Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus -- Part I
What do Michael Crichton, Bjørn Lomborg, Frank Luntz, George W Bush (and his climate/energy advisors) have in common with carbon.
In fairness to President Bush — he doesn’t really believe those two things (as evidenced by the fact that he has actually cut funding for key carbon-reducing technologies), he just says them because conservative strategist Frank Luntz says that is the best way to sound like you care about global warming without actually doing anything about it.
The “breakthrough technology” message is certainly the cleverest one the Deniers and Delayers have invented — who wouldn’t rather have a techno-fix than higher energy prices? — that’s why Lomborg endorses it so much in his book Cool It — but it is certainly wrong and dangerously so, as I argue at length in my book, Hell and High Water.
Why two people who say they care about the environment, you want from them online in their landmark essay, "The Death of Environmentalism” and recent articles in The New Republic (subs. req’d) and Gristmill (here and here).
S&N simply don’t know what they’re talking about. Worse, their message plays right into the hands of those who counsel delay. For that reason, I will spend some time debunking them. Here is the most dangerous S&N falsehood, from TNR:
Over the last ten years, a consensus has emerged among energy policy experts–one no less important than the consensus among climate scientists that carbon emissions are warming the earth. What’s needed, they say, are disruptive clean-energy technologies that achieve non-incremental breakthroughs in both price and performance.
Uhh, no. Energy policy is my field, and I have talked to virtually all of the leading energy policy experts over the past few years. A few believe as S&N do (mostly academics), but the majority do not – especially those who are actual energy practitioners or who have taken the time to educate themselves on climate science. Yes, they all want much higher funding for clean energy R&D — who doesn’t??? (other than the phantom “pain- and-sacrifice-loving” environmentalists that only S&N seem to have met).
But the energy practioners know that meaningful breakthroughs rarely if ever happen in energy (a key point I will return to in the next post). I can say that with very high confidence since I ran the federal office responsible for doing the vast majority of the research into new carbon-free technologies.
And those who have studied climate science understand that we simply have run out of time to pin much hope on breakthroughs that may never come no matter how much money we spend on R&D. Developed country carbon emissions need to peak in the next decade (and developing country emissions soon thereafter) or we will ruin the planet for the next 50 generations no matter what technologies they have at their disposal. Put another way, if we can’t stop catastrophic global warming with technologies that exist now or are already in the pipeline, we aren’t going to stop catastrophic global warming.
N&S’s go slow approach to climate, as first advanced in “The Death of Environmentalism,” should have died once it became clear that climate change is happening much faster than scientists feared and that if we don’t act now with all the technology we have available, we risk crossing tipping points whereby amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks would overwhelm any positive carbon-reducing benefits for new technology.
N&S write in Grist:
Public investment will be far more important than pollution limits in driving technological innovation and reducing the real price of clean energy. This point seems to be controversial only among environmentalists. (emphasis in original)
No. Pollution limits are far, far more important than R&D for what really matters — quickly reducing greenhouse gas emissions and driving clean technologies into the market place. Until carbon has a significant price, coal will remain the dominant low-cost energy supply and key low-carbon strategies, like carbon capture and storage, will never be achieved. And for the record, I am not an environmentalist, and I personally don’t know a single energy person who believes what S&N claims is not controversial.
Indeed, private investment is far more important than public investment in reducing the real price of clean energy — especially for the far more important task of reducing the total costs to consumers of clean energy. That’s because private investment is so much larger than public investment — if it can be harnessed through intelligent regulations. Don’t get me wrong — I’d love to see my old office at the DOE have its budget increased dramatically — I just don’t think that a massive increase in public investment is even among the top three things I would do if I were running U.S. climate policy, a point I will elaborate on in Part II.
S&N may not consider it worrisome that they are touting the exact same strategy on climate as Michael Crichton, Bjørn Lomborg, Frank Luntz, George W. Bush and his climate/energy advisors — but I would rather be on the other side of whatever those folks are pushing.
Want to stay in-the-know on all things climate? Visit ClimateProgress.org.
Wow, and I thought I was rough on S&N last time they dropped by here!
Let me pose a problem for you, though. If S&N are wrong, as you say, it might not matter because what they do is tell the story everyone wants to hear.
First, we are a tad biased towards technological solutions. Technology has historically solved problems and made life better. We're just wired to believe that.
When we have discussions like this we're always talking about carbon limits, taxes and other ways of making CO2 emmissions expensive so that people will seek alternatives. But while we're talking about that, somebody else is calling their Senator demanding that the government do something about the skyrocketing price of gasoline. Everyone has not simply accepted that cheap gas is a thing of the past. They will believe and will push the S&N hypothesis because it is convenient for them to do so.
They'll also have one more irrational reason for doing this: a lot of people just don't believe in doomsday scenarios. Overpopulation didn't kill us. Y2K didn't kill us. So a lot of people think global warming won't either. They're not willing to sacrifice to stop something that doesn't really scare them and that they expect some guy at GE will fix anyway.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 8, 2007 3:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uhh, no. Energy policy is my field, and I have talked to virtually all of the leading energy policy experts over the past few years. A few believe as S&N do (mostly academics), but the majority do not...
Ah ha! I KNEW I smelled a strawman there!
Thanks for offering us a different perspective. Their response should be interesting.
I strongly believe in the theory that whatever George W. Bush says, we should do exactly the opposite. I've mostly applied it to Iraq (which is why I'm convinced that a withdrawal of our troops will not result in a catastrophy of epic proportions, as is claimed).
I believe we can apply that theory to climate change, as well.
October 8, 2007 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Technology has historically solved problems and made life better. We're just wired to believe that.
More like we've been trained to think that...why else would we think technology has made life better when the very problem we're talking about -- ultimately, the destruction of the world in which we live -- is a direct result of our advances in technology?
October 8, 2007 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my concern. Let's say there is a fixed amount of oil in the ground, and we are at or near peak extraction. I suspect that no matter what we do, no matter what taxes we impose, no matter how hard we go after "carbon usage" that all the oil that is currently in the ground is going to be extracted and burned. Coal I could maybe see getting a handle on since it is mostly used at large fixed points and much of it could be replaced. But liquid fuels made from oil are just too damned useful to believe that anyone will leave a single drop of it in the ground. It might be 2050, it might be 2100 - but it is all going to be pumped and burned treaty or no treaty.
Not sure where that leaves us but I haven't seen the thought out there much.
sPh
October 8, 2007 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
.> Y2K didn't kill us. So a lot of people
> think global warming won't either.
Of course, Y2K didn't kill us because we identified it in advance and fixed it[1]. First time in human history that I am aware of - maybe it will turn out to be the only time ever?
sPh
[1] By "we" I mean serious technology people, businesspeople, and politicians not the hypemasters who cashed in toward the end.
October 8, 2007 4:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, trained is a better word than "wired."
It's all over the culture, though. Sheesh, this is what Star Trek is all about.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 8, 2007 4:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that breakthoughs are not the solution, mainly because they don't exist, but also because they are not necessary.
If we wish to achieve leadership (and primacy in markets) market-shifting regulations and incentives are needed. But we already have incentives; it is the administration that won't publicize them.
I'd like to see a prize for battery/alternative storage.
October 8, 2007 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem is that I can't think of an environmental issue in which both sides don't lie. Industry denies the problems existence and the environmentalists preach doom. Perhaps you don't remember the Population Bomb, and the no nuke rallies.
Perhaps in order to facilite environmental improvements those on this thread should turn off their computers. They do use electricity.
It is time to give serious thought to internalizing the costs involved in using the envirnoment. The corporate income tax, a dodge for politicians anyway, could be eliminated and replaced with various taxes on oil use, gasoline use, as well as well as other sources of pollution. Air, water, earth , troops protecting the world oils supply are all costs not reflected in the price of goods. Prices are supposed to be sources of information to allow people to make decisions about the goods they wish to purchase. Those prices should fully reflect the cost of production. These higher costs should both stimulate conservation and technological advances.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
October 8, 2007 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
S&N's major argument seems to be that their "solution" polls better than carbon taxes, cap and trade systems, and other mechanisms when people are properly informed about their implications.
I would be very curious how their $300 billion in spending polls when people are informed of the implied sacrifices in other spending and/or tax increases, and also that it has almost no chance of producing sufficient breakthroughs to curb global warming anytime soon.
October 8, 2007 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Until I read this comment I didn't realize just how little S&N are actually saying. Of course "Fix environmental problems with no sacrifice on my part," polls well. So does "Give back all my tax money while increasing government services." Heck, can't be pass a law making Santa real?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 8, 2007 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Part of the problem is that I can't think of an environmental issue in which both sides don't lie. Industry denies the problems existence and the environmentalists preach doom.
Oh please. I am a professional environmentalist and I do not preach "doom." Presenting scientific facts and evidence that are unpleasant is not preaching doom. That's like saying your doctor is preaching doom for telling you about the consequences of smoking 3 packs a day.
October 8, 2007 5:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I want wilderness I can drive to.
October 8, 2007 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is true that most future scenarios on a global scale are just going to be wrong. There are too many factors and variables. Everything turns muddy.
I am afraid that people will ignore something like global warm just because sometime like the population bomb turned out to be wrong, though.
I certainly wouldn't be shocked if what we think the results of global warming will be are going to turn out wrong in a lot of major ways. But, I'd also be shocked if this isn't a problem that needs dealing with.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 8, 2007 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we fall into their trap of framing the issue as doomsday scenarios vs what Destor nicely describes as Santa, then we're in trouble. Santa won't come, the doomsday scenario (as Destor worries) will scare people, and the result will be no action at all. But I was hoping that we'd moved past that.
Maybe only people who like that sort of thing (like me) got more excited than terrified when Gore spoke. Still, those types tend to speak not so much of doomsday as a problem to be solved or even an opportunity. Yeah, it costs a slowdown in growth, but waiting for Santa costs money, too, when the real bills come.
The very sharp post is definitely on to something about consensus and about who endorses such things. The combination makes you wonder, in fact. Why is it that opinions as far from the scientific mainstream as Lomborg's or now this one get disproportionate press and influence on the debate? Does it have something to do with whose politics gets falsely to claim scientific high ground?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 8, 2007 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of thing gets press and attention because it's viewed as "contrarian." It's the same factors that make all the business magazines (including the one I work for) put "GE Goes Green" on the cover. Everybody loves the story that goes "You can look out for yourself and enjoy yourself and still help others almost by accident." We in the press love that story. And those who read the press love to read it. It's an old fairy tale, really. We tell it over and over because it makes us feel better and we just get so tired of those nagging stories about sacrifice and fluorescent light bulbs.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 8, 2007 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The TV news media putting ratings over news judgment, research and reporting quality is responsible for the birth of the endless "contrarian" parade. Having an emotionally charged live debate on every topic as a way to attract and hold viewer interest is now a TV news staple to get ratings, no matter how much these things pollute the public weal. And not surprisingly, polluting industries and their trade groups and phony citizen groups are always ready to supply a contrarian "expert" for all occasions.
All the blame is on reporters, editors and the corporate media structure for allowing this to happen for the sole purpose of enriching their personal pockets.
October 8, 2007 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey- I have an idea. What if we could somehow harness the energy of the sun, store it as some kind of chemical energy, and use it to run motors & stuff?
I bet we'd be able to figure out how to create an 'electric car', light weight and non-smog emitting. Well, somebody with a liberal college education probably could.
And it would be neat if you couuld light your house- maybe using LEDs running on decimals of what typical incandescents instead of torches...
October 8, 2007 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's all that book-learnin' mumbo-jumbo. Make it simple: Exhaust is sloppy, and the theory goes that by stopping the slovenliness we'd slow the polar melting and keep the Russkies at bay.
October 8, 2007 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
and the environmentalists preach doom.
Is there a way to talk about the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising without some element of doom and gloom?
I think the only people who think "doom" are the anti-environmentalists, who are propagandizing the issue. I saw Al Gore's movie -- I assume he is the current doom and gloom poster boy, especially with the clips of his movie taken out of context -- and I left that movie *hopeful*, not filled with doom.
