What the Washington Post and others call a “bitter” debate has erupted over two contrasting scientific papers in PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. At issue is the contention of Stanford University engineering professor Mark Jacobson and three colleagues that a full transition to green energy is possible right now, with insufficient political will the only impediment. Their 2015 paper, which has been gaining public influence, has now been challenged by the second paper, authored by 21 others, mainly scientists and engineers. The challengers themselves support green energy. They just disapprove of an analysis that they see as grossly unrealistic and therefore dangerously misleading.
The dispute, sometimes with personal rancor, has spread to the media. At National Review on the political right, energy journalist Robert Bryce has condemned Jacobson’s contention as an “appalling delusion” and a “fool’s errand.” Under a headline characterizing the debate as “fisticuffs,” New York Times Economic Scene columnist Eduardo Porter also sided with Jacobson’s critics. At Reason, science correspondent Ronald Bailey dismissed the contention as “total fantasy.” At the business site Forbes.com, technopolitical observer James Conca called it “another ideology masquerading as science.” E&E News sees the argument as a “clash.” Grist sees a “battle royale.” Greentech linked to six “top tweet storms” involving prominent observers.
To read more, click here.