Technology alone won't alleviate climate change
NYT’s Andy Revkin and E. O. Wilson get suckered by Newt Gingrich’s phony techno-optimism 24
-
Posted 10:59 AM on 16 Nov 2007
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Why the ‘SuperFreakonomics’ global-warming chapter is worth your time
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
Steve Bloom Posted 4:59 am
16 Nov 2007
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:10 am
16 Nov 2007
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:35 am
16 Nov 2007
These various means of denying what could be called "more of the stark reality of the world we inhabit" are of not helpful to anyone, I suppose, except themselves and their minions. They keep their wealth, power and privileges by maintaining the status quo, regardless of the potential for catastrophic circumstances, ones already dimly visible on the far horizon. Many too many soon to be erstwhile leaders of the human community have allowed unbridled self-interests to literally separate themselves from a meaningful regard for humanity, for life as we know it, for a future of children and coming generations, and for the maintenance of the integrity of Earth and its ecosphere.
Thankfully, the human community is bountifully blessed with still other leaders, brave and courageous leaders, like UN Secretary-General Mr. Ban Ki-Moon, Al Gore, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Professor Al Bartlett, IPCC Vice Chair Mohan Munasinghe, Dr. Ernst von Weizsaecker, John Guillebaud, US Senator Bernie Sanders, Paul Chefurka, David Wasdell, Jean Krasno, Joseph Baker, Magne Karlsen, "Trinifar", Dame Jane Goodall, Jeffrey McNeely, Seti Sastrapradja, Vivian Ponniah, Peter Salonius, Hazel Henderson, Peter Nobel, Mickey Glantz, Scott Walker, Margaret Swedish, Emily Spence, Susan B. Adamo, John C. Feeney, Lester Brown, Gretchen Daily, Bill Rees, Richard Duncan, Pentti Malaska, Deborah Byrd, Jean Gilbertson, Alex de Sherbinin, Anne Ehrlich, Ashok Khosla, Paul Hawken, Werner Fornos, Jane Roberts, Jean Francois Rischard, Jan Janssens, Raoul Weiler, Mathis Wackernagel, David Blockstein, Andy Revkin, Dave Roberts, Joe Romm and no less than 2000 IPCC scientists. Who knows, perhaps these and emerging leaders among our youth are ready to "square up" to the global challenges soon be confronted by humankind in these early years of Century XXI.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 5:53 am
16 Nov 2007
Mr. Romm
After reviewing your essay and links I have a good idea of what you are against, but no idea of what you are for.
Give me the cliff notes version describing what Emperor Romm would do to resolve these issues.
For example, here is my recommendation for the electricity sector;
1 Eliminate all subsidies.
2 Add a conservative cost estimate to each source for all externalities, CO2, particulates, mercury, cadmium, sulfur, NOx, radioactivity, bird kills, water pollution, noise, intermittency, waste disposal etc.
3 Increase R&D spending for non fossil energy sources from $2 per person to $200 dollars per person, $60 billion / year.
4 Push every technology as hard as possible, build prototypes of everything.
5 Build one or two full scale commercial sized plants for each promising technology. Publish all of the data including construction cost, operation and maintenance cost and energy production figures.
6 Stand back and let the marketplace choose winners and losers.
We are not smart enough to pick winners and losers now. Our goal should be to create a SYSTEM in which the best technology, whatever it is, is developed and implemented in the shortest possible time.
http://www.endofglobalwarming.com/energy_facts.htm
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:23 am
16 Nov 2007
Which begs the question why the Center for American Progress keeps picking biofuels, and coal sequestration.
http://greyfalcon.net/oregon
http://greyfalcon.net/costlycoal2
Permalink
trock Posted 9:33 am
16 Nov 2007
What a bunch of goey crap. Worse than I thought it would be. there is just warmed over homolies. Anybody who thought Gingrich would actually want to do something would be disappointed.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 2:48 pm
16 Nov 2007
MIT Study: Rate of Growth of US GHG Emissions
May Accelerate Despite Technology
"We found that, in spite of increasing energy prices, technological change has not been responsible for much reduction in energy use, and that it may have had the reverse effect.
Technological change will not necessarily reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Energy taxes or a system of caps on energy use and trade in emissions permits are necessary."
There is no a priori reason to think technology has the potential for reducing energy use while meeting the tests of economics. It's politically unappetizing in the US, but in Europe, gas costs six dollars a gallon. Make energy more expensive: People will use less of it."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:47 am
17 Nov 2007
More study? And more taxes for corps to scam out of and a trading scheme hedge funds can game with insider trading.
Blah, blahing all about nuclear, clean coal, fuel farming, the hydrogen economy, hydrogen fuel cell cars, so that everyone is sick of the whole thing before anyone mentions technology that will work. More study for all of these.
Forget wind, wave, solar, plugin hybrids, conservation, geo heat exchange heating/cooling, biogas from the waste stream, a smart grid that stores and conserves power from many different distributed renewable energy sources.
Will technology solve every problem through a "free" market? Nope, but the right technology incentivized and supported by government policy and industrial mass production will. Powered by demand from consumers of ever higher priced monopolized energy products like gasoline.
10 dollars a gallon (in a few years to fill your gas guzzler)or 10 cents per kwh (in a plugin hybrid). That 10 cents worth of electricity will take you four miles. That's one dollar for fourty miles on electricity, or free if you have a solar panel on your roof. Instead of the 10 bucks it costs with the average gas guzzler.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:18 am
17 Nov 2007
Am I misreading "fundamentally new energy technologies" as not including wind/solar/geothermal? Does Revkin really think that only fossil fuels can be used and that we have to wait for something new before doing something? Or has he proposed other solutions elsewhere?
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:31 am
17 Nov 2007
If new technology implies that we need to radically rethink the existing infrastructure, transportation networks, electrical generating and distribution networks, organization of cities, trading systems, etc. then I think we might have a shot at developing some really revolutionary technological ideas.
But, if we are confined by thinking inside the box of our existing ways of living then I am not very hopeful that the techno/magic machines will get us very far down a more sustainable pathway.
The magic may not be in the machine but in very fundamental changes in the way we organize ourselves socially, politically, geographically, commercially, ecologically, etc.
What is it about our current way of living that is sustainable? And to what end might we find ourselves if we keep attempting to perpetuate this growing technocracy? Has the machine become the end?
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 4:04 am
17 Nov 2007
By RUSSELL ENGLAND
Atlanta Journal Constitution
Published on: 11/15/07
It is time to look at Georgia's current drought from an ecological standpoint, not just an economic one, as has already been done quite thoroughly.....................
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/1 ...
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
justlou Posted 4:59 am
17 Nov 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:14 am
17 Nov 2007
There are many ways to look at it. Right now, we seem to be on path to a cleaner future because of technology much of it developed in the last 10 years by the private sector and university research.
Solar sheets, hydrogen fuel cells, electric cars are all products of industry. I remember posting an article about the EV-1 in my cubicle at Microsoft back in 1991, so even then, GM was thinking about the future.
What I see now is the case of a budding success on the horizon. Yes, a success...a success where in maybe 10 years we will reach and exceed the Kyoto goals.
The battle, however, is independent from the technological time line. The Left will claim that only by promoting dire forecasts and alarmism would be able to devour these Green Goodies in the near term. The Right will argue, that if they had not freed industry and the financial system from burdensome taxes and regulations, they could not have raised the capital for new businesses to create a "solar industry" and a "fuel cell" manufacturer.
The battle is for credit, not results. The results are coming, but perhaps because of a dynamic of two forces, Left and Right. or maybe in spite of all the shouting. Maybe it was all due to a lot of dedicated engineers and businessmen coming to work and wanting to build better, more efficient products.
My Log
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:25 am
17 Nov 2007
The reason that Climate Change denial and mitigation delay is such a booming business is that most of us couldn't tell the difference between technology and magic on a bet. Your average US citizen could not diagram the scientific process and will insist on calling a hypotheses a "theory" and misunderstanding what the word theory means in the scientific process.
As evidenced by the current resident of the White House our political leadership is no better. These people don't like science when it doesn't provide them with a way to kill or control people.
The advocates of a technological "cure" to climate change that leaves current social structures, transportation, energy and retail economies intact are living in a dream world. Climate Change is ultimately going to change the world view of the whole human race on everything from bathroom habits to our ideas of what "work" is and who does it.
Even given the key to making Mr. Fusion machines that consumed atmospheric CO2 and dropped diamonds into a chute we would STILL have to change our lifestyle. There isn't a magical way in which we can live without an intact, diverse and healthy biosphere around us. If we keep up with the population growth that becomes impossible.
The Climate Change "centrists" are just another form of denier. We just don't get to keep burning coal, oil and natural gas without severe consequences.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
justlou Posted 8:24 am
17 Nov 2007
Maybe it is time for a vision revolution. The states seem to be leading the way.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 8:43 am
17 Nov 2007
Keep going. Thanks for your great efforts. We are going to make a difference.
Evidently, many too many of our current leaders hiding the truth of global warming as well as "poisoning the well" of public discourse
Too many of our politicians, economists, big-business execs and the talking heads in the mass media are all "whistling the same tune." What is even worse is the way they entice appointees and surrogates to whistle that same tune, too. After all, who can resist offerings of great wealth, power and privileges that accrue to those who go along with what is political convenient, economically expedient, religiously tolerated and socially agreeable.
Not only are too many leaders hiding the truth, they are also actively involved in poisoning the well of public discourse in the process. And for what? Evermore power, wealth and privileges for themselves and their minions so they can carefreely play out the "conspicuous consumption fantasies" of their "Me Generation" by living long, living large and living unsustainably, come what may, having forsaken the future of their children and forgotten how human life depends upon Earth's limited resources and frangible ecosystem services for its very existence.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 9:12 am
17 Nov 2007
What amount of years would you suggest is an appropriate human lifespan?
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:04 am
18 Nov 2007
Not too long. It seems to me that is important to remember that we do not live forever.
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:11 am
18 Nov 2007
You are not dreaming. Here is more valuable work from other great colleagues at the Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia, USA.
http://www.atlantajournal-constitution.com/
http://tinyurl.com/3dd7mb
GEORGIA'S WATER CRISIS: THE POWER OF WATER
Drought could put us in dark: Electric utilities are the biggest
users of Georgia's freshwater, but their role has been largely
ignored.
By Ken Foskett, Margaret Newkirk, Stacy Shelton
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
November 18, 2007
Historic drought worsens and the tri-state water battle
escalates, Georgia policymakers are all but ignoring the region's
biggest water guzzler.
Electric utilities are the single largest users of the region's
freshwater. A family of four can use three times more water to power
their home than they use to drink, bathe and water their lawn.
In Georgia, electric utilities use 68 percent of all surface water,
the single largest user in the state, according to 2000 data from the
U.S. Geological Survey, the latest year available.
"We've been working really hard over the years to tell people when
they flip that light switch, the water is running," said Sara
Barczak, with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an advocacy
group.
Yet the link between power generation and water use has been
virtually ignored in the debate over how to fairly allocate the
region's water resources and plan for growth.
Neither of the region's principal blueprints for water use --- the
state water plan and the North Georgia metro water plan --- include
strategies for managing water demand by the power industry.
Where does water come up? In the state's official energy plan. It
quotes research that makes the connection: The public "may indirectly
consume as much water turning on the lights and running appliances as
they directly use taking showers and watering lawns."
Carol Couch, director of the state Environmental Protection Division,
declined an interview request to explain why the state water strategy
doesn't include conservation by the biggest water user. Kevin
Chambers, an EPD spokesman, said utility water use would be discussed
in the next round of planning, examining the specific water
requirements in the state's 14 water basins.............................................
Sincerely,
Steve
Permalink
justlou Posted 5:58 am
18 Nov 2007
Lou
Permalink
hugopottisch Posted 9:07 am
18 Nov 2007
In his article Is Humanity Suicidal and in his book The Future of Life - he argues that given land and water usage of livestock agriculture - we have to decrease our animal products while increasing our technology.
The UN has since confirmed all this as well as the WWF.
I take it that Joseph Romm is a vegetarian/vegan?? Or what does he mean by: technology alone won't do? I hope he does not merely make the case for government policies - that is what Wilson wants too! I hope Joseph walks the talk.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 11:29 am
18 Nov 2007
Joe Brewer of the excellent Rockridge Institute has a similar analyis here. Here's an excerpt:
How can Revkin lump these extremists together under the label "centrist?" Conservative think tanks have bombarded the media with stories that frame environmental activists as doomsday alarmists. At the same time, they have framed climate contrarians as "prudent skeptics" who "don't believe" the mythical tale of climate disruption. It appears Revkin is passing on these distorted characterizations.
Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to draw N&S into the same "centrist" company, since they are critical of market fundamentalism (as well as regulation) in favor of immediate positive government intervention.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 7:18 am
19 Nov 2007
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Latest statistics:
11 of the past 12 years (1995-2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in instrumental records of global surface temperatures (since 1850)
Global average sea level has risen since 1961 at an average rate of 1.8mm per year - but since 1993 at an average rate of 3.1mm
Temperature changes will depend on how much CO2 is emitted, but different scenarios see the increase by 2100 ranging from 0.3C to 6.4C
Up to 30 per cent of the world's species are at increased risk of extinction after a 2C temperature rise
Between 75 million and 250 million people in Africa could suffer water shortages by 2020; in Asia, heavily-populated "mega-deltas" are at greatly increased risk of flooding; tropical forest in eastern Amazonia will turn to savannah by mid-century.......................
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink