Solar Dreams
August 03, 2007
Former Coal Lobbyist to Head Anti-Cape Wind Group
September 1, 2007 | Michael Shellenberger,
From the September 1, 2007, Cape Cod Times:
"A coal industry insider, Wattley has been a frequent commentator on energy issues and utilities in the national media. He has commented publicly on the Cape Wind project on several occasions."
Click here to read the whole story.
Comments
Interesting work. Given the aging US baby-boomer population, should we expect to see the fear of death play a larger role in shaping politics? If so, perhaps aspirations for immortality be channeled into improving the environment rather than degrading it.
By Kevin Anderson on 2008 05 29
Joe- It is an interesting debate tactic that you use:
1. Call for the politically impossible
2. Observe people who point out that your proposals are impossible
3. Blame the people pointing out that your proposals are impossible for their expected failure.
By Roger Pielke, Jr. on 2008 05 23
Thanks for this, Joe. I didn't read Smil as saying that we're doomed, only that we're doomed if we don't invest in technology.
I'm seeing very little in Lieberman-Warner for either development or deployment. Here's my numbers. Please tell me if you're coming up with something different:
Annual investments in "clean energy" (broadly defined to include nukes and CCS). All numbers in billions.
Zero-/Low-Carbon energy gen 2.42
Advanced Research Energy 0.45
CCS 0.37
International Tech Transfer 0.11
Renewable energy facilities 3.95
Cellulosic biofuels 0.68
That adds up to $7.97 billion a year -- out of $177 billion total. If you count the money for worker retraining, the number goes to $13 billion, but I'm not sure what the worker retraining really gets us, wedge-wise. (For that matter, I'm not sure what any of this gets us wedge wise.)
If Lieberman Warner allows firms to borrow pollution allowances from the future, then it seems reasonable to expect the price for CO2 won't go above $30 any time soon, in which case neither solar PV nor CCS come on-line in a big way. Thus, we would be relying almost entirely on direct public investments to ramp up the technology.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 23
Lieberman-Warner won't get us to 450 ppm. It does allocate trillions of dollars in a way that could be used for technology deployment. If it were, that could get us a lot of wedges.
As for Pielke's laughable interpretation of my Nature letter, Nature asked me for a letter -- that is the only reason I sent one in. They limited me to a few hundred words -- and then refused to publish any direct quotes from the scientific literature. Indeed, they said my core critique of Pielke was obvious and they didn't want to run it. So the letter ended up eviscerated. I would have withdrawn it if I thought he would have made such an absurd leap as to its meaning.
I have published over 10,000 words explaining the myriad flaws in the paper -- most of which Pielke never rebutted. So I can only assume he agrees with my debunking.
Smil is a smart guy -- but he doesn't know energy technologies. If he thinks the world is doomed, he is entitled to his opinion. But quoting him ardly counts as a rebuttal to those who do understand his choice is a false one and that 450 ppm is technologically and economically achievable, but it is probably not politically achievable -- especially if people listen to him (and Pielke).
By Joseph Romm (ClimateProgress) on 2008 05 23
Yes: John Jost, et al., "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," Psychological Bulletin, 2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 06
Larry: You are certainly right that the left uses fear as much as the right -- and that's the problem. As progressives, we're trying to call both sides to propose positive visions that are as compelling as their respective dystopias.
Michael: Fear of climate change has been a motivator for the roughly 10 percent or so of the public that is strongly concerned about global warming. But fear-based appeals move the rest of public toward hopelessness or denial. That's not just our view, that's the consensus view of the cognitive scientists and opinion researchers who have looked at the question. The challenge is not fear vs. no fear, it's taking the fear and bridging to a positive view of the future.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 06
Michael and Ted,
I agree with your idea of inspiring people with a better story. People hunger for a positive vision and want to know what they can do to help. But we can't ignore the reality of global environmental trends, climate change and overpopulation. Most people have no idea what's going on with peak oil. We need knowledge and vision.
The Buddhists talk about a middle path. So let's walk the middle path between knowledge of how much things need to change with a vision of how good things could be. Why doesn it have to be one or the other?
Thank you for promoting the need for investment in a sustainable future, specifically a clean energy economy that creates jobs, reduces our trade deficit and addresses climate change. This is the kind of visionary thinking that has been so needed over the past 7 years of deficit spending on war, weapons, prisons and border fences.
I'd also like to see dialogue happen around reducing waste of energy, water and materials in this country. We can still enjoy a high standard of living in this country and meet our needs for hot showers and cold beers without being so wasteful. Every one of the two billion people on this planet who lives on less than $2/day deserves to have their basic needs met. In order for that to happen, we need to reduce our waste of resources in the develped countries. I'm talking about eating a vegetarian entree once a week instead of red meat, using compact fluorescent lamps, replacing lawn with native plant gardens, carpooling once a week. Everyone has a different mix of changes they are willing to make but we all need to be part of the solution.
