I had fun trying to figure out how to replicate the "4 line" spreadsheet. Actually, I have 5 columns with the year in the first column, then Economy, Energy, Clean%, Fossil%. If I did it right, I have fossil energy going to zero in 2058, when the economy is 2.92 times its current size and energy demand is 1.922 times present. That is an informative way to look at our climate and energy prospects.
I think I got one wrinkle wrong. I assigned all of the 5% growth in energy demand to clean energy. Perhaps a portion of it, say 20% at first, should go to fossil. Trying to adjust for that pushes the year for zero fossil fuel use to 2066.
I spent a decade writing environmental journalism, covering the Ozone Hole, which we solved, and the Toxic waste crisis, which was headed off. At the time there was a consensus among Liberals and true conservatives that the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, would be resolved by a large scale joint effort. Then Dick Cheney happened. Mr. Liebreich says some very encouraging and interesting things about long term energy transition. He also seems to lack even the most basic understanding of ecological processes. One example, Coral reefs are important carbons sinks. They could all be gone in 10 years. We do not have until 2100. At the end of the day he is just a more evolved version of a corporate conservative arguing that as long as none of the wealthy and powerful are made uncomfortable, all will be well. All is not well and has not been well for quite some time. Framing anyone who tells the truth as a radical is a good tactic to make sure you have access to board rooms and capital, but it is becoming a tired tactic at this point.
It's demoralizing when someone articulate says so many things I believe are crazy. Thanks for being there, David. About a third of the way in, I'd scroll Michael and read David Roberts.
Given the speed at which things move, reducing fossil fuels to 0ish in 30 years seems fast. It takes 10 years to open a new bus line in Seattle on roads that already exist.
I would like to know the source of the figure of $200/yr to heat a house in Calgary.
How sad that someone as knowledgeable about climate as Michael Liebreich is so politically naive. Pragmatism is just another name for capitulation when the world’s largest economy is being run by fascists.
Not a very uplifting and informative exchange. Liebreich came off as very arrogant and fully engaged in 'broadcast only' mode. I must admit, I had never heard of him before reading this interview. I was most surprised that he advertises himself as a "... an acknowledged thought leader on clean energy..." He must be kidding...
I had a hard time listening to this one. Liebreich's arrogance was just too much. As someone else mention he seems oblivious to the emergency we're in. He also doesn't seem to realize people like him, who've been running things, have completely failed to address this issue.
Lots of good points by both. I'm not sure how the wind-solar-storage-efficiency-electrification message gets back on top in the USA. Dr. Volts is definitely trying. Now the fossil fuel folks are unleashing RFK & MAHA moms against offshore wind and batteries, and LEDs and maybe soon electrification in general. Whales, EMFs, blue light!
Many in the legacy preservation/conservation-centric part of the climate movement are still conflicted about solar and wind farms and lithium, OMG LITHIUM! I thought some gal at a meeting was going to spit on me when I mentioned "abundance." An "abundance of concrete" they counter.
I agree with ML that 1.5C was probably never achievable. But we really need to try to meet 2C and small change; in the last few years, one alarming tipping point may have been passed. The biosphere appears to be absorbing less of our FF CO2 emissions because heat has reduced photosynthesis more that CO2 is "fertilizing" it. So atmospheric CO2 is growing as fast as ever, even if FF emissions are growing less fast than the record rates over the last 20 years. Then there is the Gulf Stream...
I can't help but mention there is this boutique selling LEDs that emit less blue light than any fluorescent and most incandescent bulbs known as Home Depot. 😄
Michael's points on messaging that are, on the face of it, valid, namely that people who are inconvenienced by climate actions or rhetoric are unlikely to be won over.
But David is right when he reminds us that the extremely effective propaganda machine controlled by the wrong right and the polluters will twist anything that climate or ElectroTech proponents say into something objectionable. Propaganda works, and we underestimate it at our peril.
Perhaps an emerging campaign by Sierra Club and 350 can help here, they're proposing to fight for a Climate Superfund under the headline: Make Polluters Pay. To me, that sounds like something anyyone who pays their city's garbage and waste water fees can easily understand and get behind.
I had fun trying to figure out how to replicate the "4 line" spreadsheet. Actually, I have 5 columns with the year in the first column, then Economy, Energy, Clean%, Fossil%. If I did it right, I have fossil energy going to zero in 2058, when the economy is 2.92 times its current size and energy demand is 1.922 times present. That is an informative way to look at our climate and energy prospects.
I think I got one wrinkle wrong. I assigned all of the 5% growth in energy demand to clean energy. Perhaps a portion of it, say 20% at first, should go to fossil. Trying to adjust for that pushes the year for zero fossil fuel use to 2066.
I spent a decade writing environmental journalism, covering the Ozone Hole, which we solved, and the Toxic waste crisis, which was headed off. At the time there was a consensus among Liberals and true conservatives that the greenhouse effect, as it was then called, would be resolved by a large scale joint effort. Then Dick Cheney happened. Mr. Liebreich says some very encouraging and interesting things about long term energy transition. He also seems to lack even the most basic understanding of ecological processes. One example, Coral reefs are important carbons sinks. They could all be gone in 10 years. We do not have until 2100. At the end of the day he is just a more evolved version of a corporate conservative arguing that as long as none of the wealthy and powerful are made uncomfortable, all will be well. All is not well and has not been well for quite some time. Framing anyone who tells the truth as a radical is a good tactic to make sure you have access to board rooms and capital, but it is becoming a tired tactic at this point.
It's demoralizing when someone articulate says so many things I believe are crazy. Thanks for being there, David. About a third of the way in, I'd scroll Michael and read David Roberts.
Given the speed at which things move, reducing fossil fuels to 0ish in 30 years seems fast. It takes 10 years to open a new bus line in Seattle on roads that already exist.
I would like to know the source of the figure of $200/yr to heat a house in Calgary.
Without a line for global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, Liebreich's spreadsheet is meaningless.
How sad that someone as knowledgeable about climate as Michael Liebreich is so politically naive. Pragmatism is just another name for capitulation when the world’s largest economy is being run by fascists.
Not a very uplifting and informative exchange. Liebreich came off as very arrogant and fully engaged in 'broadcast only' mode. I must admit, I had never heard of him before reading this interview. I was most surprised that he advertises himself as a "... an acknowledged thought leader on clean energy..." He must be kidding...
I had a hard time listening to this one. Liebreich's arrogance was just too much. As someone else mention he seems oblivious to the emergency we're in. He also doesn't seem to realize people like him, who've been running things, have completely failed to address this issue.
Lots of good points by both. I'm not sure how the wind-solar-storage-efficiency-electrification message gets back on top in the USA. Dr. Volts is definitely trying. Now the fossil fuel folks are unleashing RFK & MAHA moms against offshore wind and batteries, and LEDs and maybe soon electrification in general. Whales, EMFs, blue light!
Many in the legacy preservation/conservation-centric part of the climate movement are still conflicted about solar and wind farms and lithium, OMG LITHIUM! I thought some gal at a meeting was going to spit on me when I mentioned "abundance." An "abundance of concrete" they counter.
I agree with ML that 1.5C was probably never achievable. But we really need to try to meet 2C and small change; in the last few years, one alarming tipping point may have been passed. The biosphere appears to be absorbing less of our FF CO2 emissions because heat has reduced photosynthesis more that CO2 is "fertilizing" it. So atmospheric CO2 is growing as fast as ever, even if FF emissions are growing less fast than the record rates over the last 20 years. Then there is the Gulf Stream...
I can't help but mention there is this boutique selling LEDs that emit less blue light than any fluorescent and most incandescent bulbs known as Home Depot. 😄
Michael's points on messaging that are, on the face of it, valid, namely that people who are inconvenienced by climate actions or rhetoric are unlikely to be won over.
But David is right when he reminds us that the extremely effective propaganda machine controlled by the wrong right and the polluters will twist anything that climate or ElectroTech proponents say into something objectionable. Propaganda works, and we underestimate it at our peril.
Perhaps an emerging campaign by Sierra Club and 350 can help here, they're proposing to fight for a Climate Superfund under the headline: Make Polluters Pay. To me, that sounds like something anyyone who pays their city's garbage and waste water fees can easily understand and get behind.