October 8, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you and your "sun."
Why, you'd think it's some sort of nearly immortal, heat-generating "pie in the sky!"
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 8, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: The “breakthrough technology” message is certainly the cleverest one the Deniers and Delayers have invented — who wouldn’t rather have a techno-fix than higher energy prices?
It's also not an impossibility. We've had "breathrough" technologies in the past. Why not now? I don't think Bush knows or cares anything about technology and it's all just plabeco rhetoric when coming from him. But surely this is something worth looking into-- and spending some serious money on? Good grief, why shouldn't we be looking for cleaner ways of fulfilling our energy needs?
Re: Is there a way to talk about the polar ice caps melting and sea levels rising without some element of doom and gloom?
Yes, because such things have happened in the past and the world did not end. 11,000 years ago the ice caps that covered half of North America (and much else besides) melted away and the consequences were not exactly the end of life as it was then known-- though quite a few things did have to change.
October 9, 2007 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because such things have happened in the past and the world did not end. 11,000 years ago the ice caps that covered half of North America (and much else besides) melted away and the consequences were not exactly the end of life as it was then known-- though quite a few things did have to change.
--
You have a talent for understatement.
October 9, 2007 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, Breakthrough is a useful antidote to the risable narcissim of a naturist cult -- the environmentalism of the rich and comfortable.
But, as energy policy, it, "S&N", is a hoax.
First, S&N is another piece of supply-side economic delusion, in particular, rejection of a carbon tax -- what Texas politicians have long advocated in the form of an oil import tariff.
Second, S&N is no foundation for the sort of practical energy policy the European Union is pursuing. That policy is not driven by a naturist cult and is not some hoax endorsed by the Deniers and Delayers.
In fact, EU policy (MERKEL + SARKOZY + PRODI) fits the modern conservative mold of both traditional collective security and technocratic full-employment policy.
EU conservatives, even the Hapsburg pretender, have to get elected these days!
Third, S&N, like the naturists, are both obsessed with simplistic notions of technology substitution.
In fact, the genius of coherent government policy and market economics is complementary technology development, less a matter of "ethics" than of just timing.
Consider, IV-gen nuclear reactors:
There is nothing simple about all of that. It is a matter of many and very complex technologies, economies of scope, scale, and cycle that really do not fit into the schemes of either academic grant-writers, legislative ear-markers, or the hustlers that have always controlled application of public credit to private enrichment -- to wit, "public utilities".
Complementary technology requires a wide range of coherent government and market policy.
The deniers and delayers cannot do complex. They are really supporting old, short-term preferences for well established but obsolete monopolies.
This is a staple of bi-partisan collaboration: the senile industry tariff, now, government protection and preferences for WW-II era gasoline refineries and automobile engines plus consistently obsolete but profitable coal-fired power plants.
That said, the villains in this piece are not those as argue the case of the right-wing, left-wing, or center-wing cultists. It is those as ordered the Master in Bankruptcy to transfer Enron pipeline and derivative assets out of the reach of its ordinary creditors or of any public scrutiny at all.
You cannot politically engineer technical breakthroughs. They are, indeed, rare or just obscure:
::JRBehrman
October 9, 2007 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You touch on a deep issue---there is no single answer, nor is there need for one.
For the entire history of life it has used energy in the locally convenient form. The windfall of fossil fuels is an anomaly, and has been as distorting as winning the lottery usually is for the winners and their families.
There is no need for a replacement for oil, if that means another energy windfall. We're past that---we can generate income, or rather, energy, instead of mining it.
The future will consist of finding energy where it is, storing it for use later or elsewhere, and reducing the baseline demand for energy. An example of the latter is the Tesla car, which can give both very good mileage and astonishing performance. Even buying electricity for this car is better than burning oil, since one can buy it at night when it is generated most efficiently.
Nuclear plants seem sensible, but suffer the same scarcity economics of oil, with the added issue of waste disposal. And there is roughly 200 nuclear plants' worth of energy going up smokestacks as waste heat right now, that is recoverable, right now, by installing secondary boilers.
October 9, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink