Do We Need to Rapidly Convert to Renewables To Save the Planet? A Soho Forum Debate
Texas A&M University's Andrew Dessler vs. Steven Koonin, former undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy
HD DownloadDoes the world need to rapidly convert to using renewable energy to save the planet from global warming? That was the topic of a Soho Forum debate held at the Sheen Center in New York City on Monday, August 15, 2022.
Andrew Dessler, the director of the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A&M University, argued that fossil fuels are endangering life on the planet by causing global warming through greenhouse gas emissions. He contended that solar and wind represent safe, reliable, and cost-effective means to decarbonize the electric grid.
Steven Koonin, who served as undersecretary for science at the Department of Energy during the Obama administration and is the founding director of New York University's Center for Urban Science and Progress, argued that making large and rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions aren't necessary to protect the earth. He also contended that doing so isn't cost-effective and that it's immoral. Koonin is also the author of Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.
The debate was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.
Intro edited by Regan Taylor; interview body edited by Brett Raney.
Photos by Brett Raney.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is nothing "renewable" about solar and wind. The wind and the sun may always exist but you can't power civilization on sunshine. You have to convert it to electricity. Doing that requires a wind mill or a solar panel. Without the panel or the wind mill, there is no power. And there is nothing "renewable" about solar panels or wind turbines. In fact, solar panels are about the least renewable things on earth. The require lots of rare minerals to make, eventually wear out, and cannot be recycled.
"Renewable" is one of the dumbest words in the English language. Its stupidity is exceed only by "sustainable".
“Equity” and “stakeholder” on line 1
Those are good ones too. I really hate "sustainable" because it implies that something can be done without using energy and resources. Like it can go on forever no matter what. It is so fucking stupid.
It can go one forever like a bongo drum circle when you’re baked out of your mind, which is where these ideas of “all we need is Sun and wind, man” originated.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ati-09) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
"Progressive"
>you can't power civilization on sunshine.
Maybe not, but you can get elected by blowing it up people's asses.
"save the planet" is childish. Anyone talking in those terms is using a cartoon understanding of reality.
The planet will be here regardless of anything. So say what you actually mean. If you don't, we'll have to assume you're trying to deceive people.
Bingo.
Actually, I do think it reveals a cognitive shortcoming. People instinctively put themselves, as individuals and as a species, in the center of their mental universe. Thus any perceived threat to a human is easily transferred to any subordinate entity, like the planet.
I also think this extends to how most people understand natural phenomena, including time spans. Most geology stuff, including climate, varies a lot--but on time scales that humans with measly decades of life (and functional memories of 10 years at best) can't recognize.
+1
Bingo.
Question 1 for Andrew. Are you at all concerned that your modeled data has never even remotely matched your measured data?
Andrew is as concerned about that as the members of any other religious cult are concerned about the inconsistency of their beliefs with reality. That is to say, none at all.
I didn’t know the Obama administration had a far-right science denier as undersecretary of energy?! Who’d a thunk ?
He must have snuck in, along with those evil capitalist Wall Street types.
Actually, he is one of those rare public figures who when confronted with reality admits policies that he promoted were wrong and works to try to undo the harm that he has helped in doing.
Answer, on behalf of Andrew:
"What's that got to do with anything?"
Andrew is not concerned but there are others who are pushing back. Saw this in a comments section link and saved it.
It always gets me that these climate fanatics cite the 97% as an absolute of near agreement with all scientist. The real study broke that 97% down into:
Scientists that believe the climate is changing and we are responsible
Scientists that believe the climate is changing but we may or may not be responsible on some level
Scientists that believe the climate is changing and we need to study more before we agree we are responsible
Scientist that believe the climate is changing and we are not responsible
Here is a message from the last group:
https://clintel.org/world-climate-declaration/
More important: science has nothing to do with voting, and little to do with "consensus". What matters are interpretations that are best supported by the highest quality data.
It always gets me that these climate fanatics cite the 97% as an absolute of near agreement with all scientist.
That's why whenever Tony brings this number up, which is pretty regularly, I push him to be specific about what that "97% consensus" actually represents.
Because what it represents is the percentage of scientists (with the usual caveats about science not being a democracy) who agree with the statement "the global climate is currently in a warming cycle."
That's not "humans are warming the planet," it's "the planet is warming," and 3% of scientists involved in this poll don't even think the planet is warming, period.
When you get to statements like "the warming is catastrophic" or "the warming is caused by human fossil fuel use" your 'consensus' numbers go way, way down.
If you believe in the theory of evolution, then anything man does interferes with that process.
If you believe in a diety creation, we cannot out work God.
So leave the poor planet alone to do what it should be doing.
(I would pay a lot more attention to these clowns if every answer was not some form of socialism)
I'm yet to hear from any climate activist that has any foot in reality. Even assuming the worst of their projections that have never been remotely close, none of their solutions are of any significant improvement.
