Also finishing this article and ones you have on this topic,would you consider the idea of Chinese nudging western nations to promote green energy policies and net zero is a baseless conspiracy? Because the difference between the starting goals and outcomes so far of net zero seem to stark to be explained solely by incompetent predictions and romantic optimism.
I am not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean that it is China that is covertly pushing the Green agenda?
If so, then no. The Green energy policies really got started in the 1990s. China was not at all influential in world affairs.
I will write an article on the subject, but here is what I think is going on:
1) An actual problem of climate change, but one that is far less severe than activists claim.
2) Once the problem was discovered by scientists, activists moved into the field of climate science and drove out alternative views.
3) Very unrealistic assumptions that go into the climate models. Ideological bias prevents them from updating those unrealistic assumptions.
4) Once the climate alarm caught on with the Left, it created an information cascade where everyone who started from Left-of-Center views became Green maximalists.
5) Left-of-Center parties found it very useful to simultaneously save the world, earn votes, and disburse money to supporters.
6) Government subsidies, mandates, and ESG created a huge "market" for Green energy manufacturers, utilities, and financial services companies who have a huge financial incentive to pursue government subsidies and mold public opinion to keep the cash flowing. It is very similar to defense contractors, but with far more money devoted to PR.
I hope that answers your question.
Once you combine unrealistic ideological goals to the profit motive, things can get out of control very quickly.
The problem with the late adopter strategy is that you need someone to be the the early one first ,and globally the us has historically fulfilled that role. It is rather discouraging that green energy so far is the best option the brightest minds globally have come up with to mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change.
I am confident that the Europeans will pour tens of billions of Euros into solar, wind, and utility-scale batteries. My guess is that China will spend even more. Any incremental advantage of the US doing so will have little effect on prices. The US should focus on denser energy sources.
Moreover, Green energy is actually an extremely uncost-effective means to deal with climate change. It is guaranteed to fail.
The reality is that massive change to our energy system will have very little change on future global temperatures:
Adaptation or some form of geo-engineering is likely far more cost-effective.
And even if mitigation is the goal, replacing coal-burning power plants with extremely-efficient Combined Cycle Natural Gas is far better, particularly in North America. The USA can also assist other nations to follow the same path.
Also finishing this article and ones you have on this topic,would you consider the idea of Chinese nudging western nations to promote green energy policies and net zero is a baseless conspiracy? Because the difference between the starting goals and outcomes so far of net zero seem to stark to be explained solely by incompetent predictions and romantic optimism.
I am not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean that it is China that is covertly pushing the Green agenda?
If so, then no. The Green energy policies really got started in the 1990s. China was not at all influential in world affairs.
I will write an article on the subject, but here is what I think is going on:
1) An actual problem of climate change, but one that is far less severe than activists claim.
2) Once the problem was discovered by scientists, activists moved into the field of climate science and drove out alternative views.
3) Very unrealistic assumptions that go into the climate models. Ideological bias prevents them from updating those unrealistic assumptions.
4) Once the climate alarm caught on with the Left, it created an information cascade where everyone who started from Left-of-Center views became Green maximalists.
5) Left-of-Center parties found it very useful to simultaneously save the world, earn votes, and disburse money to supporters.
6) Government subsidies, mandates, and ESG created a huge "market" for Green energy manufacturers, utilities, and financial services companies who have a huge financial incentive to pursue government subsidies and mold public opinion to keep the cash flowing. It is very similar to defense contractors, but with far more money devoted to PR.
I hope that answers your question.
Once you combine unrealistic ideological goals to the profit motive, things can get out of control very quickly.
The problem with the late adopter strategy is that you need someone to be the the early one first ,and globally the us has historically fulfilled that role. It is rather discouraging that green energy so far is the best option the brightest minds globally have come up with to mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change.
Thanks for the comment, but I disagree.
I am confident that the Europeans will pour tens of billions of Euros into solar, wind, and utility-scale batteries. My guess is that China will spend even more. Any incremental advantage of the US doing so will have little effect on prices. The US should focus on denser energy sources.
Moreover, Green energy is actually an extremely uncost-effective means to deal with climate change. It is guaranteed to fail.
The reality is that massive change to our energy system will have very little change on future global temperatures:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/pop-quiz-how-much-does-eliminating
Adaptation or some form of geo-engineering is likely far more cost-effective.
And even if mitigation is the goal, replacing coal-burning power plants with extremely-efficient Combined Cycle Natural Gas is far better, particularly in North America. The USA can also assist other nations to follow the same path.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-simple-and-cost-effective-plan
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/lets-leverage-american-lng-exports
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/the-wonders-of-ccgt
Even if you ignore carbon emissions, this strategy still makes more sense, particularly in North America.