Save the planet: Stop the Greens

Climate change is a serious problem, but the solutions are a joke


Comment I find myself in an uncomfortable position over this climate change thing. I've no problem with the existence of man-made climate change, no problem with the idea that we ought to do something about it. But what we are actually trying to do about it seems bonkers, counter-productive even. So how did we get into this mess?

To start with I'm entirely happy to accept the output from the IPCC: the globe is warming, it's all us doing it. Perhaps I shouldn't be happy to do so but that's a very different argument. Similarly I'm happy to accept that the possible outcomes are sufficiently terrible that we really ought to do something about it.

Again, perhaps I shouldn't be but just, if you don't accept either of those two, bear with me anyway. For what really confuses me about what's going on is that even if we do accept those two points, what we're actually trying to do about it all doesn't seem to solve the problems identified.

I've argued at length, elsewhere (even in a book), that the very IPCC assumptions about the economy that are used to prove that we do have this climate problem that we must do something about, also show us that globalisation is part of the cure. So why are all those using the existence of climate change to tell us we must change our ways insisting that we must reverse globalization in order to do something about it?

Similarly, we can show that market-based economic systems encourage innovation more than planned economic systems. And we're pretty sure that innovation, new sources of energy and the like, are what we need to beat climate change. So why are so many insisting that we need a planned economic system to beat climate change?

But that's matters general. We've had, just recently, a number of bits and pieces which show that the solutions which are being pushed on us aren't quite what we really want. They seem to come more from some ideological playbook that I've not as yet read.

Take for example the Muir Trust's recent report on wind power. The takeaway point from this is that it simply doesn't work at any large fraction of the energy supply system. Put to one side the costs, the efficiencies, and consider the variability. It's well-known that peak power demands in the UK come on cold winter's days.

Yet just such cold winter's days are associated with high pressure areas over the UK: they themselves meaning no wind. So we seem to be spending a huge amount on an electricity supply system that will provide no electricity just when that's what we want: electricity. And yes, this "no wind" can and does go far enough that every single damn windmill in the entire combined Kingdom produces no power at all at times. In fact, they can consume power as a system, power needed to keep them ready to go when the wind does pick up.

Why so many windmill windbags?

Thus, in the absence of a storage system, populating the country with windmills just won't work. So why are we doing it?

On the other hand, we've also just been told that there's vastly more natural gas around than we thought there was. This shale gas thing. Now that will work: natural gas is lower in emissions than coal (higher than hydro, wind or solar of course), we can build the plants quickly, it's a domestic fuel, it hits pretty much all the right buttons.

Further, it will actually work, work in the sense of providing us with the power we need and desire when we actually need and desire it. But I'm actually seeing people arguing that we can't shouldn't use gas because it will stop us from investing in windmills. Which, when you think about it, is probably true: building something that works will indeed prevent us from building something that doesn't.

But why is there this huge attachment to something, windmills, that isn't going to work?

Similar topics

Broader topics


Other stories you might like

  • Corporate investments are a massive hidden source of carbon emissions
    Just because companies are publicly decreasing carbon footprints doesn't mean their cash isn't doing the opposite

    Many large corporations are taking measures to reduce their carbon footprints, but a new report claims that for some, the greatest source of emissions is actually from investments being made with their wealth, and this is undermining their own environmental efforts.

    The Carbon Bankroll report highlights the documented carbon dioxide emissions of a number of large corporations and contrasts these with pollutants being generated as a result of the cash and investments held by those companies, comprising cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities.

    In some instances, this figure is greater than the emissions generated by their own business, demonstrating, in the words of the report, that "climate accomplishments are being undermined by a misaligned financial system that is channeling hundreds of billions of corporate US dollars into the carbon-intensive sectors driving the climate crisis."

    Continue reading
  • Amazon's solution to save the planet: AWS vouchers, training for more eco startups
    Web giant is used to seeing green

    Amazon is giving out funding and support to more startups developing technology that points us in the direct of net-zero emissions, as part of its AWS Clean Energy Accelerator program.

    The accelerator will provide 12 eco-minded companies with guidance on how to get more out of the AWS cloud, by training their employees on machine learning, analytics, and high-performance computing. Each startup will also get up to $100,000 in AWS Activate credits, double what was offered to the program's first cohort of ten startups announced in July 2021.

    Howard Gefen, GM of AWS' energy industry business unit, said in a canned statement that despite climate change being the defining issue of our age, the technology needed to achieve today's grand environmental goals isn't there. The Clean Energy Accelerator program is supposed to help foster the development of this green tech we're lacking.

    Continue reading
  • What will help enterprises meet sustainability goals? Algorithms, says Oracle
    If you want to retain customers, Big Red recommends putting AI in charge

    The pandemic has made people more concerned about sustainability than ever, and businesses are the focuses of their collective ire, with most saying they don't take enterprise sustainability goals (ESGs) seriously. The solution, Oracle says, is to put AIs in charge.

    Oracle's 2022 ESG Global Study surveyed some 11,000 consumers and businesses, and its findings reveal a population overwhelmingly frustrated with a lack of progress toward sustainability initiatives (94 percent). Seventy-eight percent also say that they're frustrated with the lack of progress businesses have made on the ESG front.

    Consumers aren't content to let businesses pat themselves on the back either: nearly half said that they believe businesses have more power than individuals or governments to affect change, and 89 percent said they need to see proof that progress is being made toward ESG goals.

    Continue reading
  • Climate model code is so outdated, MIT starts from scratch
    Julia replaces Fortran as the basis for Earth's new digital twin

    When faced with climate models coded in Fortran in the 1960s and 70s, MIT decided there wasn't any more cobbling together left for the ancient code, so they decided to toss it out and start fresh. 

    It's an ambitious project for MIT professors Raffaele Ferrari and Noelle Eckley Selin, who submitted their Bringing Computation to the Climate Challenge proposal as part of MIT's Climate Grand Challenges (CGC). Out of 100 submissions, MIT picked five projects to fund and support, one of which is Ferrari and Selin's. 

    "The goal of this grand challenge is to provide accurate and actionable scientific information to decision-makers to inform the most effective mitigation and adaptation strategies," the proposal said. 

    Continue reading
  • Swedish firms ink deal to make green hydrogen with wind power
    Last week, colocating datacenters and sewage plants: this week, renewables and H2 producers

    A project to produce green hydrogen using wind power is planned in the mid-east of Sweden, which is expected to have the ability to make up to 240 tons of the stuff on-site every day.

    However, work on the proposed facility is not expected to begin until 2025, and it may not be operational until 2030.

    The project is described as a partnership between wind farm operator WPD Offshore AB and Lhyfe, a green hydrogen producer. The pair said they intend to jointly install a 600MW hydrogen production plant in an industrial area of the municipality of Söderhamm, in the immediate vicinity of the Storgrundet offshore wind farm operated by WPD, to produce green hydrogen that can be used by industry as well as in the transport sector.

    Continue reading
  • Microsoft datacenter to heat homes in Finland
    Turns out the internet is a set of tubes after all

    Microsoft and Finland's largest energy company have partnered to build a new datacenter near Helsinki that will heat homes as it cools servers.

    Microsoft and Fortum made the announcement today after several years of development, with the final location chosen specifically for the purpose of moving waste datacenter heat via existing water pipes to homes and businesses in the surrounding cities of Espoo and Kauniainen, as well as the municipality of Kirkkonummi.

    According to Microsoft, the datacenter could create up to 11,000 jobs, with its purpose being to provide cloud services to the Finnish public sector, businesses, and individuals, as well as reduce response times for local cloud customers. The facility will be part of Microsoft's global cloud complex of more than 200 datacenters.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022