Electric cars, solar panels, and wind turbines are not going to lower carbon output by any significant amount without significantly lowering our standard of living. Look no further than Western Europe to see the consequences of that, and the current ass-covering by the pricks that instituted it. I used to think there was some master plan to make us eat bugs, but I now get the impression that they are dumb enough to think it would work, resulting in accidental bug eating.
It is a fucking cult. A really dangerous and nasty cult.
Yeah, a cult with adherents at the highest levels of power in many governments. That's not a good cult.
At least with the Ragneeshis you got free love and some cool orange pajamas to wear.
Letting these idiots be in charge of our economy is like putting faith heelers in charge healers in charge of healthcare.
Yeah, that's how we got Obamacare.
A cult that Ron Bailey, Park Slope Welchie Boy, Goth Fonzie Woppo, and most of the other fugazi libertarians of Reason belong to.
Ron should be "moar testing" Bailey.
"I'm yet to hear from any climate activist that has any foot in reality"
Then you haven't listened to the podcast.
Steve and Andy display more devotion to reality than most of their audience- which is to be expected when you sell tickets for a debate in the West Village on an evening in August.
Put the profit motive in the back seat? Gasp!
The market will collapse when we mandate that products be designed to last 30 years instead of being cheap and disposable.
Dogs and cats living together, the horror!
when we mandate
Fucking statist stormfag.
Oh, I forgot that you’re okay with private interests poisoning you if it makes them rich.
If not, you’re a statist, fuckwit.
If a government wants to poison you, on the other hand . . .
Thanks for demonstrating my point that the prohibition of bad behaviour needs to be mandated.
Stupid stormfags are stupid.
The irony.
Don't build straw arguments, I won't point out that you're stupid.
My analogy was no straw man. You certainly haven’t demonstrated that it was.
You’re the fuckwit who called me a statist and seems to only have a problem with corruption when it’s the government doing it.
Who goes to jail when they last 28 years?
Jail? Maybe they just replace it free of charge.
How stupid are you?
No.
Unless you can get China, India, Africa. and Latin America to agree to the same reductions in emissions that the Climate Change fans want, it's just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic anyway.
Well, except for the fact that the ship isn't really sinking. It's more like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic while we intentionally sink it, but everyone else is on the Olympic cruising away laughing at us.
Do you know who else said the world had to convert to be saved?
Almost every leader of almost every religion ever?
I understand this is the first year in like, 80, that we've had ZERO named tropical storms or hurricanes in the Atlantic.
NOAA predictions of above-average-activity be damned.
Doesn't matter. They'll still call it the busiest hurricane season ever.
No, they will blame the lack of activity on global warming.
^ This guy gets it.
Racist!
Isn't he a Science Denier? You're mixing slurs. Or are we just going with the lowest common denominator for insults these days?
Well, Climate Denier was meant to make people skeptical about the scientific evidence be equal to Holocaust deniers and nazis.
So it fits a pattern.
It's the first during the satellite era, since 1960. it is highly unlikely that the few lows the NHC has been tracking will develop into tropical depressions today, much less named tropical storms.
Reminds me of the predictions for 2006 after the hyperactive 2005 season. 2006 was a bust for the predictions.
It was 11 years after 2005 until a hurricane landed on the US.
Hurricanes have been declining since 1890.
Because, despite what we are told, more retained energy in the system (a warming world) actually means a smaller temperature gradient between the equator and the poles. The size of that gradient determines when, how strong, and how often big storms form.
Smaller gradient = fewer storms
Get out of here with your science and reasoning!
Actually, there have five. All have been relatively mild and two never made landfall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Atlantic_hurricane_season
That said, it is annoying to hear people talk about the latest storm being unprecedented. No storm in the last few decades has been unusual in either magnitude or location.
One problem is that we had something of a hurricane drought from the 60s thru the 80s so the increasing frequency of storms since then has been interpreted by the ignorant, or mendacious, as something new in history.
Actually, there have been five.
Short answer, from someone who has actually looked at the data, is no, we do not. As for the "renewables", one still has to mine the raw materials for the photocells and frames for the solar panels as well as for the wind turbines. We would still need to drill for oil as many of the parts are plastic, and the turbines require lubrication. The "renewables" will never be able to produce enough kilowatts of electricity to replace what we already have from coal and natural gas. The only truly reliable way to produce the power we need, outside of hydrological, is nuclear.
To replace the US grid we only need to build one nuclear plant…
…every week until 2050.
It really frustrates me that these articles about the Soho debates never present the results.
These debates are conducted "Oxford-style". That is, the audience is polled before and again after the debate. The winner is the debater who moves more people to his/her side. In this case, Dressler blew away Koonin.
. . . . . . . . . . Pre . . . . Post . . . Change
Yes . . . . . . . 24.7% . . 19.1% . . -5.6%
No . . . . . . . 48.8% . . 73.5% . . +24.7%
Undecided . 26.5% . . 7.4% . . -19.1%
And this is why the climate scare mongers don't want debate
This is not an Oxford debate. This is more like the trial of Galileo. Climate alarmists are members of a religion, complete with doctrine and sacred beliefs. We might as well recast the Scopes monkey trial.
