A Columnist Faceplants After Tripping Over Her Outlet's Reporting

When You Don't Really Know Something, Curious Is Better Than Certain

I’ve often thought that news outlets should have columnists submit pieces when their thinking is fully baked, not because it’s deadline day. Even in an era of legacy media’s declining impact, it’s generally unwise for people in my line of work to openly criticize folks in that world. But some things can’t go uncalled (here’s looking at you, Bret Stephens).  

Bloomberg News’s Merryn Somerset Webb recently declared “Why Going Nuclear is the Only Good Choice” for Spain and Portugal in the wake of the recent Iberian power outage.

Note the lack of a question mark in the title. And the use of the word “only.”

Not “one of,” not “maybe,” but the ONLY.  Ms. Webb goes on to declare the peninsula has “too much solar,” because of “net zero absolutists.”

But Ms. Webb faceplants after tripping over unhelpful reality:

1.) This column ran the same day (May 3) that her own outlet’s news reporting pointed to under-investment in the peninsula’s grid as the problem. To be fair, it posted 4 hours later than that reported story by her colleagues Laura Millian and Will Mathis (1:30 vs. 5:08 AM). But there’s been plenty of time – 12 days – to reconcile excessive certainty with reported reality. 

2.) Would there really be “too much solar” if the peninsula’s grid were upgraded? By the looks of our profiles, neither Ms. Webb nor I are grid forecasters. Folks like us would be best to turn to people who make their living studying this stuff. Where are the authoritative sources that bolster her confidence that that will be faster and more cost-effective than upgrading the grid?

3.) For there to be “net zero absolutists,” prioritizing zero carbon pollution must be unreasonable. Not difficult or expensive, but so difficult and expensive compared to the stakes – in this case, a livable planet – such that prioritizing zero carbon pollution is unreasonable. But the climatologists are unified that we’re hurtling past alarming tipping points and that rapid, sweeping action is our only option. Does Ms. Webb know something about the climatology that the climatologist does not?

Perhaps it's coincidental, but this piece fits very much in the mold of currently stylish “climate realism” from the likes of ExxonMobil’s CEO, current U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. To hear them tell it, we must slow down, be realistic, because the energy transition is hard.

The problem is that these self-styled climate realists aren’t realistic. They’re carnival barkers trying to wave us away from the ugly reality of our current climatological trajectory. Nothing to see, folks, just go back to scrolling through your phones.

But the problem with reality is that it’s non-negotiable. It doesn’t care how hard it is for humanity to accommodate the consequences of its actions. Reality is just reality.

And the climate reality is we need all the solar we can get, as fast as we can onboard it, with a grid that can handle it. The climatological hour is very late, the consequences of climate denial in its various forms are piling up, and the heavy cost of climate disruption is growing.