David your logic is good, but I find it troubling.  I now have less faith in the wisdom of reduction than I did before considering your words.  I suspect we may not be able to reduce enough, soon enough.  And in effect, reduction will be seen as a failure.  However, I remain supportive of reductions.

I see now that reduction may be seen as foolish under two conditions, one, if CO2 rise is natural (unlikely, but I have been wrong before), two, if reduction will not be effective in preventing serious outcomes, say melting of the polar caps.

I don't believe I can promise the latter with even a 50% probability with reduction targets that go out to 2050.  I find little support for reduction targets that will significantly affect life as we know it today.

Tonight I am proposing to our Board a policy that Burbank Water and Power, with other Southern California municipalities, prepare a CO2 reduction plan to determine how much CO2 we can reduce and at what costs.

Nature or human, if reduction can work to reduce global warming I support them, realizing it could in fact be too late for such reductions to remove all threats from our future.  We need to know more, but that ignorance is not an excuse for failing to act.

Burbank Water and Power could make more money by giving away CFLs (compact fluorescent lamp) to their customers than they could make by adding capacity, whether fossil, wind, or solar.    The return on investment is excellent for CFLs.  Saving power is the same as making power.  These lightbulbs are like little generators.

Reducing CO2 does not cost money, rather it makes money.  The cost is less than zero.  

Energy end use efficiency is the best investment for utility management and is the best method to reduce CO2 emissions.

Conservation is our first priority and then efficiency.  We have been giving a way CFL for almost ten years as well as trading out halogen.  Many other programs as well.  As a result we have kept demand and energy at very much the same level for twenty years.  We have improved efficiency greatly as well and renewables are now being added and more under development.

Using conservation and efficiency we have shrunk our CO2 to less than 1990 levels, but I question if this is enough.

BTW, we are a municipal, it is not about profits, it is adding value to the community.

    The far right (which has become a large part of the mainstream conservative movement) see environmentalism as a threat to two of their cherished beliefs.

    First, it is a threat to their view of humans as competitive individualistic creatures.  Environmentalists, while willing to turn to the market, often rely on rules and cooperation to achieve their ends.  Since the far right hates the thought of anyone being able to make "rules" that restrict them, they hate environmentalism.  They see it as a whole bunch of new rules.  And they see it as "caring" about something other than themselves (which is also something they hate).

   Secondly, some of the far right Christians have a clear view of humans as having "dominion" over the earth.  Since environmentalists tend to preach such concepts as "harmony" and valuing all life equally (not all environmentalists), they see them as a threat to their view.  

   The reason they call environmentalists "tree-huggers" is that it represents the idea of loving trees and nature.  They view this idea as the antithesis of their belief that people should rule and dominate (and use) nature.

   Their world view makes it impossible for them to ever "embrace" environmentalism.  Any attempts to try to win them over are a waste of time.

   Please note, that this is one (very large now) strain of conservatism.  There are others.  We need to figue out who is who, and spend time and energy (if we decide it is worthwile) on winning over those conservatives who do not have basic world views that must reject environmental concerns.

patrick

OK, now I see David's point better. If Jonah Goldberg is denying the physics of the greenhouse effect, or the calculation of climate sensitivity, then his question makes a little more sense. (But if he's denying those he's an idiot.) Whether the last 100 years of warming is natural or not, the physics of carbon dioxide does not change....

Burbank Water and Power is ahead of the curve and is doing the work prescribed by James Hansen at NASA.  

For advanced 70% energy efficiency I recommend contracting Amory Lovins at rmi.org for analysis and consulting.

I have been a supporter of Amory Lovins since 1977, he has spoken at events I have had, and one of his key engineers is one of our advisors.

I appreciate you recognizing his vision

Me too.   I spent a winter's night on his guest bed (decades ago) and was so impressed with his zero energy house in the snowy Rocky Mountains that I just had to have one.  I applied the lessons learned and designed a passive solar home near Seattle weather.  

During the 90 degree heat wave last week the thermal mass house only gained 0.2 degrees F per day.  The temperature varies between 71 to 73 degrees all year.  Very comfortable.

The notion that global warming activism is animated by hatred of capitalism and America is paranoid fiction

At some point we will have to choose: Do we want capitalism and America, or a livable planet?  How would conservatives choose?

Is conservative hatred of global warming activism animated by hatred of a livable planet?

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

How would conservatives choose?

I am talking with some of those conservatives.  Political differences pale compared to our common problem.

Conservatives see a choice between shutting it all down or developing carbon-neutral energy.  "Shutting it all down is unacceptable."

Solving our carbon dilemma will require unprecedented cooperation from all, including natural political enemies.

First of all the Board liked the GHG reduction plan idea as well as the other points.  So we will be putting a reduction plan together.

We all deal from our own environments.  It is hard for me to understand the far right that Patrick speaks of as I don't know such people in my day to day life.  I also don't understand people who think we can ignore global warming and that it is acceptable to not do anything.  For the most part we are beyond the argument and it is not important who won because we are ready to take action.

Having had some time to consider this issue strategically I trust David.  If we turn from the debate too soon the differences between the two positions will be less clear.  It is better to keep the debate going on these issues, issues that in my little environment are very clear, but probably are not nearly so clear in other parts of the country, yet.  I actually do like it when others deny that global warming even exists, that position is sounding dumb to more and more.

I am talking with some of those conservatives.  Political differences pale compared to our common problem.  But can "conservatives" prioritize saving dying ecosystems over "capitalism" and "America"?  This is not a "common problem."  It's not my problem, for instance.  I already know where my priorities lie.  Conservatives see a choice between shutting it all down or developing carbon-neutral energy.Like they saw a "choice" between surrendering to al Qaeda and invading Iraq?

What happens when they are given the choice between a) choosing the cheapest possible substitute for an 85-million barrel-a-day oil habit, in line with the iron laws of bottom-line capitalist competition and b) creating a society that doesn't need so much energy?

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/

Conservatives may not care as much for the poor and disenfranchised, but they do care about their environment and the legacy of their young.  They are not comfortable with global warming and are no further along the path of solutions than anybody else.  They care about not paying taxes and like the idea of carbon taxes, something like a stiff $0.30 per pound of carbon that would double or triple energy cost.  Tax avoidance is a strong motivator and a tradition among conservatives.

The narcissistic do not give up and commit suicide so expect strong support from wealthy conservatives in a carbon constrained business environment.

This is the crux of the matter, I think. Kneejerk right-wingers like Goldberg simply aren't going to listen to arguments from people not on "their team."

But sheer volume of fact (very apparent to hunters and fisherman, as a recent Field and Stream poll showed) and Western water managers (just talk to them) and firefighters (as a new study showed) is beginning to get through to moderates and responsible people in positions of powers, including some Republicans.

I detect a lot of nervousness among these folks about global warming, a "what if this could be true?" realization.  Al Gore is doing a hell of a job of putting across the facts, but how can we help him? I think embracing and encouraging moderates and conservatives to come forward and speak out is another step that could help, especially in the so-called "heartland" states.

Probably this marks me as a hopeless idealist, but that's my story and I'm sticking with it.

They care about not paying taxes and like the idea of carbon taxes, something like a stiff $0.30 per pound of carbon that would double or triple energy cost.  Tax avoidance is a strong motivator and a tradition among conservatives.

Good for them!

Now let's imagine an application of the consumerist logic graciously illustrated by sunflower here.  This is where it gets tricky.

Here in southern California, as in much of the US, the economy depends upon cheap energy so that consumers can drive to shopping malls to buy consumer goods.  The bigger shopping malls, moreover, are further dependent upon cheap energy.  For the most part, they are indoors, and either air conditioned for hot or space-heated for cold weather.

Now let's raise the energy costs on these shopping mall economies.  To a certain extent, one will see felicitous changes.  More carpooling to the malls might occur, for instance.  Or solar panels on the mall ceilings themselves.

But there might also be some not-so-felicitous changes.  Fewer people shopping at malls.  Fewer people buying things, because more people are spending more money on energy and not on buying things.  Conservatives will not like these changes.  They may say that they like high energy taxes now, and then look at their balance sheets and decide they don't like high energy taxes because it costs too much to pay for them.

Some malls may have to shut down altogether because the costs of operating them (and the costs of bringing consumers to them) will have become too high.  Ordinarily, when malls shut down, the conservatives attribute these events to the "free market."  If you're not "competitive," you lose.  This is ostensibly normal business, though you and I know that capitalist business has depended upon government support from Day One.  

However, when a big mall shuts down in the political climate created by high energy taxes, the "free market" pretext for failure disappears.  The rich mall owners will then blame "big government" for their tragic business plights, and crank up the media machine to support their propaganda efforts.

Conservatives are not supposed to like "big government."  The idea that "free enterprise" is being impeded by "regulations" tugs at their heartstrings.

All of a sudden, in the midst of any significant big business failure, you will see a movement to lower those energy costs again, by reducing those evil energy taxes.  Oh, sure, the taxes sounded good to the conservatives when the liberals were in their ears talking about global warming.  But something more important than Planet Earth is at stake here: free enterprise.  

Now, "free enterprise" can mean a lot of things.  But, in this era of dying capitalism, it means defending Bill Gates's right to own as much, alone, as do the bottom 40% of American wage-earners own combined.  It means defending the rich, who own the big businesses.  Never mind that Bill Gates owes most of his wealth to manipulations of property law, or that Archer Daniels Midland is America's biggest welfare bum; free enterprise means defending big business.  Some of these big businesses, by the way, use a lot of fossil-fuel energy.  Can you imagine the energy costs of heating or cooling the Mall of America, in suburban Minnesota?  They run a roller coaster inside that thing!  Can you imagine the families who will hate us when we raise the energy taxes on it?

At some point, when a few big businesses have seen their profit margins dip for whatever reason, or even if they haven't (!), the heavy campaign donors (through their dummy organizations) and the corporate mass media (owned by the wealthy) will speak with one voice: high energy taxes are "bad for the economy."  Who will buy it first?  The conservatives.  This is why I imagine the "alliance with conservatives," on the conceptual grounds of high-tax energy economics, to be for nought.

Now here is my main point.  With the tax debate, we are trapped in what economists call marginalist economic thinking.  Everything in this line of thought depends upon the consumer's marginal propensity to consume.  Higher energy taxes are an attempt to make alternative energies more "competitive," by making fossil-fuel energy less attractive than alternative energy for the consumer with a dollar to spare.  But what about the dollars that the consumer can't spare, the dollars that are "locked into" the high-energy-consumption infrastructure?

Marginalist economics has nothing to say about a system that depends upon cheap energy so shoppers can buy products at shopping malls; it only debates which products they can buy, or whether they travel there individually or carpool.  It accepts such a system as it is; it cannot be bothered to question reality.  It will not provide us with the wiggle-room we need to specify alternatives to mere "adaptation" to global warming.  We need to be thinking bigger.

http://ecosocialism.blogspot.com/