I really don’t know what is going on with some folks in the environmental community right now, or with James Hansen, but Joe Romm is my hero.
Let’s backtrack: Last night, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a marked up version of the Waxman-Markey climate bill, which would totally remake our energy economy. It would cap carbon emissions and ratchet them down more than 80 percent by 2050, and it would create a host of new incentives for investment in clean energy.
The bill passed by a 33-25 margin, even winning over some unexpecteds, such as Mary Bono Mack, a California Republican. It was, as is inevitable, the product of political compromise. This is not a bad thing. It is not dirty, it is not wrong, and it is the only way to get anything done, ever, in Washington.
The bill also, it might be noted, terrifies much of industry and many Republicans, who have been trying doggedly to stop it, and yet so far have failed.
And yet some green groups, including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Public Citizen, are also slamming the legislation from the left, saying it “reflects the triumph of politics over science, and the triumph of industry influence over the public interest” and is “not only inadequate it is counterproductive.” At a time when the President, Al Gore, and Henry Waxman are applauding the bill’s passage, key environmental groups are jumping ship.
Why can’t our side have unity and a coherent message for once?
Let’s quote Joe Romm:
Every journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step — including stopping human-caused global warming at “safe levels,” as close as possible to 2°C. Many people have asked me how I can reconcile my climate science realism, which demands far stronger action than the Waxman-Markey bill requires, and my climate politics realism, which has led me to strongly advocate passage of this flawed bill.
The short answer is that Waxman-Markey is the only game in town. If it fails, I see no chance whatsoever of stabilizing anywhere near 350 to 450 ppm since serious U.S. action would certainly be off the table for years, the effort to jumpstart the clean energy economy in this country would stall, the international negotiating process would fall apart, and any chance of a deal with China would be dead. Warming of 5°C or more by century’s end would be all but inevitable, with 850 to 1000+ ppm. If Waxman-Markey becomes law, then I see a genuine 10% to 20% chance of averting catastrophe — not high, but not zero.
Romm’s is a voice of realism, and also of hope. This is the kind of perspective we need. I also appreciate the perspective of 1Sky, somewhat harder on the bill, but not taking the extreme step of refusing to support it:
We believe that the ACES bill introduced by Chairmen Henry A. Waxman (CA-30) and Edward J. Markey (MA-7) is the only viable legislative opportunity we have before the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December of 2009 to move the United States toward a clean energy economy that will create jobs, strengthen our economy, make us more energy independent, and limit dangerous global warming pollution. Representatives Waxman and Markey have worked tirelessly day and night to try to deliver a bill that will provide a clean energy future.
However, it is clear given the changes since the discussion draft that Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other polluters are continuously working to weaken the bill and secure funds and bailouts for their industries on the backs of American consumers. In the last three months alone, oil, coal, and natural gas companies have outspent environmental groups 16 to 1. The industries spent $79 million to lobby Congress, outspending the Green community’s comparatively meager $4.7 million in the same time period. Exxon-Mobil alone spent $9.3 million, over twice the amount of money spent by the entire environmental community combined. As this bill moves through Congress, 1Sky is resolved to be 16 times louder, and will count on the power and resolve of ordinary citizens from all walks of life, channeling their voices in ways that move and improve this bill, to make up for the disparity in the financial resources we have to apply to the task.
Yes indeed. Let’s work as one force to get this bill passed, and perhaps even strengthen it. Let’s follow the lead of Henry Waxman, President Obama, and others who are finally working to do something about global warming. Let’s make common cause, for once, on the left and in the environmental community.
It is about time.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am
Chris,
Common sense ceased to be the political currency in Washington decades ago (if it ever was). You of all people should know that. And Greenpeace is right – what came out of committee will not likely see the President’s pen because it will be dilluted in the full House, diluted in the full Senate, and diluted again in the COnference Committee. Afterall, dilution is the solution to pollution!
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
I seriously doubt that anything will be passed as there will be a filibuster in the Senate and, given the number of Red State Democrats (Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln), there will not be enough votes to break it.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 am
Are we sure a filibuster is an inevitability?
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:50 am
I agree Chris. The conservative base is more than willing to take incremental steps towards achieving their political goals. For some unknown reason, the left seems unwilling to use those methods of steering the ship of state. They seem unwilling to support any move other than a complete reversal of the direction were going, and she just don’t handle that well.
I loved this line
‘This is not a bad thing. It is not dirty, it is not wrong, and it is the only way to get anything done, ever, in Washington.”
Pragmatism is a requirement when dealing with politics. Idealists get chewed up and spit out.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
Let’s forget the political crap for a moment and just look at the facts. This bill will skyrocket energy costs at a time when the economy has not recovered one bit. And there’s no way it will recover when even proponents of the bill believe that $5 a gallon gasoline is all but inevitable. Electricity costs will go up an estimated 80-90%. Literally every commodity we rely on, food, clothing, etc will skyrocket in cost. It cannot do otherwise because everything in this country moves by road or rail, powered by gas and diesel.
And all of it for a 10-20% chance of “averting catastrophe”? This bill is ridiculous. It’s one thing if it would genuinely do some good, but not under these condition. Cap and trade has done absolutely zero to reduce carbon in Europe, it just wrecked their economy. And we’re going the same direction.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
Brian M is channeling the tone industry adopted about the Clean Air Act. Well, the sky didn’t fall, did it?
Great line from Paul Krugman a couple weeks ago:
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Of course given Greenpeace if I am not mistaken supported an earlier version of the bill. They did not like the changes. They are looking at political reality as well. If the bill is not strong enough to do enough to change emission levels but is heralded by environmental groups, the Right will have a stronger frame to tear any future bills to shreds. They will contend it cost jobs and still did not minimize climate change. It will only strengthen their frame that climate change is “natural” and not human caused, and that we shouldn’t jeopardize our economy since we can’t alter things. It may not be the truth but a bill heralded by environmentalists that really doesn’t do much can a negative. In other words the best bill possible carries risks of not actually progressing things ahead but actually derailing. It is easy to call other idealistic fools but it is another to question whether your political calculations are right. Expectations of the public should be lowered by this bill. They should be made aware it really is only a small step in the right direction. Greenpeace and others are serving their part to remind people of that. Calling on them to join the chorus celebrating is poor politics.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
Chris,
I don’t agree with your assessment that the bill terrifies industry. Industry lobbyists helped write it and the result is that they have secured hundreds of billions of dollars of giveaways for their industries — part of the reason that polluting companies including Shell Oil, ConocoPhillips, Duke Energy and many others have endorsed it.
The fact that large polluting corporations — including companies in the process of building more dirty coal fired power plants — support this bill should serve as a warning about its contents.
There is a very real danger that if we not continue to stand up and vocally oppose industry lobbyists’ efforts to weaken the bill, it will get worse.
Best,
Nick Berning
Friends of the Earth
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Interesting! Any time the left is in disarray, it postpones–doesn’t eliminate, but postpones–what appears to be the inevitable evolution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of United States of America.
Hopefully, I’ll be dead before that day before that final day, but, Lord willing, my son won’t be, so you’ll still have to drag me and a lot of other folks, kickin’ and screamin’.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:14 am
You are right, Brian M. No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam, more fraudulent than any Nigerian scam. Cap and trade is a huge tax on the poor and the middle class designed to give the powers of a dictator to Obama and to further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.)
Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to “prevent global warming” are behaving like the most primitive human beings, who were duped into believing that killing and sacrificing others would ensure them good weather. Human beings don’t have the power to control climate! And killing the economy does not help the environment. Just look at Haiti!
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” http://www.petitionproject.org
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
Antonio– I see Dr. S. Fred Singer the tobacco lobbyist got a featured place on the climate denialist bingo board. And so did the Oregon petition project!!
I think there may be a few more climate denialist bingo boxes I could check off based on your post, but I’m not going to bother…
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:58 am
I’m going to surprise many readers with my reasons for supporting this bill. Here’s my take:
Humanity will completely fail to halt the rise in CO2. China, India, and the Third World will refuse to accept constraints on their economic growth, because they feel that they have a right to catch up with the West. While the West should be able to reduce its emissions, the world as a whole continue to increase its emissions, and by 2050 we’ll be seeing serious negative effects from CO2 emissions.
