making_sense_of_climate_denial_course

This is a thread from the [|Making Sense of Climate Denial Course] ("Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial"), which ran from April-June, 2015. If you want to review the whole course and discussion it is still possible to sign up there.

The following thread represents a challenge to the course organisers on the issue of whether renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels. =Fact: Renewable energy costs more than fossil fuels= discussion posted 4 days ago by ArthurD Vote for this post, there are currently 3 votes 3 Votes ]]

This simple fact is common ground among all serious participants in debates concerning what to do about global warming.

It is the central reason why many argue for a carbon tax and subsidies to renewables. Without such measures there is no hope of renewables replacing fossil fuels.

It is also the central reason for concern that the world will continue on the present "business as usual" track towards significant problems from global warming before the end of the century. No such measures are in fact being taken to the extent that would be required to make a significant difference.

The vast majority of emissions are expected to come from poor countries like India and China rapidly industrializing over the next few decades.

They are not cannot and will not be switching from fossil fuels to renewables because they cannot afford the extra cost. Consequently 4 times as much additional energy is being supplied by coal each year as by renewables.

There are NO serious claims that renewables will become cheaper than fossil fuels. What IS being claimed is that they will become cheaper than they are now but that it is still NECESSARY to make fossil fuels more expensive through such measures as carbon taxes in order to internalize the external costs imposed by emissions.

Numerous posts with "good news" about trends towadrs renewables demonstrate that many students in this course are unaware of these facts.

Worse, course staff are actively in denial about them.

I started a thread on this, which had 47 posts --> this course helps preserve fossil fuels

Another student posted several links as follows: "I'm a serious student of the economic debate, with a degree in economics and in science: renewables demonstrably cost less than consumables, and I nor the World Bank, nor [] nor [] nor Swanson's Law nor [] nor the IEA do not tacitly or otherwise agree to the myth of cheap consumables; it's a bald misrepresentation to suggest consumables are cheaper."

Not one of these links claims that renewables are or will become cheaper than fossil fuels so that poor countries could switch to them while industrializing. The last, from the group behind this course, repeats what is in fact usually claimed: "When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies."

This is true but completely irrelevant to the question of whether renewables will or can replace fossil fuels in the poor countries that are industrializing.

They are paying ACTUAL costs in the ACTUAL situation of no "carbon price" and people on $2 per day have much higher priorities. They do NOT "account for the effects". (Neither for that matter do most developed countries that could afford to, but the point is that even if they did, poor countries still CANNOT do so while industrializing).

The response of course staff was to close down the thread before I could even point out that NONE of the links offered even denied, let alone refuted the commonly accepted basis for all serious debate that renewables are not replacing fossil fuels because their actual costs are greater.

Please take a look at the closed thread and then come back here and follow this thread if you are interested in serious discussion of what can be done about the ACTUAL situation rather than pretense that endlessly repeating what OUGHT to be can change what is continuing to happen - "business as usual" with rapidly growing emissions.

PS I have many other course deadlines and won't be responding much before June 25.

9 responses

> ArthurD. > FACT > ArthurD's thread was closed because he repeatedly was posting rude and disrespectful comments about the staff. > MYTH > ArthurD, says //"The response of course staff was to close down the thread before I ... could even point out ..."//, sort of implying his thread was shut down to stop him saying unwelcome "facts". > FALLACY > ArthurD, by his own admission, states that the thread was 47 posts long. Plenty of time to say what he needed to. All his posts are still there in their magnificence. He has been able to open a new thread and drone on again. > There is no censorship here. If he does not post insults he will be able to say and peddle what he likes. >> posted 3 days ago by ArthurD >> posted 3 days ago by jayblackhawk1
 * 1. JohnSeers Community TA**
 * No comment necessary
 * Yet you go on, and on, and on. Why don't you just go

3 days ago - endorsed a day ago by Sassinak Community TA
 * 2. pattimer Community TA**

I missed the debate Arthur but it seems to me a confusion that exists is about the word "costs".

Costs to a company are not the same as costs to a a country or society.

For example how labour/ capital costs will be seen differently by a company than the country. Labour costs are the same as capital costs to the company but labour costs can to some degree be seen as profit to a country depending on employment levels. (this argument is sometimes made when looking at arms production but not when looking at energy alternatives by often the same people).

External costs are more often than not ignored by companies but cannot be ignored by society.

ArthurD: Thanks, pattimer, I look forward to further discussion in a few days.

Please do read the previous thread, or at least my introductory post to it.

I basically agree with what you just said, so it is not an issue in this thread (and was not in the other thread).

Society must indeed face up to the external costs of the climate change expected to result from continued "business as usual" emissions of which fossil fuels is the most important aspect.

My point is that "society" clearly is not doing so and there is no reason to expect that it will do so, at least not until a lot more damage has been done. There is no rational basis for believing that repeating the same points that environmentalists have been making for a couple of decades will be any more successful in the future than it has in the past. Certainly the recommendations in this course for greater arrogance and polarization won't have any better result.

