Prev: ALWAYS REPRIEVING RELATIVITY
Next: A Nagging Question On CO2 Levels
From: Eric Gisin on 30 Jun 2010 12:54
A good energy site, pro-nuclear and no green fantasies.

http://theenergycollective.com/darrenehackler/38789/debunking-myths-global-climate-change
http://www.itif.org/files/2010-green-economy-myths.pdf (13pg)

Tags: Cap-and-TradeClimateEfficiencyEnergy and EconomyEnergy Collective ExclusiveEnergy
InvestingGreen BusinessGreen JobsPolitics & Legislation
June 30, 2010 by DarreneHackler

Numerous advocacy groups, scholars, think tanks and others have proposed a variety of steps to
address global warming based on a set of assumptions about the green economy. Yet, while we need to
take bold action to address climate change, much of what passes for conventional wisdom in this
space is in fact either wrong or significantly exaggerated.

In our recent report, "Ten Myths of Addressing Global Warming and the Green Economy," ITIF explains
how the debate on policy responses to climate change is fueled by an array of myths, ranging from
assumptions that high carbon taxes will generate needed clean innovations to the belief the U.S. is
the natural leader in the clean energy sector. If we are to effectively address climate change and
at the same time become globally competitive in the clean energy industry, policies need to be
guided by careful and reasoned analysis.

ITIF dismantles the top ten myths in the debate, which are:

1. Higher prices on greenhouse gases are enough to drive the transition to a clean economy.

2. The U.S. can make major contributions to solving climate change on its own.

3. Cap-and-trade is a sustainable global solution.

4. We don't need innovation; we have all the technology we need.

5. "Insulation is enough" (e.g. energy efficiency will save us).

6. Low growth is the answer.just live simply.

7. Information technology (IT) is a significant contributor to climate change.

8. Going green is green (e.g., it makes economic sense to go green).

9. We are world leaders on the green economy, and it's ours for the taking.

10. Foreign green mercantilism is good for solving climate change (and good for the U.S.).

Perhaps the most prevalent myth is that carbon taxes or a cap-and-trade regime alone will drive
significant GHG reductions and save the planet. The current neoclassical economics-inspired
solution focuses on pricing carbon and letting markets work. Proponents have faith that increasing
the price of carbon will induce behavior change. But this will only happen when there is a viable
and affordable substitute. Adherence to this entrenched myth overlooks the fact that radical
innovation in the energy sector is essential to the transformation in how we produce and consume
energy in the future. Our strategy must be based on innovation to make the dent we have to make in
our greenhouse gas production.

While many people espouse the maxim, act locally, think globally, this doesn't seem to carry over
to the climate change debate. Too many of the policy proposals are based on the idea that whatever
the U.S. does to address climate change will be enough. This blindly ignores that the lion's share
of GHG will come from the expected growth in population that will effectively double global energy
consumption. Even if we find the political will to impose a price on or limit carbon emissions, and
even if those actions were to reduce carbon emissions by 85 percent, this will only account for a
12 percent reduction in global GHG emissions by 2050. Any solution must be one from which every
nation will want to implement even in the absence of regulation, carbon taxes, or subsidies from
other nations.

And, by the way, cap and trade-the darling of the moment-isn't a globally sustainable option. It's
a myth that developing nations can afford to pay a premium for low-carbon energy when they are
having trouble enough with providing the basics of food and shelter. The conventional policy
response is that the United States (and Europe) should either bribe poor nations with massive clean
development aid so they can afford more expensive clean energy, or we should penalize them with
border adjustable carbon taxes. And neither option comes for free since the United States would
need to increase taxpayer-financed aid subsidies to meet developing countries clean energy demand.
The end result is that U.S. taxpayers would pay twice in a global cap-and-trade regime-once for
their own consumption and once for developing nations'. The only globally sustainable option is the
creation of affordable (read "grid parity") clean energy for all nations.

The reality, however, is that we don't have the technology we need to make needed reductions in
global GHG emissions at a price at or below the price of fossil fuels-no matter what advocates like
former vice president Al Gore say. This notion plays into the policy advice that suggests we just
need to raise the price of coal and oil a bit, and technology will fly from the shelf and into the
market. This ignores a fundamental truth that the needed breakthroughs in clean energy face
daunting challenges, including lowering materials and processing costs, improving conversion
efficiencies, and gaining better manufacturing yields. Moreover, clean energy innovators recover
only a portion of the benefits their technologies produce. Most companies prefer to "free ride" off
existing dirtier technologies, making the rational business decision to under invest in
fundamentally new green technologies. To spur the technology we need, government must step in,
incentivize basic R&D and propel these technologies through the "valley of death" - the phase in
the development of technologies between research and commercial introduction in the marketplace.

Incidentally, although energy efficiency technologies and measures are certainly an important part
of attaining a lower carbon footprint, in reality these are short-run, stop-gap solutions. If we
add all of the potential savings from energy efficiency, they only abate about 25 percent of GHG
emissions. To make matters worse, the "low hanging fruit" will grow smaller over time, decreasing
returns to our efforts. To reduce our GHG emissions by 85 percent by 2050, we need radical
innovation to provide clean energy alternatives, rather than just using carbon-based fuels a bit
more efficiently.

In the end, conventional wisdom and neoclassical economics provides us with flawed policy guidance.
We contend that we need more than a price on carbon or subsidies on deploying current green
technologies to drive green innovation and industry. Only a clean energy innovation strategy can
drive the development of affordable, zero-carbon alternatives to address the challenge of global
climate change.

From: Rob Dekker on 1 Jul 2010 23:02

"Eric Gisin" <ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote in message news:i0fstf$i97$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>A good energy site, pro-nuclear and no green fantasies.
>

With the $ 8 billion loan guarantee program the president just set up, when do we start building ?

Rob



From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jul 2010 23:33

Michael Mann Exonerated as Penn State Inquiry Finds 'No Substance' To
Allegations

Just out: Pennsylvania State University has completed the second half of
a two-part investigation of Michael Mann's role in the so-called
"Climategate" affair. The 2-month inquiry has found that...


http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/07/michael-mann-exonerated-as-penn.html?etoc



From: Surfer on 2 Jul 2010 03:48
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 09:54:22 -0700, "Eric Gisin"
<ericg(a)nospammail.net> wrote:

>
>Proponents have faith that increasing
>the price of carbon will induce behavior change. But this will only happen when there is a viable
>and affordable substitute.
>
But if carbon remains too cheap, companies will find no profit in
providing viable and affordable substitutes.



 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: ALWAYS REPRIEVING RELATIVITY
Next: A Nagging Question On CO2 Levels