Climate models are all based on scenarios. But what's a scenario? It is nothing more than an act of the human imagination, expressed in the form of if..... then. Because these scenarios are all based on the future, there is no way to verify them in the present.
When evaluating climate predictions, the expression 'actions speak louder than words" is a wise mantra. Forget what politicians and CEOs and celebrities and VC guys say. Look at what they do in their own lives.
President Obama informed us for years that hurricanes were getting stronger and more deadly because of climate change. When he left the WH, he bought a huge mansion on Martha's Vineyard, overlooking the North Atlantic -- Noreaster Alley.
The tech VC guys are all in on ESG. They live in Silicon Valley. They invest (mostly) in Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley sits at sea level. They are investing their own money in the very place they are saying will be underwater.
Hollywood celebrities wax eloquently (well, maybe that's an overstatement) on Twitter about how climate change is making CA wildfires so much worse. And then they buy mansions in Malibu and Pacific Palisades. (And I doubt the current fires will cause even 1 of them to move.)
I have neither the time nor expertise to evaluate climate science. But I can evaluate what the wealthy and powerful, who have a whole lot more to lose than I do, think about climate change. And regardless of their words, their actions have always said they think it's bunk.
So I opened an article about energy policy and "the world" and searched for the words "China" and "India" and came up dry, so I'm closing the article now after this comment.
You can't possibly have written an article about *world* energy policy without even mentioning them.
Chris White’s appointment as energy secretary represents a calculated shift toward environmental degradation. Behind his polished image lies a network of corporatism and corruption, eroding ecological safeguards to benefit powerful fossil fuel interests.
White’s career is deeply tied to the fossil fuel industry, notably through his tenure at BlackHydra Energy, a multinational linked to global environmental destruction. His policies promote deregulation disguised as economic growth, enabling unchecked resource extraction and dismantling of green initiatives like methane emission standards. Token gestures like subsidizing “clean coal” distract from his broader agenda.
Though White postures as a technocrat, his disdain for climate science is clear. He champions speculative geoengineering projects that gamble with Earth’s climate systems while ignoring urgent carbon reduction efforts. His dismissal of scientific consensus fosters public doubt and stalls meaningful climate action.
White’s true power lies in bureaucratic sabotage. By embedding loyalists into regulatory agencies, he obstructs environmental reviews, benefiting corporate polluters. His attacks on renewable energy, framed as “energy independence,” polarize public discourse and delay the transition to sustainability.
Ultimately, White’s tenure accelerates environmental degradation for short-term profit, threatening the planet’s future. Recognizing and resisting this trajectory is critical to preserving a livable world.
Given the flows of capital, it’s surprising that there aren’t larger clean energy corporations. I know some solar companies are beginning to get to sizable valuations, but I would have expected greater size and valuations given the IEA investment figures. I understand the clean energy investments are much more distributed than fossil fuel investments, but still. $500B into Solar in 2024 alone and the leading company has a $150B market cap?
Focusing on the intention and motivation of why people support certain policies, albeit interesting from a psychological POV, isn't very productive. It is more efficient to measure the outcomes of those policies wherever they were installed.
I am very surprised that you of all people believe this.
I actually wrote this article in response to your November 12 question to me on whether I thought the climate change movement is a conspiracy. I gave my best answer at the time, and then decided that the topic was worth an entire article.
I have dozens of articles on the outcomes of Green energy policies and have a Table of Contents for all them ready to publish on January 12.
Yes, I believe that it is important to understand how climate science morphed into a multi-trillion dollar industry. Very little of what I wrote is about psychology. Most of it has to do with flawed assumptions, bureaucratic inertia, and material interests.
It is not an issue of my personal beliefs,in fact i am quite open minded on the topic and i believe you know more about this. But i don't think focusing on motivations of people supporting certain policies has much persuasive power. Whether it is for environmental or economic purposes has little effect on the outcomes of policies/regulations. And since you have already covered this topic elsewhere (i trust your data, i also know people personally who are more pessimistic about climate change effects) i don't think focusing on intent is neccesary. Whether certain industries are greedy or why celebrities engage in advocacy is a different topic .
You have this for example https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/is-green-activism-based-on-good-intentions, as a different article. But i believe it is better to keep the criticism of certain policies and criticism on the motivation of the people who support them two separate topics ( i assume here you were focused on the former) . An attempt to blend the two together could disincentivize a person with different views to engage.
No, I am trying to explain the origin of the Green energy and climate change movement. Relatively little of this article is "the criticism of certain policies" as you mentioned in your first comment. I have plenty of other articles that do that.
I am not trying to incentivize anyone. I am trying to explain the facts as I see it.
I never mentioned the word "greedy" or "celebrities."
To the best of my knowledge, no one has written an article like this. I think it is an important topic given that it is multi-trillion-dollar industry.
Climate models are all based on scenarios. But what's a scenario? It is nothing more than an act of the human imagination, expressed in the form of if..... then. Because these scenarios are all based on the future, there is no way to verify them in the present.
