Certaintly, the N.Y. Times deserves praise for devoting one of its January 1st editorials to “The One Environmental Issue.” The opening line is well-meaning if well behind the times:
The overriding environmental issue of these times is the warming of the planet.
Actually, that was true at least 10 years ago. Given how unbelievably dire the situation has become, that sentence would be far more accurate if the word “environmental” were dropped. But I suspect it will take the NYT ed board another 10 years to realize that. The piece quickly becomes confused:
The Democratic hopefuls in the 2008 campaign are fully engaged, calling for large — if still unquantified – national sacrifices and for a transformation in the way the country produces and uses energy. The Republicans do not go much further than conceding that climate change could be a problem and, with the notable exception of John McCain, offer no comprehensive solutions.
Well, they have the GOP somewhat right — though it isn’t clear how many Republican candidates really concede the climate problem (see here and here and even here). But on what basis do they say that the Democratic plans lack specifics? They write:
… even the candidates who urge comprehensive change have not been pressed on important questions of cost: How do they intend to pay for all the new efficiencies and technologies that will be necessary? And what kind of sacrifices will they be asking of people who almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills and their greener cars?
Addressing these questions will require more courage of the candidates than simply offering up broad new visions. The voters deserve an honest accounting and the candidates should be prepared to give it.
I guess they never read Obama’s excellent plan. Everything is paid for by auctioning the carbon permits in his cap and trade system. Hillary’s equally strong and detailed plan also seems to generate the necessary funds. If you read both plans, you’ll realize that they are quite courageous. They have not gotten the media attention they deserve.
Also, if the NYT had actually read and understood either plan, they would see that it isn’t true that “people almost certainly will have to pay more for their electric bills” (sic — presumably they meant “for their electricity”). Both have very aggressive energy efficiencies programs based on utility decoupling and other potent and cost-effective strategies. Whether greener cars cost a lot more remains to be seen — I’ll be blogging on that later this month.
Efficiency can pay for itself — and for many of the other required carbon-saving measures — as many, such as the consulting firm McKinsey & Co, have pointed out. The country can cut GHG emissions a great deal without raising the nation’s overall energy bill — if we get serious.
Can we get all the way to 450 ppm without major “sacrifices”? That is a very good question — and it obviously depends a lot on your definition of sacrifices and your political perspective. Obviously our soldiers overseas are sacrificing. But here at home we’re spending $15 billion a month on Iraq — but not raising taxes to pay for the cost. Is that a sacrifice?
The N.Y. Times does make a very important point about the media:
In a recent study, the League of Conservation Voters found that as of two weeks ago, the five main political talk-show hosts had collectively asked 2,275 questions of candidates in both parties. Only 24 of the questions even touched on climate change.
So the media still doesn’t get it after all that has happened this year.
In a decade, if not sooner, even the traditional media will realize that global warming is the issue of the century — if not the issue of the millennium. And we’ll see a lot more than just 1% of questions directed towards it. We might even see some conservatives with serious plans to stabilize at 450 ppm….
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
Joe,
You’re quite sure that the higher costs imposed on industry won’t be passed along to consumers?
How will Obama or Clinton make sure that doesn’t happen?
And if the higher costs are not passed along to consumers, how will they make sure the losses are not borne by their workers?
Maybe I just don’t understand economics like you do. Can you clarify?
Ron: Your various posts do support the view that you don’t understand economics….
As I have blogged many times, carbon prices mean higher FUEL prices — obviously. But they don’t necessarily mean higher BILLS — as even this post makes clear. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency — write it down, commit it to memory, then have a party!
Hope that clarifies things! You might try going through the archives for my various post’s on decoupling, plug-in hybrids, and the like.
I understand this:
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
Amory Lovins call this a lunch you are paid to eat!
Joe,
I don’t think the Times can be faulted for suggesting that people MAY pay more for electricity. Yes energy efficiency may cut those bills for some people but not evenly and across the board. If they put the word “May” in there I think I would have had no beef with what they said.
Higher per unit energy costs are also a big motivation for EE (witness Japan and Western Europe), but again some industries may see their costs rise and yes that will be reflected in the cost of goods.
Paradoxically, it may be more difficult for those people and industrial sectors who have already instituted EE programs to further cut their energy use, while those who have been more wasteful with energy might well see their bills stay the same or go down if they make EE investments.
The Times is right to ask the candidates to level with people rather than make it all sound like it costs nothing. It costs something but we can do it ways that are efficient, intelligent and get us where we want to go. I support most of the measures (decoupling, EE, green energy) in these plans, I just want them to be presented in ways that don’t insult people’s intelligence.
You are opening yourself to comments such as Ron’s by soft-pedaling trade-offs that may occur. There are in the area of EE many free lunches (as well as some large upfront costs that require financing) and also when renewables have depreciated there’s also a free lunch there too. But it’s not as if there are no trade-offs either; it’s that it’s worth it to make the trade-offs.
Lovins is known for soft-pedaling any trade-offs…he is a tireless advocate for many good things but he comes across as a snake-oil salesman. His credibility would go up 5 fold in my opinion if introduced trade-offs and complexity into his presentations.
Michael: Thanks for your comment. My biggest critique of NYT is that they haven’t really read Obama’s or Hillary’s plan, but they claim both are lacking.
I think I have been pretty clear that 450 ppm is hard — very hard. But “sacrifice” is a relative term, as my post suggests.
I worked with Amory for two years and certainly agree with you (as does almost everyone who ever worked for him).
Ron,
Here’s just one example of how efficiency works to reduce cost.
http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 12/ 21/ led-christmas-lighting-is-cool-literally/
And that’s just christmas tree lights. Of course there are quite a few other examples.
Joe-Thanks for highlighting the Obama plan, one which I agree hasn’t gotten nearly enough ink (or pixel space) in the places average Americans look for
I’m curious what your take is on the “cap and divident” approach recently broken down by Peter Barnes (of Working Assets) and highlighted by Andy Revkin in his Times blog.
http://onthecommons.org/node/1239
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 01/ 02/ paying-the-high-cost-of-climate-control/
The basic premise, excerpted from Barnes’ post goes like this:
” The simplest and fairest way to protect the poor and middle class is to give equal rebates to everyone. The money would come from either a carbon tax, or an auction of carbon emission permits…. Just as every Alaska resident receives an equal dividend from revenue from state oil leases, so every American would get an equal dividend from carbon permit auctions. The dividends would be wired monthly into people’s bank accounts, much like Social Security payments. They’d help families pay their monthly bills.
There are several nice features of such a plan. One is that it’s automatic — as energy prices rise, so do dividends. Another is that how you fare depends on what you do. The more energy you use, the more you pay. Since everyone gets the same amount back, you gain if you conserve and lose if you guzzle. This is fair to everyone, whether rich or poor. And it takes politicians off the hook for rising energy prices. If voters complain, politicians can truthfully say, “The market sets prices, and you determine by your own energy use whether you gain or lose. If you conserve, you come out ahead.” ”
He obviously gets into much more detail in his post, and I’d love to hear your take (and that of anyone else qualified to discuss such a proposal).