A quite different approach is required. See for example: http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto/

As documented in the original thread, the gas industry is now openly allied with the renewables industry in supporting carbon taxes, and was funding research promoted by environmental organizations many years ago.

This is because both carbon pricing directly and the encouragement of renewables has been a major help to them in competing with coal. Wind and solar require substantial additional gas capacity in the grid because they are intermittant and are required to meet the demand when wind plus solar does not. Although more expensive than coal for baseload, gas is cheaper for peaking and meeting intermittant load.

At quite substantial additional costs, some developed countries have marginally reduced the rate the rate at which their emissions are growing by introducing more renewables and gas with less emissions than the amount of coal displaced.

This is simply not happening in the poor countries that are industrializing rapidly and expected to be the main source of emissions over the rest of this century. Consequently there has been no significant change in the emissions trajectory of "business as usual" and in particular the additional new energy required each year is being supplied 4 times as much by coal as by renewables.

Apart from helping its sponsors, the special interests of the gas and renewables industries, the main result of continuous blather about renewables has been to distract attention from the need for massive R&D to actually come up with solutions that industrializing countries can afford. Pretending that renewables can do it is doing real damage.

Society is not facing up to the real costs of the massive R&D that will be required for solutions. Given the lead times for education of a significant increase in the number of scientific workers the results of further delay could be quite serious.

Denial of simple well established facts about engineering is a far more serious problem than denial of facts about climate science. This course is actively contributing to denial of the need for more science.

mlmartens: The many, many flaws of the ecomodernism manifesto were provided in previous threads and those flaws were ignored by ArthurD.

Some of its authors are well known deniers. It is largely based on a false dilemma fallacy - the fallacy of relative privation, or the 'but there are starving children in Africa' fallacy. But more bizarrely, ecomodernism thinks that human influence on the earth's climate is a good thing and that humans should make an effort to use human activity even more to change the climate. The authors also think that nuclear energy is the ultimate solution and all other solutions are wrong. It cherry picks data and uses flawed analyses to present nuclear energy as the perfect solution and uses those same flawed analyses in an attempt to discredit renewable energies. Ecomodernism presents a utopian vision and, of course, like any utopian vision of the world, it ignore the fact that humans aren't machines and utopias never work. Addressing global warming requires more than technical solutions, it requires addressing social issues.

References to peer reviewed journal articles regarding the costs of fossil fuels and the rapidly declining costs of renewables were provided in previous threads and those were ignored by ArthurD.

The fact that coal use is declining in China was noted and ignored by ArthurD.

The claim that this course contributes to the denial of the need for more science is a false equivalence fallacy. If AuthurD had actually watched the course videos and read the course material, he would know that the course instructors and course contributors frequently point to the need for more research.

ArthurD: I only respond to mlmartens when obliged to by my own mistake, so I hope not to respond to him in this thread.

If somebody else wants me to respond to some claim by mlmartens they will have to initiate that discussion themselves (and would be well advised to first check carefully eg "the fact that coal use is declining in China" is typical of the sort of stuff I regard as just as pointless to respond to as it was for mlmartens to say).

mlmartens: China's coal use falling faster than expected http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/26/china-coal-idUSL3N0WL32720150326

ArthurD: Ok unfortunately I did invite that and am obliged to respond. The Reuters report does say what mlmartens claimed and is typical of a wide range of similar reports that are generally accepted as reasonable, rather than something just made up on the spot or reported from the "usual suspects" as has been typical here.

The explanations given in these widely accepted reports are wrong. A more accurate account is provided in this Australian Financial Review report. (Australian analysts take an especially close interest because the recent plummeting price for coal resulting from the small decline in current demand and larger oversupply of mining capacity in Australia and elsewhere responding to high prices in the boom, has major impacts on the Australian economy, heavily dependent on coal and iron ore exports, especially to China). http://www.afr.com/business/energy/electricity/china-demand-for-coalfired-electricity-falls-by-10-per-cent-in-march-quarter-20150416-1mmo8t

Chinese statistics claiming extremely high GDP growth rates are notoriously unreliable with even the Premier admitting that statistics on power consumption, rail freight volumes and bank loans are a better guide to growth rates.

As explained in the article it is not "China's coal use" that is "falling faster than expected" but China's entire economy and especially heavy industry which is a major part of baseload demand for energy. There is no implication of a switch from coal to renewables at all, but a rather strong collapse in the price of coal that will further delay any such switch because it is making renewables and nuclear even less competitive and dwarfs the impact of any carbon tax currently being contemplated.

There has been massive Chinese overproduction of both coal plants and hydro plants, (as well as steel plants and a lot of heavy industry) together with underestimation of corresponding rail transport requirements for coal. Consequently the economic downturn results in the reduced demand for electricity being met from the already built hydro plant (which has no additional fuel costs) and not from the already built coal plant, which is currently being run at ridiculously low utilization rates to reduce costs of fuel including transport. Seizing on a collapse of coal prices due to overproduction and economic crisis as something that will accelerate rather than retard renewables is quite typical of the level of general understanding of these issue and is just not worth time discussing.

