emissions growth. A more robust method is to get the climate experts to narrow down the “when”, “where”, “type” and “magnitude” of impacts. Instead, the climate activists seem to make scary prophecies to grab some headlines, then bury the news when they do not come true.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s