For new readers and old: The Solution to Global Warming …
… will be the focus of next week’s posts, which seems appropriate for Earth Day week. [Note to self: Write a post explaining why that is a lousy name for a “Day” — it really should be called “Self-preservation Day.”]
If you are a visiting here for the first time because of Time magazine, then the first thing you should do is read the “Most Popular Posts,” on the sidebar, which should tell you whether or not this is the website for you. Read the comments on those posts, to give you an idea of the vibrant community we have here. I hope you’ll join in.
You might also read some of the posts under the “Humor” Category — I try to inject as much humor and snarkiness into the blog as possible, since otherwise the self-destruction of human civilization as we know it can be a somewhat downbeat subject, I’ve been told.
And you are in luck, because next week I am going to lay out the solution to global warming — yes, there really is only one. I was going to do it this week but McCain’s lame gas tax holiday (see here) and Bush’s lamer climate speech (see here) sucked up too much of my time. I did, however, discuss “Concentrated solar thermal power — a core climate solution,” and that is worth reading since I think CSP maybe the single biggest provider of new carbon-free electricity this century, certainly bigger than coal with carbon capture and storage.
Thanks for stopping by!
April 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Looking forward to it, but please don’t forget the politics. It is not enough to put forward a bunch of technical solutions unless there is a global political will to make them happen.
Unless, of course, you have some as yet undiscovered zero-carbon source of energy that can out-compete all forms of fossil fuel without subsidy. If it exists the market has not discovered it yet.
April 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
totally agree with “note to self”
April 18th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Or perhaps “Save the grandchildren of some people you’ve never met living in some country you don’t much care about” Day.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Robert — if that were all this were about, then you could write their epitaph today. This country will suffer as much if not more than most. We just happen to be rich.
April 18th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Hey Joe!
I can’t to see wait for your zero carbons schemes for flying jet planes and operating BC’s new Super C class ferries and for keeping all of us in the Great White North from freezing to death in the wintertime.
Do all the ski resorts in the GWN get a free pass on carbon emissions?
I think I’ll go in my cave and get out some clubs.
Harold the Giant Troll
April 18th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Joe - agreed. I was being slightly facetious. But it is true that most people (particularly in the US) don’t see climate change as urgent. In our world of “live for today, sod tomorow” that translates to “unimportant”. They also think they can buy their way out of it, at least for a while.
Climate change has had global media publicity and the full attention of the scientific community for at least 10 years now, 10 years where the global economy has boomed and energy has been cheap. Now that energy is suddenly becoming very expensive (US crude closed at $117 today; 10 years ago it was $10-$20) and we have equally sudden (and probably linked) economic woes, what chance have we of focussing people on climate change? Almost none I’d say.
It’s more likely that nations such as Australia and China will quietly go ahead and build CTL plants, the energy equivalent of the “silent but deadly” fart - releasing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and refusing to discuss it seriously. We have already seen this trend in Canada with the expansion of the extremely CO2-intensive tar sands.
For all the above reasons I maintain the problem is essentially political. Atmospheric CO2 pollution is a classic example of The Tragedy of the Commons which can only be addressed by global political agreement.
April 18th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Some light reading on the subject…
http://www.physics.otago.ac.nz/ eman/ documents/ commons%20revisited%20tragedy%20continues.pdf
April 18th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I put up a link to Climate Progress on my own community blog here in Milwaukee:
http://blogs.bayviewnow.com/an_authors_perspective/
Hopefully, a few people swing over here. For a real treat, take a good look at the response by a particularly annoying conservative who quotes an article written by a part-time writer for the Christian New Service who just so happens to also be convinced that Noah’s Ark is sitting on a mountain in Iran.
Ken
April 19th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Robert,
Could you better define urgent? Contrary to your assumptions, the U.S. is moving forward with most of the things Joe advocates if not in the exact form he desires. That is why I find his criticism of McCain inane. The climate bill that sets up cap/trade is the product of the true leadership in the Senate, Lieberman, an independent democrat and Warner, a republican. Progressives mounted a nearly successful campaign to defeat Lieberman in the last election. Neither democratic candidate has contributed to the climate bill. Both Warner and Lieberman have strongly endorsed McCain. That’s politics.
You maintain the problem is essentially political. I maintain the problem is not political in any sense and that laws promoting the replacement of fossil fuels will be enacted regardless of who is in office. If Joe is correct that the faster the switch to alternatives the greater the economic benefit, the switch will occur even if CO2 is found not to be a problem. If the last couple of weeks at climateprogress shows anything, it’s that it’s all about the deployment. The one thing that the breakthrough is right about (and I’d be willing to stipulate they could be wrong about everything else) is that it is a far better deployment strategy to focus on reducing the cost of alternatives than raising the cost of fossil. I say not politics, but polity, the will of the people. The people can come together in free association without need of politicians.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Paul K
Who mentioned the US? It is not particularly a US problem. Even if the US reduced their emissions to zero overnight the global trend would continue upwards. Also, don’t forget that we in the West have exported much of our manufacturing emissions to China.
In my first post I said “global political will” was needed. The problem is global and can only be solved at a global level. Just look at the upper graph (forget the lower one. The planet doesn’t care about per-capita emisions):
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.htm
“Urgent” action is needed because the graphs are still heading upwards exponentially. Perhaps “immediate” would be a better word. There is no sign of the acceleration slowing down, never mind a levelling off of emissions. As for actually reducing global emissions to zero in order to stabilise at 450ppm - that is pure fantasy at the moment.
The market cannot solve a “Tragedy of the Commons” problem of this magnitude by itself. Markets work at their best when people are acting selfishly. Solving CO2 emissions requires the opposite - cooperation on a global scale.
April 19th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Of course, some countries are worse than others:
Some of the worst:
USA http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/usa.htm
CANADA http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/can.htm
CHINA http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prc.htm
INDIA http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/ind.htm
NORWAY http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/nor.htm
A few of the ones that seem to be making a bit of an effort:
UK http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/uki.htm
FRANCE http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/fra.htm
SWEDEN http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/swe.htm
April 19th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Compare Norway’s high moral stance and climate change ambitions with its actual CO2 emissions. George Orwell would have been proud.
http://www.norway.org.uk/ policy/ news/ klimaforliket_eng.htm
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/nor.htm