Completely agree Hannah. This is an example of populist binary thinking. The real world is much more complex, and needs nuanced thinking. It's like saying that arts organisations shouldn't accept donations from anyone who drives a non-electric car.
Thank you for staying the course and risking a shitstorm.
Unfortunately, the Greens are part of the problem, not of the solution. They will sacrifice the climate for ideology anytime; look e.g. what they did in Germany concerning nuclear power.
If we give up rationality to please the uneducated, we have lost already.
And never forget: Those who burn books will end up burning people. I don’t remember who said that, but I know it’s true.
Yes, after I finally looked into nuclear power, its pros and cons, I realized that the Greens are a hypocritical puritan death cult. Their arguments against it were and are utter nonsense. I used to vote green, to my current embarrassment.
There has been an increasing trend towards hysterical totalitarianism in public life. It is very concerning. Remember, climate change is not the only issue in which the self-righteous are almost certainly very wrong.
I'm sorry but while I agree with all the points in this post I have to protest at this reduction of "the Greens" as being the problem (or a death cult).
German greens played a pivotal role in the German renewables law at the turn of the century that pioneered bringing solar costs down for the whole world. Should the Tory party be simply reduced to the party that enabled Brexit? Maybe, but the exit of nuclear energy in Germany was also ultimately taken on and by many other political parties (CDU ultimately implemented it).
The exit from nuclear power in Germany has arguably shifted the debate in many other countries and hopefully reinvigorates investment in nuclear in countries like France, Britain and Sweden to invest in their ageing nuclear fleet in preparation for the increased demand resulting from massive electrification. But nuclear won't cut it alone (costs).
Just like in the UK there is denial of Brexit and the consequences, the same may be true in Germany about the nuclear energy exit. But both decisions won't be reversed anytime soon.
Greens and green parties bring valuable contributions to democratic discourse and proposed solutions to climate change, don't let Tabloid's convince you they are a death cult.
Oh, it was not tabloids but a critical look at green policies, spurred by that realisation about nuclear. If they were wrong about that, then what else?
They wanted to ban artificial fertilisers and at the same time promote biofuels to replace fossil fuels.
If biofuels had taken off, then millions would have starved because fuel producers in rich countries would be able to afford higher food prices than actual humans in poor countries. Banning artificial fertilisers would cause the starvation of half the world's population and impoverish the diet of the remaining half.
Likewise, greens want to ban effective pesticides and herbicides which would have had catastrophic environmental consequences, greatly increasing the area under cultivation, and therefore reducing wilderness areas, as well as raising food prices in the same way as biofuels. And opposing genetically modified crops, opposing imports of food from African counties so impoverishing them, ... It goes on and on.
Many greens are also fervently anti-childbearing. That in itself is a death cult.
(Sorry if this comes off as a bit strident. Just as no-one is as vehemently anti-smoking as an ex-smoker, no-one is as strongly anti-green as an ex-green.)
Radical Green Ideology is not going to save the world. The flight of capital out of fossil fuels and into renewables is real and driven by profits. Renewables can, and do, out compete fossil fuels.
The (festival) writing, if you’ll indulge the cliche, is on the wall.
These protests are about attention seeking wedge issues. They change nothing for the better.
I'm a conservative climate advocate from Colorado. I lobby for carbon pricing in our state legislature and with our Congressional representative (likely to be the notorious Lauren Boebert next year).
The absolutism, the utopian idealism of modern climate activists concerns me greatly. I seek to involve conservatives in my climate work, but they are repelled by unrealistic, half-baked solutions such as Net-Zero by 2050 and JustStopOil.
We on the Climate Realism side have our work cut out for us, and it is with the Greens, not the climate deniers.
I don't doubt the sincerity of the protestors calling for complete divestment. I do seriously doubt the wisdom and efficacy of both their strategy and tactics. @Hannah thanks for bringing up this subject and the complicated, competing realities climate activists have to hold in our minds and ethics simultaneously. It's hard! It would be wonderful if everything were black and white! "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is a wonderful motto for life, and something many modern activists seem to scorn. I wonder what the civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and environmental activists of the mid-20th century would think of activists today?
The irony of writers supporting this whilst publishing books produced often (but not always, I know) with fossil fuels must surely be lost on them. Thank you for providing this post, especially when you will no doubt be decried by some as a fossil fuel supporter. More of these sensible nuanced conversations need to be had worldwide. If only there was some way to make that happen.
Thank you for pledging to keep providing information to those of who cannot afford to buy it. A free society is one that is educated yet not neccessarily due to being wealthy. I realize that producing any informative newsletter is time-consuming & hardly inexpensive but it is imperative for society to have unbiased & verifiable facts to help it make the decisions that will move us forward.
Please continue & know your efforts are appreciated......
Very good point. And it's helpful to frame it in the context of supply and demand. If activists cause investors to reduce funding of fossil fuels, that may raise prices slightly. But only slightly. The world is awash in oil - OPEC is reducing supply by 6 million barrels per day. The right target is demand for energy from fossil fuels. That's the province of governments, regulators, and utilities. Limiting demand will lower prices and discourage all producers - listed and OPEC - from expanding output.
Most people do not agree with this being a binary world. But, unfortunately, the binary perpetrators are the loudest speakers. Your rationale, Hannah, is absolutely rock solid. The problem is that it must be stated in one breath. a clear and present aphorism that can rise above all else.
Do you ever interact with such as wattsupwiththat, CO2 coalition, Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK), Paul Homewood (UK), CLINTEL and the many other individuals and organizations that attempt to inject some sanity into the mass hysteria that attempts to deprive us of the many (essential) benefits that oil, coal, gas and uranium deliver for us based on unsubstantiated alarmism (no effect on weather according to IPCC WG1) or do you only associate with those who agree with you and promote the "Narrative"?
I appreciate your work so much but struggle with this point of view. The idea that no one can be made uncomfortable, that restraint can never be part of solving this crisis that already is and will become more existential for many peoples in the future. The fossil fuel industry position at this moment is truly ridiculous, especially they're hold on government that prevents needed action. If governments could act more effectively these divestment movements might not be necessary. It's likely that things will get worse before they get better, and I've always felt that hardship should, if possible, be borne by those most able to do so. My optimism lies in that there are many people in the world able to bear a great deal.
So forgive me when I ask it this way, but are you saying that it will just have to be the poor in New Delhi who bake to death in their apartments because we've got to have our Book Festival? It just seems like at some point this is going to have get uncomfortable for the wealthy of the world or it's going to get deadly for the poor. Where does that begin? What is the right lever? These are sincerely questions, because I'm honestly not sure.
Thanks for all you do. We need the data and these conversations as well.
These are difficult conversations with no easy solutions. The question to me is will divestment from stock ownership of fossil fuel (FF) companies really make a difference? Their stock prices might be depressed as a result but as long as these companies are profitable, they will continue to find new owners willing to own and invest in them. What matters more for their survivability as businesses is that there is a market for their products, and I think that more of this divestment energy needs to go on supporting and funding alternatives, as well as policies that make FF less attractive (e.g., carbon taxes in wealthy countries). We need to do this with some urgency while understanding that it will take time to extricate ourselves from our dependence on FFs.
I think an issue highlighted and one that needs further reflection is the idea that over time, fossil fuel investments will reduce as the sector plays a smaller role in the energy mix and is dismantled. How will that process happen? We know that investors invest in an area imagining a return and growth - how/why would they invest in a declining sector?
Dis-investment is a limited concept in this context as it suggests one investor selling (disinvesting) to another. This is just a transfer of investment, not a scaling down of investment. This is relevant in lots of ways, eg the gas network in the UK IE how do we manage it's dismantling AND enable investors a return? There are many models but the most compelling I've heard are around nationalisation.
Hi Hannah - some great points here which I agree with. Are you aware Greenpeace in the UK are running a Climate Vote campaign which encourages people to register and then they will send UK voters ahead of the election a summary of all the environmental positions of the major political parties. They’re not telling people how to vote, but empowering voters to vote with their consciences. I think this is a good idea. Echoes your point about more information is power. Info here: https://action.greenpeace.org.uk/project-climate-vote?source=PM&subsource=ECCLPLOAPM03O2
Just thought it worth pointing out that (as you say) it may be 'sub-optimal', to totally ban fossil fuels now, but it is also suboptimal to use more than a minimum required to transition to renewables ... And afaik all the entities involved in producing / selling fossil fuels are promoting / manipulating for continued use of FFs far far above any reasonable 'minimum' - ie while such FF entities do not theoretically HAVE to be bad for the biosphere (& humanity), in practice they are. Or are Shell campaigning for large carbon- taxes & I just haven't noticed?
PS assessing the optimal 'mimimum' quantity of FF we can use depends on assessing the damage caused - & afaict recent evidence suggests this is likely greater than allowed for in recent UN reports. ie the already small 'carbon budget' for the planet IPCC sets out is probably optimistic. And current policies will in any case lead to large overshoot of the optimistic budget...
If climate_curmudgeon thinks net-zero by 2050 is unrealistic, s/he's (very likely) got another think coming soon, if/when increasing scale of climate disasters (especially crop failures, migration) forces a global realisation that yes we really do need to cut carbon pdq even if that 'damages the economy'. The economy of a 3 degree heated earth will not be very big!
Had FF entities not fought & manipulated for decades tooth & nail against the truth of the need to transition, we would by now already be using very little FFs. They (& the politicians they manipulated) have screwed the whole of humanity for the 'benefit' of their CEOs & shareholders.
Completely agree Hannah. This is an example of populist binary thinking. The real world is much more complex, and needs nuanced thinking. It's like saying that arts organisations shouldn't accept donations from anyone who drives a non-electric car.
Thank you for staying the course and risking a shitstorm.
Unfortunately, the Greens are part of the problem, not of the solution. They will sacrifice the climate for ideology anytime; look e.g. what they did in Germany concerning nuclear power.
If we give up rationality to please the uneducated, we have lost already.
And never forget: Those who burn books will end up burning people. I don’t remember who said that, but I know it’s true.
Yes, after I finally looked into nuclear power, its pros and cons, I realized that the Greens are a hypocritical puritan death cult. Their arguments against it were and are utter nonsense. I used to vote green, to my current embarrassment.
There has been an increasing trend towards hysterical totalitarianism in public life. It is very concerning. Remember, climate change is not the only issue in which the self-righteous are almost certainly very wrong.
I'm sorry but while I agree with all the points in this post I have to protest at this reduction of "the Greens" as being the problem (or a death cult).
German greens played a pivotal role in the German renewables law at the turn of the century that pioneered bringing solar costs down for the whole world. Should the Tory party be simply reduced to the party that enabled Brexit? Maybe, but the exit of nuclear energy in Germany was also ultimately taken on and by many other political parties (CDU ultimately implemented it).
The exit from nuclear power in Germany has arguably shifted the debate in many other countries and hopefully reinvigorates investment in nuclear in countries like France, Britain and Sweden to invest in their ageing nuclear fleet in preparation for the increased demand resulting from massive electrification. But nuclear won't cut it alone (costs).
Just like in the UK there is denial of Brexit and the consequences, the same may be true in Germany about the nuclear energy exit. But both decisions won't be reversed anytime soon.
Greens and green parties bring valuable contributions to democratic discourse and proposed solutions to climate change, don't let Tabloid's convince you they are a death cult.
Oh, it was not tabloids but a critical look at green policies, spurred by that realisation about nuclear. If they were wrong about that, then what else?
They wanted to ban artificial fertilisers and at the same time promote biofuels to replace fossil fuels.
If biofuels had taken off, then millions would have starved because fuel producers in rich countries would be able to afford higher food prices than actual humans in poor countries. Banning artificial fertilisers would cause the starvation of half the world's population and impoverish the diet of the remaining half.
Likewise, greens want to ban effective pesticides and herbicides which would have had catastrophic environmental consequences, greatly increasing the area under cultivation, and therefore reducing wilderness areas, as well as raising food prices in the same way as biofuels. And opposing genetically modified crops, opposing imports of food from African counties so impoverishing them, ... It goes on and on.
Many greens are also fervently anti-childbearing. That in itself is a death cult.
(Sorry if this comes off as a bit strident. Just as no-one is as vehemently anti-smoking as an ex-smoker, no-one is as strongly anti-green as an ex-green.)
Well said.
Radical Green Ideology is not going to save the world. The flight of capital out of fossil fuels and into renewables is real and driven by profits. Renewables can, and do, out compete fossil fuels.
The (festival) writing, if you’ll indulge the cliche, is on the wall.
These protests are about attention seeking wedge issues. They change nothing for the better.
Thank you for the thoughtful article.
I'm a conservative climate advocate from Colorado. I lobby for carbon pricing in our state legislature and with our Congressional representative (likely to be the notorious Lauren Boebert next year).
The absolutism, the utopian idealism of modern climate activists concerns me greatly. I seek to involve conservatives in my climate work, but they are repelled by unrealistic, half-baked solutions such as Net-Zero by 2050 and JustStopOil.
We on the Climate Realism side have our work cut out for us, and it is with the Greens, not the climate deniers.
I would like to stay in touch!
Thank you Hannah for this 'special' one! We appreciate your analysis and thoughts beyond datasets!
I don't doubt the sincerity of the protestors calling for complete divestment. I do seriously doubt the wisdom and efficacy of both their strategy and tactics. @Hannah thanks for bringing up this subject and the complicated, competing realities climate activists have to hold in our minds and ethics simultaneously. It's hard! It would be wonderful if everything were black and white! "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" is a wonderful motto for life, and something many modern activists seem to scorn. I wonder what the civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, and environmental activists of the mid-20th century would think of activists today?
Sincerity leads to Sharia. It is no basis for decision-making
The irony of writers supporting this whilst publishing books produced often (but not always, I know) with fossil fuels must surely be lost on them. Thank you for providing this post, especially when you will no doubt be decried by some as a fossil fuel supporter. More of these sensible nuanced conversations need to be had worldwide. If only there was some way to make that happen.
Thank you for pledging to keep providing information to those of who cannot afford to buy it. A free society is one that is educated yet not neccessarily due to being wealthy. I realize that producing any informative newsletter is time-consuming & hardly inexpensive but it is imperative for society to have unbiased & verifiable facts to help it make the decisions that will move us forward.
Please continue & know your efforts are appreciated......
Very good point. And it's helpful to frame it in the context of supply and demand. If activists cause investors to reduce funding of fossil fuels, that may raise prices slightly. But only slightly. The world is awash in oil - OPEC is reducing supply by 6 million barrels per day. The right target is demand for energy from fossil fuels. That's the province of governments, regulators, and utilities. Limiting demand will lower prices and discourage all producers - listed and OPEC - from expanding output.
Most people do not agree with this being a binary world. But, unfortunately, the binary perpetrators are the loudest speakers. Your rationale, Hannah, is absolutely rock solid. The problem is that it must be stated in one breath. a clear and present aphorism that can rise above all else.
At last some common sense , thank you for this article and being courageous enough to publish it
Do you ever interact with such as wattsupwiththat, CO2 coalition, Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK), Paul Homewood (UK), CLINTEL and the many other individuals and organizations that attempt to inject some sanity into the mass hysteria that attempts to deprive us of the many (essential) benefits that oil, coal, gas and uranium deliver for us based on unsubstantiated alarmism (no effect on weather according to IPCC WG1) or do you only associate with those who agree with you and promote the "Narrative"?
I appreciate your work so much but struggle with this point of view. The idea that no one can be made uncomfortable, that restraint can never be part of solving this crisis that already is and will become more existential for many peoples in the future. The fossil fuel industry position at this moment is truly ridiculous, especially they're hold on government that prevents needed action. If governments could act more effectively these divestment movements might not be necessary. It's likely that things will get worse before they get better, and I've always felt that hardship should, if possible, be borne by those most able to do so. My optimism lies in that there are many people in the world able to bear a great deal.
So forgive me when I ask it this way, but are you saying that it will just have to be the poor in New Delhi who bake to death in their apartments because we've got to have our Book Festival? It just seems like at some point this is going to have get uncomfortable for the wealthy of the world or it's going to get deadly for the poor. Where does that begin? What is the right lever? These are sincerely questions, because I'm honestly not sure.
Thanks for all you do. We need the data and these conversations as well.
These are difficult conversations with no easy solutions. The question to me is will divestment from stock ownership of fossil fuel (FF) companies really make a difference? Their stock prices might be depressed as a result but as long as these companies are profitable, they will continue to find new owners willing to own and invest in them. What matters more for their survivability as businesses is that there is a market for their products, and I think that more of this divestment energy needs to go on supporting and funding alternatives, as well as policies that make FF less attractive (e.g., carbon taxes in wealthy countries). We need to do this with some urgency while understanding that it will take time to extricate ourselves from our dependence on FFs.
I think an issue highlighted and one that needs further reflection is the idea that over time, fossil fuel investments will reduce as the sector plays a smaller role in the energy mix and is dismantled. How will that process happen? We know that investors invest in an area imagining a return and growth - how/why would they invest in a declining sector?
Dis-investment is a limited concept in this context as it suggests one investor selling (disinvesting) to another. This is just a transfer of investment, not a scaling down of investment. This is relevant in lots of ways, eg the gas network in the UK IE how do we manage it's dismantling AND enable investors a return? There are many models but the most compelling I've heard are around nationalisation.
Hi Hannah - some great points here which I agree with. Are you aware Greenpeace in the UK are running a Climate Vote campaign which encourages people to register and then they will send UK voters ahead of the election a summary of all the environmental positions of the major political parties. They’re not telling people how to vote, but empowering voters to vote with their consciences. I think this is a good idea. Echoes your point about more information is power. Info here: https://action.greenpeace.org.uk/project-climate-vote?source=PM&subsource=ECCLPLOAPM03O2
Just thought it worth pointing out that (as you say) it may be 'sub-optimal', to totally ban fossil fuels now, but it is also suboptimal to use more than a minimum required to transition to renewables ... And afaik all the entities involved in producing / selling fossil fuels are promoting / manipulating for continued use of FFs far far above any reasonable 'minimum' - ie while such FF entities do not theoretically HAVE to be bad for the biosphere (& humanity), in practice they are. Or are Shell campaigning for large carbon- taxes & I just haven't noticed?
PS assessing the optimal 'mimimum' quantity of FF we can use depends on assessing the damage caused - & afaict recent evidence suggests this is likely greater than allowed for in recent UN reports. ie the already small 'carbon budget' for the planet IPCC sets out is probably optimistic. And current policies will in any case lead to large overshoot of the optimistic budget...
If climate_curmudgeon thinks net-zero by 2050 is unrealistic, s/he's (very likely) got another think coming soon, if/when increasing scale of climate disasters (especially crop failures, migration) forces a global realisation that yes we really do need to cut carbon pdq even if that 'damages the economy'. The economy of a 3 degree heated earth will not be very big!
Had FF entities not fought & manipulated for decades tooth & nail against the truth of the need to transition, we would by now already be using very little FFs. They (& the politicians they manipulated) have screwed the whole of humanity for the 'benefit' of their CEOs & shareholders.
Remember Hostadter's Law: everything takes longer than you think, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. That is why 2050 is unrealistic.
No-one should care about "the economy", only about the well-being of people. Kuznets's yardstick has become a target, and that is a bad thing.