Profile Network Activity Comments Articles Blog Bookmarks Contact

How Should The Renewable Energy Industry Respond to Climate Change Deniers?

By Graham Jesmer
December 9, 2009 | 16 Comments

Do you like this blog post?

Bookmark

As delegations from around the world gather in Copenhagen over the course of this and next week, the mainstream media has been abuzz with debate on the meaning of the event and any agreement that it might result in. In the RenewableEnergyWorld.com blogoshphere we've been debating how the renewable energy industry should be approaching the talks, what role renewable energy CEOs should play and what the conference will ultimately mean for the industry's future.

We've run opinion pieces and news stories about what might or might not come out of the event, but no matter what the format the article has taken there have persistently been comments about the "fraud" that is global warming, the "conspiracy" that is the world shifting towards more renewable energy and less fossil fuels and the "duplicity" that has occurred in states like Massachusetts where companies like Evergreen Solar have gotten tax breaks and subsidies.

Stephen Lacey posted earlier today wondering if we're asking the wrong questions when it comes to renewable energy. My question is how do we both as journalists here at RenewableEnergyWorld.com and as an industry in general, reply to comments like...

"I think that it's time we step back and re-evaluate the whole issue of man-made global warming. Recent revelations of fabricated and manipulated data demand that we act on actual science as opposed to the wishes of the world-wide socialist movement.

and...

"Your marketing engine is unfortunately tied to the Global warming hysteria driven by these 'exaggerations' and fabricated warnings by unethical scientists; it's not business as usual because an increasingly skeptical polity is starting to challenge and halt major alt. energy investments."

I don't know the answer, so I'm posting the question to you, our audience of renewable energy professionals and advocates. What do you say to those who think global warming is a myth and that renewable energy is a fraud? Leave your thoughts in the comments below or post them on Twitter.

Bioenergy, Geothermal Energy, Hydropower, Ocean Energy, Solar Energy, Wind Power

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

16 Reader Comments

Comment
1 of 16

December 9, 2009

"Actual science" is universally agreed that the earths' CO2 emissions are increasing at a rate that is radically altering the climate in which humans evolved. Changing our CO2 emissions is what we can control so those are the solutions we promote - with the added benefit that carbon reduction actions have potential for environmental, health, and social justice side-benefits.

"Just because a guy is yelling at another guy as the ship goes down doesn't mean you stop looking for the life rafts." (from VerveSol at Twitter)

See "Why are we still arguing about climate change?"
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/54560-why-are-we-still-arguing-about-climate-change

Comment
2 of 16

Graham-Jesmer

December 10, 2009

LMerry: It's the people who disagree with the science or think its a fraud that the industry has to worry about in my opinion. These are the people who will be at town hall and planning meetings railing against "expensive" renewable energy projects that are "unnecessary" because climate change is a myth. It's getting them to even acknowledge that the ship is going down that seems to be the problem.

To me the answer to them has to be that climate change, carbon and renewable energy policies and implementation will be an economic driver and a jobs creator.

Comment
3 of 16

JenniferRunyon

December 10, 2009

I think its possible to take climate change out of the equation entirely and still offer very compelling reasons to support renewable energy. How about the fact that the US military is one of the biggest supporters of renewable energy? If the people fighting the wars over oil, (remember this is what Wesley Clark says) think that it would be better if we just produced our own energy, then maybe others will latch on to that argument. Maybe some folks will agree that having energy independence is just as compelling a reason to support renewables as climate change is.

Comment
4 of 16

william-fitch-22587

December 10, 2009

Hi Graham:

I think you need to step back and take a different snapshot. FACT I: Common sense even from an idiot would yield the question, "Are we warming the planet". The relationship between planet temperatures and CO2 are as close to fact as you can get (ice core alone). If our current reality was that global temps were rising and the glaciers were getting bigger, broken ice flows were shrinking and salt concentrations in the oceans were rising, etc.. then one would have JUST cause to question the effect of CO2 on warming. But the reality is just the opposite. FACTII: Mans current energy generation mechanisms create huge, huge amounts of extra CO2 as compared to earth without our species. FACTIII: So again, when an idiot is poised to respond to, A:, Create energy with minimal extra CO2 generation with a chance it might help, or B:, create energy in a way that it WILL add to the CO2 generation without question and may hurt,... the idiot responds with, "well I think we should do what might help!!" This is all a no brain'er... isn't it... So when you are presented with skepticism, PLEASE realize that they are not saying they don't believe the data, they are saying, "you fool, why should I do things to reduce my bottom line!! This is my business you are attacking and my paid for interests. I am in or have direct interests in conventional fuels!!! Go elsewhere and petal your ice melting problems..." We, our species has defined currency acquisition as the quintessential goal to social approval and general overall welfare and happiness... Things that may or may not happen in 50 to 100 years are no match for the current benefits of capitalistic gains whose power rests in such....

.....Bill

Comment
5 of 16

Graham-Jesmer

December 10, 2009

Bill: I'm inclined to agree with you, but from my perspective as a journalist its very difficult to simply dismiss e-mails, commenters and other feedback as simply being from idiots. I think that climate change is very obviously the result of the carbon intensive industries and energy sources you mention.

As Jennifer points out, I think the doubters need to be sidestepped rather than ignored, the security, economic, health and other tangible benefits of renewable energy, emission reduction and sustainability need to be put front and center. To borrow a comment from earlier in this thread, this is how we get everyone on the same sinking ship.

Comment
6 of 16

william-fitch-22587

December 10, 2009

Hi Graham:

I am not at all suggesting that the comments are from idiots. What I said is that even an idiot would no what is going on.... so since the people responding are clearly NOT IDIOTS, there has to be a third variable which is responsible for their responses... and that variable is capitalism...
It is that simple...

.....Bill

Comment
7 of 16

Graham-Jesmer

December 10, 2009

Bill: I understand. Yes, it's difficult to get people to see the net positives for company's and individuals' bottom lines when it comes to climate change and renewables but the case can be made and hopefully we as an industry will find better ways to make that case.

Comment
8 of 16

william-fitch-22587

December 10, 2009

Hi Graham:

I TOTALLY agree with your last... but, aren't we all (including me) just pissing in the wind for the hopes of rapid change..??.. Let me give you a very personal example that you will not find anywhere in the public eye, so to speak. Are you familiar with the marsala shale formation..??.. I will not give specific names, companies or exact locations. One of my relatives owns about 350 acres out in central PA. He was approached and has agreements for several NG wells on his property. They have just started to prepare the land for the gas drilling rig (huge) to start the drilling for probably 4 to 6 wells from that one drill spot. The other day (LT 1 week ago) he received a front end check for 750K$!! A lottery ticket basically for most. That's not the money he will get once the wells produce, or the pipe line right of ways, that's just a front end check!!! The rig has not even started to drill yet!!! So, why do I mention this (in case it is not obvious)..??.. THE MONEY to be made on conventional fuels is huge and can not be matched in "intensity/density" by any RE source. It is just the nature of the energy sources.... Over time the money can be made in RE... yes.. it is very much like comparing the Tortoise and the Hare... except this Hare has allot more energy to expend.... eventually the tortoise will win, yes, because its energy in this case is infinite... everyone knows this... but there is no way in hell the Hare will agree to a premature forfeit.

.....Bill

Comment
9 of 16

SolarFred

December 10, 2009

First, however, you respond, I think you have to respond without sarcasm or animosity. This will only make them listen to sarcasm and animosity and reply in kind.

Second, I think you have to bone up on all of their arguments. They're pretty common. After you know what they're saying, then you've got to ask the experts to respond to those arguments with science and report those findings. I think once you know the same old arguments, you can regularly respond with the same answers.

That being said, there are going to be those who won't listen. Instead responding to your facts, they will bring up something totally off topic, like Obama not being a citizen or government run "fill in the blank."

I also agree with Jenn that another way to appeal to the open minded (again, the closed minded are.... closed) is to frame it as an energy independence issue as well as a health and safety issue and land issue. How many farmers were and residents had their land ruined by coal sludge in Tennessee last year? Conservatives love land because they feel they have worked so hard for it. I think if you show the effects of CO2 fuels on land and land value, that will speak to their independence.

Good post, Graham!

Comment
10 of 16

Graham-Jesmer

December 10, 2009

Bill: Another great point that needs to be considered. Leases for land have been a big part of wind development as well. And as much as those in the renewables industry don't like to admit it natural gas will probably play a big role in our near-term energy future. It is a fossil fuel and obviously emits far more greenhouse gases than solar PV, but it is a domestic energy source and helps to secure (at least for a while) our energy future. It's definitely a wider discussion and one that is and will continue to be a subtext to the debates over renewable energy that are taking place around the world. We just need to keep putting money on the tortoise and hope that it catches up soon.

Comment
11 of 16

william-fitch-22587

December 10, 2009

yes... there is always hope.... good discussion...

.....Bill

Comment
12 of 16

NewEnergyNews

December 10, 2009

Graham--This is really for both you and Stephen:
At a press conference in August, i asked Henry Waxman why he wasn't responding more agressively to the deniers, Tea Partiers and especially the "cap&taxers" so aggressively fighting his legislation. Like the veteran fighter that he is, he shrugged and said, essentially (i'm paraphrasing) that there would always be a minority of such noises and he couldn't expend much effort dealing with them because he is busy doing his work and gathering support to him.
i think the attitude is instructive. He wasn't saying not to reply. He was saying, i think, that if it's part of your work to reply, do so, but don't worry too much about what you absolutely cannot make go away and what time will deal with.
herman

Comment
13 of 16

SolarFred

December 10, 2009

For those who do need to reply, here's a great link that summarizes what the deniers say, and what the real science is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php. Please share it with friends.

Comment
14 of 16

jonathan-chance-166185

December 11, 2009

The climate is always changing, and there's little credible evidence that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (C02) is causing global warming. The Sun is emitting more radiation to all planets.

Monetizing pollution with "carbon credits" and taxing the public for the gain of private corporations is a fraud much like usury and the way banks monetize fractional-reserve "debt".

The change in climate that's required is for NATO, world banksters and other war-profiteers to be abolished and for appropriate RECs-based monetary reform to be implemented by legitimate governments:

JPChance.wordpress.com

Meanwhile, energy companies, governments and banks should send their purified C02 to agriculture and biofuel industries - preferably in aerodynamic barrels made of aluminum, steel or recyclable polymers with dimensions similar to minivans such as the Ford Galaxy.

Please include a good Elsbett turbo-diesel engine with each barrel.

Comment
15 of 16

jamie-schlinkmann-149155

December 11, 2009

A big problem for the RE industry is how many people have polarized the issue into a political one...as if sustainability is a decidedly democratic party value. It leaves those of us wanting energy security, a healthy economy, AND less government involvement out in the cold arguing against everyone.

For those who don't believe in climate change: ask the citizens of Key West, who recently had to raise a road due to ocean rise, what they think. High tide in much of South Florida is getting nearer and nearer to people's doorstep, and it doesn't take a scientist or a democrat to see it.

Comment
16 of 16

AnneButterfield

December 12, 2009

Graham: 1. coal supply constraints (see Cleanenergyaction.org) 2. peak oil (see aspo.org) 3. peak water in many parts of the world/nation 4. ocean acidification 5. $120b of hidden medical costs/year due to our current energy production (national research council). All of these factors are strong reasons to get off of fossils (and large thermal generation), pronto. None of these reasons are ACC (or AGW). (if wanting more info, ask Jenn for my contact info).

Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Graham Jesmer

Add to my network

About: I am currently a second year Law Student at Vermont Law School where I work as a Research Associate at the Institute for Energy and the Environment writing and ... more »