At last, the climate change debate has started to move beyond the question "does it exist". It is now possible to begin discussing the real question: "what are we going to do about it". Yes, around 20% of USA citizens cling to denial of the fact that human combustion of fossil fuels creates greenhouse gases (28 billion tons of CO2, methane, CFCs, and nitrogen oxides) which are now driving climate warming. The other 80% of us are split between two camps. One camp insists that Americans must have access to unlimited supplies of cheap energy and that the effort to combat climate change must take place within that box. The other camp argues that we could make do on less (like the other 6.2 billion residents of Earth) and that this approach would make it far more practical to reduce those emissions that drive the climate change.
The first camp, let's call them the "supply side" camp as they focus on energy access, were represented by Laura Vanderkan in her op-ed piece in USA Today newspaper this week entitiled "Rethinking environmentalism". Vanderkam notes that "If fighting global warming requires sitting in the dark, we'll never do it." Well, personally some of the best moments of my life have happened when I was lying down in the dark, but let's stick to the main point. Is it possible to ask Americans to have less, or to pay more? Actually, we are paying more for gasoline already, but it must be conceded that change is not our choice. This question is compelling, but doesn't it depend on how we frame the question?
version #1: Are you willing to combat global warming even if it will result in higher prices for electricity and gasoline?
version #2: If the scientists are correct in predicting that global warming will eventually disrupt water supplies throughout the western USA and cause permanent and extensive flooding throughout the southern third of Florida, southeast Lousiana, and other low lying coastal areas too numerous to mention, do you believe that your continued access to cheap gasoline and electricity is more important than combatting climate change?
You actually see this conversation play out here on Gather pretty often. The recent discussion on compact fluorescent bulbs was a real eye opener. Many posted testimonials of how happy they are with their CFL bulbs and how much $ they have saved. Others said that the bulbs buzzed or were 10% less bright and therefore completely unsatsifactory (note: more recently manufactured CFL bulbs have pretty much eliminated these shortcomings). If we had this argument about something that actually can save substantial money over the life of the bulb, how are we going to face the facts that alternatives to carbon-rich coal may cost more, at least at first?
Electricity generation through coal burning is the biggest single problem in the USA where carbon emissions are concerned. But gasoline powered transport is up there too. Let's apply the supply side argument to that one too. Okay, let's say I have a Lincoln Navigator (thank goodness I really do not, have you seen pump prices this week?) and I want to help the planet stay cool. Okay, I can find an E85 fuel station if there is one in my state, and fuel up on mostly ethanol which has been heavily subsidized as an alternative fuel. That will enable me to continue to drive a two ton vehicle with only myself in it several hours per week. Or I could buy a Prius (and please do not whine about the price, it is cheaper than a Navigator) and triple my mileage numbers. I can put three passengers in that Prius with a carpool and do even better. Or I can scrap the entire concept of going to work in an individual vehicle, and find mass transit. Or if there is no mass transit, I could write letters to my congressman until there is mass transit. If you don't like E85 as a fuel, pick your own alternative. Whether we use hydrogen fuel cells, biodiesel, or bat guano, you have to use much more of it to propel larger vehicles. The demand-side approach to combatting climate change, for example use smaller vehicles and mass transit, shares the characteristic of being short term expensive, long term cost effective. The supply side approach happens to be a short term cheaper, but long term unsustainable solution.
The endpoint of this chain of reasoning is to make a mental list of how to approach global warming combat.
1. Stop building oversized, isolated homes and oversized vehicles so that the energy resources at our command will stretch farther.
2. Start building and bringing on line as many renewable energy resources as possible as soon as possible. That will cost something, please do not faint.
3. Stop saying "we can't do that" or "people will never vote for that". What must be done must be done. People said the same thing about US involvement in the second World War until Pearl Harbor.
So where do you come down in this debate? I would appreciate it if none of your replies patiently explain to me that global warming is all imaginary, and we are headed for a mini ice age- but I am sure that is way too much to expect.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 32
I don't want to see prices of natural resources rise.
Help me get a publishing deal with a 10 rating and a comment. I comment back.
