STOP TELLING KIDS THEY'LL DIE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE
"Many young people feel like their future is in peril. To make progress on climate change, we must move past doomsday scenarios."
Hannah mentions a recent survey among 16-25 olds in many countries: 55% said humanity was doomed due to climate change and 39% are hesitant to have children as a result.
Let that sink in dear people working on climate change communication! You are causing a massive depression.
Hannah is one of my heroes in this field with her relentless stream of @OurWorldInData articles that provide facts and meaning.
But she nearly walked away from the field herself because she just oscillated between anger and hopelessness! Is that what we want to achieve?
One of the most egregious and extreme examples is Roger Hallam, founder of Extinction Rebellion, who claims annihilation is locked in.
Now I love a bit of rebellion against stupidity myself but please know that scientifically speaking, that is not true, and he is a nutcase.
I also was guilty of it myself recently as I tweeted a humorous @UNDP clip about a dinosaur telling us to get our shit together before we make ourselves extinct.
For the record: I think we *are* getting our shit together! (Albeit too slowly.)
Hannah describes why we get to feel this way (she's been there) but also why we should be optimistic that we should be able to avoid fate. Here she formulates it especially well I think.
She pointedly concludes: telling our children they are going to die from climate change is not only cruel, it might actually make it likely to come true.
That message needs to be repeated often and loud. It's the scientific, effective and decent thing to do.
My little gesture to that effect is to pre-publish a snippet of a scientific article I'm writing on this and I would love your comments. neonresearch.nl/why-we-must-mo…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The @FT with a very nice video on what the #COP26 is about and a scary visualization of where the earth will become "too hot to handle" for comfortable human living.
This picture shows Africa in the mean (SSP2-4.5) scenario: many people forced to migrate. ft.com/content/072b5c…
The SSP5-8.5 they use as worst case is highly unlikely (not so much because of policy but because of technical development imho) but do we want to take even a 5% or so chance on billions of people having to migrate?
Anyway, one of the things we will have to face that climate change will hit the global south hardest with tens or hundreds of millions migrating and many millions dying because of heatwaves and famine after failed crops and we (the biggest emitters) are the cause.
I often disagree with what @nytdavidbrooks writes but this analysis strikes a chord.
I hope many people read it and find something in themselves that seems to be sorely lacking: tolerance and empathy for those not in "your" group. theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
I direct a group that makes agent-based models to explore better worlds.
The first agent-based model showed that segregation is almost automatic and that you have to fight and design to avoid segregation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schelling…
I think what US society is missing is more programs that actively mix rich and poor, different skin colors, left and right, Ivy league and uneducated.
It's much harder to be condescending or dismissive if you know people personally and they are mostly just like you.
I agree there is a place for hydrogen in mobility.
I just think it's probably a very small place.
I think this piece of @Toyota chief scientist Gill Pratt is heavily skewed toward hydrogen in order to make it seem more important. Let me show you. medium.com/toyotaresearch…
Charging speed is limited by the so called C rate of battery cells.
Simply put: larger vehicles with more cells can stomach bigger chargers.
So big trucks will charge just as fast as small cars.
And of course 90% of charging is done while parked so speed isn't an issue there.
I remember how better place imagined that we would swap batteries to overcome charging time. These days are gone and 60 minutes is simply BS. I think in 2030, new EVs coming out can charge 80% of their range within ten minutes. For something you do occasionally that's a non issue
Not sure this 200 euro/kW will be reached as mentioned and that they will last 10 years but electrolysis is clearly getting pretty cheap in the future (as expected).
(10 cents/kg of H2 = 0.3 cents per kWh)
Imagine a super sunny place with cheap land produce solar at 1 cent per kWh. For 1 kg of H2 you would need around 50 kWh costing 50 cents.
If electrolysis costs only 10 cents extra that together would only be 60 cents.
There's lot's of other costs but that's just ~2 cents/kWh.
@MLiebreich Honest question Michael: are you sure that blue hydrogen subsidies will include all fugitive emissions and exclude SMR?
I've read some intentions but nothing close to assurances. Mostly silence which leaves the door wide open for abuse.
@MLiebreich I also think we should take a system perspective, just as we do with electricity. So no designating either coal or solar to EVs and no designating cleanest or dirtiest gas to blue hydrogen but taking the average.
@MLiebreich At the moment blue hydrogen reminds me of FCEVs that are cleaner than BEVs because H2 is produced next to the windmill and BEVs get the average mix or worse, while the same H2 windmill could have powered twice the amount of BEVs.