Comments

  1. A Trumpian acquaintance of mine in Kansas (Phd from MIT in electrical engineering and 30 years as a farmer) sent a mass email today with a link to a news report about many of the fires in Australia being deliberately lit, as, apparently, they often have been historically. He found this to be a compelling indictment of liberals who have been crying “climate change” when the real cause has been people with matches. Of course, what he thought he was saying was “correlation is not causation, you stupid liberals.” But he was looking at the wrong causation. Sure, the matches may have started the fires as they have always done but that’s not the point. Its the ferocious spread of the fires that is different because the landscape has become drier and more combustible as the air has warmed.

    This is pretty typical of his mindset and those in his inner circle — except of course me who is a constant thorn in his side. Honestly it is all I can do not to “ghost” him but I stay in touch because it gives me an inside seat in the mid-west anti-liberal echo chamber and I am loathe to give it up. But today’s email made me wonder what more I could possibly learn about such intentional ignorance.

  2. I’m not sure what this video clip is showing and I can’t find its source.
    I”m well aware of “photoshopping” photographs so I would like more information on what, where, when, how this video was shot and its source/author before I comment further.

    1. How hard did you try Rosalind? Nothing wrong with skepticism but here are a couple of clues that it is Australia. Australian accent and driving on the left. Now that could be faked of course, but why? There’s no shortage of devastating video of the latest disasters.

      Secondly, if you are on Facebook the source of the video is there for you to check out for yourself.

      1. As someone who is bad at putting sources in I understand why it happens…but it should always be acceptable to ask what the source is and then those of us who failed to provide it should do the work we should have done in the first place and give the source.

      2. Thanks for your suggestion, Ron Van Der Eerden. It took some searching on FACEBOOK to figure out the source of this video: a male commentator ?sponsored by the Hotel Batlow is Now Open…and then one searches for Hotel Batlow’s website to find its location in Batlow, New South Wales, Australia and to read their daily news as to whether they are open or not…and what’s on their menu as food supplies are not all getting through. My confusion came from seeing video shots from the Middle East on Al Jazeera News which post damaged buildings and landscapes from Idlib area…and from fires in Brazil’s Amazon. Also, one photo view on the Hotel Batlow site seemed to show a person’s head so I wasn’t sure whether I was seeing dead humans or dead cattle. The sound system on my computer wasn’t working so I’ve only just now heard the original video from the Hotel Batlow’s facebook page.

  3. Yes extreme weather events are very unfortunate for those affected, both people and animals, but it’s part of life.

    Many of these Australian fires are caused by arsonists but many are natural in dry conditions.

    Earthquakes, fires, volcano eruptions, cyclones, hurricanes or floods occur occasionally however are NOT linked to climate change nor has their frequency or intensity increased. Peer reviewed studies here https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/12/12/don-blame-climate-change-for-extreme-weather/DpWASjvNSl8D7S5qUTmuYI/story.html

    1. To put that article into context, Bjorn Lomborg has stated elsewhere that “global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world”. That may be true and he’s welcome to his opinion. But the foundation of much of that opinion is that there is not enough long term information to distinguish climate change from short-term weather event and most climate scientists would agree but that’s not the point. The point is what happens if you get it wrong and it’s not only short term. Here’s an example: in the last two decades the amount of forest burned in BC has varied wildly from the period before, trending significantly upwards. That is in spite of steadily increasing experience with fighting fires. Two decades is a short time in climatic terms so the trend may not hold. But what if it does? And that’s the point. As the quote attributed to William Gibson goes, “the future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet”. Eventually we will look back and see what the harbingers of our future were but the point is to try to see the existential threats a little bit earlier.

    2. “With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.

      “One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

      https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/

      So… we could listen to Doubting Thomas backed by the discredited Lomborg citing a couple of research papers; or to thousands of scientists contributing to the findings of the IPCC.

      Interestingly, while Doubting Thomas still denies AGW and climate change, neither Lomborg nor those who wrote the papers he cites deny it all.

      Furthermore, the research paper cited by Lomborg claims that statements by other climate scientists in their own peer reviewed research about increased extreme weather events contradict the findings of the IPCC report 2011. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt since their paper is dated 2017. They would certainly be wrong to assert that those claims contradict the 2018 IPCC report quoted above.

    3. Thomas, please read the first comment. He is talking about ‘you’. Climate is not the same as weather, so any individual weather event is difficult to pin on climate change….but the sum of all those changes = warming, increased extreme events. In some areas more rain, others less. The fires in Australia are not a problem because of arson (which always happens, even here) they are a problem because of years of drought and extremely hot temperatures. In some cases high winds are contributing, another thing predicted under climate change.

    4. I’d like to poke further holes in Beyer’s beliefs and his citation of Lomborg’s article. Since the research cited is published in a reputable peer reviewed journal I do not take issue with the validity of the research itself. It is actually proof that those who have differing conclusions than the consensus are, in fact, able to publish if their methodology is sound. There is no conspiracy to exclude differing views. That is how science works.

      However it should be noted that the research is fairly dated. It cannot possibly have included the latest several years of increased conflagrations in Australia, California, Europe, BC and Washington state nor even Fort McMurray in 2016. The paper is dated January 2017 but it isn’t itself a study of weather patterns related to climate change. It is a review of other research of projected and observed weather. For this the authors cite climate/weather research in studies ranging from 2011 to 2016 which themselves almost assuredly have delays of many months between observations and publishing.

      It should be noted that the latest of these papers, from 2016, claims a high level of confidence of climate change leading to hot and cold extremes. The same paper claims lower levels of confidence for other climate related weather extremes, but that isn’t the same as Beyer’s claim that none of it has anything to do with climate.

      And none of them deny anthropomorphic climate change as Beyer so confidently does.

  4. Any technology or invention has costs and benefits: knives, the internet, nuclear technology, electricity, cars, guns, airplanes, hydrogen ..

    Ditto with energy forms: hydro dams, electric batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, gas engines, nuclear power plants .. all come with pro’s and con’s. It’s far too convenient to lament the costs only while not appreciating the benefits of abundant energy, such as higher purchasing power, cheap air travel, cheap flow of goods incl food worldwide via trucks and/or ships, fresh food in cold winters shipped in cheaply from afar, far longer life expectancies, far fewer starving humans as a % of world population, less death by freezing, ability to live in high-rises, higher education levels, etc . ALL that is at risk with far higher energy costs, notably for transportation and heating.

    If food costs rise significantly (due to higher energy costs to harvest, produce and ship) far FAR more people will starve or die. It really is that simple. A modest worldwide temp increase is a small price to pau for this progress. One good website is humanprogress dot org , for example.

    Energy is used for three purposes, namely electricity production, transportation and heating of water or places where humans live or work.

    All three can be made more energy efficient, and all three can be done with less fossil fuels, of course, but we need to look at costs AND benefits always, not not merely pretend, like Greta & her young uneducated cohorts far to frequently do (and some folks here on this blog who haven’t lived long enough), pretend that the benefits will continue to flow while we massively make energy more expensive.

    THAT is the main point of my many arguments here in this blog.

    Of course who wouldn’t love a cheap EV (or bus or truck or ship) that goes 1000 km for a $5 charge ? However electrification of trucks, combines, buses, ships or cars comes at a high cost, as does heating houses or water with electricity instead of gas, for example.

    As mentioned previously, the ENTIRE food chain for ~ 8B humans today from harvesting to production to shipment today relies almost 100% on fossil fuels and to change that takes a lot of time, and money and thus, will be reflected in far FAR higher food costs.

    In addition, forcing Canadians that have to heat their homes for 6+ months of the year to convert from energy efficient gas heaters to electric, or to pay far FAR higher energy costs in a country with abundant (but now artificially suppressed) energy production capabilities is not only dumb policy, but cruel, poverty creating, and life expectancy reducing. It’s an insult to 90%+ of folks that live in houses, in my opinion. Solar makes sense in many markets now but it makes still no sense for heating, but for power or A/C in hot humid summers.

    Higher energy prices are like high taxes. They benefit only ever larger governments. They make people poorer overall. As such, we need to quest for far more, far cheaper greener energy sources not make existing options more expensive. It’s the wrong approach.

    1. For many, home heating and domestic hot water with an air-source electric heat pump is *cheaper* than with gas. These savings will translate to ground source heat pumps for colder climates too, especially as the drillers in the fossil industries start looking for other work.

      EVs are already edging out ICE to be cheaper over their lifespans. The moment it becomes cheaper and more convenient for most people they will not buy another ICE car. Expect that within a few years at current rates of falling prices and increasing range. It does not have to be 10% of the current fueling cost to do that. Obviously your arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny if you have to exaggerate. What an absurd example you gave ! You are incapable of seeing the changes that are already happening. Is it because you are old?

      Alternatives are becoming cheaper and can increasingly compete with fossil infrastructure. This has happened in large part because younger wiser people have innovated and invested in them. Why would they have bothered if there was no problem? And that’s without counting the deaths caused by fossil fuels.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0453-5

      Yet our governments still subsidize them. They should be reallocating those subsidies to greener alternatives and helping them get up to the economies of scale that will allow them to out compete fossils on their own.

      But you want to resist these changes so people can die from pollution, climate change *and* higher prices. Good work there Beyer. Just because one sector isn’t quite ready to make the switch doesn’t mean others have to wait. You seem to have this absurd idea that the entire world has to wait until every obstacle has been resolved before they all switch en mass one single day.

      You whine about government involvement in helping create a safer environment for our future and ignore Elon, that big evil socialist. You ignore all the human energy that is going into innovating our way out of this problem because too many olf entitled farts like you won’t do the right thing on your own.

      One of the main reasons there has been a massive shift in the public’s understanding of climate change over the last twenty years is because so many old farts have died in that time. Most old people have not proven themselves to be wise on this topic. They have proven themselves to be stubborn. And that’s why Greta has risen so quickly and become such a huge voice.

      It is you who created her.

      1. I am learning from these discussions but it is distracting and disturbing when the conversation turns “toxic”. Resorting to name- calling and Ageism, for example, “You are incapable of seeing the changes that are already happening. Is it because you are old?” is inappropriate and undermining Common Standards for public discourse. Let’s refute the issues, not the persons’ themselves.

        1. I agree, and I hate to get into “but he started it”. I am merely throwing Beyer’s condescending comments about young people , and therefore dumb, right back at him.

          When polls are done about the understanding of climate change they consistently show that older people are less likely to agree with the best and latest science. So it is not without reason that I make some of the comments I do. It is not helpful to the debate, but my target is Beyer alone. They are always a reply to Beyer and not a general comment.

          1. Unfortunately younger people never learned about the evils of socialism in school, never grew up with it nor are taught the often unethical corrupted & highly politicized “climate science” in universities, UN or grant dependent “research institutes”. Many young people are too naive.

            Melon politics works well: green on the outside, but socialist red on the inside.

            Older people have heard far too many climate scams and prediction and are thus, rightly so, far more skeptical about the latest “research”!!

            https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/the-ipccs-latest-climate-hysteria

      2. Keep your arguments on the level, Ron. Nobody needs bogus statements like “For many, home heating and domestic hot water with an air-source electric heat pump is *cheaper* than with gas.” There is no instance in which that occurs for residential consumers. Natgas, being oversupplied and priced at $3/MCF commodity charge plus transport charges does not begin to compare to the same quantity of electricity (277KW) at residential demand rates of $0.12/kWh. Yes, heat pumps can begin to approach efficiencies at peak conditions that make their coefficient of performance comparable to our ill-priced gas, and one gets the benefit of knowing one is living better for the planet as well, but peak conditions hardly ever exist around here, and so the CoP is routinely below 4 for the most efficient heat pumps which makes heating your home and hot water with electricity and a $10,000 high-maintenance heat pump system about three times as costly with electricity as with gas.

        The best performance still comes from a building engineered to lower its losses as much as possible. Which means abolishing the glass condominium is the best thing Vancouver could do to meet its objectives. Competitions to determine whose mechanical solution is the best are bootless.

        1. I was quite careful with my statement and deliberately said “for many” because it isn’t always true and works best in milder climates. In our climate they can run at peak performance most of the time and therefore match or exceed the heat capacity/$ of furnaces.

          A large or energy pig of a home heated with electric baseboards at < Cop1 will definitely kick in the higher hydro rates. A small, well insulated home with a heat pump ranging from CoP 3 to 5 (depending on outdoor temp) might remain within the $0.0945 rates. I agree that better thermal performance of the building should be the first goal.