Take Amory Lovins @ the Rocky Mountain Insititute. He says:
Climate protection, like the Hubble Space Telescope's mirror, got spoiled by a sign error: in fact, climate solutions are not costly but profitable, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel. Many leading companies are making billions of dollars' profit by cutting their carbon intensity or emissions at rates of 5–8%/y.1 When politicians who lament climate protection's supposed costs, burdens, and sacrifices join the parallel universe of practitioners who routinely achieve profits, jobs, and competitive advantage by wasting less fuel, the political obstacles will dissolve.
What can we do to fix the climate problem?
Yes, it might actually be a very profitable venture to fix the climate problem - that is, if you don't buy the assumptions that fossil and nuclear industries perpetuate.
Wind Power Helps Texas Move Past Oil
Amory B. Lovins's Hydrogen Primer: A Few Basics About Hydrogen
__________
Lovins: I was delighted when both the Chinese State Council and the U.S. Senate about a week apart canceled [liquid coal] programs.
Grist: But I'm sure you're aware that the political push behind liquid coal is still very much pushing.
Lovins: Of course, including some people who should know better. It has fundamental problems in economics, carbon, and water, and bearing in mind that we can get the country completely off oil at an average cost of $15 a barrel, something in the $50s to $70s range doesn't look viable. Those who invest in it, publicly or privately, will lose their shirts, and deservedly so.
I think a good way to smoke out corporate socialists in free-marketeers' clothing is to ask whether they agree that all ways to save or produce energy should be allowed to compete fairly at honest prices, regardless of which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. I can tell you who won't be in favor of it: the incumbent monopolists, monopsonists, and oligarchs who don't like competition and new market entrants. But whether they like it or not, competition happens. It's particularly keen on the demand side.
Grist: Will Big Coal fall on its face?
Lovins: It's already clearly happening in the global marketplace -- although the U.S. lags a bit, having rather outmoded energy institutions and rules. Worldwide, less than half of new electrical services are coming from new central power plants. Over half are coming from micropower and negawatts, and that gap is rapidly widening. The revolution already happened -- sorry if you missed it.
__________
All You Need Is Lovins: A conversation with energy guru Amory Lovins
Amory Lovins: "Imagine a world..."
Where I live, we just had an election that threw out our Board of Supervisors, who were a traditional bunch of guys who lived to put up more suburban trophy homes way out in the sticks. That's nice, but they already rezoned most of the land in the entire county- and I am not sure we can fix this mess before the trophy homes go up. My perception is that voters need to live the values that Lovins alludes to, even when they enter the voting booth, and so far, they really do not get it.
Notwithstanding Steve's almost messianic idolation of Amory Lovins, we're going to need a heck of a lot more research to find renewable solutions that actually lead to widespread profitmaking. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of natural capitalism and all that myself, but the reality is still severely trailing the potential at this point.
It seems to me that there are several key factors that should be working concurrently.
1) People like Lovins (and Steve) pushing the profit-motive of renewable energy. Like it or not, companies cannot remain in business if they don't make a net profit. They need to really put as much effort as possible into providing actual examples and helping firms find ways to actually accomplish this, not just spout theory. [Yes, Steve, I know he/they are doing this, but we need to pick up the pace]
2) The federal and state governments must spearhead a renewable resource program tht rivals what was done for the race to the moon. I'm generally not big on government programs, but without a clear and sustained government message and funding we will never achieve our goals before we reach the tipping point of climate change (i.e., the point at which it becomes impossible to reverse GW).
3) People - you, me, Mr. Ford Navigator, and Mr. Humvee - need to focus on driving less, buying more fuel efficient cars, evolving into hybrids and electric cars, stimulating the development of alternative fuel (read "not CO2 producing") vehicles, and perhaps getting our butts back on a bicycle along with mass transit.
4) Having said that, mass transit is just not an option for the vast majority of people. Last I heard you couldn't hop on the subway in rural Kansas (or rural anywhere). So we're back to the alternative fuel vehicles.
5) The politicians need to smarten up and not jump on the nearest and easiest bandwagon passing by. Think ethanol. In the span of a few months we intiated huge subsidies for the corn-ethanol industry, thus diverting funds from other programs and spawning a huge new profit making industry. Problem is corn-ethanol is not a particularly good short- or long-term solution as it is a less efficient energy source, creates additional pollution, and because corn is a hugely important food grain for humans and animals it has a domino effect on a wide range of daily life costs. Ethanol funding was an "easy fix" for politicians too worried about the (corn growing0 Iowan caucuses than a workable long-term solution.
6) NGOs and other educational outlets need to better inform the populace about the realities, the consequences, and the options. No fear mongering (which makes people cover their ears and not listen), and no pandering (which just disgusts all of us even though we tend to reward it). Education of both the electorate and the elected officials is drastically needed if we're going to deal with the situation in anything close to meaningful time.
Phew
Of course, all this takes leadership. So as I follow the Presidential candidates one of the things I'm looking for is someone capable of being a leader. Someone who can listen to all sides and govern for all, not just their particular brand of ideologues. Someone who will admit reality and then do something about it. I'm still looking.
Unnecessary ad hominem, David. I'm surprised at you. I expect, and deserve an apology. If you have specific criticism about Lovins - if you even know that much about his work - then stay with issues instead of these arrogant, meaningless statements.
All I'm doing is trying to get people to look at Lovins' work. I've followed these issues for a decade, at least. No one has made more of a case for optimism and economically viable solutions than Lovins - at least that I have come across.
I'm sick of the pessimism and cynicism that we are doomed, and there's nothing we can do about it, that fossil fuels and nuclear energy are inevitable - along with the pollution, wars, and health threats associated with them.
Maybe, what we need are inspirational figures, who actually believe that we can save ourselves. Lovins is fond of quoting Raymond Williams: "To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair convincing."
Obviously, that would help. But just eliminating subsidies for fossils and nuclear would also be very effective. Despite conventional wisdom, renewables are more than competitive with fossils/nuclear, given an even playing field.
David: "People - you, me, Mr. Ford Navigator, and Mr. Humvee - need to focus on driving less, buying more fuel efficient cars...."
Sy says, "Lets stress the win win, and not the sacrificial aspect." For example, Ford has formed a "Transportation Advisory Council", on which Lovins and Paul Hawken are members. This is important because RMI has been pushing a Hypercar, made of ultralight, super-strong carbon fiber composites. Boeing's former CEO, Alan Mulally, is now at Ford. Boeing, under Mulally, developed the new 787 airliner, made of carbon fiber composites, which is out selling Airbus' A380. The point is that technology exists for cars that are superior to the gas guzzlers driven today, without sacrificing comfort and convenience. There are thousands of examples like this that don't get reported in the liberal media. So maybe the pace is picking up.
Well, we can drop the "N" word for good. Nuclear energy is not only unnecessary, it is an expensive distraction. Hermann Scheer, Energy Autonomy, says that we are in the process of deciding which direction our energy future will take - the atom or the sun.
The established energy industry perpetuates the myth that fossil fuel and nuclear energy are inevitable. The are not. That's just industry self-aggrandizement, which means to maintain large, centralized energy sources, on which we all depend. The alternative is a distributed, renewable energy system, very similar to the internet, in which consumers are also producers.
Thanks for watching the video. Thanks also for keeping an open mind. Your statement, "I question his conclusion that these changes will happen in time to save us...." - I think that's what we are all in the process of deciding.
Coal is not clean and nuclear is not safe, Michael. Nobody needs nuclear and especially not Australia, with its abundance of sunshine and some good wind. Perth needs solar thermal concentrator facilities, in order to get more electricity to meet increasing demand, as it phases out burning of fossil fuel. It needs more electricity to make the switch to electric cars, and also for its water desalination plant. Western Australia will need a second desalination plant to cope with expected population growth. Perth should become the showcase of the world in making fertile soil out of desert, producing organic fruit and vegetables of the highest quality, etc. Perth should also reduce its cattle and sheep, and use electrolyis to burn its biowaste, and install hydrogen refueling stations along the highway to Adelaide.
"One camp insists that Americans must have access to unlimited supplies of cheap energy and that the effort to combat climate change must take place within that box."
Yup I'm in that camp!
If we look at the economic history of the U.S. it wasn't until we began using plentiful cheap fossil fuels did our economy and society begin to grow at such a high rate.
Advances across all aspects our society accelerated due to the abundant amounts of inexpensive energy available.
Deforestation,
Due to the incorporation of cheap fossil fuels we see a sharp drop off of wood being used as fuel after about 1870 where the usage was at about 300 million board feet of wood being used for fuel per decade.
When I see people suggesting that alternatives can provide all of the energy our country/world needs, I know that they don't realize two things, 1. Is the enormous amounts of energy we use and 2. How important energy is to our society in maintaining a vibrant economy.
The suggestion by some that subsidies on fossil fuels be eliminated in favor of "leveling the playing field" for alternatives are showing their ignorance of these facts, the cost to the people of our society would be devastating and advancement towards a cleaner society would be slowed to a crawl and take years longer to achieve. Taxing C02 output will also have a detrimental effect on the economy but nothing like the removal of subsidies.
Michael,
"Let me drop the "N" word here (no pun intended) nuclear power."
http://nuclearenergy.gather.com/
If we want to be successful in reducing C02 output in the near future we must include nuclear energy into the mix, currently it is the largest provided of clean energy we have, displacing as much as 3000 million metric tons of C02 annually.
Nuclear is safe, economical, clean and most importantly available. As important as it is to continue to develop alternative energies the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine and for now there is only nuclear that can compete with fossil fuels in providing reliable energy to our society.
Don't believe the fear mongering of the radical environmentalists.
Nuclear is already a valuable part of our energy mix and we should be building more rather than coal fired plants.
Where do you get this stuff? There is no shortage of renewable energy potential, and the technological deployment that is needed is much less expensive than continuing to fight resource wars in the mideast, including potential conflicts with mideast countries over nuclear issues.
"Every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year. The technology required to harness the power of the sun is available now. Solar power alone could provide all of the energy Americans consume – there is no shortage of solar energy."
America's Solar Energy Potential
"A patch of 100 square miles of open space covered with efficient solar panels such as in Nevada, where sun rays are powerful, could generate all the electrical power needs of the United States, according to NREL calculations"
Solar power: the great untapped energy source
"Cost-effective windpower potential in the Dakotas could make enough hydrogen to fuel (if efficiently used) all U.S. highway vehicles."
U.S. Energy Security facts (for a typical year, 2000)
"There is one forecast of which you can already be sure: someday renewable energy will be the only way for people to satisfy their energy needs. Because of the physical, ecological and (therefore) social limits to nuclear and fossil energy use, ultimately nobody will be able to circumvent renewable energy as the solution, even if it turns out to be everybody's last remaining choice. The question keeping everyone in suspense, however, is whether we shall succeed in making this radical change of energy platforms happen early enough to spare the world irreversible ecological mutilation and political and economic catastrophe.
Hermann Scheer, Energy Autonomy, p.29.
It's called reality Steve,
And when you describe alternative energies why do you words like "potential"? The reason you used words like "potential" is because that best describes the level technology available to us in using energy from those sources.
""Every hour, the sun radiates more energy onto the earth than the entire human population uses in one whole year." The technology required to harness the power of the sun is available now. Solar power alone could provide all of the energy Americans consume – there is no shortage of solar energy.""
Again you are describing potential NOT our ability to harness enough energy to fill society's needs.
BTW Steve can you please post an example of one alternative energy source in operation today that is producing substantial energy at will to society rain or shine windy or calm.
If you can't give a reasonable answer to that question then we do NOT have the technology required yet.
"A patch of 100 square miles of open space covered with efficient solar panels such as in Nevada, where sun rays are powerful, could generate all the electrical power needs of the United States, according to NREL calculations"
Again "potential" at this time we can not harness that energy in sufficient amounts or consistently enough to fill society's needs .
""Cost-effective windpower potential in the Dakotas could make enough hydrogen to fuel (if efficiently used) all U.S. highway vehicles.""
The key word in this statement is "could" again "potential" NOT possible today.
The only form of energy available today that can produce the large amounts of uninterrupted energy needed by society is nuclear.
The world some day will rely solely on alternatives but that day is not today nor in the near future and until we develop the technologies to do so we should include nuclear in our energy plan.
