From the Washington Post–In North Carolina, Hurricanes Did What Scientists Could Not: Convince Republicans that Climate Change Is Real
Here’s a story about a few climate change deniers who became converts as a result of Hurricane Florence that tore through North Carolina and vicinity last month, causing massive flood damage and dumping coal ash, animal waste and raw sewage into local waterways. The article begins:
WILMINGTON, N.C. — It took a giant laurel oak puncturing her roof during Hurricane Florence last month for Margie White to consider that perhaps there was some truth to all the alarm bells over global warming. “I always thought climate change was a bunch of nonsense, but now I really do think it is happening,” said White, a 65-year-old Trump supporter, as she and her young grandson watched workers haul away downed trees and other debris lining the streets of her posh seaside neighborhood last week, just as Hurricane Michael made landfall 700 miles away in the Florida Panhandle.
Let’s start with a comment on Facebook: Sigh. As is so often the case, people become converts when it actually happens to them. May empathy spread its loving arms around the world & squeeze real tight.
I like to think I have as much empathy as the next guy, but what’s the appropriate response when people who disbelieve science are injured as a direct result?
In any case, let’s fast-forward a few years, and imagine that every single Margie White now believes that climate change is real. What then? Will the U.S. Congress be uniform in implementing climate change mitigation strategies? Of course not. That would mean telling Big Oil to take a hike, and pigs will fly before that happens; Congress will still be owned by the highest bidder, with Big Oil at or near the top, and you most definitely will not find ExxonMobil apologizing and leading the charge for clean energy.
Craig,
What exactly do you hope to achieve by these stories ? I’m not being ‘negative’, simply trying to understand your true purpose ?
If your message is global warming/climate science is a threat to the environment and measures should be undertaken to reduce atmospheric pollution and pollution of all kinds, then it’s being lost by confusing and dilating the impact of that message by introducing other agenda.
Why alienate a large section of the general public (Whose support you are presumably trying to enlist) by including an extraneous political message or tirade against “Big Oil” etc ?
Congress, the taxpayer, or any sensible person blames “Big Oil”. No one will tell “Big Oil” to take a hike ! Every American, nearly every person on the planet relies on the product produced by Exxon to survive and prosper.
“Big Oil” didn’t create the pollution, it was created by the modern industrialized world’s need for readily usable energy. Nor would “big Oil” be allowed to stop production of fossil fuels the result would be chaos and a massive loss of life and even greater environmental destruction.
Gloating about cataclysmic weather events to justify some kind of unrealistic “social revolution” or “crusade”, you automatically lose most the support of the more rational moderate members of your audience. These folk constitute the majority, the may be amenable to supporting realistic reform and environmental progress, but have no interest in supporting all the rest of your “social revolution” ideas.
It wouldn’t really matter, except you make it so much harder for more moderate clean tech advocates to promote adoption among the general public.
Few people want to live in your “socialist paradise” (too many remember the brutality of “socialist” states and are quite happy the wall came down).
The unfortunate hurricane victim, Margie White, may reconsider her opinion when she realizes the emergency services vehicle that came to her assistance was only able to do so because it was powered by fuel produced by Exxon.
Explain to her that all those downed tries will have to remain blocking the road and the hole in her roof can’t be repaired because Congress told Exxon and “big Oil to “take a hike” , and watch her start to find some tar and feathers for those Congresspersons!
The point I’m making is very few people “support” environmental pollution and the vast majority support clean tech products and solutions. It’s not important whether these folk are climate deniers by your definition or not, as long as adopt clean technology.
The vast majority of people want practical environmental reform, but not fanatical unrealistic demands for social revolution.
Isn’t it better to win the battles that can be won by eliciting the genuine support of people of good will, rather than alienate the majority with a wild agenda that includes all kinds of stuff guaranteed to alienate almost everyone ?
It comes down to priorities. Wwhich is more important to you ? Is your main priority to promote the practical adoption of clean technology and realistic achievable environmental progress, or continue preaching to a small (and impotent) group of fringe ‘true believers’ attempting to impose a wider agenda of extreme or leftist concepts on an unwilling public ?
What good is gloating at the misfortunes suffered by a pensioner “Trump supporter”, living in a “posh seaside” suburb ?
Do you really believe the average person will join you in rejoicing at her receiving a “well deserved comeuppance” ? Do you really imagine that in a fever of righteous rapture, the general public will immediately cease to buy any of the 350,000 , many absolutely essential, products produced from oil ?
If you really believe such an approach works ? If you truly believe such methods are effective, then I’m not sorry if I disillusion you! All you will achieve is divisive antagonism, and make it so much harder for environmentalists who care about the environment but have no interest in your political or dietary agenda, to gain support.
People are persuaded on a long term basis by sensible, logical, ideas with tangible benefits. Leave the wild rhetoric and populist emotive name calling to the President, he got the corner on that market and is so much more adept when employing such tactics. After all, he’s never claimed any high minded beliefs or occupied the high moral ground so he can’t be accused of hypocrisy.
Craig, it takes hard work, careful objective analysis and a lot of risk investment over long period to achieve any measure of success when promoting clean tech, or environmental progress.
It also requires flexibility and adaptability. If you are fighting on too many fronts, with too much political, ideological agenda, you will never acquire the sort of influence and allies needed to effect real change.
The reason the public has lost interest in GW/CC issues is the fault of extremist advocates fighting bitter wars with non-existent or obscure enemies and those who they label “climate deniers, or trolls, deplorables etc.
The vast majority of people have always accepted the basic scientific premise of man-made environmental pollution being harmful to life on earth.
What they don’t accept is the way in which the science has been manipulated and distorted to create justification for older political agendas or create a weird sort of new religion.