          I agree that heat pumps are more expensive up front but I would like to see some evidence that they need more maintenance than a gas furnace or boiler. And while gas furnaces and boilers have likely reached a peak in efficiency and low costs due to a century of fine tuning and economies of scale, the relatively newer and less abundant heat pumps are likely to increase in performance and decrease in price.

        2. And to add more to the point. When I say, “for many”, I am not limiting myself to Canada.

  5. “not not merely pretend, like Greta & her young uneducated cohorts far to frequently do (and some folks here on this blog who haven’t lived long enough), pretend that the benefits will continue to flow while we massively make energy more expensive.”

    Begging the question and an appeal to age=wisdom (clearly not if you ask me based on current evidence) in the same wordy rehash of things no one on this blog is claiming or asking for.

    Get your own blog and publish the numbers.

    Why are you afraid to do that?

    1. many MANY links of benefits of cheap energy.

      Google for example: human progress energy cost benefits
      or
      life expectancy

      The wealthier a country is, on average, the longer people there life, the fewer babies die, the better their health, the better their city air and the better the education but also the higher the energy they consume.

      Human progress means ever more energy use.

      Plus more humans means massive energy growth the last few decades to continue for a while as peak humans not until 2070s now .. so 50 or so years. Despite massive “green energy” growth the overall share isn’t all that much higher, only 10-12% today, rest hydro, nuclear, coal, oil and gas with the latter three over 70% still. Peak oil not until 2040s. Not because it’s pretty but because it has many benefits incl very high energy density.

      Google that too: energy density.

      Coal is highest followed by oil (apart from nuclear ie splitting atoms, often overlooked as true green energy). As an FYI, I used to work for the GSF (Gesellschaft fuer Strahlenforschung), which is a research institute near Munich for nuclear energy. We can debate that at length too, if you wish.

      1. Your comments belie a genuine concern that these “attacks” on petroleum-based energy jeopardize our civilization, as this has been what’s made our material prosperity possible.

        That last part is true. Very few of us have lived without the amenities that fossil fuels have enabled and have not known the material privations of not having electricity, vaccines, and products from all over the world within relatively easy reach. All these amazing things have only existed because of what you refer to as “cheap energy”.

        But you seem reluctant to acknowledge that our sustained reliance on a singular, toxic commodity has also come at a terrible cost, and that one way or another, it’s not going to last forever. That’s not an opinion. Is it better to wean ourselves off petroleum- with significant disruption to our civilization and material well-being, or see our civilization abruptly end when gas is no longer available at at any price? Even if the stuff weren’t slowly killing us, it’s foolish to keep all our eggs in one basket.

      2. “The wealthier a country is, on average, the longer people there life…”

        Wrong. The lower the inequality in a country, the longer people there live.

        Comparisons of life expectancy with national income per person in wealthier (read: OECD) countries show dozens of countries have life expectancies that exceed that of the highest earners USA and Norway (each tied at $38,000 -2008 dollars) including Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore and much of Europe.

        Comparisons of health and social problems with income inequality show a close relationship between the two (corr >0.8) with the most unequal societies (yes, the US again leads the pack here) with the greatest number of health and social problems in its population, conditions with direct effect on life expectancy and enjoyment.

        Source: The Spirit Level (Wilkinson/Pickett)

  6. “If food costs rise significantly (due to higher energy costs to harvest, produce and ship) far FAR more people will starve or die. It really is that simple.”

    It really isn’t.

    No one will starve because avocados aren’t being shipped from California to the Cambie St. Whole Foods or cost twice as much. In fact, moving away from exported luxury foods (that often end up thrown out) might well free up agricultural resources in the originating countries — to actually feed people instead of feeding a compost bin. Local food systems are a good thing. Shipping produce hither and yon to satisfy privileged palates is not.

    I suspect you know very little about the global food system Mr Beyer, despite your fondness for international travel.

    1. Yes growing apples, tomatoes, peaches, pears or grapes in Canada is just so practical and cheap for 9 months of the year.

      Open your eyes to the cold harsh Canadian reality, please. Locally grown might work in the Fraser Valley & Lower Mainland for 6-8 months of the year but not in the rest of Canada or northern US or northern EU.

