Today, I want to talk about how a false narrative and beliefs get implanted in the public’s mind; how the madness of crowds comes to be.
On YouTube, I watched a video of a guy who spent his life championing environmental causes in California. He fought for solar power and the US government under the Obama administration invested over 150 billion dollars. Surely we all thought it was a good idea to save the planet. (Some early voices said that sunlight was diffused and that there wasn’t enough landmass to generate what we needed. They were ignored.)
I invested in solar. I have three large systems on my buildings and two more coming (for those I am renting my roofs). (I paid a heavy price in roof and panel failures, but nobody talks about that. I’ll never get my money back on some – even though taxpayers paid for half of it for me. I digress.)
Anyway, the world went solar crazy because it sounds like a good idea – free clean energy from the sun. Well…now this same guy is saying he sees that solar ruins the environment by taking up landmass that could be occupied by animals and people and trees. (In my town they used half the field where the kids practice soccer and football to put a solar farm in. But hey, they are doing the right thing! I mean…Right?)
So this guy is saying he now sees and recommends not solar, but nuclear power as the only viable energy good for the environment.
And there you have it. We all got behind the parade because the guys in front made sense and had good intentions – so, absent any research and thinking of our own, we assume them to be good-hearted experts worthy of our support (after all they are saving us), so we get right in line. Then one day they say “oops, we were wrong” OR they do not admit it and we see it ourselves and jump off the cause on our own.
But what if this guy is wrong. I don’t think he is, but if he is, he is demonstrating that the people in the front of the parade, or some of them, are either confused or wrong. I’m using this issue as an example – this is not just about solar panels.
Here’s another example. In this video a guy tackles another narrative we believe – electric vehicles are zero emissions. There’s no tailpipe so they do not produce any CO2. (If you think about it for five seconds you can figure out that the electricity comes from somewhere and CO2 is produced there.) But the government is now willing to tax gasoline and penalize drivers of cars with engines and go all-in on electric vehicles in the name of reducing CO2 emissions.
This guy’s video shows that electric vehicles produce as much CO2 as gasoline cars unless you drive them over 180,000 miles. (He includes the CO2 from manufacturing the battery as well as the coal/gas CO2 produced at power plants.) We aren’t solving the problem, we are just moving it. The whole narrative is wrong.
The funny thing is while (I believe) he may be right, at the end of his video he says that we should charge our cars with solar and wind power. This is not (possible) practical for most of us and is contradictory to the first guy. In the end, though, he concludes that Hybrid vehicles are the best option for reducing CO2.
Here’s the point. Most of us only know what we are told by “experts” and “authority figures”. Of course “authority figures” are only informed by the “experts”, and they surround themselves with experts who support a narrative they already believe in anyway.
Then when the media gets behind it and drills it into us every day, including feel-good documentaries, it’s hard for us to resist getting in line.
What else have we been told is wrong?
Just because millions of people believe a thing, doesn’t mean it’s right.
The name of my blog is Think Daily.
We need to think for ourselves. If we aren’t willing to think deep and wide on a subject, we probably shouldn’t say we believe deeply in it.
Thank You!
Hey Larry – this is pretty easy – the CDC. They are now a complete joke. Masks, social distancing, vaccines, all wrong on all accounts. We have been lied to and misled for 2 years now. We all must question what happened and never allow it again. The cure will turn out to be much worse than the disease and the people in charge know it. The reckoning is coming….and to stay relevant to your topic, good luck finding an opposite opinion on YouTube or other social media. They are also squelching the debate because they know the truth. That is the truly scary part. The assault on the 1st amendment. Thanks for all you do Larry.
Do your own research. Base your thinking on science based evidence. Make your own conclusions. Agree that being swayed “authorities” while maintaining a position of personal ignorance can lead to bad results. One other items come to mind on Solar – the “how” is important here – like, regulate “how it is deployed”. Taking up more Mother Earth is not a good idea. Using space that we have already claimed, like roof tops, seems to be the better path forward. Not perfection, but better. Solar, wind, nuclear … good. Changing consumption model aka human behavior – more difficult as you know.
I too am grateful for independent thinkers. When I was n college I learned not just how to use equations, it to derive them. That allowed me to understand the fundamental issues of problem and then how to approach solutions. I learned to challenge and validate the assumptions they others were using. That can be applied to solar energy, electric cars and other narratives and used by those with their own intentions to try and sway public opinion. Often the lies and false narratives are based on lies of omission. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is my motto.
Totally agree! Here’s another example – We’ve been told (brainwashed) that eating meat and dairy is normal and good for us and it’s the leading cause of disease and death in America and to the environment.
The question of how humans will derive their usable energy I believe is the biggest issue of the next 30 years. And it’s exciting to see all these new innovations happening in this field. I study this a lot. Using “solar” is not a good or bad thing. It must be done intelligently. Taking up playground space at schools in Connecticut to put solar panels is probably dumb. However solar makes a great deal of sense in other ways. By the way, this claim that there is not enough land area to use solar to power the world is simply incorrect. If we powered the world on nothing but solar PV panels it would take up an area roughly the size of Arizona, which is less than 0.1% of the surface area of Earth. That’s not the issue. And solar panels don’t have to take up any extra space at all. Think rooftop solar. Innovations like agrivoltaics use solar panels to produce partial shade that makes some crops grow better, in addition to generating power. Solar panels deployed intelligently can be a great thing. All that said, nuclear is a great option for electricity production too. Perhaps different nuclear than we use now – fusion of deuterium and tritium or fission of Thorium are promising ideas in the works. Regarding electric vehicles, it’s easy for the uneducated on the subject to claim that they are “bad for the environment” and they are “powered by coal”. These claims are not true. It’s just as irrational to say that a given watt-hour of electricity used by an EV comes from “100% renewable clean sources” as it is to say “it comes from coa”l. That’s not thinking about the problem correctly. Without getting into the details, EVs are a big net positive for the environment – and getting better. And the key point is that without EVs, it’s impossible to stop burning fossil fuels for transportation. I drive an EV, and I can say from experience that it uses only 20% of the energy of an equivalent gasoline car per mile. It’s important to stay open (I say optimistically skeptical) about ideas in energy transformation. Just because a certain technology hasn’t worked out in the past or in a particular application doesn’t negate its usefulness in the future or in other applications. We shouldn’t say solar doesn’t work because the ROI isn’t good enough in Winnipeg or the system’s inverter isn’t wired correctly. Imagine if Edison listened when people said “you should just stop trying to invent an electric lightbulb because our kerosene lanterns are just fine, and besides, the electricity will just come from burning coal anyway.” Electric cars were invented in 1890, but it took over 100 years for an engineer/entrepreneur from South Africa to make them mainstream.
Humans are superb creators. No energy is free, there are no magic solutions. Everything manufactured uses elements from our earth and releases/cycles/sequesters them. How we use, and how much we use is the key, not so much what we use, as there are no magic solutions. Valuing resources, following the recycling chain from beginning to end is the best we can do. Efficiency comes with intelligent design and minimizing consumption and addressing end of life cycles. Less is simply better. Buying something else to think your being more efficient is straight up capitalist propaganda, which is great for economy, not the environment. Have we become so disconnected from the natural world that we think the economy is the environment?.. beware of shiny things, and if you want to do the best you can, look after what you have, fix it, value it, and get the most out of it, that is as efficient as we can be. The more crap we all have, equally the more problems. Thank you for your daily inspirations Larry! Great day to everyone. https://www.ifixit.com/Manifesto
Larry, I think it is a mistake to make it an either/or argument. I think we need an “all of the above” approach. Yes electric cars produce carbon elsewhere but it is, theoretically, easier to control and capture. Check out Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain institute his is a strictly “do it because it makes money” approach to energy conservation. Rocky Mountain institute worked with Walmart on their trucking fleet efficiency, if they increase fuel economy from 6 to 7 miles per gallon on their tractor trailer fleet it would add 60 million dollars to the bottom line.
https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/sustainability/20151216/these-two-drivers-helped-jumpstart-walmarts-fleet-efficiency
P.S. Kudos for raising such an intelligent, articulate and forward thinking Son as Tanner. He is spot on, in my opinion! Thank you for your daily inspiration.
It’s always difficult for one man/woman to stand out from the cloud of DUST and say “let’s go this way instead” (reference to the best movie on YouTube). But we need those brave souls to show us that the stampede of people causing that dust might not be the best way. Thank you Larry, keep our landscape beautiful and panel free!
It goes along the same lines that they are outlawing HVAC units that burn natural gas or oil. Where is all this power going to come from? It seems like they are steering us towards nuclear.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
We aren’t solving the problem, we are just moving it.
Think about HOW they are getting the material.
Think about HOW MUCH (if there is enough) material is available to make the required batteries.
Whatever they come up with there will be foes. How loud those foes are and if there is anyone willing to listen
CO2 is 0.04% of earth’s atmosphere. German studies show that where there is an abundance of CO2 (plant food) there is a proportionate increase in oxygen production. This is how the earth compensates. Remember when Mt. St. Helen erupted? That’s when they complained about the hole in the ozone and lamas in the Andes were going blind? The experts didn’t tell us Ozone is generated by sunlight evaporating sea water. The result was fluorocarbons being blamed for everything. Guys, just follow the money!
Good topic Larry!
This is such an interesting, complicated, and scary topic; but also hugely important given the world we all live in. Yes, think for yourself (Are we teaching kids to think for themselves in school?). Yes, do your own research. But who do you trust and why? What is their motivation/agenda? Are those in power (and most able to initiate large scale change) only interested in making money or getting reelected or driving the stock price up? ? It is all so complicated I’m not certain that the everyday person has the skills, connections, or the time to devote to sorting fact from fiction. So what should we do?
I circle back to the question almost daily. And I keep thinking that we need to simplify the problem(s). I think they might be just too large with too many “moving parts”. How do we simplify?
At the risk of making things overly simplistic, maybe everyone needs to start by asking themselves “What do I really need and how do I get it?”. I really believe that over consumption through aggressive marketing is part of the root problem.
I think because large scale change is very hard to make quickly, perhaps individual small scale change should be considered. If we can all agree that our capitalistic society here in the US is driven by profits which can only be made by making sales, then we as induvial purchasers hold the power. With that said, what if deciding to make a purchase (or not) and then deciding what to purchase (and from where) becomes an individual responsibly taken seriously by enough people to steer the planet into healthy change. Have we already done this with cigarette smoking, drunk driving, organic food production, and now perhaps EVs? Perhaps this a way too naïve thought; it probably is. I fear that the planet will force us to change sooner rather than later though.
I agree with Tanner; figuring out how to provide sustainable energy to meet our ever increasing needs is the big problem. A solution here may lead to easier solutions to other problems like transportation, food, housing, education, and manufacturing.
Part of answer I think, to our energy needs is reduce consumption wherever possible. The other part is produce the energy we really need in a planet healthy way. Since a large scale solution seems to be bogged down by over complication (while trying to come up with a “one size fits all” solution), perhaps it is smarter/more effective to simply go house by house, building by building. (Is anyone building using passive solar energy? Am I wrong to think passive solar is planet healthy?)
I think we can all agree that we are all in pretty deep with these problems. Solutions will not be found quickly and getting people/business/government to change is slow at best (like making a course correction for a huge ship). But individuals can change quickly …..if they want to. All they need to do is decide. And maybe that points to another big problem; what if they don’t want to decide to change.
We are living this story with Covid, masks and mandates.
We are currently living this scenario with Covid, masks and mandates.
You nailed it Larry, people need to think for themselves, logically, considering all angles they can think of and then come to a conclusion. Very few people in this world are objective in their views and especially not the “experts”. “Experts” are usually given the stage by some enterprising fellow or fellows who have found a new way to make money and need someone to convince others (or the government) to “invest” in their plan. The reality is that government should never, ever be involved in promoting technology. Take the computing industry as an example. It continues to get better and faster all the time through free market enterprise and competition. This same thing would happen in all other cases if the government would leave it alone. Henry Ford made it possible for the world to eliminate the accumulation of horse manure in cities. It was a real problem and the free market fixed it. There are countless examples of wins in the free market. I would challenge anyone to name “wins” that were made by government subsidies and intervention.
Welcome to the new age of post truth! as an independent thinker I realize that both of these experts do not really give all the truth either. I have an electric car. The electricity comes from Nuclear, hydro,LNG and from one of the largest solar plants in the world. There are almost no coal plants left in Arizona. additionally electric motors are many times more efficient than internal combustion as most of the energy of internal combustion is lost through heat. electric has hundreds of less moving parts, so the carbon footprint of production and replacements are many times lower. it is a common misguided disingenuous effort motivated in large part by the status quo of the current energy producers to make these kinds of claims. its also common to talk about the carbon footprint of solar, when the carbon footprint of fossil fuel mining is conveniently ignored. lets all be independent critical thinkers!