The Environment Movement and Its Detractors
I just came across a strange article in the Boston Globe called “Inconvenient Truths for the Environmental Movement,” written by Joshua S. Goldstein and Steven Pinker. In the section below, I present a few excerpts and provide my responses in italics. They begin:
Congressional Republicans make an easy target for their denial of climate change: “I’m not a scientist” is the new “Drill, baby, drill.” But denial also infects large swaths of the environmental movement. Environmentalists deserve enormous credit for calling the world’s attention to the threat to humanity posed by climate change. But precisely because this challenge is so stupendous, we need an uncompromisingly focused plan to solve it. Instead of offering such a solution, traditional greens have been distracted by their signature causes…
Traditional greens have been distracted by their signature causes? What does that mean? We’re concerned about the disastrous and ever-increasing environmental damage our civilization is wreaking upon this planet? Yes, I guess you could say that this is our “signature cause.” But we’re hardly distracted by it. This is like writing, “The football coach was distracted by the goal of winning the game.” It’s our goal, our mission, to turn this around while we still have the opportunity to do so. You need to find another verb phrase, like “focused on” or “driven by” our signature causes.
….and in doing so (they) have themselves denied some inconvenient truths. The first is that, until now, fossil fuels have been good for humanity. The industrial revolution doubled life expectancy in developed countries while multiplying prosperity twentyfold….
Yes, there are people who don’t understand that fossil fuels played an extremely important role in the advancement of our civilization. They’re called idiots.
Indeed there have been deplorable acts committed in the pursuit of oil that go back 150 years. Those interested in the subject should check out Marty Callaghan’s feature length documentary Blood and Oil: The Middle East in World War I, released in 2010. But I’ll happily grant that most of the exploration of fossil fuels was done long before humankind had any real knowledge that this practice was destroying the planet.
That brings us to the second inconvenient truth: Nuclear power is the world’s most abundant and scalable carbon-free energy source. In today’s world, every nuclear plant that is not built is a fossil-fuel plant that does get built, which in most of the world means coal. Yet the use of nuclear power has been stagnant or even contracting. Nuclear power presses a number of psychological buttons — fear of poisoning, ease of imagining catastrophes, distrust of the unfamiliar and the man-made — and so is held to an irrationally higher standard than fossils. When a coal mine disaster kills dozens, or a deep-water oil leak despoils vast seas, nobody shuts down the coal or oil industries…. Nuclear today is relatively expensive, but that is largely because it must clear massive regulatory hurdles while its fossil competitors have been given relatively easy passage. New fourth-generation nuclear designs, a decade away from deployment, will burn waste from today’s plants and run more cheaply and safely.
First, not to pick nits, but one does not have to imagine catastrophes; one merely has to look at them; they are not phantasms. Obviously, it can be argued that coal is infinitely more deadly, and that’s absolutely true, which is why environmentalists who do their homework are anything but rabidly anti-nuke. There is a whole chapter on “advanced nuclear” in my most recent book (Bullish on Renewable Energy), for the very reason that there are numerous promising nuclear technologies, both fission and fusion, that should be developed as rapidly as possible. Do the authors really think that decent people of any particular stripe would be unhappy to see clean and safe nuclear win the day? That’s just rude, disrespectful nonsense.
A third truth is that climate change must transcend ideology. A particularly pernicious form of denialism is the conceit within the political left that we must cure longstanding social ills such as inequality, corporate greed, racism, and political corruption along the way to dealing with climate change.
I’m not sure what to advise people who don’t see a link between corporate greed and our current de facto energy policy in which fossil fuels are at the center. To me, this is among the most obvious features of the world as it exists today. Perhaps I could suggest this: wait until you see the fireworks that are about to surround the prosecution of ExxonMobil on the basis that its executive team conspired to hide the connection between fossil fuels and climate change; that will bring the point home, even to the most obtuse.
So what should environmentalists be demanding? Foremost, governments need to fund research and development for low-carbon energy technologies at Apollo-program levels of commitment. Breakthrough innovations are needed in batteries, nuclear energy, liquid biofuels, and carbon capture. The required funding of this ultimate public good is too great a risk with too little a reward for private companies. But it is easily fundable by governments.
Not to be condescending, but: New Flash, that’s exactly what we’re demanding.