      Higher energy costs = lower living standards, far higher food prices, premature death, more starvation and far more poverty. Also see yellow vests in France or even Iran when gasoline prices went way up.

      Google energy poverty Germany to see the result in socialist Europe, for example.

      Energy price matters.

      EVs will gain market share, of course, as prices fall, range increases and charge infrastructure becomes deeper. A few % every year. Maybe 30% of new cars by 2030. Less so in rural areas or cold climates.

      E-biking bananas from Mexico to Regina isn’t so practical from Sept to March. As such trucks are used, and with higher CO2 taxes those bananas will go way up on price.

      Net zero by 2050. Yeah right.

      Let them eat cake, according to some bloggers here.

    2. He’s not wrong about that part. People will starve whether we transition to renewable energy gradually or not at all. Though a lot fewer will die the sooner we transition.

      If everyone in Canada had to suddenly start living solely on what was produced within a day or two’s non-vehicular travel, one of the first thing you’d notice is a lot fewer Canadians. It ain’t just avocados that travel or need fertilizer. Everything does. The ALR is nice, but it won’t sustain 3 million of us here in the Lower Mainland.

      1. Suddenly?

        What has suddenly got to do with it? We’ve known about the problem for 40 years and while the scientists suggest another 30 to solve it is pushing our luck, most seem to agree that if we are substantially off of fossil fuels in 20 years we’ll avoid the worst.

        More than six decades.

        More than two generations.

        Most of the population that was alive when science understood the problem will be dead by the time we solve it. Given that it took less time between the first fragile little flight and landing on the moon I wouldn’t call that suddenly. Especially as technological change has been rapidly accelerating since then, backed also by a better understanding of low tech solutions.

        “All these greenies want to cut all fossil fuels over night. We’d all be back in the caves.”

        I’m a little tired of that line of thinking. Because it isn’t thinking at all. It is just an excuse.

        It isn’t that we haven’t had the time or don’t have the time. It is the enormous ball and chain shackled to our ankles by Beyer and his ilk. But while he and his fossil pals have been successful in holding civilization from advancing as it should, he has not been able to stop the march of innovation. He has not been able to change the power of exponential change. We’ve seen what can be done at incredible speed in determined jurisdictions. Beyer keeps repeating that EVs won’t work in the cold while ignoring that Norway is by far the global leader. He talks about what is not possible even when it has already been done.

        Beyer would have been betting on the horse, denying the rumours of the Wright Brothers and railing at Kennedy for the absurd notion of a moon landing. He would have been among those who claimed asphyxiation would occur on trains travelling over 30 MPH and most certainly shouted down Copernicus, Galileo and Columbus. He can only understand what has passed and has no vision of the future.

        While he’s been holding us back, smart people have be charting a course. Most of the solutions are already here and competitive. The pace of change is going to make us dizzy because we’ve waited so long. There will be big losers and they’ll fall even harder than they would have, Alberta. But it’s going to happen whether Beyer likes it or not.

        1. Thomas is overly-defensive and instantly alarmist on the subject, yes. That is normal when someone feels threatened. But the premise holds whether our transition from fossil fuels takes decades or months. Unless someone suddenly invents a clean energy generation and supply network that: 1) rivals our current output, and 2) won’t force us to change any of our current consumer habits, the halting and imperfect switch to renewable energy IS going to have major implications to our food supply chain. The likelier scenario is that this will not happen, and we’ll just have to get used to having a lot less electricity for a while.

          In the short term, increased conditions and restrictions on food transport will raise prices, often beyond many people’s ability to pay for things they feel they’ve always had. Our sense of entitlement is strong and most of us have never known anything other than a life of relatively cheap food. Imagine your own shopping and dining habits if, in 5 years, your grocery bill was twice what it is today but your salary was about the same. This is a conservative rate of inflation throughout the world and is often due to a host of distribution, transportation, and supply chain problems, as well as corruption. Not many will likely starve in Canada, but they will elsewhere. We’ll get off easy and just riot at the injustice of unfamiliar inflation.

          In the long term, if we manage the transition “well”, it should be a net positive. If we fail to transition for fear of the scenario noted above, the fall, when it does come, will be swift and brutal.