It is rather similar to the cherry picking engaged in by denialists when picking 1998 as a date from which to point to a "decline" and engaged in daily by alarmists by seizing on every extreme weather event as cause for more alarm rather than actually explaining climate instead of weather.

mlmartens: "There is no implication of a switch from coal to renewables at all," None at all? China saw by far the biggest renewable energy investments in 2014 — a record $83.3 billion, up 39% from 2013. http://fs-unep-centre.org/publications/global-trends-renewable-energy-investment-2015 China tries to ditch its coal addiction, reduce energy intensity http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/05/us-china-parliament-ndrc-idUSKBN0M108V20150305

RonHughesUK: External costs are more often than not ignored by companies but cannot be ignored by society. Those who advocate the inclusion of 'external' costs must also factor in 'external' benefits. A population thrives and expands, and hence GDP increases, due to the availability of low-priced, reliable, available energy. Every single participant on this course has a personal choice as to whether or not they use fossil fuels. My guess is that not one will deny (directly or indirectly) benfitting.

ArthurD: Benefits described are not "external" but the direct benefits of energy to society paid for by its normal price. An external benefit would be something like the benefits of vaccination in providing herd immunity rather than personal protection. snipped unnecessary inflaming comments STAFF

2 Votes > My son is working for a degree in economics, and that field recognizes the lesson of "The tragedy of The Commons" and the social harm that is being sown in venting greenhouse gases like CO2 into our shared atmosphere. > I find it hard to understand your point. > Do you not realize that studies are conducted by scientific and reasonable people ? > Take a look at this latest research news..... > [] > [] > Do you discount or think you are superior to the multi-University and country research that strongly indicates we are a course of extinction ?. > I would never be so arrogant as you.
 * 3. redskylite**

>> Neither of the links is about anything relevant to the issue in this thread. But a student completes this course and thinks it is somehow useful in a debate about what to do to simply proclaim what "scientific and reasonable people" believe about something else. >> This course has certainly left that student finding it "hard to understand your point" and consequently unable to participate in the actual debate. At the risk of sounding rude and disrespectful I will not elaborate on the relationship between this and the behaviour of some course staff.
 * This seems to be a good example of the damage done by this course.
 * ArthurD

>> You are making erroneous cause and effect conclusions. I think in the FLICC scenario that is a logical fallacy, or perhaps a strawman point.
 * A complete non-sequitur ArthurD.
 * JohnSeers Community TA

>> I agree. It just happened to be a convenient illustration happening right here, right now in this thread. >> Would you dispute that there are many such examples available in the forum? >> In the previous thread I documented the specific questions selected for pre- and post- course testing how "treatment" of students by this course that explicitly excluded discussion of solutions affected agreement with 3 typical proposed solutions. Would you dispute my explanation of the breathtaking list of fallacies involved in that? >> Teaching students arrogant psychologizing of "deniers" is hardly likely to help them to participate in the actual economic and political debates, which are not about climate science at all. >> BTW if I did correctly understand and accept your point, do you think it was actually strengthened or weakened by adopting the course jargon about "erroneous cause and effect conclusions" and characterization "in the FLICC scenario". Wouldn't it have been simpler and more productive to express your point the way I did at the start so that it would be something I could accept and agree with rather than sounding like just more of the usual sneering promoted here?
 * Not sure, but I think you are pointing out that just because that particular student has been left posting COMPLETELY irrelevant links and unable to participate in the actual debate, it does not follow that the course is to blame.
 * ArthurD

>> From your postings in the forums, Denial101x never was the right MOOC for you to participate in, so just concentrate on the other MOOCs you want to finish and stop wasting your (and our) time here.
 * Arthur - nobody is forcing you to continue to post in the Denial101x-forums if you don't like how we run our MOOC (which still is not about solutions but about **denying climate change science**). We will "simply" need to agree to disagree as there just doesn't seem to be much - if any - common ground for a meaningful discussion.
 * BaerbelW Staff


 * Nobody is forcing you to participate in this thread. (With the utmost of all due respect).
 * ArthurD


 * 4. jayblackhawk1**

It is a shame that people like ArthurD either can't or won't face the simple reality that all new technologies have high initial start up cost. If I may use his rather childish technique, FACT: when we first started developing and using fossil fules for industry, and public utilities the cost were "astronomical" but as we got better at it, the cost came down. FACT: if we spent the next fifty years developing and improving "renewable" energy technology, the cost would plummet. FACT:it is precisely for this reason the energy industry fights "renewable" energy technology as they fear losing the obscene profits they currently enjoy.

>> All industries have a similar pattern of costs declining with maturity. Wind and solar are now quite mature but remain unable to compete with coal and gas. There is nothing on the horizon that suggests storage costs could come down in enough to make them competitive. India and China are not waiting but are industrializing NOW. >> If we spend the next 50 years delaying the massive R&D program that will be needed to actually come up with solutions the industrializing countries can afford there will be real damage and both the coal and gas industry will continue their ongoing rapid expansion. If we do come up with something cheaper they will be reduced to the same marginal role currently occupied by more expensive technologies like nuclear, solar an wind.
 * The gas industry is not fighting but allying with the renewables "industry" and has been funding its "research" on this theme for years, as documented in the other thread.
 * ArthurD

>> There are also energy storage technologies available that bring the costs enough to make renewable energy competitive. That was documented "in the other thread'.
 * Costs decline when an industry is rapidly growing, not when it is mature. This is basic strategic organizational theory (for a good review, see Keppler, 1997). Costs are generally stable at maturity. The wind and solar renewable energy industries are not mature industries, they are in the initial part of the rapid growth phase. That's a long way from mature. You're also continuing to ignore the fact that there are other renewable energy methods outside of wind and solar.
 * mlmartens


 * 5. ArthurD**

> Anyone wanting an example of what I would call serious analysis in support of renewables should take a look here: []

> I have only been able to quickly skim a couple of directly relevant chapters but will certainly look forward to reading it (and others in the series).

> Its a good place to start learning how electricity markets actually work. Although from my quick glance I got the impression they were still trying to adapt LCOE pricing instead of doing the much more complex analysis of relative costs actually routinely performed by people designing power grids, and had a rather odd reference to renewables being more valuable at peak periods when this obviously applies to all sources, the difference actually being just that intermittant sources are less likely to be available when they are most needed than dispatchable sources. But anyway, whatever weaknesses may turn up, they are clearly not flakes and clearly not simply ignoring the way power grids actually function the way most "activists" do.

> As far as I can see they do not address at all the question of how poor countries could afford to switch but are totally focussed on how to maximize the emissions reduction for each dollar spent on reductions in the U.S.

> If anyone could identify a place where they do directly address the issue of renewables becoming affordable for poor countries to switch I would be most interested in the page reference and quote as it would refute my claim that no serious participant in debates on either side makes such claims and they are only put forward by flakes who know nothing about it.

> On the issues they address I certainly agree that money spent subsidizing domestic solar electricity would be far better spent on fundamental research (as opposed to deployment) of Concentrated Solar Power. This is also pretty well common knowledge except among people whose living depends on them not understanding why solar panels with battery storage are a waste or who just don't care about facts.

> My own view is that the US Department Of Energy was very wise to sponsor the human genome project and even just in reference to climate issues far more priority should be given to fundamental research related to biology than to CSP. Affordable solutions for storage and carbon capture are far more likely to result from the rapid progress in biological sciences that has followed the human genome project than from any other research DOE has sponsored.

BTW There is a related publication linked on the same page: []

> This makes it clear that the useful applications of solar in the developed world are for reducing widespread expensive diesel fuel consumption in local off-grid, mini-grid and unreliable (intermittant grid) supplementation and providing minimal power for at least LED lites and phones in completely off grid situations.

> That is again the commonly accepted understanding, with no suggestion that all these are anything but merely stop gaps while the grid is extended and made reliable though industrialization. There is no suggestion that solar in developing countries could have a significant impact on emissions by displacing fossil fuel use in the grid.

> Also footnotes on page 1 acknowledge the generally accepted facts that have been ludicrously disputed here: > 1) Whereas among developed countries the annual rate of demand growth for electricity is relatively low, averaging less than 1% within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) since 2000, in the developing world it is far higher, ranging from 4% in Africa at large to 6% in India, and 11% in China in the same period. Through mid-century, demand growth in developing countries is likely to moderate, but, in the aggregate, it is forecast to remain well above typical OECD levels. Accordingly, by mid-century under plausible policy, economic growth, and technology adoption scenarios, non-forest related CO 2 -equivalent emissions from developing countries, excluding India and China, collectively will exceed those of the United States and other developed countries combined, and will be only slightly less than the sum of emissions in India and China. These claims are based on a breakdown of regional and country emissions as forecast under the SRES A1F1 (Special Report on Emissions Scenario) Minicam scenario using Climate Rapid Overview and Decision Support (C-ROADS), a climate simulation program built from a systems dynamics model. In the simulation, developing countries are all countries excluding the United States; all of Europe, including the United Kingdom, Russia and the former Soviet Republics; Canada;Australia; New Zealand; Japan; and South Korea[1].

> 2) Many developing countries, including China, India, and South Africa, are pursuing aggressive policies to encourage solar investment using policy instruments such as mandated portfolio standards and renewable energy credits[2]. While these policies are giving rise to impressive auction prices for solar capacity, neither the capital costs nor the economics of solar power in these countries are appreciably different from those seen in developed countries following similar practices. Levelized costs for solar remain uncompetitive with prevailing conventional generation costs[3].

> End Notes (p17) > [1] [] > [2] Lucas, H., R. Ferroukhi and D. Hawila. Renewable Energy Auctions in Developing Countries, International Renewable Energy Agency. (2013). [] > [3] REN 21 Steering Committee. Renewables 2013: Global Status Report. 2013. Page 54, Table 2. []


 * I commend focus on [] but also recalling that academics are twenty times more likely to be overconservative than to overstate results.

>> MIT's claim of 6.8 TW energy available essentially for free from the Sun using one third the surface area committed in America to pipelines is quite conservative. The estimates of 11%-22% energy recovery by CSP is four to seven times below actual recorded efficiencies in practical CSP implementations. We could see an America generating above 28 TW of electricity from solar. That's of course nothing compared to the potential of geothermal or hydro.

>> And we see America on that path: in the two years from 2012 to 2014, the rate of increase in consumption of electricity from renewables almost tripled the increase in consumption from fossil or nuclear.

>> China is on that path far more intensively, due response to Chinese Death Smogs. Most of the world is making this progress steadily.

>> Though how this relates to human genomes, unless one subscribes to The Matrix as feasible energy storage, seems tenuous.
 * RobVB


 * 6. RobVB**

This thread appears to be a reply directed at points made (by myself and others) in the notorious closed thread in question.

As such, let's review the pertinent facts, myths and fallacies by CHESS:

Correct statement of fact: Due their attractive Market properties of diversity, under-exploited economies of scale, susceptibility to innovation, higher returns to labour and capital per dollar invested (more jobs and more profits for the same prices), general local availability, lower barriers to entry and exit, and lower externalities, renewables include in their range of prices the lowest possible costs overall, including in any feasible drive to advancement in less developed countries, be it increasing industrialization or increasing agriculture or increasing high technology or advancing education.

How we know it to be fact: We know from the principles of Economics how the Law of Economy of Scale works, and have sufficient information about availability of renewable supply compared to consumable supply for energy to know that as renewable deployment increases the long term supply cost drops while the opposite is true of consumables. Indeed, as renewable deployment increases and taste for consumables drops, their costs (and excessive profits far more a result of geopolitics and subsidy as of Market forces) will plummet -- one hopes their $5.3 Trillion in unearned subsidies will likewise evaporate, lowering tax rates on us all. Countless expert agencies, bodies and academics have confirmed these facts for geothermal, small-medium scale hydro, solar, wind, ocean and biomass. While some of these are more costly in some places, the ones that are most costly do not take away from the availability of less costly sources.

Erroneous claim: "Renewable energy costs more than fossil fuels - This simple fact is common ground among all serious participants in debates concerning what to do about global warming."

Sources of error: Here we see the No True Scotsman fallacy asserting contrary to all evidence mythic 'common ground' in the poster's fantasies attempting to poison the well by implied ad hominem argument; surely by this red herring reasoning all those who come to the table with evidence against those repeatedly misrepresentational views are not serious participants.. when in point of fact they appear to be the only participants in discussions concerning what to do, the ones with contrary view invariably abdicating and obstructing. You even see Roman Catholics attacking their own Pope on this point, refusing to be led to serious discussion of response to what he calls their moral duty.

Summary: Renewables are better for the economy, for the poor, for productivity, for advancement, for quality of life, for tax base and tax relief and by the way happen to be the largest part of the solution to AGW.

>> I previously made the mistake of attempting to engage RobVB in discussion, in the previous thread, but I hope not to need to respond to him in this thread. >> If somebody else wants me to respond to some claim by RobVB they will have to initiate that discussion themselves (and would be well advised to first check carefully). >> If anyone checks into what RobVB wrote, they'd find that his statements are quite accurate. >> Checkmate.
 * ArthurD
 * mlmartens
 * RobVB


 * 7. JPCooper**

Arthur, your primary misconception here is that you simply refuse to acknowledge the 'hidden' costs of fossil fuels, vs. renewables.

One very clear example: coal use in China. China is now leading the world in renewables (solar) additions, and although they still need coal in the near term (most all of their infrastructure is set up for coal or fossil fuels), they realize that the near term cost for coal under-represents the long term costs. Those include:

1) higher CO2 emissions, which they know they need to limit to avoid their own exposures to extreme climate change

2) air quality - most of their industrialized cities have the worst air quality of anywhere around the globe. The long-term health costs of that are NOT counted in the acute costs of fossil fuel burning.

3) energy independence/stability - they know that the more energy they can generate internally, the less they have to import and be beholden to market and other geopolitical influences.

You can look at Western US mining as yet another example of short-term vs. long term costs. This is why we (taxpayers) have had to shoulder the burden of SuperFund cleanup at old mining sites. The companies who got the short-term benefits left behind massive amounts of pollutants, which impact people who received NONE of the mining gains. And now we, the general public, shoulder the cost burden to clean that up so that it does not pose a hazard to those living downstream from those sites. Fossil fuels have great short-term low costs, when you ignore the 'hidden' costs and long-term costs to the general public.

A 3rd example: The US military spends A LOT of money to maintain stability in the Middle East. Even though we may not import that much of our oil directly from OPEC, those countries still have a large amount of control over the price of a barrel of oil on the world markets. If we and the world shift away from that source of energy, we will no longer need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year to be the 'world policeman' and guarantee safe passage of oil out of the Gulf. No one includes how much of our military expenditure (e.g. Navy) is being allocated to subsidize the safe passage and trade of oil onto the world markets, but if we were not over there, you would have massive fluctuations in oil costs with all of the political instability in that region (in fact, OPEC countries are presently trying to flood markets with cheap oil to destabilize and impact our more expensive shale oil 'boom' by underselling and bankrupting those enterprises). If most of the world can shift to renewables, ALL of those 'oil rich' countries become 'oil poor' and essentially irrelevant. Including Russia.

Claiming 'oil is cheap' ignores the military cost that we, the United States, bears to keep the flow of oil steady for us AND the world. And that is NOT a trivial cost, but since it is 'hidden' as a 'military' cost, it is generally accepted. By shifting more R&D and development to renewables infrastructure, we COULD shift that expenditure away from the military industrial complex and into the renewable energy complex; but there is a VERY strong military industrial lobby that is threatened by that.

Many renewables ARE cheaper than coal or fossil fuels WHEN YOU INCLUDE the long-term 'uncounted' costs, and climate change costs are but one of those additional hidden costs. One reason renewables are struggling to gain a larger foothold is that we have set up our major infrastructure for fossil fuels for a century or more; we have not invested NEARLY that amount of money to subsidize renewables. And, battery or energy storage costs are not quite low enough to make renewables fully viable for many places. But they are certainly viable, IF we are making a 1:1 comparison vs. the true costs and subsidies that have been afforded to fossil fuels.

The sooner we start the push to renewables, the better off we're going to be. We cannot simply 'shut off' fossil fuels use in a mere decade,but within 2 or 3 decades we could make a pretty big dent with an appropriate commitment. China is making an enormous commitment to solar and renewables; we are dragging our feet. This is fairly likely to make us the 2nd tier world power in the next 30+ years, because another major power is taking the technology lead on us.

>> I will comment further later, but not on those aspects of your post that are either fully covered by the above or relate to US policy in the middle east.
 * Please read response by pattimer above and my comment immediately below it.
 * ArthurD


 * ArthurD do you get paid by the word?
 * jayblackhawk1


 * JCooper after reviewing carefully I have still not been able to find anything relevant to this thead that is not adequately covered by comments and links I have already posted in this and the previous thread. So I won't be commenting further after all.

>> If repeating this stuff to each other could have the slightest effect on the actual trajectories of emissions that we are concerned about surely it would have had some visible effect during the DECADES in which people have been doing it.

>> Isn't it time to ask why your message doesn't seem to be working?
 * ArthurD


 * With the increased use of renewables and the decrease use of fossil fuels overall, the message does 'seem to be working'.
 * mlmartens


 * >>> JCooper after reviewing carefully I have still not been able to find anything relevant to this thead that is not adequately covered by comments and links I have already posted in this and the previous thread. So I won't be commenting further after all.

>> So, basically you have no response to my specific examples (air pollution and health costs borne by society in general vs. "cheap coal", military costs to keep fossil fuel trade un-hindered, borne mostly by the USA, cleanup costs in the form of Superfunds paid for by the US taxpayer)

>> I really do NOT see anything above which specifically covers this issue; only that it would be 'prohibitively' expensive to fund R&D or startup costs or subsidies to non-fossil fuel renewables. You seem to not want to address the massive societal subsidies provided to fossil fuels in one form or another, and only state that we cannot afford to subsidize renewables. Your argument is a bit circular here. Maybe you should consider another MOOC to post in, because you are just avoiding the questions being debated at you here, and keep calling out that you are being personally attacked (and initiating personal attacks).

>> You started the thread that 'renewable energy costs more than fossil fuels'. Defend your premise that the 'hidden costs' for fossil fuels are STILL smaller than renewables, and I'll be happy to discuss this with you. Otherwise, stop insulting people and deflecting your answers onto others. It appears to me that you are in way over your head here, and are just trying to bow out of the debate.
 * JPCooper


 * In //Crusaders, Criminals, Crazies: Terror and Terrorism in Our Time// (1977), Dr. Fred Hacker posited that the criminal mind was one that had lost the ability to relate negative consequence to gains. Criminals couldn't connect the dots between something unpleasant and something they wanted. Thus, criminals never consider getting caught a possible outcome of any particular action. (Though they may see being caught as a natural state of affairs for them.)

>> It's harder and harder for me, now that the Fact, Myth, Fallacy structure and understanding of FLICC have shaped my worldview, to not recall that observation of Hacker's. Because now that it's easy to disentangle the arguments, it's apparent I'm not reading the writing only of deniers: I'm quite often face-to-screen with crusaders, criminals or crazies.
 * RobVB


 * 8. BaerbelW Staff**

How about just agreeing to disagree instead of running in circles in this thread like happened in the earlier and now closed one? I'm sure that there is a lot more useful stuff any of us could do instead of further "inconveniencing electrons" by posting in this (and similar) threads here! >> //"JCooper after reviewing carefully ... So I won't be commenting further after all."// >> //"I previously made the mistake of attempting to engage RobVB in discussion, in the previous thread, but I hope not to need to respond to him in this thread."// >> Baerbel. He appears to have run out of people he is willing to debate. Might as well shut the thread. As RobVB said - "Checkmate". Though ArthurD might prefer //zugzwang//.
 * *//"I only respond to mlmartens when obliged to by my own mistake, so I hope not to respond to him in this thread."//
 * JohnSeers Community TA


 * Zugzwang! That's a great term. I hadn't heard it before. Thanks, John!
 * mlmartens

> JohnSeers, Zugzwang is indeed an interesting way to describe the situation in this thread. As your own behaviour has not yet reached the point where I see no point responding to you at all (and indeed you made a relevant point on a side issue earlier, which I promptly accepted), I will try to engage you in discussion to try and understand why you as well as RobVB and BaerbelW are so anxious to shut down this thead. After all, it would be so easy to simply ignore it as so many other threads are ignored.
 * 9. ArthurD**

> I do not feel at all compelled to respond to people who just keep repeating the same points, instead of responding to the replies that have already been made to them.

> But I would certainly prefer to actually have somebody here actually engage. So I hope you will actually respond to the points below.

> Based on the recent sequence I have to guess that you agree with JCooper's demand that I should: > "Defend your premise that the 'hidden costs' for fossil fuels are STILL smaller than renewables, and I'll be happy to discuss this with you." > Perhaps you also see it as "... insulting people and deflecting your answers onto others. It appears to me that you are in way over your head here, and are just trying to bow out of the debate."

> I would also still be happy to respond to JCooper if he engaged on something else. But I already responded to this by asking him to see pattimer's response above, in which pattimer raised exactly the same issue: > **"External costs are more often than not ignored by companies but cannot be ignored by society."** > and my comment to pattimer. > I said then: > "Thanks, pattimer, I look forward to further discussion in a few days. > Please do read the previous thread, or at least my introductory post to it. > **I basically agree with what you just said, so it is not an issue in this thread (and was not in the other thread).** > **Society must indeed face up to the external costs of the climate change expected to result from continued "business as usual" emissions of which fossil fuels is the most important aspect.**

> I then repeated again the subject of this thread: > **"My point is that "society" clearly is not doing so and there is no reason to expect that it will do so, at least not until a lot more damage has been done. There is no rational basis for believing that repeating the same points that environmentalists have been making for a couple of decades will be any more successful in the future than it has in the past. Certainly the recommendations in this course for greater arrogance and polarization won't have any better result. A quite different approach is required. See for example:** > []

> I think I do understand why people here prefer to talk about something else.

> But it seems REALLY peculiar to me that as well as insisting there is cause for great alarm, the SAME people claim the problem has already been solved, because renewables are replacing fossils.

> I also find it REALLY peculiar that the same people who believe renewables are replacing fossils just keep going on and on about instances of improvements in renewables and decline in fossil fuels and repeating their view that there ought to be more of the same.

> Precisely why do they not wish to deal with the actual facts clearly stated at the beginning of the thread: > **The vast majority of emissions are expected to come from poor countries like India and China rapidly industrializing over the next few decades.** > **They are not cannot and will not be switching from fossil fuels to renewables because they cannot afford the extra cost.** //Consequently 4 times as much additional energy is being supplied by coal each year as by renewables.//

> The first fact should be common knowledge, but I provided a reference to footnote 1 on page 1 of: > []

> Please either acknowledge as not in dispute the fact stated there, or else provide some refutation rather than simply treating it as inconvenient: > **1) Whereas among developed countries the annual rate of demand growth for electricity is relatively low, averaging less than 1% within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) since 2000, in the developing world it is far higher, ranging from 4% in Africa at large to 6% in India, and 11% in China in the same period. Through mid-century, demand growth in developing countries is likely to moderate, but, in the aggregate, it is forecast to remain well above typical OECD levels. Accordingly, by mid-century under plausible policy, economic growth, and technology adoption scenarios, non-forest related CO 2 -equivalent emissions from developing countries, excluding India and China, collectively will exceed those of the United States and other developed countries combined, and will be only slightly less than the sum of emissions in India and China. These claims are based on a breakdown of regional and country emissions as forecast under the SRES A1F1 (Special Report on Emissions Scenario) Minicam scenario using Climate Rapid Overview and Decision Support (C-ROADS), a climate simulation program built from a systems dynamics model. In the simulation, developing countries are all countries excluding the United States; all of Europe, including the United Kingdom, Russia and the former Soviet Republics; Canada;Australia; New Zealand; Japan; and South Korea[1].**

> The second fact should also be common knowledge. Anybody can look up the statistics for themselves. Emissions ARE continuing to grow because coal is continuing to provide **FOUR TIMES** the additioal energy required each year as renewables.

> As I said at the start of this thread, instead of actually facing up to these inconvenient facts the response in the other thread was to just keep repeating what ought to be and then shut the thread down:

> **"When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies."**

> **This is true but completely irrelevant to the question of whether renewables will or can replace fossil fuels in the poor countries that are industrializing.**

> **They are paying ACTUAL costs in the ACTUAL situation of no "carbon price" and people on $2 per day have much higher priorities. They do NOT "account for the effects". (Neither for that matter do most developed countries that could afford to, but the point is that even if they did, poor countries still CANNOT do so while industrializing).**

> **The response of course staff was to close down the thread before I could even point out that NONE of the links offered even denied, let alone refuted the commonly accepted basis for all serious debate that renewables are not replacing fossil fuels because their actual costs are greater.**

> Now here we are again with people unable to respond feeling a strange compulsion to shut down the arguments they are unable to respond to.

> That can only be done here. It does not help improve your incapacity to deal with the debates in the rest of the world where you are unable to just shut people down.

> Instead of acknowledging a compulsion to move, to actually respond to opposing arguments, certain staff and students exhibiting precisely the style of argument they have been taught in this course, are feeling a compulsion to quit by tipping the chessboard over in frustration.

>> I think even you will agree this thread has run its course. I believe the forum will be closed in the near future before the start of the next course. It would be good if activity here had come to an end.
 * Well, perhaps we can leave it at this and let you have the last word and we can all just gaze at the chess pieces all over the floor.
 * JohnSeers Community TA

>> I can only speculate that you believe no amount of time would enable somebody who disagrees to actually come up with an argument worth responding to. >> You have not even attemped to explain why I should respond to JCooper's demand: >> "Defend your premise that the 'hidden costs' for fossil fuels are STILL smaller than renewables, and I'll be happy to discuss this with you." >> After I explicitly drew his attention to the fact that I in fact held precisely the opposite view to the one he demands I should defend. >> I agree with you that no additional time could possibly result in you or he being able to compel to defend positions I don't agree with. >> But I think you should be allowed more than 3 days for it to really sink in that your inability to debate the position I actually DO argue here confirms that this course is not teaching any skills relevant to participation in the actual policy debate, which is NOT about climate science. >> I will have no complaint when the entire forum is closed.
 * This thread is currently three days old.

>> I would not be at all surprised if in future runs of the course staff decided it would be better not to have a forum as many threads in this forum have vividly confirmed the view expressed by Kahan (also supported by [|Mike Hulme]):

>> "...it is demonstrably the case (I'm talking real-world evidence here) that the regular issuance of these studies, and the steady drum beat of “climate skeptics are ignoring scientific consensus!” that accompany them, have had no—zero, zilch—net effect on professions of public “belief” in human-caused climate change in the U.S.

>> On the contrary, there’s good reason to believe that the self-righteous and contemptuous tone with which the “scientific consensus” point is typically advanced (“assault on reason,” “the debate is over” etc.) deepens polarization. That's because "scientific consensus," when used as a rhetorical bludgeon, predictably excites reciprocally contemptuous and recriminatory responses by those who are being beaten about the head and neck with it.

>> Such a mode of discourse doesn't help the public to figure out what scientists believe. But it makes it as clear as day to them that climate change is an "us-vs.-them" cultural conflict, in which those who stray from the position that dominates in their group will be stigmatized as traitors within their communities.

>> This is not a condition conducive to enlightened self-government.

>> ... the best evidence on why the public remains divided on climate change is the surfeit of cues that the issue is one that culturally divides people. Those cues motivate members of the public to reject any evidence of “scientific consensus” that suggests it is contrary to the position that predominates in their group. Under these circumstances, one can keep telling people that there is scientific consensus on issues of undeniable practical significance, and a substantial proportion of them just won’t believe what one is saying.

>> The debate over the latest “97%” paper multiplies the stock of cues that climate change is an issue that defines people as members of opposing cultural groups. It thus deepens the wellsprings of motivation that they have to engage evidence in a way that reinforces what they already believe. The recklessness that the authors displayed in fanning the flames of unreason that fuels this dynamic is what motivated me to express dismay over the new study." >> []

>> I certainly don't agree with closing this thread. >> In fact I am also planning to start another one as I didn't get around to responding to the comments on the ecomodernism manifesto before the previous thread was closed.
 * ArthurD


 * Oh and BTW both this thread you want to close after only 3 days and the previous thread you defended closing on quite different grounds both have far more activity than any of the other threads opened recently as well as far more activity than the vast majority of threads in the forum.
 * ArthurD