Comments on: Always wrong, never in doubt http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:34:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: hapa http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/#comment-11633 hapa Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:29:00 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/#comment-11633 but this isn't enough. how we prevent a transition economy from going into the same speculative, unproductive tailspin as the three bubbles we're exiting? http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908 look at what we didn't get from the three bubbles: * the dotcom boom didn't give us fiber optic internet and fast wireless in every city. * enron didn't give us a smart grid with distributed generation. * the housing bubble didn't give us better housing for good prices. * "health care." would anyone like to stick around to see the end product of wall street's climate effort? but this isn’t enough. how we prevent a transition economy from going into the same speculative, unproductive tailspin as the three bubbles we’re exiting?

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908

look at what we didn’t get from the three bubbles:

* the dotcom boom didn’t give us fiber optic internet and fast wireless in every city.
* enron didn’t give us a smart grid with distributed generation.
* the housing bubble didn’t give us better housing for good prices.
* “health care.”

would anyone like to stick around to see the end product of wall street’s climate effort?

]]> By: Jim Bullis http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/#comment-11636 Jim Bullis Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:11:45 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/#comment-11636 It seemed like we would have an opportunity to better understand the economics of the set of reasonable solutions listed in the chart by the McKinsey company that was published here some time ago. Art Rosenfeld used this chart in some presentations as well. Apparently this chart was from an analysis that was funded by the California Energy Commission. Why is the analysis that explains the chart entries as well as the development of these numbers not available to the public? Or if it is, where can it be accessed? Thanks, Jim Bullis It seemed like we would have an opportunity to better understand the economics of the set of reasonable solutions listed in the chart by the McKinsey company that was published here some time ago.

Art Rosenfeld used this chart in some presentations as well.

Apparently this chart was from an analysis that was funded by the California Energy Commission.

Why is the analysis that explains the chart entries as well as the development of these numbers not available to the public? Or if it is, where can it be accessed?

Thanks, Jim Bullis

]]> By: Michael Hoexter http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/#comment-11651 Michael Hoexter Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:12:55 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/26/always-wrong-never-in-doubt/#comment-11651 So what if electric rates go up (some)? Saying that your policy recommendations are cheap or cheaper is the wrong issue with regard to global warming as the technologies used to scrub S0x and NOx are much cheaper than a largely new energy system required to cut GHG emissions. Using expense as an argument against measures that can prevent the biosphere from becoming largely uninhabitable is like saying: "I'm not going to undertake this lifesaving operation because I can't afford it." Penny-wise but pound-foolish. Exaggerating the expense of climate saving measures is a tactic that should be called attention to but the implication that all these wedges are not going to cost much is also foolish: we are talking about a massive and very worthwhile infrastructure project over a period of 3 decades that has to paid for by someone. The false assumption is "no one is ever going to ask anyone for money for this (because it puts one (in the current political climate) in an uncomfortable position)". Please don't play that game because you're going to lose the argument. So what if electric rates go up (some)?

Saying that your policy recommendations are cheap or cheaper is the wrong issue with regard to global warming as the technologies used to scrub S0x and NOx are much cheaper than a largely new energy system required to cut GHG emissions. Using expense as an argument against measures that can prevent the biosphere from becoming largely uninhabitable is like saying: “I’m not going to undertake this lifesaving operation because I can’t afford it.” Penny-wise but pound-foolish.

Exaggerating the expense of climate saving measures is a tactic that should be called attention to but the implication that all these wedges are not going to cost much is also foolish: we are talking about a massive and very worthwhile infrastructure project over a period of 3 decades that has to paid for by someone.

The false assumption is “no one is ever going to ask anyone for money for this (because it puts one (in the current political climate) in an uncomfortable position)”. Please don’t play that game because you’re going to lose the argument.

]]>