I’ll be cutting and pasting this entire article, if only for the exact numbers given - very convincing.
There’s no way about it, we are going to have to live with far less energy. What the article didn’t mention is that the single best thing we could do to reduce carbon emissions and to become energy efficient. That means zero carbon houses, heat pumps, root cellars, machines such as far less energy, etc etc. Not sure why this is rarely mentioned as one of the solutions but it is key.
I don’t watch broadcast TV, so perhaps I missed some promise made by Bernie to make the entire world use only green energy? If he did, I still wouldn’t use his promise as the basis of a take down of green energy.
Every rational article I have read explaining why the world can or cannot get to CO2 neutral by 2050 always includes assumptions about energy usage reductions/energy efficiency and CO2 sequestration (sinks), and most include Nuclear plants (a definite must to be sure).
Now, all of that isn’t going to happen by 2050 either, so no argument with that conclusion. But where did replacing all the MTOE usage only with green energy goal come?
I understand why Pielke Jr did that, because he, like his father (also a UC Boulder prof), are known climate change deniers and probably need to be overly sensational to get published by the MSM. But you doing it too is an unpleasant surprise.