At that point, the blame game will begin. 100 million Bangladeshis will need to be relocated to a new homeland. Damages to coastal facilities will run into the trillions of dollars. Everybody will be suffering losses, and everybody will be angry over the costs of AGW. There will be a lot of international conflict over this, and a lot of people demanding reparations from the countries that caused this mess.
If the USA refuses to take any action to combat AGW, then the USA will be the prime scapegoat, even though by that time it will be the source of only a small portion of total CO2 emissions. Yes, China will get blamed, too, but we need to worry about what happens to us. If you think terrorism is bad now, imagine how bad it will be when a) it’s much easier for terrorists to get their hands on REALLY nasty WMD and b) entire nations have been wiped out by sea level rise from AGW.
I therefore believe that our best course of action is to take some action to reduce American emissions of CO2, and begin a big international push to get everybody else to do the same. Declare our willingness to meet extremely strict limits — if everybody else agrees to the same limits. We don’t have to worry about actually having to follow through; China will NEVER agree to significant limits on its CO2 emissions. So we play the pious environmentalists but never have to put our money where our mouth is. When the blame game gets rolling, we’re ensconced in our halo and the Chinese take the hit.
Yes, it’s extremely cynical. But I consider it to be our best overall course of action.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Re jon # 11
Let’s not forget Fred Singer CFCs/ozone depletion denialist.
May 22nd, 2009 at 12:16 pm
I think this blog is being targetted by a new group of people. Antonio’s rhetoric is relatively new here, I think. Could this be an influece from Morano’s new efforts? IMO Antonio’s verbal vomit serves only to represent to us more reasonable folks the sort of think we are up against, and nothing more.
It is my hope that talking (or in his case vomitting) points such as Antonio’s are all that is offered by the denialist tribe – because they are easily debunked and hopefully will fade away.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:13 pm
I saw and was convinced by An Inconvenient Truth, but I swing libertarian and see a lot of nonsense from regulation that doesn’t seem to help anyone except the favored. The conservative mind inherently rejects the notion that personal choice should be regulated in any way and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that regulation is costly for everyone.
Beyond political affiliation, there is a question of Gore’s scientific credibility. Relatively low CO2 in the atmosphere, natural warming and other uncertainties abound. These uncertainties are what both sides cling to. The best argument for action that I’ve seen focuses on risk management and comes from this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42
Like him, I’d like to see the discussion shift at least a little bit toward a risk management platform.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Jason, you’re absolutely right to question Mr. Gore’s credentials — he has none. If you want to get better information, go to the scientists themselves.
And you’re also absolutely correct that the matter of how we respond to AGW is a more productive discussion than the feckless arguments against the reality of AGW. We really should be talking about what we should do.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Erasmussimo, that was an interesting take on the politics of AGW. The idea that the soap box you stand on can protect you politically, if you choose the right box to stand on.
I see it as a risky game. If we drop our output, and encourage enough other nations to do so as well, we might delay the onset of serious problems long enough to outlive peoples memories. Political capital has a very short lifespan, as ‘the people’ have very short memories.
Either way it swings, you got me thinking. Im going to chew on that idea for a couple of days. Thanks.
May 22nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Erasmussimo,
Long before 2050 we may see an ecological implosion brought about by oil (energy) depletion, followed soon after by natural gas depletion, and if more recent estimates are correct, coal depletion. The first thing we’re going to have to figure out is how to maintain basic food, medical, and waste disposal systems (among other systems), not to mention the control of potential social and political chaos in the face of declining available energy. But I am also cynical, and believe these problems also will not be addressed–assuming there are realistic ways they could be addressed. By the way, if recent analyses are correct, it is unlikely that CO2 concentrations will ever top 450 ppm. Not that this is an excuse for inaction.
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
“Why can’t our side have unity and a coherent message for once?”
GIVEN the unthinking lockstep seen among regulars in these pages (not the add the unfathomable alarmism seen immediately above), anyone with a skeptical bone in their body ought to think THIS is a good thing.
Smears, ad homs, guilt by association, lies (LOTS of lies), and its dreadful like just ooze…..here.
Yuck.
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:43 am
@Eric the Leaf:
Where do you get your figures for not having enough fossil fuels to push atmospheric CO2 over 450ppm? Several oil people assure me they are confident of about another 70 years of known and exploitable reserves at current production rates. The smallest estimate I’ve heard from the coal people is another 200 years at current production rates (with some estimates of 600 years). I’ll have to look for more gas people to get a better idea of global supply, but the locals I know figure they currently have about 50 years of known reserves. Some sea people are complaining that acidification of coastal waters due to dissolved CO2 will kill off a lot of marine animals long before CO2 causes more problems for humans on land.
I think your sources on the supply of fossil fuels is dubious – I find it extremely unlikely that any organization other than the fossil fuel industry (and perhaps their associated regulators) would have some idea of the reserves.
May 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Here’s Dr. Chu putting out the same point I’ve been trying to get across, which is that we need to get started rather than waste more years with “this is not good enough” vs “this will kill industry”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8061929.stm
Once progress is made on technologies to reduce emissions, you can bet that industry itself will crank up the cuts as long as there is a financial incentive to do so. In the meantime, although many things are being tried, we are very far from having any solutions and much more work needs to be done, especially on developing alternative energy sources. We can also expect a few more years’ delays as issues around permitting of operations such as co2 geosequestration are sorted out.
One of my concerns about legislation is that there is no significant extra funding going towards developing new energy sources; although Big Oil does spend a lot of money on such projects, they’re not doing enough – once again because there doesn’t seem to be any financial benefit to it in the short to medium term and money spent on research puts their stock at a disadvantage in the medium term.
May 24th, 2009 at 10:17 am
There’s some political naïveté showing here. What probably happened is that each of the environmental groups who ‘jumped ship’ asked for a particular provision in the bill and didn’t get it. I find that the easiest way to predict a country’s or political group’s response when they don’t get what they want is to imagine what a 3 year old child will do. It basically boils down to “That’s not fair! I don’t like you anymore! I’m not playing!” Translated to today’s media. “They’re just playing politics! We disagree with the whole bill! We will try again later!”
May 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
The Democrats have simply run into the dilemma that the Conservatives saw all along – that to actually have any effect on emissions, the cost will wreck the economy and plunge tens of millions into poverty. You simply cannot support that many people with that standard of living with current energy technology.
The Deep Greens don’t see a problem with that. There are too many people, they say, and the modern consumerist lifestyle is deeply sinful. The entire point of the campaign is to wreck the economy – because it’s the modern Western economy that is causing the problem.
But that would be impossible to sell to the electorate in a democracy, so instead the Democrats wooed the Greens by promising climate action, while pretending to the electorate more generally that it could be done without significant pain. And they let the Greens assume they were just saying that to get into power, so they could implement the radical economy-destroying changes needed.
But having got into power, the Democrats are now faced with the problem of having made promises they cannot deliver. In opposition they could promise what they liked, and criticise GWB for not delivering it. But now they find themselves sliding into the cross-hairs of the machinery they themselves set up.
So they must put the best face they can on it. They will push down on the electorate as far as they can economically, to be able to say they’ve kept their promise to take action on climate, while giving the same old Kyoto guff about it being “a first step” to try to placate the Deep Greens.
Neither is fooled. Much of the electorate see pain for no gain. The Deep Greens see a betrayal, a sell-out to industry and the Capitalist energy-hungry Western style of human prosperity they despise.
And the poor Light Greens, who fell for the line, are now caught between the conflicting stories. Yes, we must do something about the climate, no, we can’t threaten the poor’s hopes of prosperity. Why, if this was what we always wanted, are we suddenly arguing?
Keep the dream alive.
May 25th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Some rather disconcerting news from MIT. Of course, the climate change denialists will bad mouth climate models but what else can they do.
http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=6161
May 25th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I contest the claim that reductions in CO2 emissions would be ruinously expensive. What the deniers overlook is the ability of the economy, given enough time to adjust, to replace carbon-emitting systems with systems that don’t emit carbon. An excellent example is nuclear power. Were we to suddenly raise taxes on coal power, the result would indeed be ruinously expensive. However, over a thirty year period we could replace our entire stock of coal-burning plants with nuclear plants, dramatically reducing our carbon emissions with very little increase in costs to the consumer.
In like fashion, the development of electric automobiles will, given enough time, permit large reductions in CO2 emissions.
However, none of these developments will occur if we do not begin to edge the economy away from carbon. We have to use the price mechanism to wean the economy from carbon. We can do it, but we have to take the first steps.
May 25th, 2009 at 11:34 am
If you want to change to nuclear over a period of thirty years, we can do that. In fact, if you could somehow bypass the regulatory paranoia and public fear over nuclear power, we would probably do that anyway. That’s a suggestion along the same lines as Bjorn Lomborg and his economists.
But despite the claims of impending climate Armageddon, many Greens are still hysterically opposed to nuclear, and the demands are for immediate action – right now! Now! Now! Now! Not in thirty years.
In thirty or forty years, business as usual – through the normal run of technological progress – will almost certainly make viable alternatives available anyway. No need to do anything. We’ll move to alternatives because they’re cheaper, and we can make money by doing so. And taking full advantage of the cheapness of fossil fuels now will enable the general prosperity that will enable us to get there.
But try suggesting that, and you will likely be accused of being in league with Julian Simon and his Satanic right-wing minions.
It’s insisting on doing it all now that is ruinously expensive. But that’s what we’re trying to do.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Cannibals, I think that you are making the common mistake of demonizing those you disagree with. Yes, of course, there are nutcases who want everything right now — Greenpeace being the example in this topic. However, note that this bill, representing a lot of compromises and delivering but a fraction of what is needed and desired by greens, still commands the support of the broad majority of people on the left. The stiff opposition to this bill is coming from the right, not the left.
We have seen plenty of denier nutcases here on this blog, people who deny both AGW and evolution, people quoting the Bible, and so forth. I do not consider them remotely representative of the mainstream deniers.
This bill is not ruinously expensive. Yes, it costs money, but I do not consider its costs ruinous. Indeed, we have at hand a useful basis for comparison. We failed to properly enforce financial regulations and the financial industry has gotten us into trouble that will end up costing the taxpayer at least a trillion dollars. I wouldn’t call that ruinous, but it’s certainly very serious. And it came from inaction. We face a similar problem with AGW. The effects won’t be as immediate, but over the long run AGW will likely cost us much more than the financial catastrophe, because its cost will just keep going on year after year.
May 25th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
I agree this bill is not ruinously expensive. But I agree with Greenpeace that it is going to be totally ineffective. It will cost a lot of money (affordable, but still a lot) but it’s effect on projected temperature rises will be minuscule, and it’s effect on leading world opinion/political action probably counter productive.
But for it to be given the teeth it needed to have the immediate effect demanded by the likes of Greenpeace, it would have to be ruinous. That’s why Congress didn’t even try to deliver such a bill.
I won’t discuss the financial industry and the CRA as being too far off-topic.
But if you want to use it for a comparison, the costs of shifting to alternative energy, over and above the costs of maintaining the present infrastructure, has been calculated to be in excess of sixty trillion dollars. So that’s the equivalent of a crash every other year for the next century.
And you have to remember that diverting resources now from the task of bringing the rest of the world out of pre-industrial poverty also costs us, year after year; because of the compounding effect of growth. If we grow at an average 1% per year instead of 3%, then in a hundred years, we will all be 7 times poorer than we would have been. Your grandchildren will have lost 85% of everything they might have had. Indefinitely.
And remember, your grandchildren could be 7 times richer than you, with technological options you cannot even imagine, and very well able to cope. We are poor in comparison to them. Why should the poor sacrifice to solve problems for the rich, that the rich can solve far more easily and efficiently than we can? Why do we instead risk denying them the resources to cope with whatever the future might hold?
