Comments Teryn Norris has made

  • "Most importantly, carbon pricing (whether carbon tax or cap-and-trade) cannot do the job on its own. If complementary policies are ruled out, we’re dooming ourselves to failure. (I’m going to make this point at much more length soon. Aren’t you excited.)"

    Well said, David.  Carbon pricing has an important role to play, but the neoclassical economists are dead wrong that a pollution externality can be solved simply by pricing the pollutant, just as many climate advocates are wrong that it can be solved by implementing a pollution "cap." As the World Economic Forum explained in a recent report:

    "Carbon prices alone, however, will not be high enough -- at least for the next few decades -- to prompt a large-scale roll-out of renewable energy... Prices will be set for many years to come by cheaper sources of credit -- energy efficiency and project-based mechanisms in the developing world. So a carbon price is an essential driver towards a lower carbon economy, but additional policy interventions will still be required."

    Looking forward to your longer review of additional policy strategies.

    On Economist Greg Mankiw's bottom line on climate policy: Government can't do anything right posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

  • Joe, at the end of your post you assert that William and I have "utterly misrepresented" the findings of the report in our post, which is here:

    http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/08/tony_blair_climate_group_and_c.shtml

    Perhaps you can explain your assertion. Also, given that you've strongly endorsed and advocated for ACES, which would result in a low or modest price on carbon, and given that you're proposing a price collar, perhaps you can explain your assertion that you support a "strong carbon price."  Maybe you have a new definition of "strong," similar to your definitions of "breakthrough" and "decarbonization"?  As you know, the Breakthrough Institute supports a modest price on carbon, with the mass majority of all revenue dedicated to clean energy technology development and deployment.

    On Tony Blair, Climate Group, and CAP call for strong technology deployment policy posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • Breakthrough Institute does in fact support a price on carbon, contrary to the unfortunate (and sometimes willful) mis-characterizations of our position.  We've made this clear in our two-page policy recommendations brief and our "Let the Record Stand."  We also strongly advocate for major public investment in the direct deployment of low-carbon energy technology, not only R&D, consistently advocating that the federal government invest $30 billion per year in the deployment of low-carbon energy sources (along with $15 billion per year in clean energy R&D).

    Unfortunately, Joe Romm repeatedly misrepresents our position on this front, falsely claiming that we are only for radical breakthroughs in technology driven by basic R&D.  Whereas the Breakthrough Institute strongly supports public investment in deployment, Romm consistently recycles his assertion that no significant technological breakthroughs are necessary to successfully tackle the global energy and climate challenge, contradicting the world's top energy experts, including Secretary Steven Chu and the International Energy Agency.  Jesse Jenkins highlighted this issue in a posted titled "Is Joe Romm an Energy Challenge Denier?" (It received no response or clarification from Joe.)

    Time Magazine published an article yesterday further highlighting the need for direct public investment in energy technology innovation, titled "U.S. Lags in Clean Energy Research & Development," highlighting Secretary Chu's energy innovation hubs proposal and echoing our call in the San Francisco Chronicle for greater public investment to drive the transition to a clean energy economy and win the clean energy race.  The Time article is just one more indication that federal investment is critical for driving this transition and the Waxman-Markey bill must be strengthened to meet this goal and win the clean energy race.

    On Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race posted 4 months ago 30 Responses

  • What's truly shocking is that anyone within the Grist community would actually compare two young climate advocates to Hitler for working to promote President Obama's energy education initiative and strengthen U.S. climate legislation.  Stunning and saddening to see this happening at Grist.

    On Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race posted 4 months ago 30 Responses

  • Dave, what evidence do you have to suggest that public investment in clean energy won't drive significant private investment?  After the Breakthrough Institute co-founded the Apollo Alliance in 2003, an independent group performed an input-output analysis of our $30 billion/year public investment plan and found it would generate around $20 billion/year in private investment.   Even Romm admits as much, despite his apparent opposition to greater public investment in clean energy beyond the current level in Waxman-Markey, stating in his response that "I’ll just do a rough estimate that the bill leads to government spending in renewables, CCS, electric and advanced vehicles, and R&D of about $100 billion from 2012 to 2025 and that is matched by the private sector in research, development, demonstration, and deployment."

    On Joe Romm's strategy to lose the clean energy race posted 4 months ago 30 Responses

  • Breakthrough Institute has posted its response to Romm here:  http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/05/romm_attacks_breakthrough_for.shtml

    For the record, Breakthrough Institute has a long history of advocating progressive climate and energy policy (see our history).  In 2003, Michael and Ted co-founded the Apollo Alliance, the first-ever public campaign calling for a $300 billion federal investment in clean energy.  In 2005, former Senator Obama introduced a proposal co-written by Breakthrough to raise fuel efficiency standards, "Healthcare for Hybrids."  In 2007, the Obama campaign adopted a $150 billion clean energy investment platform based on Breakthrough's recommendations.  And in April 2009, the Obama administration adopted Breakthrough's proposal for a National Energy Education Act.  Throughout this time we have continually advocated (see our writing page) a national approach on climate change and clean energy capable of achieving the broad transformations we need.

    On Memo to media: Don’t be suckered by bad analyses from the Breakthrough Institute posted 6 months, 1 week ago 1 Response

  • Understating the Coal Challenge

    David --  It seems that you are misrepresenting the scale of the coal challenge to your readers.  

    I posted a response here.

    Coal is cheap - that's why even with a carbon dioxide price of $38 per ton, Europe just announced the construction of 50 new coal plants. And it's why the EIA projects global coal demand will double by 2030 and that China's total coal-related emissions will grow by 232% between 2004 and 2030.

    Coal is cheap, plentiful, and it's one of the greatest challenges the world has ever faced. CCS is just one tool that will help us overcome it. Massive and strategic investments to reduce the price of alternative and next-generation energy and carbon capture technologies is another. But imagining that we'll just institute a global coal moratorium and a carbon price - and all our problems will be solved by efficiency and renewables - is not.

    So what gives, David?On Humanity's fate is not tied to coal's posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

  • Tone, framing, & ideas matter

    As expected, much of the criticism of Revkin's piece illustrates how egregiously so many climate activists misjudge the current political consensus on global warming and its policy implications.

    It's easy to write off Revkin's piece if you believe, as do so many climate activists today, that we've seen a "tipping point" in public perceptions on global warming over the past year. Indeed, how can Shellenberger & Nordhaus represent a new middle way if the center has already shifted so dramatically and everyone's ready for bold action (i.e. strong regulations)?

    No doubt there has been incredible political progress, but unfortunately the center remains far from bold action. By and large, global warming ranks extremely low among voter priorities and energy prices are of utmost and growing concern. No wonder Californians rejected a proposition (Prop 87) last year that would have funded clean energy through an oil tax. And no surprise that the Washington Post runs front-page articles like "Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats," or that Pew polls continue to find global warming ranking nearly dead last out of the top 20 voter priorities.

    It's not just about misjudging the political consensus, though. Policy literalists seemingly fail to understand the importance of tone or political and social change in general. They read Revkin's piece and say, "so what?" If today's books and their ideas don't present immediate policy solutions, they say, then who cares?

    But tone, framing, and ideas matter. That Newt Gingrich is pushing the right to take global warming seriously is, in fact, a significant and noteworthy change (I go to Johns Hopkins, a relatively conservative college campus where Gingrich came to speak last year, and I can say first-hand that his book is causing a ruckus). As is Shellenberger and Nordhaus challenging mainstream environmentalists on how they've sidelined public investment.

    The climate problem isn't going to be solved with Liebermann-Warner or any of the smaller measures being considered in today's energy bill. This is a half-century undertaking that will require the establishment of new political identities and majorities. Whether or not you agree with calling these authors the "new center," we can recognize that Revkin has reported on some very important trends.On NYT's Andy Revkin pens another stinker on the so-called 'center' of the climate debate posted 2 years ago 42 Responses

  • Bill McKibben on S&N -- Energy Consumption

    I don't know any major environmentalist or environmental group that has promoted such a message.

    Really?

    Q&A with Bill McKibben: Acceptable Energy Consumption

    "Your article is a nice piece of diplomacy. However, from what I've seen of Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in The New Republic, they talk a double game: we have to give people a vast increase in energy consumption because they won't settle for anything else; and, they're right not to. So we have no choice but to somehow go from fifteen terawatts of consumption in 2007 to sixty in 2100. Maybe they're right about what's politically possible, but are they right about what's desirable? Is it, in your opinion, possible to have environmentally acceptable energy consumption at that level, considering what that energy is used for, and what it takes, under the most benign assumptions, to produce it? If not, shouldn't we at least not reinforce illusions while bowing to realities?"
    --Willem Vanden Broek

    Bill McKibben replies:

    "My most recent book, Deep Economy (Times Books, 2007), tries to answer this question in great detail. Suffice it to say, it seems to me that we would be wise to start asking deeper questions about the economy than 'how can we make it larger'. Like, how can we make it more durable, and more satisfying. The answers to both, I think, point towards less energy use instead of more."

    http://billtotten.blogspot.com/2007/10/questions-for-bill ...
    On Why bother criticizing S&N? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 21 Responses

  • Pragmatism on coal

    Over the past 30 years, China's mass development has brought more people out of poverty than any other development project in the history of the world.  Where did they get the majority of the energy for that development?  Coal.

    It's not only unrealistic to imagine China limiting its coal development, it's socially unjust.  We should do all we can to get a moratorium on coal in the United States.  But don't expect China to do much about its coal-based emissions use unless we give them carbon capture & storage technology.  We can only do this once we make the right investments in CCS technology to bring down the price as quickly as possible.On Ted Nordhaus responds to NRDC's Dave Hawkins posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • facts please

    Here's a question: who actually cited numbers and statistics to back their argument, S&N or Roberts?  
    The problem is that Roberts fails to explain, let alone even mention, how high carbon would have to be priced to actually achieve the kind of results he's talking about.  Facts please!On Ted Nordhaus responds to NRDC's Dave Hawkins posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses