As the House nears a vote on the Waxman-Markey America Clean Energy and Security Act–what the wonks now call “ACES”–my latest Science Progress column explains why we’ve gotta be pragmatists: This bill is pretty good, the best thing we’ve got, and represents the best chance we will have, perhaps ever, to finally start on this problem. To wit:
Yet there’s no question that all the most important pieces are in this bill: A price will, at long last, be set on carbon. Emissions will be ratcheted down over 80 percent by 2050. And the bill contains important requirements and incentives to promote a transition to renewable energy, including a national mandate that electricity suppliers obtain 20 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020.
Anyone who has paid very close attention to the climate issue, and contemplated what it would really take to solve it, recognizes that we’re dealing with perhaps most tangled scientific and economic hairball imaginable. With the global scope of the problem, the uncertainty inherent in any prediction of the rate and intensity of future global warming, and the magnitude of the economic and energy changes required to bring about real change—well, it remains an open question whether governments of the world are even capable of dealing with something so vast and difficult. And of course any solutions will also have an aspect of the hairball about them.
But that doesn’t mean that if and when we get them, they won’t be stunning achievements.
You can read the full column here.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Hi Chris, have you read the latest issue of the New Yorker? It has a profile of James Hansen who is not very happy with the bill. Of course Hansen sometimes is politically naive but you should take a look.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
This is ignoring the fact that cap and trade has been tried in Europe and all it’s done is destroy their economy (among other factors). It has done nothing to reduce carbon emissions. So, putting aside the contention that global warming has nothing to do with human activity — even if it did, this bill would do nothing to slow it down.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
I’d change “Emissions will be ratcheted down over 80 percent by 2050″ to “Emissions will allegedly be ratcheted down over 80 percent by 2050.” I’m unconvinced by the commitment to very distant targets. Still though, I think the bill’s a good idea.
Europe’s cap and trade program made many mistakes that we can learn from, but it has resulted in reductions. Even the harshest criticism of the CDM mechanism said it works 50%-66% of the time.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
How much effect do you think that it will have? Consodering the fact that we destoyed more than.. what percentage of the environment?
June 25th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
On the industry side, people who know what they’re talking about guess that the cost of energy (at least electricity) may double. At some stage governments may add taxes to gasoline, bunker fuel, and natural gas so we can expect costs to go up even more.
A majority of the big players in the oil and gas industry worldwide say they have the technical expertise to proceed with ‘geosequestration’ but that governments are very slow to adapt appropriate policies and encourage actual adoption of related technologies, not to mention the mess of regulations which will undoubtedly come up. At any rate geosequestration will be of primary value to fossil fueled power plants and to natural gas production sites where carbon dioxide is stripped from the gas and currently vented to the atmosphere; that’s maybe a 15% reduction in emissions at best and we’re absolutely certain that the ‘best’ case cannot be achieved.
On the science side, all sensible scientists say policies are weak and it is dubious that the 2050 targets will be met (think about how useless the Kyoto agreement was) and that it would be wise to invest in instrumentation to better observe the earth and get a better handle on the effects of CO2 as it increases at least over the next 80 years.
The oil industry currently estimates remaining exploitable global reserves will last about 70 years. That’s a mere 70 years to develop alternative energy sources to avoid a collapse of civilization – so global warming or no, we’ve got to diminish our fossil fuel dependence and we’ve got to do it quickly. Contrary to popular belief, ‘Big Oil’ is one of the biggest investors in alternative energy; unfortunately it is difficult to convince management and the stockholders that more profit should be diverted to that research. It’s a pretty scary standoff with management hoping government will put in money and give companies more incentives to invest in that development and governments naively believing that industry will take on the problem on its own (and at a competitive disdvantage). If we wait until we have only 30 or 40 years of oil left, it will be far too late and a global collapse of civilization will be inevitable (and I’d hate for the ‘Peak Oil’ people to be chanting “told you so!”).
The short story: people who say “you’re not doing enough anyway, don’t waste your money” are fools with no capacity to imagine what the future might be; they only wish to halt progress for their short-term convenience.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Sorry, but Global Warming is not caused by man. Climate Change is normal. The earth is not a static system. Dry places used to be wet. Wet used to be dry. Cold used to be Hot, and Hot used to be cold. Continents drift. Shorelines grow and recede. Rivers meander. Lakes appear, and disappear.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
@Gadfly: Where do you get the ridiculous notion that the European Emissions Trading Scam has damaged their economy? It has introduced a lot of bureaucracy and unnecessary costs and to date has been absolutely worthless by any measure, but has not destroyed any economy. I hear many rumors that the EU scheme is being modified to be useful but I just laugh and say “sure, I’ll believe it when I see it.”
