How I see #DontLookUp: an unintended self-parody of the makers on their own superficiality and uncritical acceptance of US exceptionalism.
I'm really glad that e.g. the reaction to COVID shows that we are not as dysfunctional as their Hollywood script demands.
A rant 🧵
I understand the moviemakers probably meant to satirise others but I feel they mostly parodied themselves.
The system that captured them and the training they received seems to make it almost impossible for them to engage with hard science in a meaningful way.
And I think Trump is a mad and dangerous enemy of truth but the caricature of him and his followers will only convince them you are smug & stupid. It's an easy way to get cheap laughs but will only polarize the issue further: #nothelping.
I understand some (understandably) frustrated climate scientists might view it as comic relief. But don't be childish.
Do you really think this movie convinced anybody?
And I dare you to explain what constructive new lesson people have learned from watching it.
Although it's absolutely true that the media and politics (especially in the US) are a bit dysfunctional, the robust international reaction to COVID (a problem 100x smaller than a planet killer) shows that their self-imagined stranglehold on the narrative is grandstanding.
They are like the president and her son in the movie: too self obsessed and focussed on what sells to question their own narratives.
So they make another imbecile catastrophe movie - now with laughs! - trivializing the science and the solutions they are unwilling to understand.
Nonetheless it is absolutely true that Hollywood and the media could and should be helping - not hurting - the effort to combat climate change and they could and should be a powerful force for good instead of evil.
I think we don't need another movie telling us we just have months to act and governments are not doing anything and media people are dysfunctional so we're all doomed. It you want to make another lazy disempowering movie like that: just board a Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship.
Here's to hoping that I may see the day a stellar cast like this supports a writer humble enough to actually try & understand the reality this is about. Both the problem (the climate scientists) and the solutions that plenty of other scientists are working on.
And pls don't interview only the loudest and most disappointed climate scientists and dumb them down further. Also interview the nuanced ones and the scientists who wrote IPCC WG3. Then try to do just a smidgeon of justice to what they tell you. And read some science yourself!
I know that nuanced and realistic movies are harder to sell. But maybe it could become a cult film that gave thousands if not millions of young people hope & action perspective. And maybe there are some actors out there who would help out for little money, knowing they did good.
Sorry if I offended well meaning participants or enthusiastic viewers and I understand this is just my perspective.
End rant.
The reactions I'm constantly getting amount to: you defend X who should have done Y.
But what I'm saying is:
Global warming is a complex problem. Not a simple comet.
Improving institutional responses is not achieved by depicting everyone who doesn't agree with you as an idiot.
If global warming is a comet, then it was created by the buying and voting behavior of YOU: the viewer of the movie.
Governments, corporations and media where just the middlemen acting on your behalf.
What are you going to do to improve your (and indirectly their) behavior?
Didn't believe it at first so just reproduced it myself and this is indeed how wind and solar balance each other in OECD Europe according to the @IEA. Remarkable!
It means that increasing interconnectivity can be an alternative for seasonal storage for 100% renewable electricity.
I knew combining wind and sun lowers the cost and that there's more wind in winter. But this picture shows an almost *perfect* complementarity in the OECD region: wow.
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.
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.