A couple of years ago, Al Gore made the case, in a film called An Inconvenient Truth, that we have a big problem called global warming. But the film was not effective at pointing to a solution. Humans evolved to consider a crisis as a challenge, as long as a solution is readily available. Otherwise, panic or resignation sets in.
Now, Gore has moved a significant step further by arguing that all sources of electricity should be carbon-free -- in other words, all of our electricity should be generated using wind, solar, or geothermal power, instead of coal, natural gas, or oil.
The next step should be to explain how we move to a fossil fuel-free electrical system. Gore continues to advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but it feels like he's searching for something else, something that would be part of the effort to clean up the energy system.
He might consider the idea that rebuilding the manufacturing economy by building solar and wind equipment would not only lead to a carbon-free system, but also would revive the national economy and the middle class.
This line of argument would solve two problems at the same time: How to build the necessary infrastructure, and how to explain that doing so will lead to economic growth, not to huge costs. As anyone who saw his interview on Meet the Press will attest, the conventional wisdom seems to be that greening the economy will be costly. This, while an economy built on the assumption of cheap oil heads for a major depression as the inevitable takes place -- cheap oil becomes expensive oil.
In other words, we -- and I don't mean just the campaign -- need to explain that preventing the worst of global warming is the solution to our current economic problems. Gore already laid down a great line:
When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.
So building solar and wind-based electrical systems can reverse the decline of the middle class. If you argue that manufacturing is the foundation of a wealthy economy, you challenge the myth that we don't need manufacturing. Wind and solar energy are completely dependent on manufacturing competence, whereas fossil fuel energy is dependent on political power over a piece of territory.
By emphasizing the manufacturing capability to produce solar and wind machinery, Gore can lay down the vision for a set of policies that can lead to full employment, that is, virtually anyone who wants a good job can get a good job. That set of policies would encompass, according to Gar Lipow's formulation, the three legs of a carbon-free policy system: Carbon pricing, regulation, and public investment. All could be directed toward the expansion of domestic firms and domestic jobs, solving our biggest environmental and economic problems at the same time.
If we continue to use fossil fuels, we will destroy the possibility for economic growth; if we construct a carbon-free economy, we will solve the economic crisis by solving the climate crisis.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Climate talks timeline: From 350 to Kyoto to Copenhagen and beyond
Comments
View as Flat
gmobus Posted 4:45 am
23 Jul 2008
Basically, if we think about this effort as restoring economic growth then we are doomed to failure. Economic growth, as it has been defined by neoclassical thinking, is the cause of a great deal of the harm we are now doing. If you have not investigated Ecological Economics, then please see:
An Introduction to Ecological Economics by Robert Costanza, John H Cumberland, Herman Daly, Robert Goodland, and Richard B Norgaard
ISBN-10: 1884015727
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:09 am
23 Jul 2008
The basis of quality growth is improvement in production machinery of various sorts, including for example solar panels, and in the machinery that we all use, such as computers. While historically better machinery has led to quantity growth, you can basically grow quantitatively by using the same old equipment, just mining more or building more or producing more.
It's much easier to see quality growth, I think, if we measure growth by the increase in capital of all kinds, including natural capital, and not the increase in the flow of goods and services. In the former accounting, the use of oil decreases capital, while in the standard kind, it increasse it.
So what I'm saying is that you could have a steady-state economy, to use Herman Daly's terminology, that's growing, although that sounds like an oxymoron. But I think it's legitimate -- some things can grow, and not effect the long-term viability of the biosphere/economy, and some things can't. solar/wind could probably grow for a long time, subject to constraints on steel and aluminum, while fossil fuel-based economies can't, because they both destroy the basis of the economy and they eventually run out.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 5:36 am
23 Jul 2008
Outside of government, could he even question the collosal waste of people, money and prestige that is the core of American foreign policy? And advocate redirecting our resources homeward?
Permalink
Millstone Posted 5:56 am
23 Jul 2008
I know many bemoan incrementalism; however, moving forward in a rapid fashion could easily cause price increase in electricity so sharp that it could encourage firms in energy intensive areas to move elsewhere. I know, I know we can lower taxes, shift things around but with the speed of our government the factories will be mothballed by then.
A slow transition would mean more time to prepare and implement energy efficiency projects in such industries and give people in general more time to adjust to what might seem like a new way of life.
There is a much greater risk of unintended consequences if we rush things.
Permalink
billkav Posted 6:16 am
23 Jul 2008
The other critical point is showing how confronting the climate crisis is good for the economy. I made a bit of a stab at that and welcome more good ideas to add.
Hopefully, Mr. Gore and his organization will continue to show how meeting the challenges posed by the climate crisis can not only help us survive as a species, but thrive as we become innovators.
Here's a link to my post this morning:
http://billsrants.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/07/americas- ...
Permalink
gmobus Posted 6:26 am
23 Jul 2008
I do think, however, that there is danger in the use of terms like growth that has historical context. Most people, and all neoclassical economists think of growth as an increase in GDP quarter to quarter. Aside from the deep problems associated with GDP as a measure of well being, people in general still believe that increasing GDP means the economy is healthy. They think this because growing GDP and low jobless rates have correlated in the past. If the objective is to maintain a low jobless rate then it follows that we need an increasing GDP. Moreover the quality of jobs counts for something.
That is what most people think about when someone is talking about growing the economy.
What you are suggesting is that one sector of the economy - alternative energy equipment production, installation, and maintenance (and David's mention of labor involved in retrofitting efficiency measures in buildings) - is growing while another sector - power generation, etc. - declines. That is really substitution at work. So in terms of providing jobs in one sector while diminishing jobs in another is hardly growth. It isn't even development because we are trading in one form of energy production that produces very high quality energy per unit of investment and labor for another that requires higher investment in land and other resources, possibly including labor, for lesser quality energy production. There is a substantial possibility that we will all be poorer in terms of energy to do useful work after this.
I remain leery of using terms like economic growth when it comes to thinking about planning how a conversion could be done effectively. If people take that rhetoric as promises for a brighter future (in their minds - the American dream, if you will) and end up having to grow their own food and shod their own horses, at least metaphorically speaking, then how do you think they are going to react? When the jobs available are hard labor to retrofit buildings and recover/recycle scrap do you think people will feel they were lied to about economic growth?
Regardless of whether or not there is any kind of improvement in our economics, I favor attempting Gore's proposal for the simple reason that it does start to address the most egregious part of CO2 emissions, but more so because we are going to hit peak fossil fuel energy within the next decade or two. A combination of effort to reduce electrical energy consumption (which has implications for plug-in or EV solutions for transportation) and increase renewable sources would go a long way to solving our problem, or at least reducing the problems with climate change adaptation.
As for Gore's plan, I don't know what he has in mind, but I do know there is a rational approach.
Get energy engineers, physicists, and other energy scientists to evaluate feasibility for a number of scenarios. Let the thermodynamics decide what is likely to work. Rule 1. Don't rely on as-yet-undetermined technology to produce a magic result. Get Charlie Hall from SUNY Environmental Science & Forestry and/or David Orr from Oberlin to head this up.
Let the ecological economists into the room to help work out the economic constraints and requirements. They can fabricate a much more holistic plan. Costanza, Daly, et al.
Last of all let in the policy makers and political types to formulate a set of policy instruments that are targeted to specific goals laid out by the above. Slap their wrists when they violate a previously determined constraint. Lester Brown might be a good organizer.
Model the process of change-over from fossil to renewable sources. This would be a systems dynamics model of the two industries and their interrelations embedded in realistic ecological assumptions, including climate adaptation scenarios. The model should provide guidance as to where the leverage points might be.
Now, what is the likelihood that a rational project management process will ensue? The first people into the room will be the politicos. They'll ask the scientists when they think they need to. And they'll get advise from neoclassical energy economists (who have been oh so helpful in predicting the current crises!) We are so used to working this way that most people can't even imagine any other way. And we will get the same kinds of results we got with corn ethanol!
But I hope I'm wrong.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:10 am
23 Jul 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 10:47 am
23 Jul 2008
The classic book on building cities without cars is J.H. Crawford's "Car-free cities". I recently saw a video about Melbourne, I believe from a Grist post, showing how they have taken the streets back from cars to an amazing extent. Light rail, bikes, and people.
Constructing cities and towns that were made for people, not cars, would also turn the economy around -- and it would be sustainable. For thousands of years humans lived in walkable communities, it was the only possibility. Walkable communities are inherently less energy-consuming, in fact, less of most everything consuming. So, it's the world's oldest and best known way to make a sustainable world.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:14 am
23 Jul 2008
I think that it's important to take back the phrase "economic growth" from conservatives. Neoclassical economists don't even have a real theory of economic growth, as I explain in the above-referenced post. So it's ridiculous to simply give it to them. If what people want is a better life,then the argument needs to be made as to why a sustainable economy would be better -- and it might take quite a bit of explaining to do. Would millions of people want to become farmers? I don't know, but I'm sure most people would want cheap, fresh, healthy local food. would they want a world without big fast cars? maybe not, it would take a lot of explaining to show them that living in a walkable community could be better. But I think the attempt must be made.
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 12:03 pm
23 Jul 2008
All I see you mentioning are Wind, Solar and later, Geothermal.
You completely ignore biofuels even after I made it clear that there are good workable and ready to build non-food based biofuel systems available that already do everything you claim could happen with other renewable sources.
You also ignore the importance of increases in the efficiency of the use of energy and curbing demand such as I address in my comments about increasing the number of energy efficient homes that are built, especially in cooperation with infrastructure improvements you (rightly) recommend in your responses later.
Please tell me this is just an oversight on your part due to shortage of time or other constraints.
Here is a copy of what I am referring to:
How about roughly 69% in two years?
Seriously, not trolling, not kidding.
Two key technologies combined can do it that quickly.
1. Non-food based biofuel production using an integrated system of biodiesel, integrated methane digestion and composting fed to high efficiency fuel cells or cogeneration equipment, while returning the organics to the earth as clean safe fertilizer. Benefit, roughly 33% of the energy needed, all while being profitable and cost effective and quick to build.
(Fertilizer use ends up cutting still more out of the fossil fuel dependency problem but I don't have a firm percentage at the moment so that is not in the 69% mentioned.)
2. High energy efficiency housing. There are several alternative housing technologies around now which cut 90% or more of the energy used in an average home. With roughly 40% of the energy use in America going to home use that translates to roughly 36% energy savings.
With the housing market down and so many people losing their homes, good cost effective housing can and should be a huge focus. Quite a few of these homes could be built and ready for use in as little as six months.
Combine these two and you get 69% energy reduction, using very thumbnail calculations admittedly but the point is that the technology to do a big part of it is already here and reliable, cheap and profitable.
We just need either government or investors with the backbone to step up and it could start happening very quickly.
I know this because it is what I have been working on since 1982, long before such things were fashionable.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
by Applied Ecotechnics at 7:39 AM on 22 Jul 2008
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:53 pm
23 Jul 2008
Permalink
treestump Posted 1:03 pm
23 Jul 2008
flying under the radar
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 1:10 pm
23 Jul 2008
However I am including biofuels as a critical component of renewable generation of electricity.
Certainly you can see the value of turning every sewage plant in the world into an eco positive renewable energy source, while at the same time reducing the damage done by the need for sewage treatment and landfills.
If and when carbon sequestration becomes viable then such systems will become even more ecopositive.
Also, at least for now, electric vehicle technology does not seem to hold much promise in the heavy torque areas where it seems quite likely that the need for biodiesel will be around for quite some time.
A system of using organic waste products to grow biodiesel fuels in either an algae based system or a system that uses reclaimed lands such as industrial sites and old strip mines is productive both as an energy alternative and as a way to reclaim such lands and bring them back to a more natural condition.
Lastly, there is still one other problem with the all electric option. The basic laws of thermodynamics, specifically the issue of conversion of energy types into different forms being always less than 100% efficient. Right now it is much more efficient to use natural gas for many applications than it is to use electricity, such as most applications which require some form of heating.
I don't see how you are going to get around this fundamental inefficiency of an all electrical approach.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:10 pm
23 Jul 2008
The extreme anti vehicle position of Wolvi and others is no threat to renewable electric transportation. The contention of fuel farm advocates that the only way to replace oil is with GMO agrichem tree and crop fuel farming is a dangerous false dilemna.
We need to defend plugin hybrid drivetrain technology from these shills for gas guzzling as usual.
The call to vastly reduce car traffic is not a big problem, that can continue along with a shift to plugin hybrids and renewable electric mass transit and walkable/bikeable cities. Let the anti-car folks have their say and influence.
These fellers who want to send our forests and fields and entire ecosystems out their tail pipes? They need to be stopped.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Squee546 Posted 3:46 pm
23 Jul 2008
tell me this with no cars how would our military be able to mobilize and fight when other countries have cars?
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 7:57 pm
23 Jul 2008
Also a hybrid still needs fuel.
As you also well know, there are more ways to grow biodiesel crops than to use land that is already a farm or forest. There are more than enough acres of damaged industrial grounds which will benefit environmentally from being used to grow biodiesel crops.
While you are at it find me good solid proof that you can make a clothes dryer and water heater that operates more efficiently with electricity than natural gas.
Sure, there are alternatives, clothes lines, but some days it is rainy, and you can use other ways to heat water but in many applications natural gas or some similar form of gaseous fuel is still more efficient and efficiency is key factor in cutting waste and thus demand and environmental damage.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 8:10 pm
23 Jul 2008
Right now we can greatly reduce the use of dino-diesel by using the residue left over from methane disgestion applied on old strip mine land and have a workable alternative without taking away any farm or forest land.
There are also the benefits to the watershed that will occur from these lands being properly managed and their erosion and saturated runoff being reduced.
So that said, I would appreciate it if people, such as you Drx, would stop lumping all biofuels and all biofuel farming approaches together, because it is simply not valid to make such gross over generalizations.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:04 am
24 Jul 2008
As for tractors, my feeling is that as oil depletes, eventually there will be rationing to make sure oil gets to the most important, required sectors, and that will certainly include tractors and trucks to get food to market. But in the long-term, I'm sure electric tractors will be possible, but more importantly, I think that agriculture will shift to local, small-sized, organic farming, with minimal use of tractors, and much more labor.
As for biofuels, I think that there are many small-scale applications in which biofuels can be used sustainably, and perhaps biodiesel for a certain amount of tractor work is one of them, but I'd emphasize small-scale, as soon as we talk about running cars, planes, and trucks on biofuels, that's when it gets crazy. That leaves 30% left over, including agricultural uses of oil, and much of that can be shifted to electricity, with the rest needing biofeedstocks for chemicals, etc and a little for internal combustion engines.
Permalink
Applied Ecotechnics Posted 12:39 pm
24 Jul 2008
Meanwhile, there are some very nice hybrid tractors coming along and those are of course and excellent path toward fully electrical tractors.
I also agree that smaller scale farming and local energy production with microgrids is an important part of the energy infrastructure, and will be more reliable, cost effective and efficient.
Visit our website or email us for more information as we are actively looking for people to work with to help improve the future of our civilization.
Permalink