"But we lack the means to get adequate wind and solar power to cities."
There is inadequate power in wind and solar and always will be. It is probably a good thing the power transmission issue is paramount or else we would be wasting more resources chasing the impossible.
Go nuclear. Go gas. Accept coal. Or go broke believing in unicorns and fairies.
Those truly seriously alarmed by CO2 based climate change should be pushing all forms of nuclear power. If they oppose nukes, they're not serious about CO2.
I share your assessment of the potential (lower) cost of nuclear power, but I would set it up as a litmus test of seriousness. I'm not even sure that "alarmed" is the right attitude. It's more a matter of how to incentivize the lowest cost measures to optimally slow and eventually reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere, given the costs CO2 concentration causes.
Nuclear (ang geothermal), yes. Gas probably becasue low-cost energy can power CO2 capture and sequestration, The cost of Coal+capture and sequestration will probably never be cheaper than dozens of alternatives.
Yet China and India are going big on coal power plants, and I doubt they are spending much on CO2 capture. The western world's infactuation with zero carbon would be funny if not so costly.
Many Europeans may die the next 9 months from a lack of reliable, affordable electrical power. The Party will blame climate change. The truth will be the consequences of embracing a false ideology.
"The Udangudi plant is one of nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM)."
Building more coal-powered plants is the result of the world failure to agree on an adequate tax on net emissions. The political economy of the Chinese and Indian mistake is no doubt different from ours. Still, I think the deadweight loss of a tax on net emissions for US-Europe is low enough not to worry too much about these Indiana and Chinese plans, particularly as they would probably change if US-Europe had a compensating border tax on goods according to their CO2 content
Zeihan should probably be read more as attempting to be a self-negating prophet - describing the bad results that current trends indicate, as a way to change those trends to instead have better results.
Lots of value in describing the bad trends and feedback loops. Especially for those of us who don't think it's going to be so bad - so why we're optimistic, or at least less pessimistic. Explicit reasons are good to have.
Rather than climate change alarmism, why not more pre-emptive mitigation systems?
Until the oceans have risen a few feet, and so far it's less than one foot*, the big climate fears are:
Yes, earthquakes, too are blamed by some alarmists on CO2 - since they're exaggerating so much, so often.
Society should be planning for and mitigating:
Flood control; reservoirs & irrigation plans & water cost policies; controlled burning (that actually remains under control), more a/c for heat waves (including solar powered a/c & shade), better protection from uncommon freezing (like in Texas), planting deeper rooted trees that are more wind resistant, more stringent (& thus costly) hurricane & tornado resistant construction including higher rates AND less gov't emergency cash for when storms come.
We need a more prepared and resilient set of civilization buildings to withstand climate storms -- and we should have most of these even if there's a lot less damage in the next decades than the alarmists expect.
All rational folk should be looking more positively at the advantages of more nuclear power, and cautiously supporting it, and more new nukes being constructed.
.
*"Sea level has risen 8-9 inches (21-24 centimeters) since 1880. In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels."
It is not either or. The best mitigations reduce the harm of CO2 concentrations and so reduce the cost that we should be willing to undertake to avoid higher concentration. OTOH to some extent mitigation is just the optimal response to past increases in CO2 concentration and THOSE mitigations do not factor into how much to invest in preventing future increases.
We had similar energy distribution issues with Hydro power. We can not float solar on the lakes behind the hydro dams and utilize the transmission capacity.
If we put some small dams for flow regulation over 24 hrs downstream of the major hydro facilities for managing daily river flow rates we could then use the hydro generators when the solar is low.
I’m reading the book now, and I’m on the chapters about financial systems. A point that he makes repeatedly is that a successful monetary system was historically limited by the quantity of money. He seems to miss the idea of prices. A lot. I’m not sure why. He talks about long sweeps of history, so I would have thought that he’d be aware of periods when economies encountered price deflation along side fast growth (e.g. much of the last 30 years of the 19th century in the US). Perhaps he’s focused on illustrating what happens in the short run, and assumes downward price stickiness. I dunno. I don’t think it undercuts his main points -- just the historical context he invokes.
Zeihan makes great points. He does take his argument too far. I've heard him say that Russia will push far past Ukraine into Poland, etc. This seems ridiculous. Not sure they could do much to Poland at this point. He also says China is finished this year! Come on. Still overall he has good points about incentives in the system. Whether US elites figure those out before we have another Trump is another matter.
"The cost of [dealing with climate change], including the carbon dioxide that will be released in that atmosphere in the process, is daunting."
Maybe that depends on a) whether the means chosen are lest cost (tax on net CO2 emissions while allowing rapid technological progress with nuclear and geothermal generation) AND b) how easily one is daunted.
And, granted that this is my speculation, the costs may be overestimated if CO2 capture and sequestration is cheap enough to allow continued use of fossil fuels in those activities where the alternatives are most costly -- ocean and road transport, fight.
"But we lack the means to get adequate wind and solar power to cities."
There is inadequate power in wind and solar and always will be. It is probably a good thing the power transmission issue is paramount or else we would be wasting more resources chasing the impossible.
Go nuclear. Go gas. Accept coal. Or go broke believing in unicorns and fairies.
Those truly seriously alarmed by CO2 based climate change should be pushing all forms of nuclear power. If they oppose nukes, they're not serious about CO2.
I share your assessment of the potential (lower) cost of nuclear power, but I would set it up as a litmus test of seriousness. I'm not even sure that "alarmed" is the right attitude. It's more a matter of how to incentivize the lowest cost measures to optimally slow and eventually reduce the CO2 content of the atmosphere, given the costs CO2 concentration causes.
Nuclear (ang geothermal), yes. Gas probably becasue low-cost energy can power CO2 capture and sequestration, The cost of Coal+capture and sequestration will probably never be cheaper than dozens of alternatives.
Yet China and India are going big on coal power plants, and I doubt they are spending much on CO2 capture. The western world's infactuation with zero carbon would be funny if not so costly.
Many Europeans may die the next 9 months from a lack of reliable, affordable electrical power. The Party will blame climate change. The truth will be the consequences of embracing a false ideology.
"The Udangudi plant is one of nearly 200 coal-fired power stations under construction in Asia, including 95 in China, 28 in India and 23 in Indonesia, according to data from U.S. nonprofit Global Energy Monitor (GEM)."
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cop26-aims-banish-coal-asia-is-building-hundreds-power-plants-burn-it-2021-10-29/
Building more coal-powered plants is the result of the world failure to agree on an adequate tax on net emissions. The political economy of the Chinese and Indian mistake is no doubt different from ours. Still, I think the deadweight loss of a tax on net emissions for US-Europe is low enough not to worry too much about these Indiana and Chinese plans, particularly as they would probably change if US-Europe had a compensating border tax on goods according to their CO2 content
Is there a link to the full review that's missing?
oops sorry https://www.econlib.org/library/columns/y2022/klingthoughtexperiments.html
"All [cities] are by definition densely populated, while greentech by definition is dense."
Either you or Zeihan made a typo - greentech is sparse; as Zeihan mentions it requires a LOT of space.
My typo
Zeihan should probably be read more as attempting to be a self-negating prophet - describing the bad results that current trends indicate, as a way to change those trends to instead have better results.
Lots of value in describing the bad trends and feedback loops. Especially for those of us who don't think it's going to be so bad - so why we're optimistic, or at least less pessimistic. Explicit reasons are good to have.
Rather than climate change alarmism, why not more pre-emptive mitigation systems?
Until the oceans have risen a few feet, and so far it's less than one foot*, the big climate fears are:
Floods, droughts, fires, heat waves, cold waves, wind storms, hurricanes, tornadoes.
Yes, earthquakes, too are blamed by some alarmists on CO2 - since they're exaggerating so much, so often.
Society should be planning for and mitigating:
Flood control; reservoirs & irrigation plans & water cost policies; controlled burning (that actually remains under control), more a/c for heat waves (including solar powered a/c & shade), better protection from uncommon freezing (like in Texas), planting deeper rooted trees that are more wind resistant, more stringent (& thus costly) hurricane & tornado resistant construction including higher rates AND less gov't emergency cash for when storms come.
We need a more prepared and resilient set of civilization buildings to withstand climate storms -- and we should have most of these even if there's a lot less damage in the next decades than the alarmists expect.
All rational folk should be looking more positively at the advantages of more nuclear power, and cautiously supporting it, and more new nukes being constructed.
.
*"Sea level has risen 8-9 inches (21-24 centimeters) since 1880. In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels."
It is not either or. The best mitigations reduce the harm of CO2 concentrations and so reduce the cost that we should be willing to undertake to avoid higher concentration. OTOH to some extent mitigation is just the optimal response to past increases in CO2 concentration and THOSE mitigations do not factor into how much to invest in preventing future increases.
We had similar energy distribution issues with Hydro power. We can not float solar on the lakes behind the hydro dams and utilize the transmission capacity.
If we put some small dams for flow regulation over 24 hrs downstream of the major hydro facilities for managing daily river flow rates we could then use the hydro generators when the solar is low.
I’m reading the book now, and I’m on the chapters about financial systems. A point that he makes repeatedly is that a successful monetary system was historically limited by the quantity of money. He seems to miss the idea of prices. A lot. I’m not sure why. He talks about long sweeps of history, so I would have thought that he’d be aware of periods when economies encountered price deflation along side fast growth (e.g. much of the last 30 years of the 19th century in the US). Perhaps he’s focused on illustrating what happens in the short run, and assumes downward price stickiness. I dunno. I don’t think it undercuts his main points -- just the historical context he invokes.
He has a blind spot with respect to the price mechanism
Zeihan makes great points. He does take his argument too far. I've heard him say that Russia will push far past Ukraine into Poland, etc. This seems ridiculous. Not sure they could do much to Poland at this point. He also says China is finished this year! Come on. Still overall he has good points about incentives in the system. Whether US elites figure those out before we have another Trump is another matter.
"The cost of [dealing with climate change], including the carbon dioxide that will be released in that atmosphere in the process, is daunting."
Maybe that depends on a) whether the means chosen are lest cost (tax on net CO2 emissions while allowing rapid technological progress with nuclear and geothermal generation) AND b) how easily one is daunted.
And, granted that this is my speculation, the costs may be overestimated if CO2 capture and sequestration is cheap enough to allow continued use of fossil fuels in those activities where the alternatives are most costly -- ocean and road transport, fight.