I'm restarting my series on solutions to global warming, both on how to phase out fossil fuels and the best means to sequester carbon, because I consider the topic a critical one.
The carbon lobby has mostly (not entirely) given up disputing that global warming is occurring. They know that they won't be able to confuse the public on its human-caused nature much longer.
But a final stalling tactic is open to deniers -- to pretend that nothing can be done, or at least nothing that most people are willing to live with. There is an old engineering saying: "no solution, no problem."
Converging with this, there is a small but unfortunately influential primitivist movement. In their belief that technology itself is totalitarian, they also contribute to the idea that the only solution to global warming is a drastic reduction in the technical level of civilization -- perhaps down to the hunter-gatherer level. Many well-meaning, intelligent people promote a less extreme version of this trope -- the conviction that we need to impoverish working people in rich nations to solve our environmental crisis and deal justly with the poorer countries.
The primary purpose of this series is to ensure that energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies become known as inexpensive fossil fuel substitutes available today, rather than a high-priced vision of tomorrow. The U.S. needs to understand that continued use of fossil fuel is a political decision rather than a technical one.
Our only choices are not destructive, expensive continued burning of fossil fuels or dramatic cuts in standard of living.
The argument that more and more global warming deniers will rely on is that it is too expensive to phase out fossil fuel use.
There is a certain absurdity to making a long series of posts refuting the idea that saving the world is too expensive. But this absurd task is also a necessary one. If the methods offered to stop global warming are too costly or too unpleasant, many people will prefer to wait and hope that technology provides some magical painless solution.
Many series, studies, and books have been written about efficiency and renewables. What will follow differs in not assuming technical breakthroughs, or drastic price drops in prices of existing technology; while these are both likely and desirable, let's examine the cost-effective solutions available now.
Although I will deal with sources, such as wind power, the bulk of the series will deal with efficiency improvements. Please note that word is efficiency rather than conservation -- gaining the same convenience and benefits with fewer emissions, rather than living with less. For example, automatic washer/dryer combinations that reduce energy use increase efficiency; clotheslines that substitute human labor for commercial dryers conserve energy and emissions. If somebody who makes a good enough living that they can afford a washer and dryer chooses to switch to a clothesline, to trade some of their time for energy savings, that is a choice; it is not the only way to reduce emissions. Similarly, while the poorest of the poor currently need clean water, sanitation,and healthy food more than any type of luxury good, it is important to show that fighting global warming does not rule out their some day having survival necessities and the luxuries many of us take for granted that can make day-to-day living easier.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Children and riot police face off in Canadian “Moms” video
Comments
View as Flat
step back Posted 7:20 pm
16 Apr 2007
The myth is that only the Goliaths of Corpocratic America are capable of inventing our way out of the carbon combusting mess they got us into in the first place.
The truth is that most of the truly innovative inventions come from individuals and small start ups. The Goliaths are running scared and are seeking to crush the upstarts. One way to do that is to kill the golden goose that begat American technological supremacy, the traditional American patent system. They are at it even as we speak, breaking the system apart piece by piece..
The Goliaths shroud themselves under spin names like "Coalition" for Patent "Fairness". Their intent is to be anything but "fair". As the witches of Macbeth warned us: Fair is foul and Balanced is a spin meister's inversion of the truth. Beware the Ides of April Deform. Write to your Congressperson to protect the individual innovators of America. Don't look away as they get crushed by the K Street Goliaths.
Who do you trust to come up with the innovations that will reverse our Corpocratic Way of Warming the Globe, David or Goliath? Solar energy or E85 Cornahol?
Permalink
Tom Athanasiou Posted 9:40 pm
16 Apr 2007
WRT
Many well-meaning, intelligent people promote a less extreme version of this trope -- the conviction that we need to impoverish working people in rich nations to solve our environmental crisis and deal justly with the poorer countries.
You wouldn't want to name names, would you?
-- toma
Tom Athanasiou
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 103';l[25]=' 114';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 121';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 105';l[31]=' 117';l[32]=' 113';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 64';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 109';l[40]=' 111';l[41]=' 116';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='
Permalink
robertaFB Posted 11:53 pm
16 Apr 2007
If any of you have any other info on methane, or anything that might help us through the environmental process, please post it here. Please go to our web site (recently set up and not yet complete) to hear about our river and it's threats. www.grandriverkeeperlabrador.org
Permalink
seanos Posted 12:03 am
17 Apr 2007
I agree that we need to use alternative forms of energy and I say this on my blog http://www.globalwarming-factorfiction.com all of the time. However, a more urgent need to do this is geopolitical reasons but oil is so cheap that we can't even do that for the safety of our country.
The issues are extremely expensive and very difficult. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It means that we better make sure we are correct because the cost could bankrupt the nation.
