My last post argued that based on the figures Scientific American projected for a slow, partial phaseout of fossil fuels, we could do a full, fast, near-total elimination for between 170 and 240 billion dollars a year -- somewhere less than a third, possibly even less than a quarter, of our military budget.
I'd like to offer some other comparisons to put those numbers into perspective: We spent $840 billion buying fossil fuels in 2004, according to page 72 of the 2006 Annual Energy Review (10 Meg PDF). So a 95% reduction in U.S. fossil fuel use will pay back a $170 billion annual investment by a nearly 5 to 1 ratio, and a $240 billion a year investment by well over a 3 to 1 ratio. Yes, the time value of money reduces this a great deal -- but you still end up with a return exceeding that of the stock market during the bubble.
Another comparison: we sometimes talk about needing a commitment equal to what it took to win WWII. U.S. war spending grew from less than 2% of our national GDP just before Pearl Harbor, to around 5% immediately after, to around 37% at the peak of WWII defense spending. Yet in the scenarios under discussion, we advocate spending between 1% and 2% of the 13.3 trillion dollar U.S. GDP to fight global warming. So we are not talking about anything like a WWII-level commitment economically. And we don't have to shoot anybody, or get shot by anybody, or drop any bombs.
It's about green jobs, clean air, and a cure for our fossil fuel addiction. I think the politics are doable. If the public backs this strongly enough, they can walk right over any of the fat cats who try to get in the way.
The hidden cost of coal
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 10:30 pm
18 Feb 2008
But presumably what you are envisioning is that the momentous Obama movement embrace this as a principal cause, no?
As for the fat cats, they would never be so imprudent as to let themselves be identified as the intractable foe. Rather, with accusations of socialism, and a Harry-and-Louise-style ad campaign, they would do their best to raise up the middle class on their side, in a counter-movement.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
trock Posted 11:51 pm
18 Feb 2008
We can make private decisions to reduce our carbon use as I have and many others have had, but when it comes to the public policy area, when a large number of people are uncommitted to that way of thinking, it really is a long trip. And then to fight along the way people who's own financial and cultural livelihood are at risk, I don't see how you can say the politics is doable. The science and technology are doable, but the politics? There needs to a greater changing of minds and willingness to sacrifice before I could agree that the politics are doable.
For us, it's the thing we want to do. For someone who works in or owns a coal, oil, natural gas company or utility, it's their culture and financial life. If I had billions at stake like these people and companies do, I'd fight you to. How do you make that politics doable?
Permalink
314159265 Posted 12:09 am
19 Feb 2008
Sell the project as a project to revive U.S. economy and to regain world technology leadership. Renewable/sustainable tech is the tech of the 21st century - no way to evade that fact. So, give it a boost! That that would save the climate (or avoid the worst) at the same time is just a nice goody for them greeny weenies.
Permalink
trock Posted 12:23 am
19 Feb 2008
The problem we have is that all the global warming tragedies are going to happen in the future when we want people to act now. There will be no date that people can point to and say, see that's what we have to avoid. Having the hurricane hit New Orleans did make people feel vulnerable and changed peoples ideas a little on a lot of subjects, but also on being vulnerable to weather and climate. Britain and Germany are leaders in the world on global warming, partly because their population is strong in science, but also they understand being vulnerable to something horible like World War II. They understand how tragedy can affect them. In the United States, many are filled with triumphalism, nothing can affect us, we're the big, bad strong guys if we just don't listen to the liberals.
I know I don't have to mention it to you, but changing the earth to a climate that is something much warmer than we have now is something that triumphalism attitudes won't fix. Once we've screwed up the planets climate, the next generations have to live with it. To bad the tragedies are to far in the future for people today to rally around.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:20 am
19 Feb 2008
Think about it. Would your congressman or senator understand it, if they would even listen to an explanation? Would Barack? The most progressive (presumably) candidate?
Or would they simply nod their heads and go right on taking their cue from lobbyists? Like my reps do.
THe explanations and policies have to be simplified. My proposal for policy simplification. Divert subsidies from big oil, agribizz, and energy corporations to direct incentives to consumers for producing and saving energy.
10 cents per kwh for solar PV, wind power, or biogas power put into the grid and 5 cents per kwh for conservation. Put into checks directly to consumers who invest in renewable and energy saving technology.
This needs simple incentives that cannot be gamed by corporate players.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:38 am
19 Feb 2008
This is a good thread because it talks about one of our elephants. We know how to solve the problems, but we don't know how to build the movement that would make such solutions feasible.
Technical expertise needs to be combined with political expertise. A lot of what happens will need to happen off-line (many millions of potential allies do not use the internet at all, and many others use it only for chatting or emails, not as a significant source of information, we need to always keep this in mind.)
We need to ask and then begin to answer certain questions.
1) What would a political alliance capable of instituting such changes look like?
It is a mistake to say that "everyone should be involved". This is never going to happen, and part of what we need to be honest about is that there will be forces with lots of money waiting to organize against us.
2) Who would comprise it and how would we get them together? (okay, maybe two questions).
Again, not everyone will be involved. Do we envisions a center/right, or a center/left coalition? Why?
It is certainly true that a huge natural disaster might unite everyone and make change possible. But it is also true that by that time it would probably be too late. There is no deux-ex-machina waiting in the wings to drop down and solve all of our problems.
It is a lovely dream to think that any one political figure will unite us and lead us into a brighter future. But, in reality, the nature of American democracy (especially in a television age) tends to oppose big changes, and to be centrist. We are most likely (from any viable candidate) to get stirring rhetoric and modest proposals (some of which may in fact be bad).
An independent political movement would seem to be the best bet, something that can unite large numbers of the existing forces in society into a coalition that is capable of pressuring for and demanding the change we need.
Many people may not remember that the reasons we got major social welfare systems in the Roosevelt era were not because of his great leadership, but because the masses of people were demanding even greater change. This pressure forced the interests opposed to change to move.
How can we force the interest opposed to change to move now?
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:30 am
21 Feb 2008
I think first the alliance needs to lean left, not right. (Big surprise, coming from me.) And I don't think we can get a big enough alliance just around climate change. Instead I think we need something like the Apollo Alliance or Blue-Green Alliance on steroids -- uniting around multiple issues, with green issues being just part of a coalition. Peace, Green Jobs, Health care, Clean Elections. Any such coalition would have to pick one to three issues to focus on, but that does not mean they could not have a comprehensive program as well. I probably will have a post on that RSN (Real Soon Now).
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:28 pm
26 Feb 2008
Gar,
I look forward to your ideas. It would be nice to have a substantive discussion of the politics needed to advance the cause!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:11 pm
26 Feb 2008
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:33 pm
26 Feb 2008
Over here in the deep doomer corner I'm watching Gristmill, and by extension the world, attempt to re-tie the same broken and frayed shoelace over and over again. I mean that 80% carbon reduction goal is going to be seen as hopelessly inadequate and optimistic in maybe two years.
The shift from "we have a clear signal of climate change in this data" to "wasn't there supposed to be ice at the North Pole?" has happened far faster than anybody with a science degree would have speculated. We could go just as fast from "I'm trying to lose those last ten pounds" to "I'm collecting acorns in the park after work" just as fast.
Our dear friend GreyFlcn has the right idea; collect data, make charts and make them easily accesible. When the time comes that people need to understand what to do NOW he will have a track record of being honest and accurate. Profiteers will try to divert resources to their own uses but this can be a risky course of action in true emergency.
People will take a bad plan they can understand over a good plan poorly presented almost every time. That's why its so important to hash all these details out ad nauseum.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink