There are ongoing debates about the best way to address global warming, with most centering on whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme is best (or some combination of the two). There are also some lively, though less extensive, debates about the extent to which we should balance our attempts to reduce global warming with mitigating its effects.
I would like to shift the focus a little and ask the question: which policies will best promote technological innovation? Simple demographics and economic trends make it impossible to significantly curtail greenhouse gas emissions without major technological advances.
By the end of the century the earth's population will likely be in the range of 9 billion, a roughly 50 percent increase. Even though most of those people will be born in what are now developing countries, by the time the century comes to an end they will have enjoyed significant economic growth (as will have those in the developed world) and perhaps moved into the ranks of the wealthy.These two facts alone mean that if we relied on the technology of today, humanity in 2100 would by default emit many more times the greenhouse gases we currently do.
And yet, if we're to tackle global warming, we need reductions of 50-80 percent from current levels. Do the math and there are only two options: massive increases in technology, or massive reductions in material living standards. This essential conclusion is inescapable (with one major exception -- see below).
Technological innovations can come in many forms and include more fuel-efficient cars, greener buildings, and new renewable energy sources. It makes sense to investigate whether the types of policies currently on the table are the best at helping to promote innovations in these areas. We also need to think more creatively. For example, should prizes for discoveries play a bigger role? How can we best support the development of technologies that don't even exist yet (but as history shows, will surely be a part of the mix)?
We also need to investigate which policies will have the most direct impact on shifting consumption patterns. This last point brings me to one area where a reduction in per capita consumption would likely be a good thing for people's wellbeing: animal consumption. When the price of carbon (and other scarce resources) is eventually factored into the price of animal products, these staples of modern life will become much more expensive and people's ability (and desire) to purchase them will decline sharply.
Whereas most people would justifiably feel poorer if they couldn't vacation as much or own as much furniture, they might find that eating less animal products is a blessing in disguise; not only would this reduction dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but it would improve their health as well.
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
The must-read solutions book by Al Gore
Comments
View as Flat
wiscidea Posted 8:23 am
24 Jul 2007
http://www.xprize.org/
Taps into the competitive spirit and greed of the average human being. And not just for the fancy shmancy stuff. There should be an x prize for key advances in, say, organic agriculture. Identify a bottleneck in production, come up with some cash, and reward the person who solves the problem.
Forward!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:27 am
24 Jul 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:29 am
24 Jul 2007
But my perception is that too many people equate "technology" with "future technology."
We've had, and will always have, a mix of past and present ... with future winners arriving as they may.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 8:38 am
24 Jul 2007
You write that:
"And yet, if we're to tackle global warming, we need reductions of 50-80 percent from current levels. Do the math and there are only two options: massive increases in technology, or massive reductions in material living standards."
These are not the only two choices, they are simply the only two that make it into political debate. Pick any consequence of fossil fuel consumption, from global warming to national security impacts, and there are broadly three classes of solutions:
Reductions in living standards. Metaphorically, think Jimmy Carter's sweater. It is a failure of the environmentalist movement that this is widely held up as the only way to conserve, therefore tying up environmental motives in economic debates. But it is an option.
Fuel switching. There are many different fuel chains out there, each with different consequences. We responded to 70s/80s OPEC shocks by substantially reducing the amount of power generated from oil (and making it up with coal). When NYC was awash in horse manure at the turn of the 20th century, the gasoline-fueled automobile represented another fuel switch, widely touted for its environmental benefit. Trade offs to be sure, but we have this class of solutions. Whatever else his foibles, Dick Cheney gets this one, and so he encourages clean coal and nuke as a way to lessen our dependence on foreign oil & gas.
Boost energy conversion efficiency. As Amory Lovins has said, people don't want Btus and kWhs - they want warm beds and cold beer. Boost the conversion efficiency from raw fuel to useful products and you get drastic reductions in fuel use per unit of upstream fuel consumption.
Ultimately, population growth swamps out any of these, and I don't suggest that any alone is a silver bullet - but all solutions have their place. Note that while options (2) and (3) can be met with technology, technological development is the solution only if there are no existing technologies out there to do the job.
And on this point, I raise two observations:
Robert Ayres has calculated that worldwide conversion of raw energy into useful, delivered energy is just 6%. This is rather remarkable, but not that surprising when you think about it. (33% fuel conversion efficiency in central power plants x 90% distribution efficiency x 10 - 20% lighting efficiency quickly gets you down to these numbers. Transportation is even worse when you realize how much of the energy in our fuel is lost in the exhaust and transmission system). However, it also presents a tremendous opportunity. Could we get this to 12%? If so, we cut fossil energy use in half. How about 20%. Dare we dream even higher? My point is not to cap our ambition, but simply to point out the massive reductions in energy use that can be accomplished by energy efficiency - in most cases, with proven technologies that are currently blocked from coming to market through a variety of legislative barriers. These become the challenge. Not R&D, but legislative reform.
Apropos of that final sentence, the single biggest industry in the US (and probably the world) has no incentive to pursue efficiency. Our electric sector is regulated in cost-plus models that incentivize over-consumption of energy. It also releases 1/3 of all our CO2 emissions. This is the place for legislative reform to start.
Permalink
EcoReason Posted 12:20 pm
24 Jul 2007
The technology that would most help us is a truly global education, not the shallow sloganeering that's all the fashion, but actual knowledge and information -- Americans (gristmillees included) are mostly myopic, ill-informed, self-centered, and generally ignorant of the conditions under which most people on the planet live. Use global media to inform and educate the worst offenders - us.
But, this won't be accomplished without using another technology, the law, to remove the corporate stranglehold on information and technology development.
Do these two things and a conscience will do the rest. Of that, I am confident.
Peace,
K.
Permalink
Ken Fabos Posted 12:20 pm
24 Jul 2007
Whilst I doubt Patent Law would be easy or likely to undergo major change, I do think 20 years of exclusive rights could be holding back innovation. Perhaps the originator of a new technology should have that 20years but purchasers of it have only 5 or 10 years (whilst retaining the right to licensing royalties). Or maybe it needs a different kind of intervention - Public money purchasing promising innovation and putting it into the public domain. Or just paying the innovators to give up the exclusivity but not the right to licensing royalties.
These are just thoughts, perhaps not deeply thought out, but I do know we need to see solutions developed and deployed quickly. It would be more than disappointing to learn that low cost PV or significant improvements to batteries languished because the patent holder failed to resource it's development whilst simultaneously declined to allow anyone else do so.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:37 pm
24 Jul 2007
I hope that's not why "gristmillees" (like so many other blog based value networks are stuck on "future tech."
But until someone explains it to me, I'm open to ideas. Maybe we need that future-tech to continue our entitled lives?
To borrow from another thread, don't wait for "a federal- and state-financed infrastructure bank that would be a source of funds for any town that wants to have a town center" ... get out there and walk.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:46 pm
24 Jul 2007
Greener Electricity
Greener Transportation
Greener Agriculture
Reduced destruction of rainforests and peatlands.
Reduced Resource Demand (i.e. Efficiency)
Fix those 5 problems in short order and you've got it solved.
Of course High Tech isn't always the answer to these problems. Low Tech can often serve just as good or better.
_
The real question is if we need to create a hugely elaborate tax structure to enable this.
For instance, wouldn't we be better off supplying buy-down incentives for purchasing products?
(i.e. Knocking $ off the cost of buying a cleaner car based on it's CO2/mile rating)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:47 pm
24 Jul 2007
Permalink
wayneluke Posted 1:25 pm
24 Jul 2007
I do think though that instead of x-prizes, or maybe alongside them, business should be rewarded for truly innovative products that are energy efficient and go beyond the standards. If the MPG standard is 35 miles/gallon and GM builds a 70 mile/gallon vehicle then they should get tax subsidies/credits. It would be a new way of distributing the subsidies and credits available already. A utility may get them as they hit certain milestones- 50% renewable, 75% renewable, etc...
However more than just technology has to change. There is the technology to live a lot more efficiently than we do but people don't use it. We need to start. If habits change and the technology changes efficiency and power generation, we could be truly carbon neutral in 2100. Probably a pipe dream, I know but really humans are ingenious when we actually try.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:54 pm
24 Jul 2007
Improved efficiency is improved technology
I think many of you don't appreciate the scale of the problem- here's some numbers
say our current level of greenhouse gas emissions is represented by 100
scientists say we need to reduce it by 80%, which means down to 20
based on nothing more than reasonable population and economic growth projections that 100 will probably be somewhere in the range of 5000-10000 by 2100 if we simply multiplied today's per capita consumption by the new numbers of people and their wealth
this means that that 80% reduction from today is much much harder to achieve
We DO NOT have the technology right now that could achieve this
3. As to incentives, this is the key- more on this later- but they have to thought out very carefully since there are often unintended consequences
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:03 pm
24 Jul 2007
If I find a fun family vacation that is 200 miles away, instead of 2000 miles away, is that technology?
If I find something interesting to do in town on a Saturday, rather than 50 miles away, is that technology?
... I think we get in venues like this that choices like that matter, but I really think in the wider world the message that "technology is the solution is taken a bit differently."
