How Dr Schernikau's work is misused by AGW dismissives and delayists

For context, a decarbonisation transition to Global Net Zero is required because of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming).  As the IPCC says in AR6 WG1 (2021):

"The main human influence on the climate is via combustion of fossil fuels and CO2 emissions related
to land-use change: the principal causes of increased CO2 concentrations since the pre-industrial period.
Historical observations indicate that current atmospheric concentrations are unprecedented within at least the last 800,000 years. An understanding of historical fossil fuel emissions and carbon cycle interactions, as well as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) sinks and sources, are crucial for better estimates of future GHG emissions compatible with long-term goals [to stabilise the average global temperature anomaly]."

The energy transition that has already started is an important part of that wider decarbonisation of the global economy.  The energy system is one of the most significant emitters of greenhouse gases. So, quite rightly, a lot of attention is given to how fast to decarbonise energy, with what mix of energy technologies, and how the changes affect costs of energy.  

Dr Lars Schernikau is an energy economist who has advised US Governments.  He has published papers about energy and the decarbonisation transition, including, in recent years, about something he calls Full Cost of Energy (FCE).  

FCE is a legitimate approach, being a metric to include all relevant costs in building, maintaining and operating an energy system and delivering energy to society from it, including the environmental impacts of each energy tech. It's expressed as a cost per unit of energy generating capacity.  

It goes further than the well-established Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) metric, which calculates the cost of each unit of energy produced from an energy generation plant (ie asset equivalent to a power station).

There are several problems, however, with how FCE, as popularised by Dr Schernikau, is used, and in particular how it is misused by some quarters to argue against the transition to renewable energies and to support the continuing use of high-emitting energy sources. 

Interestingly, advocates of nuclear energy expansion sometimes seem to form alliances with AGW dismissives and delayists and these groups then make similar arguments to each other's.  This is because both groups want to criticise renewables, for their own purposes.  It should be noted that nuclear energy and fossil energies have had a long association as core parts of the historically dominant energy mix for several decades.  They are both established incumbent energy providers.  Both of them are threatened by the rise of renewables, and so advocates of both have a common interest in resisting the rise of renewables.  

​The main arguments typically seen from AGW dismissives and delayists, using FCE, and my counters to them, are:

1) FCE is used by dismissives to claim that the energy decarbonisation transition involves extra costs compared with sticking with the existing dominant paradigm of fossil energies (as variable demand provider) combined with nuclear (as 'baseload provider')

There is a counter to that argument.  If the transition results in extra costs, it can be argued that those extra costs should be borne largely by the organisations that have been mainly responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that have caused AGW, for example (but not exclusively) the large fossil fuel companies.  

2) Where I've seen the above argument number 1 used by dismissives, the actual numbers (eg costs calculated using FCE and the calculations) have not been disclosed for comparison with LCOE

Even where Dr Schernikau himself has published articles online about this subject, the numbers have not been forthcoming.  This leaves his work open to being misused by AGW dismissives, because such people can use argument 1, but in a hand-waving manner, citing Dr Schernikau, confident in the knowledge that the actual numbers cannot be easily accessed or checked.

3) As a consequence of 2, Dr Schernikau's posted articles online are at risk of being used by AGW dismissives in a form of argument called "appeal to authority".
An appeal to authority (also known as an appeal to false or unqualified authority) plays on people's feelings of respect or familiarity towards a famous person to bypass critical thinking. It's like someone is telling us “accept this because some authority said it”.
It also tries to obtain credibility for the dismissives' arguments by drawing on the supposed credibility of Dr Schernikau.

Talking of credibility, I'd like to spend a short time assessing Dr Schernikau's credibility in the field of AGW.

I can't comment on his credibility to talk about energy economics, as that's not something I've looked at.

However, on the topic of AGW, I have seen evidence that he lacks credibility, and is highly likely to be biased against actions to address AGW (for example the energy transition).

There are two things that are important to know about Dr Schernikau.

Firstly, he's a member of the CO2 Coalition.  
According to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_Coalition#

"The CO2 Coalition ... Its climate change denialist claims conflict with the scientific consensus on climate change...  The CO2 Coalition is a successor to the George C. Marshall Institute... The George C Marshall Institute [had a long history, starting in the late 1980s], advocating for climate change denial. The think tank received extensive financial support from the fossil fuel industry."
See, also:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2022/04/05/the-latest-fact-checks-curated-by-media-bias-fact-check-04-05-2022/
from which, one example of their anti-AGW disinformation is:

"Claim by the CO2 Coalition: “There is no evidence, other than models, that human CO2 emissions drive climate change and abundant evidence that the Sun, coupled with natural climate cycles, drives most, if not all, of recent climate changes”Climate Feedback rating: Incorrect (Atmospheric observations do not support the hypothesis that the Sun has driven modern warming. There is a consensus of scientific evidence that warming is driven by human greenhouse gas emissions.)
Robust scientific evidence supports that human activity drives global warming, contrary to claims in a CO2 Coalition blog post by Andy May.

While membership of that specific organisation by Dr Schernikau is not conclusive, it is perhaps indicative of the sorts of views he is likely to hold about AGW and the need to act to address it.  This is important for assessing his likely bias in dealing with any matters relating to the decarbonisation of energy.

Secondly, Dr Schernikau has shown his true colours (in terms of his views on climate change) in a recent online article, about energy economics, by providing Steve Koonin's book "Unsettled" as his one and only reading recommendation (and a strong recommendation, at that) for anyone interested in finding out about climate change.

Koonin's "Unsettled" has been soundly and repeatedly debunked by climate scientists as containing plenty of anti-AGW misinformation.

One such example critique of Koonin's book is from Yale Climate Communications, available here:
A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’

Note this from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

"Steven Elliot Koonin  is an American theoretical physicist and former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU's Tandon School of Engineering. From 2004 to 2009, Koonin was employed by BP as the oil and gas company’s Chief Scientist. From 2009 to 2011, he was Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy, in the Obama administration."

Koonin is not a climate scientist.  He was Chief Scientist at BP.  Someone recommending his book about climate change is another example of "appeal to (false) authority".  Could he have some biases against acting effectively to address AGW?  Hell, yeah!

In summary, Dr Schernikau's work on FCE is useful.  But the way he publishes his views about energy transition, costs of energy and climate change facilitates the campaigns of AGW-dismissives and others resistant to the transition to a decarbonised energy system.  This is not surprising for someone who is a member of the CO2 Coalition, and whose main source of reference for climate change is not a climate scientist but is, instead, Steve Koonin, who used to be Chief Scientist for BP.



​