Unpopular take: I've had enough of these "climate change is the end of the world and everybody who doesn't agree and panic is a moron" Hollywood movies.
I think they show Hollywood hyperbole is part of the problem, not the solution. grist.org/culture/dont-l…
I seldom fly, eat mostly vegan and drive electric from my solar panels of my energy positive house.
I've actually read the IPCC reports and I devote my life to developing models that show us how to accelerating the change towards renewable energy.
So I take this stuff seriously!
Climate change is a disaster and if we do nothing about it hundreds of thousands will die and many millions will be driven from their homes, every year for many many years.
But climate change is not a comet hurtling towards earth to doom us all.
More people will continue to die due to smoking, bad eating and gross negligence to the poor that die from easily preventable causes. And we could prevent almost all deaths caused by climate change if we do mitigation right. We are already doing that.
This need to make it a story with villains and and extinction that can only be avoided with seconds to spare by Marvel superheroes is not helping our ability to address climate change. It's a cancer that Hollywood script writers drive deeper into our system with every movie.
The real story is that sticking to outdated technologies and habits means we are leaving the world a worse place for next generations. We are destroying wealth and impoverishing the truly wonderful ecosystem on what might be the only place in the universe harboring life.
The real unsung heroes that I work with every day are the people that have nurtured and developed alternatives that now make low carbon energy cheaper than polluting fossil fuels. It's the people working on sustainable agriculture and cultured meat.
It the behavioral scientists that challenge the economists dogma that GDP is the mammon by showing that happiness doesn't lie in throwing more money around and that living sustainably and being happy are actually mutually reinforcing.
Hundreds of thousands of people all over the world are working their asses off to create sustainable solutions. Often unobserved because a shooting, a political row, a disaster, or a deadly comet is deemed more newsworthy.
We could easily make ourselves happier and wealthier and leave the world a better place, but somehow, in all the noise created by the media and Hollywood we choose not to. That for me is the real drama here.
So let's ignore Hollywood and make this world a better place for ourselves and others, simply because it's an intensely satisfying thing to do. We all know it. Now let's roll.
Another unhelpful panic example: claiming that 5M/y people die from climate change when this is the total due to extreme heat and cold.
Since 90% died of cold and the planet is getting hotter, climate change caused *less* of these people to die.
Hydrogen is great! And most use cases pushed by the lobby are nonsense! Both these statements are true at the same time. And I love how @janrosenow has actually put in the time by collecting the independent (non lobby funded) studies on hydrogen.
In case you missed it: my friend (mostly ;-) @MLiebreich made what is probably the best hydrogen ladder detailing when it makes sense and when it doesn't. linkedin.com/pulse/clean-hy…
The problem for the hydrogen lobby (often fossil companies that want a conventional business model or a way to use natural gas) is that many applications that are sexy and great PR are actually not a great idea and the best applications for the planet are not commercial yet.
In my (Dutch) newspaper @trouw, mobility historian Vincent Vinne proclaims electric cars are unsustainable because they have lots of power and can drive fast.
Let me explain (again) why these things are actually beside the point for electric cars. trouw.nl/opinie/waarom-…
Basically it's very simple: regular combustion engines get less efficient when they don't perform at their optimal power number of rotations per minute. You can see this in a BSFC plot.
On this map optimum is >250 g/kWh but it can increase to 475 g/kwh. x-engineer.org/brake-specific…
So this means that a powerful engine (with a high top speed) is usually used at an optimal of say 70% of max power but only at 10% which then doubles energy use.
So historically speaking, mobility historian Vincent Vinnes is right. More power and topspeed is energy inefficient!
I think we need to start talking about psychological health of climate scientists. They are talking each other and us into a depression. Depression is real and it's a soul destroying unhelpful affliction to have.
Climate scientists are most severely impacted it seems. I think that's not because they know more but because they only focus on the problems (not on solutions) and because perversely they are more important when the problem is worse.
I've scanned hundreds of climate scientist papers the last few months and they almost always boil down to: "here's some new way to look at precisely how bad it is."
Even when you don't actually find that the future looks worse than you thought, that's a pretty horrible job.
I'm insanely proud that I have paved the way for PhDs like this in the NEONresearch.nl program.
First here is @swapnil_shekhar explaining in 2 minutes how he will research the diffusion of zero emission trucks and why that matters a lot.
Here the brilliant @EmielVanDruten (who is also a consultant for @WitteveenBos) explains how his PhD will shed light on how sector coupling can give us more renewable energy with less costly and labour intensive updates of the electricity grid.
Capitalism is not inherently bad. Many people just seem confused about income redistribution. I would love twitter to tell me why that is because I simply don't understand.
Quick🧵about how money could make use happier by redirecting it where it does the most good.
First of all, being super rich doesn't make you happy. That is not just the observation of this consultant to the super rich. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Extra money is super important when you are poor, but the added value per $ quickly decreases once you get richer and in US it tops at around $75k per year. cnbc.com/2015/12/14/mon…
Among all the doomism surrounding climate change it's good to realize we have the capacity to reduce the damage done, as the way we are dealing with natural disasters shows.
Of course severity and frequency of storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves could still be increasing (models certainly predict they will in the future) but how much of that can we already see in the data?
And then a little magic can happen on twitter...
World renowned expert @RichardTol asks @OurWorldInData to take a look at a dataset about precisely that, that lacks a user friendly interface due to funding that dried up.