Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C target(nature.com)
nature.com
Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C target
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1364-3.epdf
53 comments
You forgot about:
"Oil industry is totally not lobbing against any movement that could bring us closer to the solution"
"Oil industry is totally not lobbing against any movement that could bring us closer to the solution"
Having control over the energy source gives you a lot of power. It doesn't make sense to give up all that power right now. We have to wait until holding on to this power is more expensive than letting it go and this can take a long long time.
What you call the "oil" industry is really the energy industry, and they really don't care which way things go as far as climate policy is concerned. They're set up to make money either way. Who do you think all those government grants for "renewable energy" research go to?
They absolutely care. If renewable energy catches on, the values of their oil reserves will plummet. That's why they continue to fight against any reduction of emissions.
> If renewable energy catches on, the values of their oil reserves will plummet.
Not when everyone realizes all the other alternative uses for petroleum besides burning it, many of which are more valuable than burning it.
Not when everyone realizes all the other alternative uses for petroleum besides burning it, many of which are more valuable than burning it.
The value of the uses has nothing to do with the value of the petroleum. If we stop burning it, demand falls off and the price drops. Dramatically, because if we stop burning it then we have way more than enough for all the other uses.
That's actually the primary reason we need a carbon tax -- if we make any real progress toward replacing oil in some other way then the partial progress causes the price of oil to fall and interfere with additional progress.
That's actually the primary reason we need a carbon tax -- if we make any real progress toward replacing oil in some other way then the partial progress causes the price of oil to fall and interfere with additional progress.
I think the main issue is not arguing on scientific facts. It's about arguing on the impacts, outcomes and tradeoffs of policy decisions, which lie far outside the realm of fact and are reasonable to discuss. Many of the faulty reasoning you bring up here are legitimate tradeoffs to discuss.
In particular, the storage requirements, on-demand capacity requirements, and raw material requirements for renewables are real considerations. Abundance, low cost and relative cleanliness of natural gas compared to coal. These should not be hand-waved as against facts, or denigrated in the face of the coming apocalypse.
In particular, the storage requirements, on-demand capacity requirements, and raw material requirements for renewables are real considerations. Abundance, low cost and relative cleanliness of natural gas compared to coal. These should not be hand-waved as against facts, or denigrated in the face of the coming apocalypse.
You don't even need storage solutions if you keep sufficient gas/coal on standby. But somebody must pay for these because they don't get many hours of use.
With regard to climate, "why don't we just X" is wrong for pretty much any X, but a lot of climate scientists think we probably should build nuclear plants along with everything else we're doing.
> There's lots of faulty reasoning going around society
Yes, indeed. But you forgot some key items:
* We have the ability to predict future climate change with enough accuracy to justify multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions.
* We have the ability to predict the economic and social consequences of future climate change with enough accuracy to justify multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions.
* "Renewable" energy does not include nuclear power.
* Renewable energy (not including nuclear power) can totally supply the required base load power for a first world standard of living for billions of people.
Yes, indeed. But you forgot some key items:
* We have the ability to predict future climate change with enough accuracy to justify multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions.
* We have the ability to predict the economic and social consequences of future climate change with enough accuracy to justify multi-trillion-dollar policy decisions.
* "Renewable" energy does not include nuclear power.
* Renewable energy (not including nuclear power) can totally supply the required base load power for a first world standard of living for billions of people.
> "Renewable" energy does not include nuclear power.
Excuse my nitpicking, but renewable energy indeed excludes nuclear. By definition.
Excuse my nitpicking, but renewable energy indeed excludes nuclear. By definition.
> renewable energy indeed excludes nuclear. By definition.
It depends on whose definition. Breeder reactors count as renewable by some definitions. And I would argue that those definitions are more reasonable, particularly if whether something counts as "renewable" is used to determine government subsidies.
It depends on whose definition. Breeder reactors count as renewable by some definitions. And I would argue that those definitions are more reasonable, particularly if whether something counts as "renewable" is used to determine government subsidies.
Carbon neutral energy is what we need.
Renewable energy defies physics.
Renewable energy defies physics.
I guess people aren't worried about the sun burning out or us running out of wind. I think most people know we don't create energy from nothing
* a carbon tax is class warfare as it hits the poor hardest
* Fighting climate change is an ideological lifestyle
* Creating laws to prevent climate change is just people trying to impose their views onto others.
* we will just be able to scrub the atmosphere by 2050
* There's actually some papers that contradict the climate models
* As different models have different predictions, no one can really know how the climate is gonna change
* China is the worst polluter anyways, so it doesn't matter what we do
* Industrialized countries have benefited from carbon fuels the last 200 years. It is our right now, to economically catch up by burning them too
* Between doing nothing and hitting the 2°goal there must be a reasonable middle ground
* Fighting climate change is an ideological lifestyle
* Creating laws to prevent climate change is just people trying to impose their views onto others.
* we will just be able to scrub the atmosphere by 2050
* There's actually some papers that contradict the climate models
* As different models have different predictions, no one can really know how the climate is gonna change
* China is the worst polluter anyways, so it doesn't matter what we do
* Industrialized countries have benefited from carbon fuels the last 200 years. It is our right now, to economically catch up by burning them too
* Between doing nothing and hitting the 2°goal there must be a reasonable middle ground
I have heard the argument from my grandpa and other old people that there's a conspiracy of scientists and liberal media people to get more government funding by claiming climate change is real.
The madness behind this conspiracy theory is that the amount of money those scientists could get is minuscule in comparison to the enormous wealth generated by oil companies and oil producing nations. Wouldn't that be a much more reasonable conspiracy theory to believe in?
The madness behind this conspiracy theory is that the amount of money those scientists could get is minuscule in comparison to the enormous wealth generated by oil companies and oil producing nations. Wouldn't that be a much more reasonable conspiracy theory to believe in?
Asking for a reasonable point of view from a conspiracy theorist seems like an approach that is doomed to fail.
I know that there are many climate depressed people on this forum, frustrated by the fact that nothing is being done and, at the same time, under the illusion that they themselves cannot do much about it.
Yes you can.
Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government. But the government won't act unless we demand it.
- Change your lifestyle. Less flying, driving, meat. More non-electronically powered forms of play.
- Divest fossil. Invest renewable.
- Most importantly, get away from keyword and join other people. e.g. https://xrebellion.org
Yes you can.
Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government. But the government won't act unless we demand it.
- Change your lifestyle. Less flying, driving, meat. More non-electronically powered forms of play.
- Divest fossil. Invest renewable.
- Most importantly, get away from keyword and join other people. e.g. https://xrebellion.org
I encourage everyone to check out Citizens Climate Lobby. Help us lobby for a carbon fee plus dividend.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
> Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government.
I see your argument, but not sure if I agree with this part.
If we/entrepreneur/engineers can figure 2 things: 1. Figure the engineering problem which would be something along the lines of: a. consume CO2 from air and use product something else b. bring alternative sources of energy at part with fossil fuels c. etc. 2. Figure a way to provide it as a service so that people can pay for it.
We can fix it. Still doable without hoping for governments to come and bail us.
I see your argument, but not sure if I agree with this part.
If we/entrepreneur/engineers can figure 2 things: 1. Figure the engineering problem which would be something along the lines of: a. consume CO2 from air and use product something else b. bring alternative sources of energy at part with fossil fuels c. etc. 2. Figure a way to provide it as a service so that people can pay for it.
We can fix it. Still doable without hoping for governments to come and bail us.
This could have been a valid argument 30 years ago. We simply don't have time for "Figure the engineering problem" any more. We are at the point where we need firefighters, not fire safety consultants.
> We simply don't have time for "Figure the engineering problem" any more.
Honest question, how do you prove this?
Here are my arguments against the motion:
1. 30 years ago we did not have internet. Now most of us have access to vast amount of technical data
2. 30 years ago stakes were not high enough. Now next generation is about to see very high impact.
3. 30 years ago most of the tech that we have now were still in research (ML, cheap computers, availability of funds etc)
Now let's assume you are right, we are out of time. Then following is my argument: Attempting to fix our ecosystem is worthy goal nonetheless and instead of expecting "them" or "government" or "billionaires" to bail us out, I'd rather have us take the responsibility. In worst case, it'll be a adventure and will be worth it.
Honest question, how do you prove this?
Here are my arguments against the motion:
1. 30 years ago we did not have internet. Now most of us have access to vast amount of technical data
2. 30 years ago stakes were not high enough. Now next generation is about to see very high impact.
3. 30 years ago most of the tech that we have now were still in research (ML, cheap computers, availability of funds etc)
Now let's assume you are right, we are out of time. Then following is my argument: Attempting to fix our ecosystem is worthy goal nonetheless and instead of expecting "them" or "government" or "billionaires" to bail us out, I'd rather have us take the responsibility. In worst case, it'll be a adventure and will be worth it.
Hm, I don't think we are actually in much of a disagreement. Maybe you are misreading my comment. When I say "Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government" I don't mean that we should just sit around and wait for the government to "bail us out". Of course we should all do what we can. And of course we should invest in R&D and develop new technologies.
But I don't have any illusion that 100% of people will suddenly (voluntarily) stop flying or consuming unnecessary crap. Or that "free market" will somehow solve the problem all by itself. We need a WW2 level of economic and political mobilisation. But that won't happen by itself. We need to make it happen. And the best way to do it at this stage I believe is radical activism (e.g. https://xrebellion.org). And we know from history that it works. Think about civil rights movement etc.
But I don't have any illusion that 100% of people will suddenly (voluntarily) stop flying or consuming unnecessary crap. Or that "free market" will somehow solve the problem all by itself. We need a WW2 level of economic and political mobilisation. But that won't happen by itself. We need to make it happen. And the best way to do it at this stage I believe is radical activism (e.g. https://xrebellion.org). And we know from history that it works. Think about civil rights movement etc.
I guess I misread your comment. I agree that most of the people will not change their habits and we need to engage our governments too.
So what are you suggesting, just randomly shutting down things that cause emissions?
I don't think you can reduce emissions without either impacting people's lives (jobs, lifestyle) or improving efficiency. And unless you do it very carefully, anything that impacts people's lives has a good chance of getting someone into office who promises to undo all those changes and then some.
I don't think you can reduce emissions without either impacting people's lives (jobs, lifestyle) or improving efficiency. And unless you do it very carefully, anything that impacts people's lives has a good chance of getting someone into office who promises to undo all those changes and then some.
randomly shutting down things? were did you get that from? what did I say that would imply this?
[deleted]
Why is this news? Did anyone expect otherwise?
I’m genuinely curious about the answer to this question. It’s confusing me that the impression from any scientific source is that 1.5 is long gone, 2.0 is a pipe dream and any likely scenario is far higher, and that is if we start to implement drastic measures right now. Yet even the most hardcore “green” politicians talk about the issue as if we can drag our feets another decade or two with minimal impact on current generations. Why the big gulf here?
If you have two politicians, and one of them tells you everything is fine and we don't have to do anything, and the other says you're going to have to pay more today to prevent some hypothetical future badness tomorrow even though they can't demonstrate the badness until tomorrow, people are skeptical of the thing that costs them money. Even if it's true.
Then politicians want to get elected, so the one side moderates their position and the other doesn't.
It's one of the reasons carbon tax + dividend might actually have a chance. If the dividend only goes to humans but the tax is paid by both humans and corporations, and it's revenue neutral, then the average real person is getting back more than they're paying. That's the sort of thing people like.
Then politicians want to get elected, so the one side moderates their position and the other doesn't.
It's one of the reasons carbon tax + dividend might actually have a chance. If the dividend only goes to humans but the tax is paid by both humans and corporations, and it's revenue neutral, then the average real person is getting back more than they're paying. That's the sort of thing people like.
It's one of the reasons carbon tax + dividend might actually have a chance. If the dividend only goes to humans but the tax is paid by both humans and corporations, and it's revenue neutral, then the average real person is getting back more than they're paying. That's the sort of thing people like.
I don't think humans will get much back out of it. Most of what corporations are emitting is on behalf of the customers. All the cement factories that emit insane amounts of CO2 do it because that's what it takes to produce cement, which customers then buy. When carbon tax passes, the cement price will necessarily rise, which will offset some of the dividend gains. The exact amount of increase depends on the elasticity of the demand for concrete, but from what I can tell, there aren't really any substitutes for concrete that wouldn't also be hit by carbon tax (there's lumber, but most of what we currently build with concrete can already hardly be built with wood).
This is not to say that carbon tax wouldn't have intended results: it would indeed shift the consumption towards less carbon-intensive products. However, I don't expect that average carbon dividend will be significant.
I don't think humans will get much back out of it. Most of what corporations are emitting is on behalf of the customers. All the cement factories that emit insane amounts of CO2 do it because that's what it takes to produce cement, which customers then buy. When carbon tax passes, the cement price will necessarily rise, which will offset some of the dividend gains. The exact amount of increase depends on the elasticity of the demand for concrete, but from what I can tell, there aren't really any substitutes for concrete that wouldn't also be hit by carbon tax (there's lumber, but most of what we currently build with concrete can already hardly be built with wood).
This is not to say that carbon tax wouldn't have intended results: it would indeed shift the consumption towards less carbon-intensive products. However, I don't expect that average carbon dividend will be significant.
> Most of what corporations are emitting is on behalf of the customers.
You might go so far as to say that all of it is, but that's not the question. The question is, if e.g. concrete costs more due to the tax but we still need it, how much of the tax is passed on to consumers vs. coming out of corporate cash piles? If the answer is "anything less than 100% in all cases" then the difference is a net transfer from corporations to humans.
You might go so far as to say that all of it is, but that's not the question. The question is, if e.g. concrete costs more due to the tax but we still need it, how much of the tax is passed on to consumers vs. coming out of corporate cash piles? If the answer is "anything less than 100% in all cases" then the difference is a net transfer from corporations to humans.
Also consider wealth difference. Wealthier spend more money than poor people, so even if just a tiny fraction of every dollar is passed back as dividends, the accumulative effect is to distribute wealth towards the poor.
Prices going up is less direct, and thus likely less on people's minds, than "I'm getting a check from the government every month".
Because most people have heard the scaremongering about global warming for decades already, and nothing that requires a total realignment of the economy and society hasn't happened yet (and no, some heatwaves and some extra hurricanes are not a big deal enough to make people care). Politicians understand that nothing serious will happen in their lifetimes either, and scientists, when asked, don't paint nearly as bleak picture of the warming as the activists suggest.
Look at the most recent IPCC report: the predicted sea level rise by 2100 is below 1 meter with 95% confidence, and the economic cost of global warming is predicted to be at only a few percent of global GDP. Sure, we'll need to build a few sea walls here and there, rebuild a few more houses destroyed in hurricanes, shift cultivation from the newly-desertified areas to the areas where the climate change increases precipitation, but that's not a disastrous outcome that we need to avert by spending huge amounts of effort right now. Of course, if you support yourself by back-breaking subsistence farming, these things would in fact be a disaster for you, but this is a problem for poor people in poor places very far from developed countries. We (both society and the politicians) don't care much about their plight today, and we won't care about them in future either.
That's why hardcore "green" politicians don't push the society for some serious change: because there's not much need to do so in developed countries. People wouldn't like the change, because it would make their lives clearly worse, while doing nothing won't make it significantly worse. Some people though like the mood affiliation brought by "green" people fighting for "climate", which is why the green politicians only need to hit those notes in their hearts to get the support. Making real change is optional.
Look at the most recent IPCC report: the predicted sea level rise by 2100 is below 1 meter with 95% confidence, and the economic cost of global warming is predicted to be at only a few percent of global GDP. Sure, we'll need to build a few sea walls here and there, rebuild a few more houses destroyed in hurricanes, shift cultivation from the newly-desertified areas to the areas where the climate change increases precipitation, but that's not a disastrous outcome that we need to avert by spending huge amounts of effort right now. Of course, if you support yourself by back-breaking subsistence farming, these things would in fact be a disaster for you, but this is a problem for poor people in poor places very far from developed countries. We (both society and the politicians) don't care much about their plight today, and we won't care about them in future either.
That's why hardcore "green" politicians don't push the society for some serious change: because there's not much need to do so in developed countries. People wouldn't like the change, because it would make their lives clearly worse, while doing nothing won't make it significantly worse. Some people though like the mood affiliation brought by "green" people fighting for "climate", which is why the green politicians only need to hit those notes in their hearts to get the support. Making real change is optional.
This was my understanding until a few weeks ago. But reading up on the subject paints a different picture. With the non-linear changes likely to be hit soon. Things are going to get serious for us too, and likely noticeably so within the next decade.
Where did you read about these non-linear changes? Do these represent the climate change consensus, like e.g. IPCC?
To be honest I’m extrapolating a bit based on my own understanding of complex systems, and how the IPCC report things vs, how individual scientists interpret things, and how scientists tend to report things. But when reading IPCC watch out for language about “safe predictions” (linear extrapolations from historical data based is kind of safe, since it’s easily quantifiable, model based on uncertain non-linear changes in unprecedented conditions are less safe, so official reports are wary of quantifying things beyond hand wavy descriptions.
This YouTube channel was suggested here on HN a while back, and has been interesting to follow: https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith
This YouTube channel was suggested here on HN a while back, and has been interesting to follow: https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith
[deleted]
> Yet even the most hardcore “green” politicians talk about the issue as if we can drag our frets another decade or two with minimal impact on current generations. Why the big gulf here?
Green politicians demand action yesterday, 'Green new deal' politicians demand 30% reductions in the short term, left-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% reductions over the next 15 years[1], right-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% increases over the next 15 years.
The problem is that:
1. In non-proportional-representation countries, a vote for green is a wasted vote.
2. In proportional-representation countries, greens get some votes and government seats, but whether that translates into political power is dependent on blind luck. Depending on how many seats other parties get, they may be included in a coalition (And thus, have some influence on policy), or completely shut out (And thus, have no influence on policy).
3. The United States is the biggest per first-world polluter, and thus has the most low-hanging fruit to be picked. But all else being equal, it tends to vote right-wing. [2]
PS. Before anyone says 'China' - China's emission policies can be influenced by tariffs. We just need to get off our asses, and clean up our own house, first.
[1] Of course, they won't do anything to curtail carbon-extraction industries - they expect the rest of us to sacrifice so that petro-firms can keep making money.
[2] The only reason US emissions have been holding steady, despite 'coal now, coal tomorrow, and coal forever' rhetoric, is blind luck. The unit economics of natural gas became good, because of fracking, and it emits less CO2 per KWH than coal. If it weren't for fracking, the US would be right on the path the Republican party wants it to be.
Green politicians demand action yesterday, 'Green new deal' politicians demand 30% reductions in the short term, left-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% reductions over the next 15 years[1], right-wing politicians who are in power promise 30% increases over the next 15 years.
The problem is that:
1. In non-proportional-representation countries, a vote for green is a wasted vote.
2. In proportional-representation countries, greens get some votes and government seats, but whether that translates into political power is dependent on blind luck. Depending on how many seats other parties get, they may be included in a coalition (And thus, have some influence on policy), or completely shut out (And thus, have no influence on policy).
3. The United States is the biggest per first-world polluter, and thus has the most low-hanging fruit to be picked. But all else being equal, it tends to vote right-wing. [2]
PS. Before anyone says 'China' - China's emission policies can be influenced by tariffs. We just need to get off our asses, and clean up our own house, first.
[1] Of course, they won't do anything to curtail carbon-extraction industries - they expect the rest of us to sacrifice so that petro-firms can keep making money.
[2] The only reason US emissions have been holding steady, despite 'coal now, coal tomorrow, and coal forever' rhetoric, is blind luck. The unit economics of natural gas became good, because of fracking, and it emits less CO2 per KWH than coal. If it weren't for fracking, the US would be right on the path the Republican party wants it to be.
Even the most "green" politician must court the votes of people who've become comfortable in this modern lifestyle and are unwilling to see it changed. And most of those are on the take from big corporate donors.
If AGW has a solution, it lies only in drastic population reduction and a complete rewilding of the human race -- what Daniel Quinn called "living in the hands of the gods". This lies well out of our culture's Overton window, but more environmentalists are taking a long hard look at it.
If AGW has a solution, it lies only in drastic population reduction and a complete rewilding of the human race -- what Daniel Quinn called "living in the hands of the gods". This lies well out of our culture's Overton window, but more environmentalists are taking a long hard look at it.
Mass death is something people are unwilling to contemplate, yes.
Mass death isn't the only way to reduce population. But it's something we may already be too late to avoid.
Let alone advocate...
That is true, people (and especially politicians) nowadays seem indifferent to climate change.
Think about it, it is partly because of the narrative of the story.
If you imagine a hypothetical situation that there is big asteroid flying towards the Earth and there is a 95% chance of the impact in 2050. The governments would finance and do everything to stop this impact, to look like saviors of the planet Earth.
The consequences / or better the probability would be the same. However, the asteroid story is different, much more tangible.
Think about it, it is partly because of the narrative of the story.
If you imagine a hypothetical situation that there is big asteroid flying towards the Earth and there is a 95% chance of the impact in 2050. The governments would finance and do everything to stop this impact, to look like saviors of the planet Earth.
The consequences / or better the probability would be the same. However, the asteroid story is different, much more tangible.
> The consequences / or better the probability would be the same.
No, they wouldn't, because the astronomers who would be predicting the asteroid impact have a track record of decades of extremely accurate predictions of the future trajectories of asteroids, checked in detail against actual observations. So if they ever were to predict an asteroid impact at some time in the future, that prediction would have extremely high credibility and would indeed warrant drastic action.
Climate science, by contrast, has no track record of accurate predictions. The climate model predictions are falsified by the data. Plus, the actual impact of climate change requires not only predicting the climate, but predicting the economic and other consequences of changes in the climate, and we have even less predictive ability in those disciplines than we have in climate science. So when climate scientists squawk about future catastrophes, their predictions have extremely low credibility, and combined with their obvious self-interest, this is more than sufficient reason to ignore them.
No, they wouldn't, because the astronomers who would be predicting the asteroid impact have a track record of decades of extremely accurate predictions of the future trajectories of asteroids, checked in detail against actual observations. So if they ever were to predict an asteroid impact at some time in the future, that prediction would have extremely high credibility and would indeed warrant drastic action.
Climate science, by contrast, has no track record of accurate predictions. The climate model predictions are falsified by the data. Plus, the actual impact of climate change requires not only predicting the climate, but predicting the economic and other consequences of changes in the climate, and we have even less predictive ability in those disciplines than we have in climate science. So when climate scientists squawk about future catastrophes, their predictions have extremely low credibility, and combined with their obvious self-interest, this is more than sufficient reason to ignore them.
> Climate science, by contrast, has no track record of accurate predictions.
Are you serious? Did you hear about drilling into the ice to get the samples? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/29/scientis...
Are you serious? Did you hear about drilling into the ice to get the samples? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/29/scientis...
Ice core data is not predictions.
Even if it's what's expected having it spelled out and published can still be useful. Things 'everyone' knows don't get talked about much but new papers do.
Because there's a lot of 'progressive'[1] governments that have committed to stopping climate change that are currently:
1. Not committed to turning down existing fossil fuel extraction.
2. Are actively committed to expanding fossil fuel extraction.
They need to be called out on their charade, as frequently, and as loudly as possible.
[1] Federal Liberal party of Canada.
1. Not committed to turning down existing fossil fuel extraction.
2. Are actively committed to expanding fossil fuel extraction.
They need to be called out on their charade, as frequently, and as loudly as possible.
[1] Federal Liberal party of Canada.
[deleted]
[deleted]
* There is no climate change.
* The temperature charts are rigged.
* Scientists conspire to get more funding.
* Dissenting opinions are suppressed by the mainstream.
* Taxing CO2 is a way to control the economy and stifle growth.
* CO2 is actually good for plants.
* CO2 does not cause climate change.
* If there is climate change, CO2 is only a minor contributor.
* Humans do not cause CO2, nature does that.
* Climate change is not caused by humans.
* Climate change is not bad.
* If it is bad, there is nothing we can do.
* It's only bad for other people.
* It will only hit us hard in the far future.
* We cannot make compromises in our lifestyle or risk our economy.
* We have invested much too much in fossil fuel technology to give it up.
* Renewable energy is not feasible. It's a joke. Don't even think about it.
* Solar cells cost more energy than they produce.
* Batteries produce lots of CO2 during production.
* Windmills will never harvest the energy that was needed to produce them.
* Our electric grid will fail if we add too much renewable energy.
* We cannot store enough electric energy.
* Renewables can never work because they cannot produce energy on demand.
* Even if renewables were feasible they would be too expensive.
* Why don't we just build more nuclear plants?
* Thorium will save us in time, so no hurry.
* Fusion is only 30 years away, so why invest in renewables?
... this is only what came into my mind spontaneously and some points are really hard to argue, especially with non-technical people who do not see scientific facts as something solid but something that can be negotiated.