When I learned about it in the early 2000s in middle school, I remember laughing, even as a kid, at how absurd it seemed to draw such conclusions. It was clear to us that climate change was occurring. In the 90s, when I was young, our village near the Sinharaja National Reserve, a tropical rainforest, experienced frequent rainfall and predictable weather patterns. Water flowed abundantly, even from the smallest edges and embankments. The road to the nearest city had over 100 small bridges and culverts, each with water flowing beneath. However, within a few years, into the early 2000s, these streams began to vanish, and even the larger creeks started to dry up. The changes are now starkly evident: the Amazon River is drying up, the Sahara is experiencing floods, and there are storms, floods, and wildfires occurring globally.
2. The sources where I believe these anti-climate change arguments originate from
Corporate oil representatives present intriguing arguments. I am going to summarize several books that argue Climate politics and Climate change are distinct entities, and that our simulations lack the sophistication to accurately predict changes. Additionally, some natural phenomena, such as the El Niño effect, are mistakenly attributed to climate change.
Such literature might have given rise to the following arguments (quoted above).
In his book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, Steven Koonin argues that the science of climate change is not as settled as it is often portrayed. He highlights several key points: natural variability could account for some observed changes rather than human activities; climate models often have significant uncertainties and fail to accurately predict past climate changes; media and policymakers frequently misrepresent climate science, leading to public misunderstanding; and policy should focus more on adapting to climate changes rather than drastic emission reductions.
“Exposing the Great Climate Change Lie” by Lynne Balzer presents a counter-narrative to the commonly accepted concept of human-caused climate change. Balzer contends that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming relies on non-empirical methods like computer modeling instead of hard data. She asserts that numerous esteemed scientists are in opposition to those who raise alarms about climate change and criticize the practicality and environmental impact of solutions such as solar and wind farms. Furthermore, Balzer accuses institutions such as NASA and NOAA of altering temperature records to amplify perceived warming trends. The book’s goal is to equip readers with “essential facts” for informed decision-making and to challenge what she perceives as climate change propaganda.
“Climate Change: What They Rarely Teach In College,” by Stephen Einhorn, delves into the contentious topics of global warming and climate change. Einhorn brings forth empirical evidence and scientific research to question the prevalent narratives about these issues. He stresses the significance of assessing information on its scientific validity and urges readers to contemplate various viewpoints before drawing conclusions. The book’s objective is to enhance comprehension of environmental concerns by conveying scientific insights in straightforward language, steering clear of political partiality.
3. Mitigation issues
Aid to mitigate
As a Sri Lankan, my experience with the EU’s approach, coupled with the financial aid they provide, has not been entirely positive. Much of the funding is allocated to educating Sri Lankans on climate change (as a global issue) and the benefits of transitioning to renewable energy, reducing carbon footprints, and the importance of shifting to electric vehicles. One project introduced a different irrigation technique, where water is channeled rapidly from point A to B using concrete channels, in contrast to our traditional system of slow-moving mud channels that allow water to seep into adjacent banks, nourishing wells, and farms. This new system, while efficient in water flow, has led to the drying up of the old system and subsequent issues.
Renewable energy Propaganda and reality
The production of renewable energy is not as straightforward as climate mitigation advocates suggest. Renewable energy sources are often unreliable; solar panels function only during daylight, and wind turbines require sufficient wind to operate. While technology is progressing, the current reality is that the primary challenge in transitioning to renewable energy is not generation but storage. The most dependable method thus far is not batteries or Hydrogen but pumped hydro storage, which necessitates a particular terrain, making it challenging to construct such facilities due to the scarcity of suitable locations. The most cost-effective method of energy production is often considered to be coal-fired power plants. Developing nations, such as Sri Lanka, may consider coal as a viable option unless renewable energy becomes more affordable and reliable. The EU allocates funds for building wind farms and solar panel systems, which demand significant capital investment. Additionally, the production of solar panels raises concerns about the carbon footprint, particularly due to the extraction of rare earth metals, which can create more issues than solutions. Moreover, the lack of advanced recycling methods for solar panels is problematic. The efficiency of these panels decreases by 0.5% to 0.8% annually, starting from an initial efficiency of about 20-21%.
Clean Electric vehicle myth
Electric vehicles have more carbon footprint than Gas vehicles. When the main energy source for charging electric vehicles (EVs) is oil-based, it increases their carbon footprint, and using gasoline generators to charge EVs negates some of their environmental benefits. Building an EV, especially the battery, can produce between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO2. This is significantly higher than the emissions from manufacturing a gasoline-powered car.
However, As the electricity grid becomes cleaner, the gap in emissions between EVs and gasoline vehicles will widen. By 2030, the life-cycle emissions of EVs are projected to be even lower compared to gasoline cars.
In my understanding, the most appropriate energy form could be a type of biodiesel or synthetic diesel (petrol), as it captures CO2 from the atmosphere and offers reliable storage. Instead of hastily transitioning to electric vehicles, this might be a preferable alternative. Regarding biodiesel, fourth-generation biodiesel production processes have not yet been commercialized. Although challenging, investing in these technologies is worthwhile, rather than relying solely on electric vehicles. This approach could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change while ensuring energy security. It’s definitely worth exploring further! (My perspective may be influenced by my background as a former biotech researcher.)