3 ms·

It is not that Michael Shellenberger is wrong, he is mostly right and I also like to point out to people that we are not facing extinction. However I have a ma

It is not that Michael Shellenberger is wrong, he is mostly right and I also like to point out to people that we are not facing extinction. However I have a major issue about how he goes about presenting this message. He is unnecessarily provocative and dismissive in a way where he ends up being a useful tool for climate deniers. While his nuclear power advocacy is absolutely a relevant alternative to discuss, he spends so much energy attacking renewable energy solutions such as wind and solar that all he really ends up doing is providing ammunition for climate deniers. Far too many of the nuclear fans don't actually believe in climate change. They push nuclear as a way to dismiss efforts to introduce wind and solar power. Michael Shellenberger simply cannot read his audience. And civilization collapse is absolutely possible. The way he reasons about numbers is wrong. It is the equivalent of arguing that the 1929 crash was irrelevant because hey were were richer afterwards than in 1900 and we managed just find back then. He thinks just in terms of absolute numbers, when relative change is usually MORE important. If you suddenly get a 50% cut in your income from one year to another that will have huge impact on your family. It makes no sense to argue that 10 years ago you made 50% less and managed just fine. Back then you had adapted your lifestyle to those costs. Now you are paying for a bigger house, car, college for your kids etc. A sudden 50% drop in income is a big hit to adjust to. Germans in the 1930s were much better off than poor people in Africa. Yet the decline in income they experience radicalized the population and led to the rise of Hitler. France on the eve of the French revolution was richer than in classical times. But crop harvest failures due to climate change radicalized the country and led to the French revolution. This is the danger of climate change. Sudden changes in living conditions in various countries can tip the scales and spark revolutions.

DennisP 7y ago
I agree, just want to mention that a fair number of actual climate scientists are also fans of nuclear. One example is James Hansen, who spent a chapter advocating advanced nuclear in Storms of My Grandchildren.
GVIrish 7y ago
> It is not that Michael Shellenberger is wrong, he is mostly right and I also like to point out to people that we are not facing extinction. I think he is wrong on this in that if we don't address climate change, we are on the road to extinction. It won't happen in our lifetimes but on a timescale of hundreds of years or a few thousand it may indeed happen. The CO2 released in the atmosphere can stay there for thousands of years, and once we cross certain temperature thresholds there are feedback loops that will make things hotter still. We're talking about 2 degrees C by the year 2100, but what about 2200, 2300, 2500? If we don't get things under control, at some point modern civilization is going to start breaking down, and at that point carbon sequestration or geoengineering measures that could fix things, simply won't be possible. After that point, humanity would just be a passenger on a ride to a planet inhospitable for human life. > And civilization collapse is absolutely possible. The way he reasons about numbers is wrong. It is the equivalent of arguing that the 1929 crash was irrelevant because hey were were richer afterwards than in 1900 and we managed just find back then. > He thinks just in terms of absolute numbers, when relative change is usually MORE important. If you suddenly get a 50% cut in your income from one year to another that will have huge impact on your family. It makes no sense to argue that 10 years ago you made 50% less and managed just fine. Absolutely. I think he fails to account for the fact that climate change makes it much more likely that parts of the world will experience devastating collapses that will be difficult, if not impossible to recover from. There are parts of the world now that are unstable and poor, what's going to happen to them when wide scale weather disasters and resource shortages hit entire regions?

DennisP 7y ago

I agree, just want to mention that a fair number of actual climate scientists are also fans of nuclear. One example is James Hansen, who spent a chapter advocating advanced nuclear in Storms of My Grandchildren.

GVIrish 7y ago

> It is not that Michael Shellenberger is wrong, he is mostly right and I also like to point out to people that we are not facing extinction. I think he is wrong on this in that if we don't address climate change, we are on the road to extinction. It won't happen in our lifetimes but on a timescale of hundreds of years or a few thousand it may indeed happen. The CO2 released in the atmosphere can stay there for thousands of years, and once we cross certain temperature thresholds there are feedback loops that will make things hotter still. We're talking about 2 degrees C by the year 2100, but what about 2200, 2300, 2500? If we don't get things under control, at some point modern civilization is going to start breaking down, and at that point carbon sequestration or geoengineering measures that could fix things, simply won't be possible. After that point, humanity would just be a passenger on a ride to a planet inhospitable for human life. > And civilization collapse is absolutely possible. The way he reasons about numbers is wrong. It is the equivalent of arguing that the 1929 crash was irrelevant because hey were were richer afterwards than in 1900 and we managed just find back then. > He thinks just in terms of absolute numbers, when relative change is usually MORE important. If you suddenly get a 50% cut in your income from one year to another that will have huge impact on your family. It makes no sense to argue that 10 years ago you made 50% less and managed just fine. Absolutely. I think he fails to account for the fact that climate change makes it much more likely that parts of the world will experience devastating collapses that will be difficult, if not impossible to recover from. There are parts of the world now that are unstable and poor, what's going to happen to them when wide scale weather disasters and resource shortages hit entire regions?