First off: I really admire the tone you took here and the conversation you’re trying to start. Respectful disagreement is necessary, especially when it involves problem-solving. I hope you find my response equally respectful.

I think you make a few good points that are worth keeping in mind:

1) Fossil fuels are very good and doing what we wanted them to do, and (with obviously unequal distribution) most of us can safely say we’ve materials benefited from the opportunities those fuels opened up for ourselves and our ancestors.

2) There is an undeniable cost involved in transitioning from those fuel systems. Shutting it all off, in a termination shock, would certainly fuck up A LOT of things.

3) Solar and wind are not materially dense and present both energy problems AND ecological problems.

4) Nuclear power is the densest energy system of them all. If I’m not mistaken, Uranium is quite literally the densest naturally occurring element.

5) Climate change, particularly GHG reduction, is a problem involving non-ecological elements and addressing will likely involve accepting certain ecological costs. Solar panels in the desert is a basic one; solar geoengineering could be another; fracking also arguably reduces (or at least did reduce) GHGs, but (without much personal expertise in the topic) it probably comes with quite a few unpleasant side effects beyond the eventual carbon output.

6) Human civilization is good at adapting and, to some extent, we will be able to adapt to some of the negative elements surrounding climate change. Moving to a low carbon economy expressly assumes the same power of adaption.

Agreed.

However, I think you’re making a few bad assumptions in your analysis. Good cost-benefit decision-making requires a clear understanding of your options and an accurate assessment of the actual costs/benefits associated with each course of action. Think of it like accounting.

To keep it simple, let’s focus on two alternative courses of action: Should we emphasize accelerated decarbonization of our energy economy? Or, should we maintain the use of high-density fuels like coal, oil, and nat gas (dealing with the ranging carbon output of each source)?

That’s not the only cost/benefit question involved in climate change, but energy seemed to be your primary focus.

There is also the obvious question, “if we decide to decarbonize our energy economy, how fast should it be?” This question has far more alternatives and is far more complicated, but we’re painting with broad strokes here on medium. For this discussion, let’s just assume we’ve already done the prerequisite calculus (moral and mathematical) and identified some “phase-out” sweet spot.

Here’s how I think you should tweak your analysis:

1) No group - with enough power to do anything about it - seems poised to turn off all the fossil fuels all at once. It’s just not a course of action that’s really on the table. A phase-out (“phase-down” if you’re India… ) would involve costs, but far less inflated costs than a cold-turkey scenario. I could go on with hypos for when a potential fast shut down might be in the cards, but I think those would be too far removed from present realities to be productive.

2) Nuclear is currently not popular, but stigma doesn’t always hold when shit hits the fan. There are plenty of nuclear haters and there are plenty of nuclear stans. At the end of the day, some capital and some governments seem to be behind nuclear energy. The popularity of nuclear may increase as its cost/benefits become better understood. Maybe I’m biased, but (after the invasion of Ukraine) there now seems to be some consensus that Germany made a significant mistake when they took their nuclear plants offline after Fukushima. There likely won’t be a 180 on the issue, but fossil fuels stick around because they deliver results. Nuclear power delivers similar results; it will likely play at least some role in global baseload energy.

3) Energy technologies are not static. Sc-fi “unobtanium” won’t save the day, but the material costs that currently prevent wider use of “clean” energy will change later into a phase-down; the same goes for ecological costs. The way we use solar panels (and the type of solar panels we use) will likely adapt to address its environmental effects. I don’t think they’ll fix it, but my guess is a few good PhDs are thinking really hard about where and where not to use what kind of solar panels, in such a way as to reach the most favorable effects on regional weather patterns. Complicated stuff, but a quantum computer and some research $$$ will likely help.

4) All of the important ecological elements not directly related to GHG emissions are still subject to climate change. It’s true; there are ways to address climate change that will have negative ecological impacts in some form or another. On the other hand, unchecked climate change f’s up even more things, lose-lose. We may never reach a Michael-Scott win-win-win, but It’s all about alternatives.

5) The power of human adaptation is great, but it probably has limits and comes with its own economic, ecological, and social costs. Desalination plants ain’t cheap and Ocean retaining walls need repair. Every costs $; nothing is permanent. Besides, adaptation itself is disruptive. A Californian might “adapt” to wildfires by moving out of the WUI or grabbing a Uhaul for WA, but internal migration is chaotic, not everyone can do it, and it’s very uncertain. Markets (and people) don’t respond well to excessive uncertainty. Climate adaptation comes with its own strains on pre-existing social and economic issues. In my opinion, proactive adaptation to a low carbon economy is far more desirable.