David Roberts claims that going to 100% renewables costs too much, and is too hard. But he thinks he is on our side. He is wrong, and some of his claims along the way are flat-out ludicrous.
It turns out every one of these scenarios — pretty much any scenario you can imagine that leads to rapid decarbonization — envisions “historically unprecedented improvements in the energy intensity of the global economy.”and therefore it cannot be done. Well, the premise is false, and the logic is fallacious, so there is not much hope for the conclusion, either from Roberts or from the authors of the paper he quotes from. The entire Industrial Revolution going back to the 18th century is a whole series of counterexamples. But the quoted study looks back no further than 1965.
The article in question is We can solve climate change, but it won’t be cheap or easy
Reported here on dKos in Abbreviated pundit roundup: Climate change, Social Security and more, where I left a comment. Then I went to Grist.com and left the more detailed comment reproduced below the Great Orange Windmill Blade.