On the whole, I tend to agree with you. Aiming to switch to nuclear in 30 years time is a far more sensible plan. But the question was why a number of groups on the left had slammed the proposed bill, and I suggest that it is because they have quite correctly identified it as not being what they campaigned for. It puts industry interests and the economy ahead of immediate radical action to save the environment. It’s not correct to call them nutcases for saying so – it is just that their priorities and intentions are not the same as ours.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:48 am
@Cannibals: I don’t agree that new technologies will come about with ‘business as usual’. New technologies cost an awful lot to develop and deploy and the boardroom meetings tend toward higher short-term gains rather than making substantial losses for gains 30 or 40 years from now. As oil and gas run low within this century (or so many predict) there will be a sudden rush to develop alternatives, but it may be too late by then. However, coming up with a goal of reducing carbon emissions is an opportunity to spur the necessary development of alternatives while we do have the luxury of time to experiment and develop solutions. It’s a no-lose situation if handled properly, but there is also the possibility of being a huge waste of money if things are not handled well.
May 26th, 2009 at 3:52 am
@SLC: as Carl Sagan once said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. I’m sure that publication will be scrutinized in time to see if there is any valid reason for accepting such a claim. In the meantime we continue to collect data on the current state of the earth; with any luck we’ll get some more instruments up and bring in even more observations.
May 26th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
MadScientist,
‘Business as usual’ has delivered the new technologies we have now, I don’t see why things should suddenly change. When we moved from wood to coal, or from coal to oil, or from oil to gas, it was done as part of ‘business as usual’. When we moved from messengers on horses to copper telegraph cables, to fibre optic, all that new technology was developed by ‘business as usual’. Developing new technology is something we are already doing – you don’t have to do anything special to make it happen.
Yes, you’re right. Nobody with any sense is going to make a substantial loss now for gains 30 years down the line. That’s because the sensible thing to do is work with what we’ve got now for 30 years, and then change over only when technological advance has made it profitable to do so. By using our scarce resources on what is profitable now, fixing more immediate problems, we acquire the wealth we need to make that expensive development affordable. At the end of it, we are both richer and will have a better, more efficient product.
Our immediate and most urgent problem is poverty and its consequences in the developing world. The only way we know of to fix that at the moment is cheap energy, but for the first time in human history, energy is cheap enough to actually make it profitable to do so. Spending our resources on that, and then switching energy sources brings us out a long way ahead of switching energy sources to something far more expensive and then trying to eradicate poverty. The end result of the latter will be inefficient energy, continued poverty, and no resources left to face any other problem that comes along. You would condemn billions to 30 more years of toil, sickness, and early death, and you would make our future as a civilisation more precarious.
We’d survive it, I’m sure. But it’s unnecessary.
The problem, as I said above, is this insistence that we must act NOW! At the moment, anything we can do is either ruinously expensive or completely ineffective (or both). But in 30-50 years time, it won’t be. It will actually be profitable and natural. And you’ll have eradicated a lot of poverty in the meantime, too.
Oil and gas won’t run low this century. If you look at a graph of how much we use and how much we’ve found so far against time, both of them curve up. (With the appearance to the human eye of ‘exponential’ rises, although mathematically it’s more like a quadratic.) The confusion comes about because one is a roughly constant multiple of the other, about 40 times, which leads people to say we’ve got 40 years of oil left at the current rate of use. But we’ve had 40 years worth left for at least the past 40 years, and before that we only had 20! If you extrapolate the lines, they don’t meet. There are some geologists who have calculated that if you add up all the coal, oil, tar sands, and shale oil that should be there that we haven’t found yet, it comes to about 5,000 years worth of fossil fuels at the current rate of use! However, that’s a bit speculative – more conservative estimates say we’re pretty confident that we’ve enough for 300 years or so.
But like I said, we’re not going to need it because we’ll have switched to something much better long before then. Science is amazing, isn’t it?
May 26th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Wow, your knowledge of oil is not amazing.
May 26th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Mr Leaf,
I find the clarity and exhaustive detail of your counter-argument simply stunning. I am forced to surrender by its sheer brilliance. ;->
We shall see, shan’t we?
“If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000″
Professor Paul Ehrlich, Famous Environmentalist, 1980.