Reality as you wish it to be, Dan. The reality is that we are in the process of deciding what our energy future will be. It will either be renewable, sustainable, clean, and distributed - or it will be risky, toxic, depletable, and centralized. I favor the former and you (God knows why) favor the latter.
Dan: "And when you describe alternative energies why do you words like "potential"? The reason you used words like "potential" is because that best describes the level technology available to us in using energy from those sources."
No, Dan. You must not read carefully. The technology is ready (and it will improve). It is just not in mass production - "deployed" is the operative word, and it will be much easier to deploy existing renewable technology than build hundreds of new nuclear plants, which is what it will take to impact climate change.
Dan: "...can you please post an example of one alternative energy source in operation today that is producing substantial energy at will to society rain or shine windy or calm."
Not as long as existing policies are against renewables, favoring nuclear and fossils. The issue is political, not technological.
Dan: "If you can't give a reasonable answer to that question then we do NOT have the technology required yet."
Of course we have the technology. We don't have the mass manufactured devices. How many times do I have to make that point to you?
Dan: "The only form of energy available today that can produce the large amounts of uninterrupted energy needed by society is nuclear."
No, Dan. The additional nuclear plants needed to replace fossil fuel to begin to impact climate change are decades off.
Dan: "The world some day will rely solely on alternatives..."
Now that's the first thing you've said that I will agree with (as I posted above),
Dan: "...but that day is not today nor in the near future and until we develop the technologies to do so we should include nuclear in our energy plan."
That is for us to decide. Reliance on renewables in the short term is a matter of deciding it so. Why would we waste time and resources building a massive nuclear energy infrastructure - with all the risk and waste and expense - when we can skip it, cut to the chase, and dedicate ourselves to build in the system, upon which we will ultimately depend? Nuclear makes absolutely no sense at all.
Finally, Dan, it is not a technological issue - it is a political issue, one of deploying existing technology. Obviously, as technology is deployed and used, it improves.
The problem is that governments (both in Australia, the US and pretty much everywhere else) have been protecting and privileging polluters. Polluting industries command a huge part of the economy, while clean and safe alternatives have no such clout. This political support for polluters has come with unacceptable risks and at a huge cost of actual and future damage. It has also come at the expense of the better technologies, such as hydrogen, solar and wind power, that should have received more support, that would have given society more social and economic freedom, that would have improved the economy, and that would have kept us out of Iraq as well. The failure is to ignore this support for polluters, the environmental damage and the holding back of better alternatives. Clean and safe technologies such as solar and wind power are by far the cheapest technologies and they were already cheaper a long time ago.
In short, this is not a failure of market mechanisms, it's a failure of politics. Politicians who protect these polluters have long been silencing scientists who spoke out about the damage of pollution and global warming. Even today, very few scientists dare to study the effectiveness of the various political alternatives, let alone come up with political solutions that work. Don't let these politicians fool you that market mechanisms have failed; the problem here is market distortion. Market mechanisms are very much part of the solution!
Similarly, don't be fooled by socialist rhetoric that market mechanisms shouldn't be part of the solution. If we wrongly followed socialist dogma, people on high incomes (rather than polluters) would be taxed more, under the false premise that they were polluting more because they were rich. The tax revenues would subsequently be given to poor people, supposedly to help them pay higher energy bills, which means that nothing much will change at all: the poor will get subsidies to keep polluting, while the rich will continue to do so because they can afford to do so AND because there are no alternatives. It's simply not effective and sadly there are very few scientists looking into this, more specifically scientific research by economists, accountants, statisticians, policy analysts and the like. It seems that there are more scientists working on arguing that the above-mentioned polluters were capitalists and that socialisms therefore was better.
Finally, don't be fooled by the profiteers who argue that cap and trade policies were market-oriented. They aren't market-oriented, they will only give huge profits to brokers and they will do little to help the clean and safe alternatives that we need. The best solution is this: Tax emissions and use the proceeds to subsidize local supply of clean and safe alternatives. Also, government should stop supporting polluters and instead let market mechanisms sort out what works best where.
Also the 80% versus 20% on who believes humans are driving the "global warming" train. What source is so positive on this? Seeing us doubters are considered as bad as "holocaust deniers" proves to me that emotion, rather than fact is driving this movement.