June 25th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
@Brian Schmidt: The EU’s ETS has resulted in absolutely no reductions. What you see is “creative accounting”; none of it is real and the contortions used to come up with figures are an expected result of people ‘gaming’ the system. Even looking at Australia’s official emissions figures, there’s a lot of hokum going on to appear to be working towards the Kyoto targets; as a scientist I find all that nonsense absolutely enraging. It only demonstrates that bureaucrats will happily lie to themselves and to others that they’re going to a better place and all the while walking down the path to hell. The EU ETS is absolutely worthless as of this date and I would go so far as to say absolutely all of its managers are incompetent.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Would you halve the rate of teenage pregnancy by performing a hemiorchidectomy on every teenage male? Would you halve the rate of teenage pregnancy by castrating half the teenage males? 75%? 90%? Would you halve the rate of teenage pregnancy by mandating celibacy/abstinence of everybody? When you arrive at a conclusion, have a chat with Bristol Palin.
The Enviro-whiner trinity: expensive, shoddy, deadly. Shoddy was the Industrial Revolution’s first recycled wool. How well do you suppose that worked out?
June 26th, 2009 at 7:25 am
CO2 is NOT a pollutant! it’s natural essential element of life!
human’s = breathe in oxygen-nitrogen combination and release co2
trees and plant life = breathe in co2 and release oxygen!
WHAT WE TO DO NEXT? MAKE WAR ON ALL TREES?
CUT DOWN FORESTS, BECAUSE TREES PRODUCE 80% OF CO2?
—————–
WELCOME TO THE Socialist-Fascisto States of Amerika and the NWO and new State Religion of Global Warming.
ALL BOW!
to the tune of 856 Billion of your money to create “The SuperState Corporation”
……where as NO other Corporation except those getting tax payers money aloted by “Big Brother” will be able to compete.
All others shall pay to create it
“for OUR OWN benefit” ……..because they know better than us what’s good for us!!!
By the Way what exactly is a “Green Job” ? does anyone know anyone whom has one?
And is China, India ..And are the Russians exactly worried about CO2~?
Because Al Gore sure isn’t with his 3 private jets and all-terrain gas guzlers and house the size of three city blocks that uses more energy then three New York City Blocks!!!
June 26th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Just like the anti-vaxers show up on Dr. Oracs’ blog whenever he discusses the subject, the global warming deniers show up on this blog when Mr. Mooney discusses the topic. It’s entirely predictable, like the phases of the moon.
June 26th, 2009 at 8:43 am
Mr. Right:
Just two points for you to consider – China (and the European Union) has a lower atuomotive emission standard for tailpipe gasses then the U.S. does currently, and they are going to cut that standard in half either next year or 2011. So yes, they do care very much.
Second, Al Gore has 33 solar panels on his house, and pays extra $$ each month to buy the remainder of his electricity from green sources such as solar installations and wind farms. He has also made other changes and upgrades which have earned the house a LEED certification for eco-remodeling. Sure, he uses more then you or I do, but he’s also living the lifestyle he advocates, and his house is three times the size of mine.
Obviously, like many who challeneg climate change and its impacts, you operate from a rhetorical rather then fact-based perspective. That’s fine, but understand that you won’t win any friends here by throwing out long-debunked claims in support of your position.
And SLC, you are right about the cycle. My question to you is what do we do about it? Not talk climate change?
June 26th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Re Philip H.
We do as Mr. Philip H. has done, namely refute their lies.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“Essential” but does measurably nothing at all!
Mooney reporting are more more about political partisanship than real science.
More evidence that this is true about the regretable realm of science journalism in general is evident in the “double standard of coverage on the EPA suppressing dissent among its own scientists.
IF a story can smear Republicans, it counts as news! If the news goes against Democrats and Saint Obama, it isn’t. How convenient.
Mooney is a phony “journalist.” But somehow “stooge” comes to mind as apt.
June 29th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
AND Obama LOUDLY campaigned on governing openly and bringing science back in to envitonmental decision-making.
Excuse me?- it only counts as “hypocrisy” if Republicans are committing it – not Saint Obama. Newsmedia is today’s Pravda.
(Is it any wonder why no one credits newspapers with more honesty than used-car salesmen? Not to those paying attention.)