6 points about climate and my doubt about the narrative
I am going to say a VERY unpopular thing and you can go ahead and educate me, with REAL science and facts. Because what I will say is actually based on reading the ORIGINAL PAPERS. The academic stuff, the data, etc. Not the media-boosted versions. Here it goes:
1) Climate change is real and IS caused by our economic system, which is largely based on high-density energy in the form of mostly oil, gas, and coal.
2) Roughly 85% of global energy is from these 3 sources (oil, gas, coal) and replacing even 10% of this with HUGE and very invasive and materials-heavy wind farms and solar panel fields is extremely costly and inefficient (resource-intensive), giving unstable and diffuse energy that is nowhere near the “quality” (efficiency) of fossil fuels.
3) The 2 extremely “green energies” that are hyper efficient are a) hydro electricity and b) nuclear. It seems nuclear energy is not a “popular” subject in our zero-science-based, all-emotions based world, but nuclear energy is actually by FAR the most efficient (high density energy at low cost and very low ecological footprint).
4) Cutting the use of all fossil fuels AND nuclear = a huge spike in energy costs = a very dramatic drop in material standards of living (rising poverty and misery!)= riots and social breakdown and major poverty, with all that comes with it. We see it in every country that tries to do it. This is the “cost” part of “going green” climate-wise, without nuclear energy.
5) The ACTUAL consequences of climate change within 100 to 200 years, as exposed in actual academic papers are more than “manageable”: mega fires, very slow and gradual flooding of some places, etc. This is all “bad stuff”, obviously, but again, you must COMPARE IT to the alternative of the consequences of cutting all fossil fuels without nuclear energy. You CAN’T look at “costs of climate change” without comparing them to “costs” of cutting all fossil fuels, which is mass-poverty, complete social breakdown, civil wars, and more. This is based on actual REALISTIC scenarios provided by scientists, NOT the hyper-emotional and totally off-the-wall interpretations of Internet pundits and media. The “rising sea levels” is over THOUSANDS of years. The world CAN manage a rise of 50 cm of global oceans, believe it or not. With costs, yes, but again, you must compare to the costs of cutting all fossil fuels.
6) Based on all I have read in science papers, my conclusion is that “climate” is NOT the most pressing ecological issue, especially when comparing to the social costs of cutting the use of fossil fuels energy. What ARE the most pressing ecological issues are all oceans, water problems, loss of virgin forest area, waste management, lakes and rivers pollution.
The world is NOT going to “end soon”. The pressures we face as a human society are indeed in part ecological (I have listed several) and economic sociological: economic extremes (inequality), social division, disinformation, conspiracy theories, populism, etc.
Now. Educate me… not with emotions or bloated interpretations, but with actual science and facts. Convince me that “the world is going to hell soon”… because that is NOT what the science says. At least not as per CLIMATE. Maybe the world “is going to hell” in terms of social divisions, inequality, politics and a loss of ground of democracy and freedom. Or even “the world has major ecological challenges”… OTHER than climate. All this, yes. But “climate problems” are very overblown, if I trust actual papers by academics in peer-reviewed journals. Explain to me how I am wrong. Thanks.
Pascal Bedard
