How Writing About Climate Has Changed My Views — One Year Later
It is best to listen and learn
Have you changed your views in the last year? If not, why not? The world is changing. Each of us is learning—or we should be. Above all, we need to keep looking for how and where we can have the biggest positive impact. Here’s how my understandings changed.
And if you value this publication, please subscribe for free or paid, and share the article with anyone you think will learn from or consider it.
The poet Robert Bly once said that writing is a way of educating yourself in public. Boy was he right. Like many, I started my journey of writing regularly on climate change thinking I had the answers. A year later, answers are hard to come by, but I sure have a lot more questions! Readers have challenged me, asked good questions, and pointed out realities I didn’t know but later confirmed. And as all that unfolded, my understanding changed and so did my views. Here’s a summary of the highlights, with many thanks to the commenters who helped reshape some of my thinking.
Carbon Footprint — I Now See It as a Distraction
Like many in the climate change world, I came into this focused on my carbon footprint and my own impact, even though I doubted from the outset that personal changes could ever be enough to solve climate change. Learning that IPCC says we need to reduce overall GHG emissions by 76% to hit the targets, my position has hardened on personal lifestyle changes. People will never reduce their lifestyles in sufficient quantity for that to work. Ten percent, maybe. Twenty percent would be a reach. As I’ve said, we still need to eat, heat homes, and get to work. Seventy-six percent is just unrealistic.
Whether it was meant to or not (and there is a lot of argument over this), carbon footprint effectively shifted the debate to each person and away from truly systemic changes. It got all of us to take responsibility for living in a system we did not create and diverted attention from where the real change needs to be — on the system. Which system? The fossil-fuel-driven energy system. Millions of climate activists spend more time thinking about their carbon footprint than they do systemic change. They blame themselves more than they work to change the system. This is a travesty. And it won’t work.
So I have shifted my focus even more to the systemic issues we must address. No, I’m not necessarily talking about the overthrow of capitalism. I’m certainly not talking about degrowth. Rather than counting my carbon footprint, I am urging people to shift to focusing their best energy on finding solutions. Creativity. Innovation. That is what we need. Batteries, better solar panels and wind turbines, electric everything, and given the system we have, huge facilities generating and storing electricity. I see no other path.
Nuclear — It Is Now Necessary
I have always opposed nuclear energy because of the waste, which we don’t know how to handle, and the fact that technical systems always find a way to fail eventually. But I have grudgingly accepted the necessity of nuclear energy, at least until we have ways of storing excess energy produced by solar and wind. The energy produced by solar needs an overnight storage solution so that people can generate the energy they need during the day and use it at night. Wind energy doesn’t follow the same rhythm as solar’s day, but it also has short-term storage needs. Rechargeable batteries at scale will eventually solve these challenges.
Perhaps an even bigger challenge is seasonal production fluctuations. At 45 degrees north latitude, which runs through the northern states like Minnesota, Washington, and Maine, summer production of solar energy can outpace winter production by 3:1 or even 4:1. In today’s world, summer demand is often higher because of AC usage, but as more and more energy needs are served by electrification, including home and business heating, macro level demand is likely to even out. The problem is that relatively even demand with highly fluctuating supply poses serious risks to the grid. To function properly, the grid needs a steady supply, and if the grid doesn’t function correctly, the whole transition to electric power is doomed. And that means decarbonization fails and the climate solution we need never materializes.
So, why nuclear? Because today, the steady supply the grid needs is provided by coal and natural gas. As those go away, we need another steady, controllable source. Wind and solar can’t provide that today, but nuclear can. At least until the short-term and seasonal storage issues are solved, nuclear will have to be part of the mix. It has its dangers, but it has no emissions.
Solar, Wind, and Batteries — With an Emphasis on Batteries
Coming into this writing project, I believed we can do everything we need to accomplish with solar and wind power and would do it eventually. Technology is improving rapidly, including perovskite panels. I still believe that is the way of the future, but it is going to take longer than I expected. The primary reason is what I mentioned in the previous section — storage solutions are simply not there yet. Even though Texas is now producing 40% of its electricity with wind power, it still can’t store enough of that power. No one can. We simply don’t have the technology yet.
There is great research going on in this area, and when the breakthrough comes, it will change the game. Naysayers focus on the need for lithium, cobalt, and similar materials, the destructive mining and social costs that will come from that, and so on. Using present technology, they are correct to identify those shortcomings, even though answers on lithium are coming. But batteries are now being made from all kinds of new materials, including some from seawater. One comes from radioactive waste. Denmark is experimenting with hydrogen as a storage methodology. In some places, electricity is stored in giant reservoirs by pumping water up into the reservoir at high production times, and then releasing the water to generate electricity at low production times. People are getting creative, and while not all of these approaches can work everywhere, solutions are coming.
I have continued faith in these solutions, but I am not sure they will come fast enough. In 2017, many people were saying we would see the streets filled with self-driving cars by 2022. Well, not so much. This month’s hyped nuclear fusion breakthrough led some to speculate it could be commercialized within ten years. Highly doubtful. Similarly rosy pictures danced in my head about solar when I started writing on climate, but these years have shown that new technologies take time. They need time to develop, improve, and commercialize. And then they still need to become ubiquitous. So, plan for that time.
On the other hand, solar and wind power have seen radically reduced construction costs in the last few years. It is now less expensive to build a new solar or wind-generating system than it is to build a new coal plant. We can generate electricity at a lower cost per MWH with solar and wind than we can with coal. New wind and solar projects are far outpacing fossil fuel electric projects, and that is a very good thing. But that also means that we will run up against a limit in the usefulness of these projects unless we can solve the battery challenge. I now put the battery and storage challenge as the single most important technology needed to solve climate change and reach net zero emissions.
Consumption and Degrowth — They Have a Role to Play
So far, I have encountered no persuasive argument for the notion that we can reduce our way out of climate change. Reduce consumption, degrow the economy, overturn capitalism, and go back to walking barefoot from cave to cave…(Ok, that’s a little tongue-in-cheek, but it almost goes there). The discussion has yielded many shouts, many assertions, and tons of self-righteousness. I might be able to buy it if we were talking about a 10–20% cutback in modern lifestyles. But everyone seems to agree that a cutback in consumption of that size would not be enough. IPCC says we need to cut emissions by 76%, and I am quite certain we will not do that by cutting consumption by 20%. That math just doesn’t work.
So one is left with one of two options. Either you admit that consumption reduction alone is insufficient and new technology will play an enormous part, or you are facing an effort to get the entire planet — or at least the entirety of the industrialized world — to cut consumption by 76% to get there. Given that 25% of Americans don’t even believe climate change is real, the notion that you will get them all to voluntarily make such a reduction to stop climate change is ridiculous. Plus, no one offers a program on how to get there fast. Some say, “Take mass transit,” which is not a bad idea, but that would require a massive buildout over decades to give people a lifestyle they don’t even want.
For my part, the first option is the way to go — we have to admit that without advancing technology, we are not going to make it on emissions reductions. What has changed for me is that I see some utility in reducing consumption now because, as TJ Brearton said, every fraction of a degree of global warming counts. And if you can help hold it off by reduced consumption, do it. I agree with this.
I still believe that the reduction consumption mantra is a major distraction. It has way too many people who could get involved and make a real difference standing in a corner and not engaging to create the solutions we need. One older man I met could not get over his shame for having flown around the world as a renowned scientist years ago to give speeches and presentations on important research findings. I don’t want inventors, engineers, marketers of real solutions, and great thinkers focused on counting their carbon footprints like they were personal calories. No! I want them to do all they can to solve climate change. I want their brilliance, creativity, ingenuity, and commitment. We need them. If you are one of them, we need YOU!
Carbon Extraction — It Is Probably Necessary If We Can Do It
Like many people, I have been dubious about carbon extraction — any technology that could extract carbon from the atmosphere. The concern has always been that if we can do that, it would give a pass to the fossil fuel industry and end the transition to renewables. Two things have occurred to change my mind.
First, the aforementioned reduction in the cost of renewables makes them financially competitive, so we can rely on the financial incentives to push the transition rather than being forced to do so “or else!” by climate change. The fossil fuel industry will no longer be competitive no matter how this new technology of carbon extraction is financed, and it will be especially uncompetitive if the industry is forced to do so. In the end, I don’t believe that carbon extraction will provide the free pass to the fossil fuel industry many have feared.
Second, the climate situation appears increasingly dire. 2022’s dried-up rivers and reservoirs, the fires and heat domes, the incredible flood in Pakistan, and so many other outside-the-norm weather events suggest that we are in an urgent situation. At the same time, daily life cannot wane. We are still operating on fossil fuels because it is the only way we know. The switchover to EVs, renewables, electrified renewable homes, and electrified renewable industry is going to take decades. The development of clean cement and clean steel are even further down the timeline. All the while, GHG — especially carbon — are accumulating.
I have come to view carbon extraction, therefore, as a very necessary emergency measure, if we can do it. There appear to be many nascent or in-development technologies, and as a stop-gap measure, deploying them could be a game changer. It could buy us enough time to finish the other technological advances, lifestyle changes, and consumption reduction targets to get us to net zero. Anything that will buy the time we need is good at this point.
No Purity — We Need All the Answers
Finally, I am aware that the most thoughtful people on climate change have one thing in common — no purity. We all recognize that we need all strategies deployed to get where the world needs to be. This battle to prevent a climate catastrophe is the defining issue of our time. In the 1940s, the only thing that mattered to most of the world was the defeat of Nazism and the Axis nations. Everything was committed to it. We changed the factory labor force so more men could be sent to fight; women took over until the men came back. People planted victory gardens to enable rationing and ensure providing for the troops. There were many sacrifices everywhere you looked. WWII defined the twentieth century for a couple of generations.
We face the same thing now with the climate catastrophe. The entire world needs to face this reality. Our systems need to change, how we do business must change, and our technology must change. We can’t do this through a single approach. Yes, individuals and businesses should reduce their carbon footprints, but that is not enough. Yes, we need new technology to produce energy, but that is not enough. Yes, we need to electrify our homes and businesses, but that is not enough. Yes, we need to extract carbon from the atmosphere if we can, but that is not enough. Instead of landing on a favored approach, we need it all. And we probably need to pray, too.
Anthony Signorelli
Jobs that Matter
Today, there are 1,756 open jobs for solar electricians on Indeed.com. That means the work to transition the American economy is not happening at the rate it could be because there aren’t people in the jobs. Every open job means that work we could be doing to transition is not happening because there is no one to do it. Think about it. Yes, you could make a difference by biking to work instead of commuting in your car or truck. Or, you could add your energy to transitioning our economy to a better way of doing things. Which do you think will matter most?
Congratulations! However: Rethink your position on nuclear. Read my blog sustainablestrategies.substack.com. Nuclear is a helplessly outdated technology.