Today, climate activism shoots off in too many directions: divesting from portfolios, urging asceticism, ending capitalism, demonizing ogres, prophesying doom, changing everything. This scattershot campaign is morally invigorating but distracts people from acknowledging the most inconvenient truth of all: None of this will stop catastrophic climate change.
LOL. If I thought that, I’d go get a real estate license or open a martini bar.
On that last thought – Our responses are highly individualized. I personally do believe we have already done the deed as it were, but I act out my conscience in any case while not getting too lost in liquid refreshments. Many do what they can, and you and I encourage this. The result does look a bit like scattershot in the beginning. However, we get progressive refinements along the way, and it ultimately ends up looking like there was a logic to it all along.
Hi Arlene. An astute comment, as always. And yes, I believe we’re making progress, albeit discontinuous.
In fact the largest problem that fossil fuel dependence has caused is the corruption of our government by the fossil fuel industry which has flooded Congress and presidential campaigns with money for which they expect direct favors. The Koch brothers come to mind as the worst examples of oil billionaires who attack any Democrat who would dare suggest that money be spent on clean energy research or tax breaks for residential or industrial scale green energy projects. In fact the GOP opposes any such spending, calling it wasteful while they happily give the oil and coal industries hidden subsidies and tax breaks which are in fact a total waste of government resources. The oil industry is highly profitable and it needs no subsidies or tax breaks and instead should be taxed heavily to pay for the massive damage their pollution has done to the entire earth.
The Boston Globe writer though they had a clever peg for their editorial. It turns out to be utter nonsense.
A reader notes: Hi Craig:
The Boston Globe article correctly states the following:
In poor countries like India, citizens want reliable electricity to power these improvements, and stand ready to vote out any government that fails to deliver it. When American environmentalists tell the world to stop burning fossil fuels, they need to give Indians an alternative that delivers the prosperity they demand and deserve.
The real problem the environmentalists should realize it is the population which grows with clean environment — and all energy conversions will continue to heat the atmosphere whether it is solar/ wind/ nuclear/hydro — check out what the air conditioner does
You make several good points here:
1) We cannot solve this problem while ignoring the needs of the huge swath of our population that is demanding more energy per capita every day.
2) It is true that there is no “free lunch” when it comes to energy production. Yet the EROI (energy return on investment) of the low-carbon resources you name are all very high.
What could be the motivation of writing such an article? I’d rather not comment on that, but maybe you could forward your response to the authors. Thanks
Kudos to you, Craig, for countering a clearly biased article so typically full of straw-man arguments and broad-brush claims.
Two things…
One – I’ve been given to understand that carbon capture is largely a dead-end with present and foreseen technology.
Am I misinformed?
Two – Thorium reactors and other forms of advanced nuclear are pretty concepts, but they don’t yet remotely exist in the real world of commercial energy production, and I understand the rational timelines for their realization are well beyond deadline tolerance for carbon mitigation.
All the genuinely planned commercial nuclear energy generation projects and currently operating commercial nuclear facilities are old-style technology. That old and persisting form of nuclear power is prohibitively expensive when all the costs are accounted for – mining, refining, construction, insuring, waste containment, facility lifespan, decommissioning. Further, given natural disasters, human error and sabotage/terrorism potential, that old technology is clearly proven to be inherently dangerous to the biosphere just to operate.
Am I stating anything inaccurate or irrational here?
Re: carbon capture: I think it’s a dead-end, but that doesn’t stop the fossil fuels boys from promoting it.
Re: thorium. It depends on how you define “remotely.” They are not close to commercialization, but I believe the technology has incredible promise and should be pursued aggressively. There are other forms of nuclear that are exciting as well, e.g., this one in fusion: http://www.ialtenergy.com/tri-alpha-energy.html. My friend Jim Boyden (who received his PhD in physics from Cal Tech in 1960, the year I graduated from kindergarten) supports it, and therefore so do I. 🙂
Thanks, Craig.
As mentioned above, and I am now generalizing, perhaps the greatest problem we face is that not only do we need to develop the technologies and their implementation, but we also need to provide them to the world at no greater cost than any existing solutions. We cannot fall back on the classical economics of charging what we think the market will bear. The market will quite simply opt for coal and/or all of the other lowest cost solutions. Convincing our own internal market has been the challenge and the discussion thus far, but it needs to range considerably beyond that. Much like the royalty free patent sharing we see emerging in some industries, we need to share our solutions on a global scale.
I’ve long remained convinced that the core challenge we face (in this issue and many others) is eliminating the influence of bribery in all its many forms, and thereby its effects upon the selection of our leadership, and on their decision-making while in office.
This won’t be easy, but it is crucial.
A recent study at Princeton looked back at 20 years of public opinion and legislation.
This illustrated a stark reality.
No matter how firm the opinions of the least affluent 90% of the public, the chances of related legislation passing was about 30% across the board. Public opinion – either for or against – has had a “minuscule” and “statistically insignificant” effect.
However, when the opinions of the most affluent 10% were compared, there was a striking resemblance to an ideal democratic republic.
If there was no support for the idea among that 10%, supportive legislation stood a near zero chance of passage. That relationship was near linear, until about the half-support mark. There, the relationship loosened but still remained strong between the 10%’s opinion and legislation.
Lincoln warned us that our nation’s destruction, if it happens, would come from within.
Consider the fixated and methodical army of lobbyists in 2009 alone, eleven thousand strong, and pouring out an average of over six million dollars per congressperson (and that was before the SCOTUS Five threw the CU v FEC floodgates open). The reality of that army obliterates any doubt about the mechanism controlling our legislatures. That army makes the mere notion of a democratic republic into a ridiculous farce.
If corporate money is regarded in law as political speech, how much louder than you or me is the single corporate entity, ExxonMobil?
In 2012, all the elections for president, house and senate cost about $6.2 billion ($21 per American), and ExxonMobil, by itself, profited $44.8 billion that year alone.
That means ExxonMobil, all by itself, could have bought all the federal elections in the country with just 14% of its 2012 profits.
Good government is the only hope that We the People have to defend our Public Commons and advance our Common Good. Good government won’t come from people who hate government.
Want improvement? Ban bribery in all its forms. That’s the most important and central issue that controls all others.
As long as cash reigns as king, we’ll more and more be slaves to greed and cowardice.
Those who insist on putting all our CO2 reduction eggs into one basket, i.e., renewables, are neglecting the importance of having a “plan B”. Nuclear power must be either the “plan A” or the “plan B”; it must not be neglected!
The public is generally unaware of the extent to which fossil fuels must be replaced; it is rarely covered by the media. Of course no one knows EXACTLY what percentage of our power must come from non-CO2 emitting sources, but a good guess would be 90%. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans is already too high and the less CO2 we emit the faster the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans will decrease.
Simply replacing existing fossil fueled generating plants with non-CO2 emitting generating plants would not be enough since we use large amounts of power which are not directly related to electricity such as power for heating, cooking, transportation, and manufacturing. Also, the amount of power the world is now using is insufficient to lift poor nations out of poverty and to provide sufficient fresh water. Sea water desalination, which is energy intensive, must be greatly increased. Farming methods and diet also significantly effect CO2 emissions and have not received adequate attention.
Many of us doubt that wind and solar power can, with current technology, come even close to meeting global demand for power with currently available technology especially considering that wind and solar power are intermittent and would require huge amounts of energy storage capacity to do the job. Except in the limited locations where geography makes pumped storage practical, there is currently no energy storage technology available which would be practical to store sufficient energy to make wind and solar power practical. Presumably if solar power were really practical few people with solar panels on their roofs would be connected to the grid. It is unclear whether an adequate energy storage technology will ever become available.
Considering the above, probably much of our power will have to be generated by nuclear plants to reduce CO2 emissions to acceptable levels. Unfortunately, the media have made no effort to educate the public regarding nuclear power. Few people understand what caused the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters and that both were the result of inexcusable negligence. Few people know what the actual magnitude of those disasters was. Although both were serious, their magnitude is generally greatly exaggerated. Few people are aware that many nuclear reactor technologies are possible many of which, when fully developed by R & D, would be far safer than our current pressurized water reactors and could not melt down. Of course R & D takes time and money, but it would make more sense to put the necessary resources into the R & D rather than assume, without adequate proof, that it is unnecessary.
The current “National Geographic” magazine has several good articles on global warming and its consequences, some of which are already causing problems. It has only one or two sentences on nuclear power. It’s almost as though there is a conspiracy prohibiting even the discussion of nuclear power. On many subjects, including crime, foreign policy, economics, etc., PBS regularly interviews people who have varying views so that many different opinions are presented. However, they have NEVER done that with nuclear power; either the subject is completely ignored or only the negative side is presented. That is unacceptable!!
The result of the above is that only those of us who have accidentally stumbled upon articles regarding various nuclear technologies and have spent many hours studying nuclear power and various power technologies are well informed. Public opinion is not well informed.
Again, those who insist on putting all our CO2 reduction eggs into one basket, i.e., renewables, are neglecting the importance of having a “plan B”. Nuclear power must be either the “plan A” or the “plan B”; it must not be neglected since at the very least we need a fall-back technology which can be quickly implemented if it becomes clear that renewables cannot do the job.
@ freggersjr
I agree with your analysis. Solar and Wind technologies are limited not only by a lack of storage capacity, but also by the dynamics of supply distribution. Industrial societies require economical “Power on Demand” , not “Power on Supply”.
The solar and wind industries share similar problems Ethanol production. In theory, and at first glance the appear as exciting new technologies and attract passionate support. On an individual level they seem to provide work, thus reinforcing the erroneous belief that such technologies can be up-scaled without detrimental effect. Supporters base their belief on the old axiom, that if something should be true, it must be true.
Sadly, it’s not the case. Despite trillions of dollars in subsidies, and nearly 40 year of legislative mandates and support, the uneconomic US corn based Ethanol industry has produced more environmental damage than the fossil fuel it was introduced to replace.
Solar has not been a complete waste. Solar technology has proved valuable in niche applications and is still developing. More carefully thought out policies, could make the industry even more productive.
But it’s just absurd to claim solar /wind are viable sources of power for industrial societies. Power distribution networks are not designed to cope with intermittent power generation. (Nor can they be), Most renewable power is simply “dumped”. Nor can society be re-organized to function on solely renewable energy. It just won’t happen.
The only answer to large scale emission free generation, remains nuclear technology. ( I favour Thorium). Those nations like India and the PRC which abandon emotional opposition, and introduce this form of generation will enrich their citizens and become economically competitive, while those who cling to outmoded concept will be left behind impoverished as a result of selfish delusions.
It really is that simple.
Fortunately for us all, most of what you write here is factually incorrect. Pease see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/12/01/renewable-energy-huge-industry/
Craig,
Like most advocates for Solar power you confuse power generation with “usable” power. Generating uneconomic and unwanted power to meet the necessities of government subsidies or mandates, is not the same thing as generating consistent and adequate power to meet the needs of industrial societies on a planet wide basis.
Your understanding of “usable” power and grid compatibility is possibly a little naive. Utilities may not record the dumping of excess “renewable” power during a surge because they either receive a subsidy or is required by mandate, instead records the dumping of excess conventional power, thus maintaining the illusion of renewable percentages. (see testimony by TVA in support of ceasing to purchase home generated power.)
Your implied claim that Solar and Wind generation can and will provide provide adequate power generation to economically replace and expand existing power generation, is simply not tenable.
Just as the US Ethanol Industry spends hundreds of millions lobbying to stay in existence by virtue of government subsidies and mandates, so too does the solar-wind energy industry, although to a lessor extent.
The concept that Solar and Wind can replace existing generation because a few banks express interest and make enthusiastic statements over lunch, may not be the best or wisest investment advise ! ( actually very little bankers say over lunch should be taken seriously, bankers don’t have the best record when it come to brilliant investment advice after lunch :).
Banks will invest in anything that has solid government guarantees or support. Banks make a lot of money promoting investments where the risk can be can be packaged into easily managed structured investment instruments and the risk is passed onto investors while the profits are already retained by the bank. ( Yeildco’s are an example).
Solar and Wind technologies can give the illusion of power generation on an industrial scale, but trying to upscale becomes increasingly difficult as the generating capacity increases.
I didn’t say Solar and Wind have no role to play. Obviously both have valuable (solar more so) applications in specialized circumstance. Nor did I say that Grid flexibility and compatibility won’t improve with better technology, but only marginally.
Back on the investment front, you may have noticed the recent market volatility in the solar industry as the bubble begins to deflate. Bankruptcies such as the Mark Group in the UK and others has shown how vulnerable these companies can be to fluctuations in government policies and subsidies.