I’m afraid little twee articles found on Facebook, etc, no longer inspire anyone. Advocates who simply dismiss and challenge to the veracity, viability or accuracy with a lofty, “look it up’ or “I can’t be bothered to explain to fools”, lose all credibility, as they should !
The public is no longer convinced by such nonsense, believing the advocate simply incapable of answering.
Every day I promote clean technology, not for income, but because I care about the environment. Because I invest other peoples money as well as my own, I’m compelled to be able to rationally explain every aspect, positive and negative.
I must be accurate, rational, pragmatic and responsible.
Having made money speculating on cryto-currency, I realized the growing need for massive amounts of energy to power blockchain data processing centres. Naturally, since I invested heavily in developing data centres it became essential for me to gain a comprehensive knowledge of possible future power requirements that may emerge at anytime from very unexpected activities.
In the US alone, in just 4 years, Bit Coin mining alone use the same power as 3 million US households ! In total data requirements have reached 7-10% of global electricity consumption.
This doesn’t mean efforts aren’t being made to reduce this consumption, but increasing usage outstrips technical reductions. One thing we have learned is consumers will not change usage behaviour, lecturing people about shorter showers, using less air-conditioning, etc has little lasting effect, but consumers will buy more efficient technology.
Attractive advances in technology are what drive economic and environmental issues, not old fashioned political/Ideological models.
You are right to be very concerned about any potential threat to the Amazon Rain Forest, yet remain silent at the clear-felling of the world’s largest forest in Russia so Denmark can add wood pellet burning as an environmental benefit!
I don’t believe environmentalist should be selective when it comes to promoting or decrying any technology. The judgement should be made solely on practical grounds not fanciful “moral” beliefs or hopes.
I am an early adopter of Solar technology and I even own two small wind turbines. However, I also realize such technology has limitations and although a useful addition to power generation in some locations. Solar and wind lack the capacity to provide the sort of reliable ‘power on demand’ required by industrial societies.
These observations aren’t ‘negative’, just realistic. I would rather solve the emissions problems of coal fired generation than gamble everything on abolishing coal in favour of technologies which may never be adequate.
I believe in exploring every clean(er) technology simultaneously. Some will develop slowly or even become obsolete, while others may suddenly become dominant. Competition is the only way to know for sure which deserves to succeed.
Craig you called me (very unkindly), a paid troll. So, who pays me ? Well, my clients, shareholders, partners and investors pay me, not as an advocate, but analyst and investment advisor.
My foray’s into “green’ investing have over the years has yielded some spectacular gains, (Tesla at $17-19.00 per share) and disastrous losses. My policy of always taking back my original stake plus 10%, the minute the stock reaches these goals, has curtailed by losses and maximized gains.
No one can predict the future, but careful research, and ability to argue both sides of an issue, and maintaining unemotional objectivity provides an edge. I believe it’s important to constantly research all opinions, even from those sources with whom I disagree since not only does it provide better perspective, but every so often they provide valuable insights into trends.
Like you, I’m fortunate to have a team of experts to assist me and a dozen networks with whom to exchange information.
My emotional attachment to EV progress is more of an aberration, and a personal indulgence. I finance the business, like my rural properties, purely through my own private resources since I don’t regard these as the best use of capital, it would be dishonest to uses funds provided by others.
Despite my commitment to helping the environment, I’m not an “Ethical Lender”. I will happily invest in new technology for the oil industry, coal industry, sugar, legal marijuana or any technology where there is a potential for high yields.
Brexit provided me and my clients with a massive windfall. The financial decision had nothing to do with my own opinion (although I was a Brexiteer) .
When Wind and Solar became feasible, I searched for start-up or small companies with new or improved innovations in component technology. The results were highly profitable, but the in-depth research was exhausting in all the hype occurring at that time.
My team and I have successfully ridden the 12 year roller coaster of colbalt/lithium/nickel prices, making profits on rises and falls. We even rode the GFC successfully after initially losing client due our early bear predictions. Our Merchant Bank saw a spectacular growth thanks to the GFC as we acquired several competitors who read the market wrong.
The unprecedented rise (and fall) of crypto-currencies was so obvious I’m amazed so few professionals realized the potential until to late. (My son made fabulous profits).
For me, the world of clean(er) tech is not just my business, it’s my passion !
Where we differ Craig, is I try to be objective, without the prism of ideology or political bias. I read an paper by a distinguished Professor and analyst reporting on potential bad news for the Wind Turbine industry, I don’t automatically dismiss the information as being “lies’ constructed by a climate denying, Trump supporting, Troll,financed by Big Oil, or pretend it doesn’t exist !
I don’t automatically accept the report either. Instead I check thoroughly into the author’s credentials, background and methodology. I gather information from those who agree with report and those who disagree.
I also try to find ‘independent’ confirmation from reliable, reputable sources, only then will
cite the report as having some value. This particular report was commissioned by the UK government and will have an impact of future purchaing-financing-permit decisions so an adverse finding will have an effect on the share price of some suppliers, while assisting others. The report could even lead to take-overs or mergers.
There’s a difference between my writing on clean technology, where I try to be impartial and accurate. In contrast, when I reply to your social and political opinions I’m expressing my own social and political opinions, and although I try to be fair, and honest , they’re just my opinions. No more valid or invalid than the nest person.
As I write, I’m traveling in a relatively small and slow aircraft, to examine a mine deposit that will yield exceptionally high grade synthetic sapphires at a low cost. The trip is boring and narrating this comments helps reduce air sickness.
Last week I was shown a new, low energy, low cost. low pollution, process for producing industrial graphite (important in graphene production)from Calcined petroleum coke and coal tar pitch, which acts as a binder in the carbon anodes used for aluminum production.
These development in technology matter far more than endless squabbles about old political agenda.