Permalink
step back Posted 1:01 am
17 Apr 2007
Mother Nature does not perform her accounting according to the say so of a bunch of freakly mutated apes; the kind we call "accountants". She does not stop adding to the count of in-atmosphere GHG's just because our human accountants declare those to be "externalities". She does not stop requiring that the laws of energy conservation and entropy be obeyed.
We humans have a serious mental disease. It's called believing our own bull shit.
Any energy exploitation policy that continues to pump noxious and planet killing gases into the atmosphere is a very "costly" one. We are just too dumb to see how costly.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:37 am
17 Apr 2007
Wow, you guys just don't give up do you? No matter how many times it's been shown that global warming (anthropogenic-style) is not valid, you keep reiterating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-malthusian
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
step back Posted 1:50 am
17 Apr 2007
The trouble with people like you is that you don't understand Malthus was right, just the timing was a bit off.
Permalink
PBrazelton Posted 2:08 am
17 Apr 2007
As for what Gar is saying, we're not dealing with a blank slate here. We have hundreds billions of dollars flowing through our economy that could be moved from destructive practices to sustainable ones. Reducing waste and inefficiencies, rerouting massive subsidies into research and development, doing a little work for ourselves... these are all 'free' solutions that will take us a long way towards our goal. It's not about injecting liquified CO2 or putting mylar reflectors into space, it's about acting like what we do has consequences.
Guess I'm saying, life is hard. Climate change won't go away on its own, and you gasp might have to do something about it yourself. No one's going to go bankrupt because they're hanging clothes out to dry or riding a bike to work. Get used to it; suck it up and take your medicine.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:25 am
17 Apr 2007
Lawrence Berkeley Lab used to have a couple of really compelling energy flow charts, showing energy sources and sinks in a variety of different sectors. It shows that 2/3 of electrical generation energy, and 4/5 of transportation energy, is wasted.
Personally, I believe the real waste fractions are much higher, when you consider what we could be doing with passive solar design, electrified light rail, and cogeneration. But the point is, LBNL is a conservative and reputable organization, and even they see enormous waste in the system.
Unfortunately, these charts went offline recently, and I haven't found them again. I have local copies, which I will post if I can dig them up. But if anyone else knows what I'm talking about, and where to find it now, that would be really helpful.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:47 am
17 Apr 2007
Destructive, expensive continued burning of fossil fuels
Dramatic cuts in standard of living.
Standard Granola Environmentalist:
Do Less, With Less Resources
Standard Money is Everything Capitalist:
Do More, with More Resources
_
The Way to Get Them to Agree:
Do More, with Less Resources
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:11 am
17 Apr 2007
Tom,I won't list every austeritist. The extreme end of that is the appalling Derrick Jensen in his horrifying two book series EndGame calling for the destruction of technical civilization. At the less extreme end, Heinberg and a lot of the peak oil movement. (Note that I speak here for people for whom peak oil is an ideology rather than a prediction about timing. ) As to ways it spreads. It has even infected Monbiot, someone I greatly respect. From tne end of his book Heat:
For the campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost all the protests which have preceded it is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. Strangest of all, is not just against other people but also against ourselves.
there are two things wrong with this. One is it is not true. It is not true even if the assumptions of the Stern report about how costly it will be the fight global warming are, because leaving climate chaos unmitigaged will cost us a great deal more (which of course is Stern's point). And I agree with "The value of an Iceberg" that his cost/benefit analysis takes a fundamentally wrong way of trying to price catastrophe. But I think it is important the premise is wrong too.
The one thing I'm not sure is term "No Sweat". My original title was "No Hair Shirts" which I think was more precise, because hair shirts were an ancient from of self-punishiment, self-mortification. "No Sweat", though intended to convey the same idea unfortunately also sounds like it won't take hard work. And of course fighting climate chaos will take lots of hard work. But the hard work will be political. We have the technical solutions: and they are less expensive than a lot of people think. Partially I think the potential for efficiency is heavily underestimated. Most people think we can double the GDP we produce from each unit of energy. I think the right figure is more like quadruple of quintuple.
I will add that this series will pretty much focus on technical issues. I will make posts on political economy ocassionally, but they will not have the "No Sweat" label, because I think the politics of fighting global warming are not "No Sweat", though they are definitely "No Hair Shirt". I will never advocate self-punishment, self-mortification, and remain an opponent of the gloating puritanism I do see as part of a lot of environmental discourse.
I will add that when it comes to Monbiot, most of what he advocates does not actually involve austerity or lack of freedom. I don't know why he insists on buying the rhetoric.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 3:15 am
17 Apr 2007
Bill McDonough makes a fantastic presentation on how this is both necessary and possible. It's really his most unique contribution, to demonstrate that a hopeful future is possible, if we are willing to reframe the problems we are trying to solve. He has a couple of DVD presentations on the topic, but I think his best one was the speech he gave at Bioneers in 2000.
I have that presentation available online, in small (80MB) and big (600 MB) versions. Enjoy!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 4:34 am
17 Apr 2007
"You can't be too poor or too thin."
--John Bailo
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:18 am
17 Apr 2007
LOL!
It looks like some online communities are less tolerant than Grist of jabailo's time wasting and trollishness.
Permalink
step back Posted 6:20 am
17 Apr 2007
http://www.swans.com/library/dossiers/pics/enflow00.jpg
Generally this google search works
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:40 am
17 Apr 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:13 am
17 Apr 2007
Maybe the better way to say it.
A) Do Less, with Less GHG Emissions
B) Do More, with More GHG Emissions
C) Do More, with Less GHG Emissions
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 9:19 am
17 Apr 2007
I agree with 95% of what you say, but I don't think it's a good idea to drop conservation. Technically, conservation has some critical advantages over efficiency. Efficiency takes huge amounts of capital, infrastructure change and time to implement. Conservation can take place instantaneously at very little cost. For example, speed limits can be reduced to 55 mph practically overnight as they were during the 70s. Efficiency improvements to get a comparable energy savings will be a long time coming. With efficiency, the only way most individuals can participate is to buy more efficient products. Conservation strategies are open to anybody with eyes and a mind. Previous cultures are rich with ideas for conservation - our ancestors had satisfying, often happier lives than we on a fraction of the resources. The example you give of a clothesdrier vs a clothesline is actually a strong argument in favor of the conservation strategy. Look at the materials and infrastructure required to support electric driers! The waste of energy is stupendous, and the convenience is minimal. As an energy person, you know what a dumb idea it is to use electricity (high quality energy) to make heat (low quality energy).
Since our drier broke several months ago, we've been air drying our clothes. It's not that big a deal, and the clothes smell fresher and feel better. (On the other hand, the washing machine is a gift from God -- that's worth saving.)
I suspect that it's not the technical strategy of conservation that irks you as much as the moralizing, hair-shirt aspect.
There's some truth to that, but I have to say that I don't think some self-discipline and prudence would hurt us at all. I think the hedonism and materialism of the past few decades will give way to values that have been traditional for centuries. "Waste not, want not."
A satisfying life is still possible, but it won't be one with the possessions and whims that we in the West enjoy at present.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:44 am
17 Apr 2007
Northern California's utility, PG&E, is a perfect example of how to do effeciency right.
In short, if it's cheaper to do effeciency than to build new power plants.
By law, they have to do the effeciency.
_
And for large effeciency products. PG&E will often pay 2/3rds the Capital costs.
_
The other advantage with PG&E is that they are a government regulated monopoly, which is given a healthy return on investment for their shareholders.
From this PG&E more money, not based on how much electricity they sell, but on how much effeceincy they sell.
_
The advantage, California now has half the per-capita energy use as the rest of the United States.
Still (very) hedonistic. But in general, we don't have to think about it much. Since we're getting exactly the same services, but for dramatically lower cost and energy use.
_
The way I see it, the less the public has to think about anything, the better.
Since while you can get the public's support.
Educating the public is just stupidly hard.
So in general, I don't expect People to change.
I expect Things to change.
Permalink
Tom Athanasiou Posted 10:38 am
17 Apr 2007
If I was a catholic, I might say that this was a sin.
I tend to agree with you, but I'm hoping you don't overstate you case. This is not going to be easy.
-- toma
Tom Athanasiou
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[23]='\"';l[24]=' 103';l[25]=' 114';l[26]=' 111';l[27]=' 46';l[28]=' 121';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 105';l[31]=' 117';l[32]=' 113';l[33]=' 101';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 99';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 64';l[38]=' 97';l[39]=' 109';l[40]=' 111';l[41]=' 116';l[42]=':';l[43]='o';l[44]='t';l[45]='l';l[46]='i';l[47]='a';l[48]='m';l[49]='\"';l[50]='=';l[51]='f';l[52]='e';l[53]='r';l[54]='h';l[55]='a ';l[56]='
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:14 pm
17 Apr 2007
But I'm not dropping conservation in the sense of opposing it. I just choose not to concentrate on it.
>I tend to agree with you, but I'm hoping you don't overstate you case. This is not going to be easy.
I hope I don't either. I've certainly put a lot of effort into getting my facts and numbers right. And I don't think it will be easy: I think it won't involve a drop in GDP, and that the right politics for it don't involve sacrificing the interests of the poor and working people.
I'm beginning to wonder if I should stuck to the original "no hair shirts" title. Because, maybe not everybody knows what a hair shirt is or why we would not want to wear one. But "No Sweat" may end up being really misleading, where "No Hair Shirts" means exactly what I intended to say.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:44 am
18 Apr 2007
Makes sense. Efficiency is easier for most Americans to accept right now. It fits in better with the predominant worldview.
Amory Lovins and Thomas Friedman are an easier sell than James Howard Kunstler.
Also efficiency is a natural for engineers and technically minded people.
I'm more interested in conservation and cultural change, since my background is in the humanities. Also, I think we will undergo massive culture change no matter what ... and it would be good to get a head start.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink