Whatever you may think of Robert Samuelson, his essential point in today's Washington Post is sound: With developing countries increasing their energy use dramatically over the next few decades, the solution to climate change will have to come from major advances in technology.
Put another way, given energy demand projections, we could not decrease the likelihood of climate change with existing technologies, as some environmentalists claim; they are simply too expensive, and carbon sequestration technology is in its infancy. This poses serious challenges, since technologies, once they are established, can become locked-in and hard to alter. This is not meant as cause for despair, but as another reminder that addressing climate change will require lots of money, and hence sacrifice, at least in the short to medium term. Yes, new industries will be developed, and yes there will be ancillary benefits, but the upfront costs will be far from trivial. The environmental movement should begin to prepare the broader public for these costs so that they aren't surprised when they are introduced, prompting a backlash.
And it's worth remembering: it is not capitalism or economic growth in and of itself that has caused the problem in the first place; it is industrialization. Economic growth and the capitalism of the future may very well be based on wind power, nanotechnology, and high-tech computing instead of coal power plants and manufacturing plants -- but the transition is likely to be difficult. The longer we wait, the harder it will be.
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Climate-news poem: Tck, tck, tck edition
Comments
View as Threaded
Steve Bloom Posted 4:45 am
21 Mar 2007
Also, Jason, I have to say it drives me nuts when economists blithely say things like "we could not decrease the likelihood of climate change with existing technologies" when there is so much fruit hanging so low that it's already rotting on the ground.
BTW, we should distinguish between real "new technologies" and those that simply require research into the best/cheapest way to make them available on a mass basis.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:19 am
21 Mar 2007
Coal, as the report notes, is essential. It provides about 40 percent of global electricity. It's cheap (about a third of the cost of oil) and abundant. It poses no security threats.
The world can use 40% less electricity via efficiency and conservation. Need more? Solar is about a third the cost of oil and abundant, globally. Solar poses no security threats.
The threat of global destruction from fossil CO2 is definitely a most serious security threat.
Expansion of solar can be much faster (and much cheaper) than expansion of coal, globally.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:03 am
21 Mar 2007
Let's revise your sermon today and see how you like it then:
Put another way, given [climate disruption] projections, we could not decrease the likelihood of climate change with existing [economic beliefs], as some [economists] claim; they are simply too expensive, and [ecological economics] is in its infancy. This poses serious challenges, since [economic doctrines], once they are established, can become locked-in and hard to alter. This is not meant as cause for despair, but as another reminder that addressing [overshoot] will require [rejection of infinite-growth fantasies], and hence sacrifice, at least in the short to medium term. Yes, new [economic understandings] will be developed, and yes there will be ancillary benefits, but the upfront costs will be far from trivial. The [economists] should begin to prepare the broader public for these costs so that they aren't surprised when [nature strikes back], prompting a backlash.
Permalink
A Siegel Posted 6:05 am
21 Mar 2007
He doesn't address, anywhere, the impact that we could have by leapfrogging with renewable power, efficient use of energy, and smart growth in the developing world.
You might be interested in J'accuse! Distorting reality in "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth" Robert J. Samuelson: J'accuse! You are using your pulpit to mislead and deceive. You seek to perpetuate the problem rather than solve it.
Samuelson must watch Colbert, since he specializes in truthiness. Just as with all his other articles, today's piece is filled with facts and interesting points that might be true, but the totality of the discussion is not truthful.
How about a truthiness example:
Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.
Wow ... let's cite a report that "simulated" a fivefold increase. Doesn't that sound like a lot? Doesn't that sound like this is a high-end estimate?
Well, wind power is at 25+% growth rates, globally, for many years. And, there are wind turbine factories being built that would support increased growth. At 25%, this is a doubling in slightly less than every three years. In the US, wind is roughly 1% of wind power. If we were postulating a 10% average growth rate over the next 20 (or, 40% of the current), the wind production would be roughly 8 times current levels.
Solar is increasing at 40% ... and shows signs of (seriously) accelerating, both with new PV options and concentrating solar power (CSP).
Emerging are ocean power (wave, tidal, etc) systems.
Geothermal looks like there might be real room for growth, especially if low-temperature geothermal emerges.
It is saddening to see Grist giving Samuelson this level of credence without looking behind the wizard's curtain.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 7:13 am
21 Mar 2007
D'oh
By the time y'all wake up to this glaringly obvious fact, y'all be extinct.
Ban OIL NOW NOW NOW
burn coal for a while
BUT bring on No Footprint Technology....
READ MY LIPS, if you can't read words!!!!!!!!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:09 am
21 Mar 2007
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:45 am
21 Mar 2007
There is new science available to product developers. The science exists, much of it at NREL. The path is engineering, production, and deployment. Requires capital beyond the circles of dotcoms and Bush friends.
Our paths will appear to be much easier than imagined once we get started.
New discovery and invention will also happen.
Permalink