Perhaps there are some signs that a
technology-centered approach to decarbonization is gaining momentum. First, from the international negotiations:
U.S. companies are lobbying at UN climate talks in Bonn for incentives to spur technologies that could slow the pace of carbon emissions, abandoning a push to encourage a cap on gas emissions, a business lobby group said.
The U.S. Council for International Business, whose members include General Electric Co. and Coca-Cola Co., said rules to cap CO2 emissions are unlikely soon, Norine Kennedy, vice president of energy and environmental affairs, said in an interview today. Instead, they want incentives encouraging technologies they’re promoting.
“The center of the action is technology,” she said at the United Nations climate talks. “There’s broad agreement that we won’t get to the mitigation targets without technology.”
Vincent Carroll of The Denver Post had a smart column yesterday as well:
Here's why cap and trade failed: because of legitimate fears about its costs to consumers, inevitable damage to energy-intensive businesses, and a growing recognition that it wouldn't even spur the technological innovation needed to sharply reduce the use of fossil fuels. Groundbreaking advances in clean energy aren't exactly cascading out of Europe, after all, where energy is far more expensive and a cap-and-trade policy has been in place since 2005.
Congressional supporters of cap-and-trade now have made four runs at passing legislation in recent years, failing each time. If they can't succeed when Democrats enjoy overwhelming majorities, when will they find the votes? Sure, the public supports the idea of combating climate change — in the abstract. But support melts away when even a modest price — in one poll, $175 a year per household — is linked to a plan.
Maybe it's time for environmentalists and their political allies to consider a new strategy, one that might not only win votes in Congress but actually do some good. For a small fraction of the cost of the destructive cap-and-trade plan, this nation could concentrate on what the Breakthrough Institute's Michael Shellenberger describes as "closing the price and technology gap between clean energy and fossil fuels" through greater federal support for research and innovation.
Bill Gates is among those who have adopted this approach to slashing clean-energy costs, explaining that we'll need a technological revolution to reduce carbon emissions to the levels sought by the anti-warming warriors. Gates and the American Energy Innovation Council would peg research spending at $16 billion a year, or three times the present level.
Fiscal conservatives might still balk at such spending, of course, given the magnitude of the federal deficit. And I wouldn't necessarily blame them. But at least the debate over clean energy and climate policy would have returned back to Earth after residing for too long in the land of wishful thinking and economic folly.
But what is really needed is no simply invocations about the importance of technology, but also realistic proposals to pay for such investments, ideally through a low tax on carbon or fossil fuels.
8 comments:
The chart only shows growth, not a rollback, in coal, oil, gas, and biomass. They all produce carbon gases in the burning. Nuclear appears static.
-1-Craig 1st
I included the chart to show the growing the demand, not the projected mix.
-2--Roger
What will be the mix if it doesn't track the demand? Are you suggestion something similar to substituting soy for beef by a control authority when the order is for a steak?
If there was a chef that did that to me I would start mumbling "Redrum, redrum." ;)
-3-Craig 1st
Don't know. How we meet future demand is a topic worth some more attention here in coming months.
One of the biggest mistakes (IMHO) made by people advocating investment into research of new energy generating technologies, has been tied to the idea of "decarbinization" of the economy. This is what got the legitimate desire for improved energy generation tied up with the whole climate change brou ha-ha.
Think on this example back when Europe, England especially, started running out of trees due to the fact that wood was then the primary energy generating source for heat and cooking. Did you see anyone tying that into a concept of "we need to invest into research of technologies so we can de-wood the economy"? No, we did not. However did new technologies come into being? Yes they did and to me the reason is very basic: self interest. People wanted to stay warm in the winter and have hot food, while others were looking for ways to make profit.
The people of the time didn't give a fig about the trees or deforestration. The basic economics of supply and demand made the remaining wood un economical compared to coal. When the trees were plentiful it was the reverse due to the fact that it was easier to get to, chop down and process a tree then mine coal. When wood prices rose, people saw an opportunity and coal became dominate, as the easier to mine and higher grades of coal was used up, new mining technology was researched and implemented to keep the coal flowing. All that through self interest.
We saw this same phenomenom when Whale Oil became scarce due to killing off the whales. Were the people of the time concerned about the fate of the whales? No. Did they want to slide back technologically? No again. So what did they do? They found a way to use what was up until that time a substance that was considered a nuisance in whale oils place. This substance was considered a nuisance because if they hit it while drilling for something useful like water, it caused them to find a new well. This substance as we know it today is Oil.
We see this every time new energy technology has come forward, it has been self interest not some lofty goal that has produced it. IMO it has been long past time to dump the whole "decarbinization" scheme as a selling point and just follow human nature of self interest. Decarbinization will come as a consequence of the new technologies founded by self interest. Just as de-wooding and de-whaling the encomomies of the past were, not for the lofty goals of saving the forests or the whale.
Green technology is advancing rapidly on several fronts. We only really hear about the sexy three--wind, solar and biofuels. Of those three, solar is the only one that will make an appreciable contribution to satisfying demand.
The heavy lifting in renewable energy continues to be done by hydroelectric. People have the mistaken impression that hydropower has peaked, just because we are not building many big dams in the developed world. But at any given time over the past five years there have been about 1,000 dams under construction. It's just that most large dam construction happens in the developing world these days, so we don't see it unless it's Three Gorges. But hydropower will double by 2030. Small hydro, microhydro and run of river hydro are growing rapidly--especially in China.
In energy efficiency, again, two little-discussed phenomena (because they are not new) that are making huge contributions are combined heat and energy (which provides 7% of the world's primary energy) and efficiency gains in turbines, which affects just about everything related to energy. What's happening worldwide is really big right now. Power generating companies are decommissioning coal powered plants all over the world and replacing them with combined cycle gas plants or just nothing, as demand keeps dropping in the over-developed world.
But demand is really the issue. The DOE thinks that we'll produce about 700 quads in 2030. A simple extension of demand curves yields a figure of about 2,400 quads.
We're going to need a bigger boat.
"Perhaps there are some signs that a technology-centered approach to decarbonization is gaining momentum. First, from the international negotiations:"
"U.S. companies are lobbying at UN climate talks in Bonn for incentives to spur technologies that could slow the pace of carbon emissions, abandoning a push to encourage a cap on gas emissions, a business lobby group said."
This is just a technology-centered approach by big business to line its pockets at the expense of consumers and taxpayers alike.
A 'technology-centered' approach to carbon policy is preferable to one that seeks to transform demand, society, culture, and even human nature by fiat. However 'decarbonization' is only one of several socioeconomic goals that a comprehensive carbon policy needs to address. And it is one to which most of the body politic in most places attaches relatively lower priority. This is important because the types of technology and forms of innovation promotion very likely would be different under a comprehensive carbon policy than under a policy agenda that is solely focused on climate or even just environmental concerns.
Post a Comment