I think the common idea is that technology will save us from choices, or changes to our lifestyles. I mean "the man on the street" is likely to think that his 100 MPG Plug-In Hybrid will also be a Tahoe.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:28 pm
24 Jul 2007
The more important point that I hope people take away is that changes in behavior are not sufficient. They can help (as in reducing animal consumption, driving less, etc.) but given population and economic growth we need massive innovation too regardless.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:38 pm
24 Jul 2007
If a bike ride serves me as well as a drive, then it has replaced it, for me, at a much higher efficiency. And maybe utility is just grins per mile.
I actually reject the constrained, semantic, versions of the words "conservation" and "efficiency" because they lead to pointless and abstract discussions.
What matters, obviously, here in the real world is how many people hop on bikes (or just take a walk).
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:40 pm
24 Jul 2007
If you live a happy (or happier) life on a smaller footprint, does it matter if some pedant comes in to do "conservation" versus "efficiency" accounting?
I think not. Walls between solutions are not needed.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:43 pm
24 Jul 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
odograph Posted 11:47 pm
24 Jul 2007
I didn't think we had a single solution a hand here. I thought it would be thousands of small things all at once ...
What the heck is your game, that "technology" is really, secretly, "one thing" and "the solution?"
Technology doesn't even work that way.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:23 am
25 Jul 2007
Agree that efficiency means technology. The point I was making is that that we need to appreciate the difference between technological development and technological deployment. Barriers to the former are fundamental R&D, but barriers to the latter are regulatory. My point is that most environmental conversation treats technology as synonymous with R&D, and therefore misses the opportunity for the most cost-effective forms of energy reduction. Both have their place, of course, but a focus only on R&D (even if unintentional) makes the debate one of economics vs. environment, which it need not be.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:24 am
25 Jul 2007
For instance, Gar Lipow has a whole sereies on how to solve global problems with current technology. The idea is to model possible ways to restructure the civilization using current technology. For instance, if everyone lived in walkable neighborhoods, with local gardening/agriculture, and decentralized wind/solar energy, and rebuilt manufacturing based on recycling, the energy/material needs would be massively reduced. Have you seen sophisticated attempts to show how emissions can be cut by 80% or so, and then rebuttals of those attempts?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:31 am
25 Jul 2007
Trying to get much gains through changes in public behavior is going to be pretty slim.
Only way you can make it the public change is by:
Realtime Direct feedback on emmisions. (Time is empherial but the Clock makes it a reality)
Economic Incentives/Disincentives
Make it dead simple (i.e. Flourecent Lightbulbs)
That said, our time, and money would be far better spent on changing the behavior of politicians, and lobbying organizations than it would be to change our own behavior.
We need exponential change, not incremental change.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:37 am
25 Jul 2007
I'd say it is a thousand little things: cultural, economic, and policy related.
One thing's for sure though, they are not operating with some "future tech" we don't have.
(It is really absurd that we think we need advanced tech to do what they have already done with (by definition) past tech.)
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:42 am
25 Jul 2007
Long Standing Institutions
Economic Policies
Cultural probably plays in less compared to those two.
As for UK and Japan specifically. When you live on an Island with a large population, conservation of resources is much easier to sell.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:44 am
25 Jul 2007
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:55 am
25 Jul 2007
Messy human response often appears as cultural moves mirrored by government mandate, or vis-versa.
Your tax to $7 gas is a case in point. It would only happen if the culture supported it. And if the culture supported it, they would probably already be moving in other ways.
It was really interesting for me to see that in the early 80's our US fleet MPG climbed rapidly, and ahead of the new CAFE regulation. Our culture supported CAFE because they were ready for it, and already moving that way.
Of course, the other way to look at $7 is "how soon do you think we'll get there anyway?" I'd say within ten years is a safe bet, and that will reinforce efficiency/conservation/whatsit trends we see around us.
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:58 am
25 Jul 2007
They have the "programes" because they have the belief and culture to support it.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:49 am
25 Jul 2007
R&D to reduce how much harm those activities and products inflict on the environment.
Slick marketing campaign to persuade people to switch to the new eco-friendly activity or product.
Are there any non-profit think tanks looking at this?
Forward!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:50 am
25 Jul 2007
Some of you keep missing the point- go back and read my responses above regarding the numbers- you are not factoring in population growth and the fact that the 2/3 of the world that are poor are not going to be poor and they are trading in bikes for cars.
Of course the "solution" will be many small things, not some magic bullet- I'm just saying that many of those small things will be the cumulative effects of technological change
I am sure that there are scenarios in which if we changed the fundamental structure of society in multiple ways we could decrease consumption dramatically but a. see point 1 above and b. I don't think most people want to live that way (i.e. references to culture above)
Yes, people in the EU and Japan use much less energy than us but a. again see point 1 and b. their population densities are much greater- but yes, we could at least get halfway towards them with current technologies and c. their energy use is growing faster than ours- see
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumpti ...
5. I'd take $5 gas any day- not only to curb pollution but so that we stop subsidizing terrorists
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:28 am
25 Jul 2007
Jason, you seem to think that point is going to get more persuasive if you keep repeating it, using more and more capital letters. But you can't make it true by fiat.
We have the necessary technology. The needed changes are regulatory, legislative, legal, and social. The two main forces working against us are the stranglehold on political power exercised by large, dirty industries and the ingrained bad habits of individuals and businesses.
The argument that magical future technology will save us -- or worse, that nothing but magical future technology can save us -- serves no one but entrenched powers that benefit from the status quo. It's an argument that's deployed against the thousands of legal and regulatory changes we could make today that would have immediate benefits. It's an argument that encourages public apathy. It's wrong on the merits, and disastrous as a communications strategy.
grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:35 am
25 Jul 2007
And technology is affected largely by regulation- that was stated plainly in the last paragraph of the post- i.e. policy=regulation. You completely misread the post. You should pay more attention to the specifics of what I say if you want to critique them.
And finally, no, an emphasis on future technology does not only benefit entrenched powers. That is a completely ignorant statement. I'm amazed that you would believe that. Tell that to the Silicon Valley startups in renewable energy that will become dominant in the next decades.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:39 am
25 Jul 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:46 am
25 Jul 2007
It killed the EV-1.
Yes DR, we do indeed have the necessary technology to do the job right now. No need to wait for pie-in-the-sky (when you die, by and by).
The GM Volt design (with half the horsepower for regular family cars), conservation, geothermal heating/cooling, massive industrial scale wind, and solar PV on every suitable roof. A distributed renewable grid that uses the thermal mass in every human facility from the micro...your home freezer ...to every mega building and factory to store power and match demand and supply. Facilitated by internet over the grid. It's all currently available technology.
I know you dislike it Jason, but read up on these technologies, you'll see our point.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:47 am
25 Jul 2007
Yes, I'm bringing up GMOs again.
Why? Because it is an example of an ongoing problem. Environmentalists reject certain institutions and technology, demonizing them instead of trying to address the real problems and actually finding a ways to use those institution and technological advances to reduce harm to the environment.
I'm sure there are other examples... technological, political, social, economic.
There is no need to discuss GMOs in this thread, but I would like to know whether there is a larger problem... rejection of potentially viable solutions... due to a strict fundamentalist element among environmentalists.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:50 am
25 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:50 am
25 Jul 2007
If your point is that regulations can encourage the use of existing technologies, spreading them and reducing their costs via economies of scale, well ... sure. But "technology is the solution" is a weird way to put that.
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:56 am
25 Jul 2007
There is no way, pace Wackernagel and others, that this planet can support much more than what it is now supporting. If you think that the numbers will get way above 100, then I suppose you're assuming a spectacular economic crash when we run out of everything.
Numbers do not mean extrapolating from current consumption; they mean understanding the totals available, and then modeling the consequences of growth patterns, which ecologists do all the time.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 3:10 am
25 Jul 2007
Is it entirely neccisary that we create some massively complex trading and tax scheme to deal with this?
Wouldn't it be easier to simply charge some quick and dirty proxy taxes and get done with it?
For instance, Road Tax isn't changed by how many miles you drive. It's simply rolled into the cost of gasoline.
While we could do it by measuring every car, that would require massive oversight, and be largely no different than the original.
So obviously we want the policies and the cool technology. The real question is why do we need to engage in the beuarucratic circus to get it done?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:15 am
25 Jul 2007
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:56 am
25 Jul 2007
And Jon R.- the point of the mathematical exercise was to show that currently levels of consumption with current technology are not sustainable- and guess what that means? We need improved technology! I'm fully aware of resource constraints.
Anyway, I'll let you all have the final word. Next post will expand on the types of policies that promote and disseminate technology, since to my knowledge there is no one serious who can look at the trends and not come to the basic conclusion that we're going to need some major breakthroughs and widespread adoption of those breakthroughs.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 8:15 pm
26 Jul 2007
Will look forward to your next post. I hope you address this concern: Given that the lead times to get new technologies to market are on the order of decades, and the IEA is predicting oil shortfalls within five years, do you agree that we will be trying to develop new technologies just as we begin the net-energy downslope?
Just how "fully aware of resource constraints" are you? Is your bet that oil won't rise above $65/barrel in the next 5 years still on? What is your latest thinking on peak oil and substitutes?
Permalink