      2. If things stay as they are, then yes. But we do have the capacity to change. Not sure why we overlook that fact unless it is to take the (currently) easy path of the status quo. And our food issues are mostly ones of attitude and distribution, not the total amount of calories available to the global population. We could feed everyone. But we choose not to.

        Our dinner table Voight-Kampff test, which we collectively fail on a daily basis.

  7. response above to Dan’s comment. The threading of the comments might make that unclear.

  8. ‘What’s-his-name’ is not a skeptic but rather a repetitive broadcaster of discredited messaging. An attention seeking argumentative heckler posting junk science stories. ‘What’s-his-name’ does not want to be educated, but I must say he has motivated amongst commenters some thoughtful essays on the subject of climate change.

  9. One of MANY wrong climate predictions

    Glacier National Park removing signs that glaciers are gone by 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html

    In the 1970s when I was in high school the Club of Rome was predicting the end of oil in 2000 and the end of growth and the end of many resources, all THREE of which proved to be wrong.

    Climate models have been adjusted numerous times as they proved so inaccurate.

    No wonder many doubt the “scientists” when they claim the end of humanity if a trace gas goes from 0.02% to 0.04% (or 200 to 400 parts PER MILLION). Much is just not believable or at least the trajectory or pacing. Far too much dim and gloom, like these normal wildfires, hurricanes, floods etc

    Humans will figure it out.

    Abundant cheap energy is what we need.

    Clean preferred but oil & gas ok as prosperity allow resilience, eg pay for higher dykes, A/C in homes, building retrofits, investment into new technologies, electrification of trains or buses, etc. Poverty doesn’t allow that. Poor nations don’t invent, only affluent ones do !!

      1. There’s neither a planetary “heating” nor “burning” nor “climate emergency” nor a “climate crisis”.

        Progress has costs and benefits. a minor 1-2 degree of temp change is a very modest price to pay for human progress over the last 150 years for now ~8B people (and likely climbing to about 2070 when peak population is expected). What took 150 years to build will take likely at least this long to significantly change. We used whale oil and wood, then coal. Modern coal is better, as is oil or gas, and all the other alliterative like solar, wind, geothermal, hydro or nuclear energy but every energy form has costs and benefits. [ btw whale oil and wood is renewable energy but not necessarily better !)

        We as society need to work on far more, far cheaper, far more abundant energy sources in parallel to more energy efficiencies. That is the path forward, not far lower living standards bordering on socialism, high CO2 taxes or high energy prices to make everyone poorer, or the pretense that electrification is imminent, cheap, reliable or the right choice everywhere.

        Transportation requires high energy density and to change the food, human and good transportation chain worldwide reliably, safely and inexpensively will take many MANY decades.

        Think scalability. Think reliability. Think 8B people. Promoting Canadian energy use in polluting SE Asia, for example, is very good for the planet. Stifling it will just pollute the air with far more unnecessary coal plants !! Think globally but act locally.

        1. Thanks for the confirmation of all things climate science, Thomas. All the major economic and social changes we are being faced with, and you decry, are a serious attempt to keep temperature rise to 1-2 degrees.

          A major 3-4 degree change is not a modest price. That’s what we are headed for – or worse – if we don’t make the changes you despise. Your inability to see the solutions is not proof of a lack of a problem.

          Thankfully smart people are moving things forward and finding solutions while old farts who can’t see forward of last century are dwindling in number and power. We need innovators, not deniers nor those who would have never left the caves. Why are you so determined to be among those who said it can’t be done and were wrong? History is littered with them.

    1. Why do homes need A/C? Why heat your environment just to move energy around in it? How would “abundant cheap energy” pay for higher dykes, or, indeed, obviate the need for them in the first place, which is surely the better solution given any interference in our built environment always produces a worse disturbance somewhere else? How does “abundant cheap energy” improve building retrofits (which I would requalify as “building re-design”)? Why would “abundant cheap energy” affect or increase investment into new technologies? How does “abundant cheap energy” affect poverty when the total money supply has grown faster in the past six decades than in all the millennia mankind has been alive on earth?

      Thomas, you are a bundle of non sequiturs. Please make one argument and stick to it. When you mix up two, you make no sense at all.

  10. When we start getting “Opinion” articles (their words) from the Heartland Institute as validation of anything at all I think we’re way past science so that’s me out of this thread.

Comments are closed.