By Maarten Boudry
Thursday, January 27, 2022
In the recent Netflix smash hit Don’t Look Up,
scientists try to warn the world about a comet hurtling towards Earth that is
going to wipe out human civilization and possibly life itself. Except, no-one
wants to hear the bad news: the US president is too busy with the midterm
elections and wants to silence the scientific Cassandras, a psychopathic tech
mogul comes up with a cockamamie scheme to mine the precious minerals in the
comet, and everyone else is just too distracted by the latest celebrity
shenanigans to pay any attention to the impending disaster. When the despairing
scientists urge people to “Just look up,” the defiant answer “Don’t look up!”
becomes the rallying cry of the comet denialists, whipped up by the populist US
presidential administration.
All of this, of course, is a rather obvious and
heavy-handed allegory for our current climate predicament. Reviews of the movie
have been mixed, although many critics have
praised the film for being a “spot-on” indictment of our culture, an
“on-the-nose assessment” of our dealings with the climate crisis, or even
“so-sharp-it-hurts.” One climate scientist writing
in the Guardian opined that the movie “captures the
madness I see every day.” In the same newspaper, long-time climate
activist George
Monbiot wrote that the movie felt like “my whole life of campaigning
flash before me.”
It would be silly to take apart a work of satire, but as
these glowing reviews attest, Don’t Look Up offers
an—admittedly grotesque—version of a narrative about climate change that has
been promulgated seriously by many people. In this story, solving climate
change is mostly a matter of facing reality, breaking the power of fossil-fuel
interests, and mustering the political courage to do what needs to be done. We
already have the technological solutions to climate change, writes
Naomi Klein in her influential book This Changes Everything,
but they are sabotaged by a ruthless “elite minority that has a stranglehold
over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets.”
By taking that very narrative to such ludicrous
extremes, Don’t Look Up has also helped me realize what
exactly is wrong with it: it is a self-serving myth told by well-off Western
progressives that scapegoats easy villains, distracts from genuine solutions,
and stands in the way of some long-overdue soul-searching.
Don’t get me wrong: fossil fuel companies deserve all the
blame they can get for their decades-long campaign of
truth-obfuscation and intentionally confusing the public about the reality of
man-made climate change. In some countries, most notably the US, climate
skepticism has significantly delayed the actions that are needed to tackle
climate change. But outright denialism of the sort skewered in Don’t
Look Up has been on the wane for some time. In
the United States, nine out of 10 people now agree that the
consequences of climate change will be felt by current and future generations.
In a survey of 10 Western countries released just before the COP26 conference
in Glasgow last year, 62 percent of participants agreed that climate change is
the main environmental crisis the world is facing, ahead of concerns about
pollution and new diseases. Even fossil fuel companies have now finally
and grudgingly come to accept that their products are heating the
planet.
If you buy into the Don’t Look Up narrative,
however, it is easy to gloss over one inconvenient fact: fossil fuels have
been fantastic engines
of progress for
humanity, by providing access to cheap, abundant, reliable, and (relatively)
safe energy. They have freed us from back-breaking labor, tripled our life
expectancy, and allowed one country after another to escape from miserable poverty.
Fossil fuel companies have become so powerful precisely because, at their core,
they offer an extremely desirable product from which all of us benefit, both in
direct and visible forms (gasoline, diesel, natural gas) and in myriad indirect
forms (cement, plastics, steel, glass). Indeed, if you look around your living
room, you would be hard-pressed to find any object that did not somehow involve
the use of fossil fuels (if only because it will almost certainly have been
hauled to you by a diesel-powered machine).
Despite what many climate activists profess, we don’t yet
have clean and affordable solutions for cement
and steel production, fertilizer production for agriculture, or aviation.
In the absence of such clean alternatives, forgoing the use of fossil fuels
will inevitably entail painful sacrifices and difficult questions about how to
share the burden of emission reductions.
To see why “denialism” and “manipulation by elites” fail
as explanations of climate inaction, consider Germany, one of the richest and
most environmentally conscious nations on the planet. German political leaders
have been taking the climate crisis very seriously for more than three
decades, and unlike in the US, climate denialists are marginal and have
never wielded political power. Even in Germany, however, getting rid of fossil
fuels has proven extremely difficult. Despite having spent 500
billion euros in its much-heralded Energiewende (energy
transition), Germany is still
burning massive amounts of lignite and coal, and is not
even remotely on track to reach its climate targets. Even with the
best of intentions and tons of political goodwill—and without denialists
muddying the waters—climate progress has proven elusive. Indeed, you may be
surprised to learn that the US, despite experiencing much more trouble from
self-professed “climate skeptics,” has achieved similar
emission reductions to Germany over the past two decades, mainly by
switching from coal to gas and with some energy efficiency.
The disappointing outcome of Germany’s Energiewende,
despite its laudable intentions, does not mean that we should abandon all hope.
In fact, Germany could have performed much better than it did, and this is
where the story becomes uncomfortable for the climate activists
celebrating Don’t Look Up. Slashing emissions of greenhouse gases
requires a range of different actions, but foremost among them are two things:
first decarbonize electricity generation, then electrify
everything. As it happens, there are a few industrialized countries that
have already achieved an
almost complete decarbonization of their electricity sector. If you exclude
those with unique geographical advantages like Norway or Iceland (which benefit
greatly from hydropower and geothermal, respectively), you will find that all
of them did so by relying heavily on nuclear energy.
Consider Germany’s neighbor France, which pulled off this
feat without even worrying about global warming. Back in the 1970s, when
France decided to
switch from fossil fuels to nuclear energy, the climate problem was not even on
the agenda. And yet, within
about 15 years France had almost fully decarbonized its electricity
sector and had electrified a lot of other stuff (such as electrical
heating and high-speed
trains). Countries like France and Sweden have demonstrated in real life
that it is possible to eliminate fossil fuels without
sacrificing economic growth and prosperity. The reason why the carbon intensity
of German electricity, even after two full decades of Energiewende,
is still
more than five times higher than that of nuclear France is not because
of mass delusion and elite manipulation about the reality of man-made global
warming. Quite the contrary. It is because anti-nuclear environmentalists—the
very same people who express the highest level of anxiety about climate
change—have more political clout in Germany than in France and have convinced
their political leaders that it’s an excellent “climate policy” to abandon
atomic energy and close down all of their remaining reactors.
Back in the 1960s and 1970s, when the opposition to
nuclear energy became the linchpin of the environmentalist movement, anxieties
about nuclear energy were perhaps more understandable, not only because climate
change had not appeared on the horizon yet, but also because less was known
about the environmental impact of nuclear waste and accidents (now known to be rather
small) and about the environmental and health impact of coal plants (now
known to
be absolutely huge).
In its entire history, nuclear energy has avoided
around 74
billion tons of CO2 emissions, about twice the current global annual
emissions. That could have been an order of magnitude higher, if the nuclear
industry had continued its early rapid growth phase from the 1960s. Alas, in
country after country, planned projects for nuclear power plants were canceled
because of public
opposition (more
than 120 in the US
alone), mostly led by the environmentalist movement. Excessive regulation,
fueled by fear-mongering about the harms of low-level radiation, eventually led
to a negative learning
curve: every new reactor project was more expensive and time-consuming than
the last one. And thus, the reign of King Coal was unthreatened.
Even today, with climate scientists sounding the alarm
ever more desperately, most environmentalists have been unwilling to give up
their old fight against nuclear energy. Throughout the Western world, the
battle for the premature closure of nuclear plants is being led by Green
parties and NGOs. Even young climate activists like Greta Thunberg have
chided the European Commission for (finally) planning to include
nuclear energy in its Green taxonomy. Even today, Germany could still
avoid one billion tons of
CO2 emissions by 2045 if only it decided to keep its remaining reactors in
operation. But the very climate-conscious German political leaders would prefer
to burn more
coal and lignite, the dirtiest and most CO2-intensive of all fossil fuels,
for years to come. In my own country, Belgium, the Green party wants to build
and subsidize brand new fossil gas plants to replace perfectly fine
nuclear power plants.
Because environmentalists were among the first to put the
climate problem on the agenda (for which they deserve credit), they have also
dominated the debate about climate solutions, wielding outsized political
influence even today. For years traditional political parties in the Western
world unthinkingly adopted the traditional “green” remedies, most notably
renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. In the public imagination climate
action became almost synonymous with the switch to “100 percent renewable
energy.” Power companies in Western countries that claim to offer “green
energy” always mean this to refer to renewable sources, not nuclear power. Even
fossil fuel companies, cynically enough, went
along with this narrative, flaunting shiny solar panels and wind
turbines in their advertisements and marketing materials. Naturally, they didn’t
mind environmentalists obstructing their only genuine competitor on the energy
market, knowing full well that the world economy would never be powered by
variable renewables, or at least not for another couple of decades. Time and
again, we see that closing a nuclear plant means
locking in fossil fuels, because you also need energy when the sun is not
shining and the wind is not blowing. The only technology that can replace a
coal or gas plant one-for-one is a nuclear power plant, and that’s the very
last thing climate activists want. #ExxonKnew indeed, and they didn’t care.
Here is the really “inconvenient truth” for the climate
movement: the main obstacle to effective climate action for the past two
decades has not been the climate denialists who refuse to face the reality of
the problem, but the environmentalists who incessantly demonized and sabotaged
our most important source of concentrated, weather-independent, dispatchable,
zero-carbon energy (which also happens to be the safest and least polluting one).
The opposition to nuclear energy is not the only way in
which mainstream environmentalists have, with the best of intentions, hurt the
cause of climate action. Though anti-nuclearism is the most consequential
mistake, a similar story can be told about GMO technology (which has a range
of climate benefits), Carbon
Capture and Storage (CCS), and market-based climate solutions
like carbon
pricing. By dismissing such solutions as “technofixes” and promoting “less
is more” and “small is beautiful” solutions instead, environmentalists have
ironically underestimated the
true magnitude of our climate challenge.
More generally, the co-opting of climate science to
launch attacks on capitalism, consumerist culture, neoliberalism, and a host of
other left-wing bugbears having little or nothing to do with climate change,
has fueled the ideological polarization around the issue. Though the science of
climate change transcends all ideology, the same cannot be said of mainstream
climate activism. Ironically, the claim that climate
and capitalism (or climate
and economic growth) are incompatible is one with which the denialists
wholeheartedly agree: the only difference being that they want to ditch climate
policy rather than capitalism. Such ideological hijacking made it easier for
the right-wing denialists to dismiss the whole climate story as yet another
excuse from the hippies to impose Big Government and take away their SUVs.
Luckily, there are hopeful signs that the tide is
turning. Now that traditional Greens and progressives are losing their monopoly
on the climate issue, and other parties with different ideologies have become
involved. Political interest in nuclear energy and other technological
solutions is rapidly increasing. The Netherlands, France,
the UK and
a host of other Western countries have announced that they will be building new
nuclear plants, because it has dawned on them that renewables alone will not
save us from climate disaster. China plans to build 150
new nuclear reactors, which promises to collectively avert more CO2
emissions than half of the current total annual emissions of the European
Union. Europe itself plans
to include nuclear energy in its Green taxonomy, despite loud protest
by Green NGOs and anti-nuclear countries like Germany
and Austria. In Finland, even the Green party has come
around to nuclear energy.
Environmentalists and climate activists deserve credit
for raising awareness about global warming, but that does not exempt them from
criticism. Precisely because they had the science on their side when it came to
diagnosing the problem, environmentalists have been far too complacent about
questioning their preferred solutions. It’s difficult to engage in
counterfactual history but consider the following comparison. Suppose that the
fossil fuel industry had never engaged in its disinformation campaign about the
reality of man-made global warming, or even that the denialist movement had
never existed and we had all collectively listened to climatologists right from
the get-go. Would we have solved climate change by now? Not necessarily. We
would basically still have been left with the same dilemma: given that fossil
fuels bring so many benefits to humanity, it is extremely hard to get rid of them.
But what if the anti-nuclear movement had never existed? What if
environmentalists had embraced the atom 50 years ago and nuclear energy had
indeed become the “energy of the future,” living up to its early promises?
A good case can be
made that we would have been much closer to a solution for climate
change today.
No comments:
Post a Comment