Wait a minute..."Inherit the Wind"? This has potential.
Now we've got something to debate
Listened to koonin on Rogen. He was spot on. Rogan asked what his biggest critiques say. His responce was they never attack my data or interpretation they say I worked for BP and that's why I'm wrong.
The next week he had on I think dessler who only said he worked for BP, like the scientists that worked for the tobacco companies
We’re so fucking stupid as a nation, at best we’re one generation away from watering crops with Brawndo.
Yeah, Idiotocracy was 500 years in the future but we'll be lucky if 50 years goes by before we've gone full retard.
The planet Earth will survive mankind and be around until the sun incinerates the Earth. Mankind will not be around that long, mankind is doomed. Look at Earth's history.
1st it was the Global Cooling scare of the 70's
2nd it was the Global Warming scare of the 80's
Now it's just "changing"...............
Propaganda induced OCD patients who's #1 Solution is always National Socialism(Nazism) which "The weather changes" isn't the only propaganda used for Nazi-Fans. Get a clue sheeple minds; Nazism will hurt poverty/famine/kill far MORE of humanity than "weather changes" religions will ever hold to be true. As if that wasn't 100% obvious by the current state of things.
So, by his chart, we've just gone a bit above the Holocene optimum, the highest temperature in this interglacial cycle. Seems like we (and the Earth) survived those temperatures. But today is a catastrophe, while it wasn't a catastrophe a few thousand years ago when we hit the same termperatures.
Fracking ... natural gas is a *waste* product. Cheap, cheap. We've got many, many decades of that around.
The IPCC says that the cost of climate change by 2100 is estimated to be 4% of GDP.
Coal kills all those people, not natural gas. Indoor cooking and heating from wood and dung kills twice as many people as coal.
Cover the Sahara desert in solar panels and send it everywhere. Nope. Doesn't work.
Germany has installed enough solar and wind that, if it ran as rated, would be twice as much as needed for their peak needs. Yet there are times when it produces less than 10% of their total usage. Germany just isn't a terribly sunny or windy place. They are now using the worst polluting coal, brown coal, to pick up the slack. And they're still playing games with their numbers. Since it takes almost a full day to bring a coal plant back on line, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, they bring it all on line, but they keep the coal plants running, but don't count it in their emissions.
Some places are good for wind. Some places are good for solar. Texas is both. Most of the world is neither.
They are looking at storage. There is *nothing* even on the horizon that will work well for storing energy at an affordable cost.
The US alone would need to run almost a quarter of a million more miles of distribution lines (and update the current ones) to even try to move it around. We don't have that much copper. We don't have that much cobalt. We don't have that much lithium. We don't have that much ... a dozen other materials that are found in only a few places and none enough to fill all the technology needed.
If I moved to Atlanta, GA, I would be moving to a place that is 2°C warmer than where I'm at. While I have plenty of reasons not to move to Atlanta, the average temperature is not one of them.
We drive about 3.2 trillion miles per year. Electric cars use about 0.3 KWh / mile. Doing the math says we would need to increase our energy production by about 1 *billion* GWh* above what we already use.
And for all that, we would have to build a source to replace all the market needs on top of unreliable solar and wind.
And wind is going down as well too. Most of the wind is caused by the temperature difference between the polar regions and the equator. Since the poles are warming faster than the rest of the world, the difference that generates the wind is going down.
How long will the battery in his garage last when power goes out? 12 hours? A day? Two days? I doubt the latter.
The cost of fracking was about the most expensive way to get oil and gas in 2012. The cost of fracking today is almost the same as the lowest cost supplier ... Saudi Arabia. They have made great strides on learning how to get more spending less. But it's still a cost. What rational company is going to invest money in producing something in the short term that they will be forced out of in just a few years and wind up losing money overall?
Climate change is real. It's a problem we need to deal with. But it is not the only problem in the world we need to deal with. Whatever goes to changing energy sources is not available for dealing with other problems. Solar and wind do work in some places. They're six of one, half dozen in another in some places.
They don't work everywhere or even most places.
Hey in the minds of environmentalists cultists, the number one way to minimize greenhouse gasses is to kill of as many people as possible. And history shows socialism is the best way to do this. At least his arguments are consistant
wait -- I don't watch videos so I don't know what's going on in this one, but isn't it, you know, a debate? Aren't you supposed to debate someone at a debate?
Thanks--that gives me hope.
But it seems like he mostly convinced the Undecided. The true believers held onto their faith.
My apologies. I did type the names backwards. Thank you for correcting.
To Earth-based's comment below, most such debates are usually about converting the undecideds. In this case, Dressler went down five points. In other words, 20% lost their faith.
Great point! But since AGW is BS, let’s not go full authoritarian.