Vote for me or the kitten gets it!
I am participating in an online debate sponsored by the Economist on the “Global energy crisis.” The proposition being debated Oxford-style is:
Needless to say, I am taking the “Pro” side.
There is voting by the public for both Pro and Con. Although online voting is about as scientific as a typical argument from a global warming denier, I’d always rather win than lose (or, worse, statistically tie and then have the judges redo the calculation and give the gold to some underage host-country gymnast who screwed up their dismount, but I digress).
Three of Climate Progress’s central messages are:
- Actual observations of climate change coupled with our understanding of climate science makes clear we have run out of time for dawdling, for waiting to achieve multiple breakthrough TILTs (The Imaginary Low-carbon Technology).
- The state of energy technology means we have what we need now (or soon will) to reverse emissions trends and get on the path to averting catastrophe at very low cost relative to the benefits.
- While some very sincere and concerned people believe we need breakthroughs to solve the climate problem, many very insincere and unconcerned people like President Bush, use the “technology breakthrough” frame to argue against strong action now.
[NOTE: If you actually read my opponent’s piece, it isn’t yet clear where he really disagrees with me. I’m not sure he does, but hopefully that will become clearer when he posts his rebuttal.]
Related Posts:
- The Debate of the Decade Revisited — Avoiding the Technology Trap
- McCain proposes another energy gimmick, Part 1 — pointless battery prize. Is this another $300M to ExxonMobil?
- Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution
- IEA report, Part 2: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right
- Must read: Bush DOE says wind can be 20% of U.S. power by 2030 — with no breakthroughs
- Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?
- Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 3: The breakthrough technology illusion
- Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution
- Do we need a massive government program to generate breakthroughs to make solar energy cost-competitive?
- Breaking the technology breakthrough myth — Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus again
- The technologies needed to beat 450 ppm
- The debate of the decade: Technology development vs. deployment
- Renewable Energy Subterfuge: Bush’s Sleight of Hand
- Chapter Six Excerpt: The Technology Trap and the American Way of Life
- Time to end the phony, and historically inaccurate, debate
- Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah.”
August 19th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
I think The Economist debates are a rather good format and of a high standard, because they invite interesting people.
The previous debate was about the upsides to humanity of higher food prices. It was a very interesting debate. The “pro” vote (yes, higher food prices are good for the world and especially for the poor), won too, in that debate.
On this new energy debate, I vote “pro” once more. All technologies are here for a smooth transition to a global post-coal, post-oil economy. We just have to rewrite accounting rules and rearrange subsidies to pull it off.
If the true social and environmental costs of coal/oil are taken into account, virtually all renewables would beat fossil fuels hands down, today. Add the unequal (indirect) subsidies for these fossil fuels, and the picture looks even brighter.
Switching to renewables is entirely a political affair. No longer a technological one.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Joe,
What fool is debating from the con position? There is no way to argue against the sufficiency of current technology especially if near pipeline items like plug-in hybrids are included. It is easier to argue that the changeover to 21st Century energy is very likely even under present law.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I voted Pro, but it’s quite obvious that there is no common definition of “Breakthrough Innovation”.
The Con statement seems to feel that solar/wind/PHEV still constitute breakthroughs…
August 19th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Well important breakthrough Innovations must include the already well known DeLorean time machine, with a Jigowatt flux capacitor and antimatter engines.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I voted Pro. I couldn’t find anyone arguing the Con position. It’s like they scheduled a debate between two guys who already agreed.
August 19th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Nice to see “the pro” up by over 2 to 1 now. I was expecting some BI names to weigh in but they seem to have skipped the debate - too bad, could have made it more energetic.
August 19th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
What do I have to do the vote? Pro of course.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
I voted Pro.
Seeking new tools means the job never gets done…
August 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
The obvious solution is not from us, but from the Singularity. Due to appear in 2030.
As reported today in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 08/ 26/ science/ 26tier.html
Says how Vernor Vinge predicted it, of course he doesn’t mention climate instability, but that is the first thing it will have to fix.
I feel so relieved after reading that.
Ah… I think I will go draw a warm bath. Extra hot.