Can We Talk? (A Climate Debate Review)
In The Ring - September 23rd, 2022
“If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance.” -Orville Wright
Image: Shutterstock
The title of this week’s Haymaker introduction is such a simple question and should have a quickly affirmative response. Yet, in today’s America, the answer is increasingly “No!” (Unless, that is, the person answering this question is a member of the same political tribe as the asker.)
To me, this is one of the greatest challenges we face as a country. We’ve quit talking to those who don’t share our core beliefs and no area is more emblematic of that than climate change. Fortunately, there are exceptions, and the ReasonTV Soho Forum climate debate between Dr. Steven E. Koonin and Dr. Andy Dessler, is such an example. It’s a crucial topic with civilization-wide implications, no matter which side is right. This is why I wanted to share some thoughts here and point you to the debate to hear for yourselves what these remarkable thinkers have to say on this sometimes-confounding line of public discourse.
A quick upfront note: this introduction and the select quotes below are for those Haymaker subscribers who prefer written material to video content. However, I would suggest that, if you’re intrigued by what you read, you check out at least some of the footage.
In Dr. Dessler’s case, he is Professor of Atmospheric Sciences and holder of the Reta A. Haynes Chair in Geoscience at Texas A&M University. He is also the Director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies. As you will soon witness, he is additionally highly articulate — not to mention persuasive. He’s making the case that humanity has caused an existential climate crisis that must be immediately and rapidly addressed.
In a way, Dr. Dessler is updating and reformulating Pascal’s famous “wager” about God’s existence. Simplistically, Pascal thought a rational human should hedge his bets because believing in a Divine Being had little downside if that turned out wrong. On the other hand, if there truly is a God, being on the wrong side of that would have infinitely deleterious consequences. Climate change may not pose that type of eternal risk, but in his mind, and many others, it’s not much lower on the existential ladder.
Dr. Steven Koonin is the former Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy during the Obama Administration. He is also the author of the best-selling book Unsettled which has received glowing endorsements from Jean-Lou Chameau, president emeritus of Cal Tech and Vaclav Smil, distinguished professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba. Professor Smil is also one of Bill Gates favorite climate experts.
Despite their impressive scientific credentials, they have radically different views of climate change and on what should, or should not, be done about it. Frankly, I think that’s great; we desperately need civil and well-reasoned debate on this topic. Far too often, viewpoints inconsistent with our own are immediately dismissed as uncredible or biased.
For those of you who have read Unsettled, you are aware that Dr. Koonin objects to the notion that climate debate is pointless. He vehemently disagrees that the scientific community is virtually unanimous in believing that most climate change is a function of human influences, a viewpoint that is constantly conveyed in the mainstream media.
Conversely, Dr. Dessler is just as adamant that global warming/climate change are anthropogenic. His presentation is one of the most rational and fact-based that I have come across in my many years of studying this intensely emotional discourse.
In full disclosure, I am a fan of Dr. Koonin’s work, so I had to fight my bias, like all human beings, to avoid leaning toward his logic. But I was impressed by Dr. Dessler’s counterpoints.
After you hear out both sides, please share who you think presented the stronger case. Calling it a tie is just fine, too, though the live Soho audience had its own verdict, as you will see.
To reiterate a point often expressed in this newsletter, being on the right side of this issue has significant implications from a portfolio standpoint. Over the last two years, investors who blocked fossil fuel holdings have sacrificed huge returns. Similarly, if they merely stayed with index funds, which have negligible exposure to traditional energy, their returns also were negatively and materially impacted. For example, on an annualized basis, the S&P has returned 5.7% while the main energy ETF has produced a whopping 63.7%, both including dividends.*
*Corrected percentages and timeframe.
Chart: Evergreen via Bloomberg
A relevant addition to this is a chart from Koonin’s Unsettled that is based on raw station data for New York City and West Point, NY, downloaded from Berkeley Earth. It simply shows the temperature changes from 1910 to 2013. As you can see, New York City has experienced a clear warming trend rising, by about 1½ degrees Celsius (over two degrees Fahrenheit). West Point, though, which has remained relatively undeveloped and is only about 40 miles away from NYC, has seen negligible warming, especially since 1930. This speaks to what is known as the Urban Heat Effect that, unfortunately, typically gets scant attention in media reports.
Chart: Koonin
To reflect both sides, a far more commonly displayed chart of U.S. temperature changes is shown below. You may notice the infamous hockey stick in recent decades. Again, feel free to comment on which you think is the more accurate reflection of the warming that has undeniably occurred over the last century. Per the above, The Haymaker is interested in your opinion… but please keep it polite and as fact-based as possible.
Chart: IPCC, sourced via New Scientist
Key Koonin Points
“We have to balance the uncertainties and certainties of climate science against the world’s growing demand for reliable and affordable energy.”
“... immoral for the developed world to deny the developing nations the energy they need…”
“... energy poverty means cooking with wood and dung”
“Large and rapid reductions makes [such policy positions] a techno fantasy…”
“Climate models are deficient”
“The world is warmer, but life has improved since 1900… extreme poverty has plummeted”
Key Dessler Points
“Koonin’s stance that you can't believe this (impact) because of using simulated weather models is very bogus argument. We can if you've used models from re-analyses or actual observations that are quite good.”
“The problem with climate change is it’s irreversible and if he's wrong, we're cooked. With renewable energy, we can just stop doing it if we decide that it's not going the way we want it to.”
“… [China] understand[s] the cheapest energy is solar and they’re cranking out solar power”
“… in 2015, China had 360 gigawatts of [wind and solar] power. In 2020 they had 536 gigawatts, in the next five years, they’re gonna build another 500 gigawatts…”
“If you ask the question, ‘Why [are] oil prices so high?’ Well, one of the reasons is that the companies that lost a tremendous amount of money fracking in the 2010’s, they’re using all of the money they’re getting now - they’re not investing in more drilling… they could… they’re buying back shares and giving it to shareholders in dividends.”
“Unjustified, immoral, and fantastical…” (characterizing the opposition’s argument)
Please add your thoughts to the discussion below. We’re interested in how Haymaker subscribers feel about this important debate.
Mr. Hay, I agree 100% with you that we need courteous, open debate on these topics. And these gentlemen demonstrated an openness for actual discussion. Beyond that, the debate was not so impressive, and I lost patience with it.
By way of background, my career has been as a materials research engineer. Most of that career has been working on materials used in energy systems. I've spent years on critical materials. [For those reading this that may not have been exposed to the definition of a critical material, in a nutshell it is 1) the material is required to make something; 2) there are no current viable substitutes; 3) there is some sort of supply constraint. ] I've spent years in a working group dedicated to working on the challenges associated with integrating "other" energy sources into the existing grid. In doing all this I have acquired some understanding specific to this topic.
This is the reality that is almost never recognized, and if it was covered in that debate I'd be surprised (as acknowledged, I gave up). We lack the critical materials to make any wide scale use of the intermittent (what NREL terms variable renewable) energies (VREs) for base load power. It doesn't matter if we have unanimity in intent, it doesn't matter if we spend all the money. Materials (and energy) balances mean that it is not going to happen with current technology, or anything in the visible pipeline.
Given that, a common response is "well, sure we need to include everything, but we should try to maximize the VREs." What does it mean to maximize them? Due to the frequency/curtailment issues, most grids start having some real problems above 20% (well documented in literature and real-world experiences in Europe and several states). With a lot more storage (assuming materials availability!), more is possible, but then the next challenge is encountered. Fossil power plants have a range in which they operate. Depending on the type of power plant, 50% - 60% is generally the floor. Ramping them up and down to deal with VREs is like driving a car in traffic - not as good as on the highway!
If we can't use VREs for baseload, and maybe will struggle to get them even into the 20% - 50% range, then it should be obvious that the bigger question is what to use for base load power.
Further, as a thought experiment imagine we did have the materials, could provide 100% of base load with VREs and have EVs for most traffic. During 2020 when we were all driving less, electricity rose to 30% of energy consumption in the US. If we converted most traffic to EVs we might get it up to 50%. That leaves 50%. Which brings us back to the VREs.
The suggestion that VREs are cheaper is wrong. Period. The only way to get that impression requires some funny accounting. We don't even need to dive into the nature of the accounting problem - look at the real world. In both Europe and the US, electricity costs rise with an increase in % from VREs.
Which leads us to the idea that by restricting production of fossil fuels, making them more expensive, will somehow make VREs more competitive. This is so far off, it is looking up at "wrong." It is well documented that the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for VREs is much lower than for fossil fuels or nuclear. What this means is that the VREs will be disproportionally impacted by increases in the cost of the energy needed for input. Mining and transport will 100% be non-VRE powered. High pressure and high temperature materials processing can only use VREs to the extent that the industrial process gets its electricity from VREs. In addition to the VREs getting hit harder by rising energy costs, fossil is needed for the materials. Both coal and oil are required inputs for the materials used in solar and wind components. Raising input costs for materials does not improve cost-competitiveness.
Bringing this all back to the debate, I think Dr. Dessler ventured into areas in which he lacked some critical information. If he had stuck to his area and said "my interpretation of the existing data and predictive hypotheses is X" then it would have been better. I know Dr. Koonin has broader exposure, but with a little more depth could have made stronger arguments (I was having flashback's to Smil's arguments which caused me to lose patience).
Sorry for going on so long (short for me), but thanks to anybody who had the patience to wade through this.
I believe Dr Koonin has the more balanced argument. It is essential that we have dense energy, and we have seen that we can't count on wind and solar when it is needed, nor do we have adequate storage capabilities. Dr Dressler's comment on China's solar usage is a half-truth. To quote Power Engineering, 3/29/21, "Coal-fired power’s generation and carbon-intensity are both falling somewhat around the world, but China has emerged far and away as the dominant driver in its rising relevance for the developing world.
A new Global Electricity Review by climate and energy think tank Ember released Monday estimated that global coal-fired electricity fell a record 4 percent in 2020 compared to the previous year. This fall was matched by a same level rise in wind and solar capacity (totaling more than 314 terawatt hours (TWh) in output).
In China, however, coal-fired power gained 2 percent in 2020. Worldwide, China now accounts for 53 percent of the overall coal-fired generation portfolio."
This information is over a year old, but it shows that China is moving in both directions, in a balanced manner. We can't stop what is working until we can replace it with something that works at least equally well. This 'sky is falling, hair on fire' approach to changing our energy effectiveness will leave the US looking like Germany if we let the alarmists have their way. Calm, measured and rational changes are needed. Thanks for sharing.