In a recent Washington Times article, Drew Johnston argued of all the subsidies provided by the US government it’s least productive was for solar energy. The US investment of over $40 billion last year has resulted in an industry that provides only 0.6 of US power generation.
He went on to compare the Solar Boom to the US housing bubble of 2008 to 2010.
” U.S. Bankcorp, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch all established tax equity funds to help solar panel giant SolarCity exploit government tax credits and flood the United States with rooftop solar panels. Goldman Sachs followed suit with a $500 million fund to help Americans with poor credit purchase solar panels that they otherwise couldn’t afford – the same type of risky investment that caused the housing bubble to burst. ”
Now, I don’t agree with Drew Johnston completely, but his article is certainly well researched.
Daniel Verdú energy editor of El Pais commenting on the dramatic effect on the Spanish
Solar Industry caused by a reversal of government policy. Once doyen of the of the world solar industries, held up as an example of Grid integration and economic success, the Spanish government reduces the level of subsidies.
RREEF Infrastructure and Antin, two major funds linked to Deutsche Bank and BNP respectively, are taking Spain to the World Bank’s arbitration agency, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).
The Banks (including your friends at Credit Suisse) are complaining that Spain, by reducing the high level of subsidy to produce uneconomic power, has created losses for their investors.
This sort of unfortunate situation will always occur when technology investment is driven, not by economics and necessity, but by political idealism and over optimism.
” data that’s completely incorrect,” ? Hmmm… well that just depends on which “data” you wish to rely upon, doesn’t it ?
I agree that we need more pumped storage or a grid interconnected to send power from where its currently available to where it is needed. I disagree that their is not enough renewable energy available so nuclear has to be a fall-back energy storage system, when in fact it is too slow to respond to “instant demand” compared with pumped storage with water or air pressure. Solar One and Two have solved the intermittency of SUN shine while capturing the only original source of free unending energy.
You will note that the technique of stating something as a fact regardless of its truth or not is how I begin my response. This is the method of the original article’s writer. Let the reader beware, since the conclusions may not be valid when this method is used…..
Graig,
The Boston Globe article illustrates the counter-productive confusion created when environmental issues get hi-jacked by leftist political ideology.
Yesterday, in the city of Melbourne Australia, a Climate Change demonstration occurred. The 10,000 or so demonstrators were mostly peaceful, well mannered, well intentioned folk.
But at least half the demonstrators were carrying placards supporting completely extraneous left wing causes.
What was even sadder, was how the demonstrators, mostly well educated , knew so little about the subject they were demonstrating. The demonstrators were mostly motivated by
” faith ” and the emotional appeal of advocates. The only common belief seemed to be if something should be true or desirable, therefore it was true, or possible to become true, by government action !
One of the greatest assets of the human psyche is the capacity for hope. But while hope is definitely admirable, it should be coupled with some form of practical action and realistic analysis. Just demanding vaguely “make things better” or worse, demanding impossible goals is pointless. (however, having no real solution has long been the hallmark of leftist ideology).
Advocating ” Grand Manifestos ” requiring the reorganization of society, accomplishes nothing except to detract attention from the implementation of smaller, more humble, less ideologically driven technologies and environmental practices.
Fanatics attract attention and often gather ardent followers, but their causes seldom end well or achieve any positive lasting benefit.
I was recently invited to attend a conference of Pacific Island nations, at which the delegate for the Australian Leader of the Opposition Mr Shorten, read out a speech by Mr Shorten that was..well.. just embarrassing. In his speech Mr Shorten stated,
” I recently had the privilege of spend four days in three Pacific Island nations,….but paradise is drowning ! These islands of the Pacific will be the first affected by global warming and will soon disappear ”
Alarming stuff ! Mr Shorten’ speech was well received back in the Australian leftist press, as his evidence of his concern for the environment and Pacific Island peoples. However, the people of those Pacific Islands do not have a high opinion of Mr Shorten. Naturally the Island people displayed skepticism of any in-depth knowledge acquired by Mr Shorten during his 4 day taxpayer funded family holiday. Especially in view of the response by Professor Paul Kench an Auckland University (NZ) coastal geomorphologist.
Professor Kench emphatically denied advising Mr Shorten that Pacific Island were in danger. Professor Kench has spent spent a lifetime studying more than 600 coral and reef islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans and has come to the conclusion that 80% of the islands are actually growing or stable. His candid comment, ” Evidence now suggests that these small islands are far more resilient to sea level rises that we once thought.”
He is supported by the renowned academic and coastal geologist, Professor Virginie Duvat of the University of La Rochelle who also concedes ” there is no scientific evidence that these islands will sink, or even suffer more than usual coastline changes”
These academics were ignored by the Australian leftist press, who quoted the leading Australian Climate Change advocate, Dr Tim Fannery and adviser to Mr Shorten who disagreed with Professor Kench, and told excited demonstrators the ” islands will be gone in our lifetime” !
Tim Flannery is a paleontologist by training, but has made a made a career of alarmist pronouncements, mostly erroneous, often with disastrous consequences. Advocates like Flannery deploying extreme and reckless misinformation, are part of what the Boston Globe article highlights.
In 2007, Flannery advised a naive Queensland Labour Government that due Global Warming, river levees need no longer be maintained as desertification was now irreversible. Three years Queensland floods claimed an appalling loss of life and economic loss. He then blamed the floods on man made claimed change, and wanted coal miners to pay for the damage ! (Queensland suffers massive floods every 60 years or so).
Fannery and fellow Climate Change advocates next detracted from meaningful research of the deterioration of the Australian Great Barrier Reef. Australian funding and manpower was diverted from any research that didn’t contribute to supporting climate change and IPCC theorizing. Any other research was actively discouraged.
Any real research had to wait until the NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science researchers and their partners discovered that a sunscreen chemical commonly used in many soaps, cosmetics, and body fragrances is highly toxic to corals. The team’s data show that even very low concentrations of benzophenone-2, or BP-2, can quickly kill juvenile corals. BP-2 is an additive used in personal-care products since the 1960s to protect against the damaging effects of ultraviolet light.
The team also found that BP-2 causes colorful corals to bleach, and can potentially induce or increase the frequency of mutation in corals by causing damage to their DNA. BP-2 is not removed from most municipal wastewater treatment facilities. This discharge is often directly released in coastal waters of the Caribbean and the Indo-Pacific, threatening near-shore coral reefs.’
The Boston Globe article makes a valid point in illustrating how environmental concerns lose credibility when confused with unrelated ideological dogma. Demonstrators arguing Gay marriage equality, animal rights, socialist-left demanding an anti-capitalist agenda at environmental demonstrations just confuse and detract from any realistic appreciation of environmental issues.
I agree with the Boston Globe. Ideological grandstanding and tub thumping, only serves to detract from positive initiatives. Worse, it supports a belief that small ‘evolutionary’ innovations aren’t worthwhile, only a ‘revolution’ will deliver results. In the meantime, it’s better to do nothing while waiting for a revolution to occur.
As with many of your posts Craig, this one seems to call for a quick comment. I was sufficiently intrigued and puzzled to look for the complete article which I found here: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/23/inconvenient-truths-for-environmental-movement/esDloe97894keW16Ywa9MP/story.html The article is about “Truths” and so argues for a set of facts, but it also contains a assumptions.
The first assumption is that climate change is the single issue around which every other issue should depend. It is with this assumption in mind that they make the otherwise confusing statement about “traditional greens…[being]…distracted by…signature causes” that you immediately found to be an issue. Viewed in this way the logic of the article becomes little more than a circular definition and seems to fail on that basis. (If there is only one issue then every other issue is secondary.) In practice, even for those who embrace the concept of climate change the ability to support and priority of the issue varies.
A second assumption, related to the first, is that there is a clearly defined group of people who share a defined set of beliefs. And so they refer to the “Congressional Republicans,” “Environmentalists,” “traditional greens,” and “pragmatic environmentalists.” I found the term “traditional greens” particularly troubling and wonder if they considered that environmentalism was traditionally a conservative issue and contains some today who are not in favor of change.
Both of the authors are scholars. Simplifying a problem is a common academic technique to make solutions apparent. But it is a sophomoric error to then not check the “solution” to see how it measures against the “real world.” Oversimplification and a failure to check “solutions” is what leads us to bias and the political and economic polarization that is increasingly common in our society. Some might even say that this is the primary challenge of our age and climate change is only a symptom of this human failure.