When evaluating climate predictions, the expression 'actions speak louder than words" is a wise mantra. Forget what politicians and CEOs and celebrities and VC guys say. Look at what they do in their own lives.
President Obama informed us for years that hurricanes were getting stronger and more deadly because of climate change. When he left the WH, he bought a huge mansion on Martha's Vineyard, overlooking the North Atlantic -- Noreaster Alley.
The tech VC guys are all in on ESG. They live in Silicon Valley. They invest (mostly) in Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley sits at sea level. They are investing their own money in the very place they are saying will be underwater.
Hollywood celebrities wax eloquently (well, maybe that's an overstatement) on Twitter about how climate change is making CA wildfires so much worse. And then they buy mansions in Malibu and Pacific Palisades. (And I doubt the current fires will cause even 1 of them to move.)
I have neither the time nor expertise to evaluate climate science. But I can evaluate what the wealthy and powerful, who have a whole lot more to lose than I do, think about climate change. And regardless of their words, their actions have always said they think it's bunk.
So I opened an article about energy policy and "the world" and searched for the words "China" and "India" and came up dry, so I'm closing the article now after this comment.
You can't possibly have written an article about *world* energy policy without even mentioning them.
Chris White: Trump’s Energy Secretary Pick
Chris White’s appointment as energy secretary represents a calculated shift toward environmental degradation. Behind his polished image lies a network of corporatism and corruption, eroding ecological safeguards to benefit powerful fossil fuel interests.
White’s career is deeply tied to the fossil fuel industry, notably through his tenure at BlackHydra Energy, a multinational linked to global environmental destruction. His policies promote deregulation disguised as economic growth, enabling unchecked resource extraction and dismantling of green initiatives like methane emission standards. Token gestures like subsidizing “clean coal” distract from his broader agenda.
Though White postures as a technocrat, his disdain for climate science is clear. He champions speculative geoengineering projects that gamble with Earth’s climate systems while ignoring urgent carbon reduction efforts. His dismissal of scientific consensus fosters public doubt and stalls meaningful climate action.
White’s true power lies in bureaucratic sabotage. By embedding loyalists into regulatory agencies, he obstructs environmental reviews, benefiting corporate polluters. His attacks on renewable energy, framed as “energy independence,” polarize public discourse and delay the transition to sustainability.
Ultimately, White’s tenure accelerates environmental degradation for short-term profit, threatening the planet’s future. Recognizing and resisting this trajectory is critical to preserving a livable world.
GQ
This article is not about Chris White. It is a commenting rule that you must stat on the topic of the post.
Given the flows of capital, it’s surprising that there aren’t larger clean energy corporations. I know some solar companies are beginning to get to sizable valuations, but I would have expected greater size and valuations given the IEA investment figures. I understand the clean energy investments are much more distributed than fossil fuel investments, but still. $500B into Solar in 2024 alone and the leading company has a $150B market cap?
Good point.
An awful lot of them went bankrupt, plus a huge chunk of the money goes to China. I plan to write an article on the topic in the future.
I guess Tesla is an exception (if you include electric cars as Green energy).
Focusing on the intention and motivation of why people support certain policies, albeit interesting from a psychological POV, isn't very productive. It is more efficient to measure the outcomes of those policies wherever they were installed.
I am very surprised that you of all people believe this.
I actually wrote this article in response to your November 12 question to me on whether I thought the climate change movement is a conspiracy. I gave my best answer at the time, and then decided that the topic was worth an entire article.
I have dozens of articles on the outcomes of Green energy policies and have a Table of Contents for all them ready to publish on January 12.
Here is the existing unordered list of articles:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/t/green-energy-policies
Yes, I believe that it is important to understand how climate science morphed into a multi-trillion dollar industry. Very little of what I wrote is about psychology. Most of it has to do with flawed assumptions, bureaucratic inertia, and material interests.
It is not an issue of my personal beliefs,in fact i am quite open minded on the topic and i believe you know more about this. But i don't think focusing on motivations of people supporting certain policies has much persuasive power. Whether it is for environmental or economic purposes has little effect on the outcomes of policies/regulations. And since you have already covered this topic elsewhere (i trust your data, i also know people personally who are more pessimistic about climate change effects) i don't think focusing on intent is neccesary. Whether certain industries are greedy or why celebrities engage in advocacy is a different topic .
You have this for example https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/is-green-activism-based-on-good-intentions, as a different article. But i believe it is better to keep the criticism of certain policies and criticism on the motivation of the people who support them two separate topics ( i assume here you were focused on the former) . An attempt to blend the two together could disincentivize a person with different views to engage.
I am having a hard time following your logic.
No, I am trying to explain the origin of the Green energy and climate change movement. Relatively little of this article is "the criticism of certain policies" as you mentioned in your first comment. I have plenty of other articles that do that.
I am not trying to incentivize anyone. I am trying to explain the facts as I see it.
I never mentioned the word "greedy" or "celebrities."
To the best of my knowledge, no one has written an article like this. I think it is an important topic given that it is multi-trillion-dollar industry.
If you don't want to read the article, fine.