By Justine Burt on 2008 05 05
You guys need to be careful about using the "fear-based" politics meme. The problem is not fear but the use of fear to intimidate people and keep them from taking action on important issues. Fear of climate change is a motivator to take action. If fear is not paired with opportunities to take action, then it has the effect of leading to paralysis.
So I think you are opposing the stirring up of fears without offering any solutions or hope. But without the fear, people will not take many forward looking actions.
By Michael Hoexter on 2008 05 03
Your words are being emitted into a strong wind, here, and are immediately being blown right back into your face. Like you show, both sides use fear as an entraining tactic and strategy, definitely not just 'conservatives'. Drama queens -- it seems a very apt term for nearly all of us in the US.
Another (non-Gore) example of environmental drama-queenism: We are, along with a number of other companies, conducting uranium exploration in the Grand Canyon area of northern Arizona, and have recently met with a very well-coordinated environmentalist campaign to shut down our work, a campaign that is based entirely on unfounded and unexamined fears. The major groups involved -- The Environmental Working Group, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Center for Biological Diversity [reminds me of a college education department that was once called 'The Center for Excellence in Education' -- which was anything but], and the Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club, have all consciously and spuriously inflamed the anxieties of each of the Native American Tribes in the northern Arizona area, those of the Coconino Board of Supervisors, and those of the Arizona governor's office, about the nature and effects of the uranium exploration work now being conducted in the region.
You speak of backfiring fear campaigns: If we are all so unlucky as to have this particular environmental campaign succeed in its aims, it will result in the major source of nuclear fuel in the US (the specific assessment of the USGS) being at least temporarily put out of bounds to mining production. Further, reliance on, and utilization of, the fear/affective heuristic (Al Gore's words, not mine) in this case would also have the effect of reducing employment levels in Coconino and Mohave Counties of Arizona (and in Kane County of Utah). Organizational use of this form of 'reason' has already needlessly increased the level of stress already impinging on all people living in the area [try being a reservation Indian or underpaid tourist industry worker to appreciate the significance of stress levels on physical and mental health]. All of this orchestrated movement on the part of the environmental groups named has been to give, in effect, just the appearance of protecting the Grand Canyon, a natural feature not at all threatened in any way by uranium exploration or mining.
Not only is your 'side' of things just as bad as the 'conservatives' customarily condemned for using fear tactics, it is usually worse in that it smugly (and mistakenly) represents itself as knowing better than others what is best for everyone else.
Argh.
By Larry Turner on 2008 05 01
Michael, Can you provide a citation for the Jost study?
By AZ on 2008 05 01
Interesting models, SDO and RWA. Both fit the 'environmentalist' mode of action and attitude regarding those who don't share their opinions. Same with outside threat model and action of environmentalist groups towards their 'enemies'.
I've observed the incidence of SUVs in the parking lots of environmental groups -- much threatened high-testosterone masculinity in evidence there.
It ain't just the right-wing that suffers from the faults identified here.
By Larry Turner on 2008 05 01
I am really worried about xenophobia. It's not just fear of terrorism. It's also conflict with China, which is really inevitable since many people have an outdated image of China as a Cold War enemy. In fact, it's taken the place of the USSR in some ways. A lot of this also has to do with what the media is optimized for. Xenophobia and nationalism sell and is cheap to make. It's actually unclear if the internet and social networking really helps or just makes things worse. On one hand, much more information is available. On the other hand, people who agree simply reinforce each other.
By yang on 2008 04 30
Very interesting post. One thing I've always wondered about is the disjunction between individual behavior and collective xenophobia on immigration. I am an immigrant living in the U.S. for more than a decade now. In my experience, I have found almost all individual Americans I've met to exceeding friendly and welcoming. On the other hand, I have found the "official" side of immigration - the USCIS (formerly INS), the US consulates abroad, etc., to be exceedingly hostile. The hostility and xenophobia towards immigrants is also obvious in the political debates, Lou Dobbs, etc.
I have been puzzled by this difference between friendliness at the individual level and xenophobia at the collective level. I usually explain away (to myself) this difference by thinking that, having spend all my years in the US either on university campuses or in the Bay Area, the people I've met are not representative of the average American. But perhaps there is another explanation: according to the study by Janus that you quote, even outwardly-welcoming Americans I've met may be having some deep anti-immigration feelings.
Also very interesting link between health-care and immigration xenophobia. How do Canadians view this? I would expect that Canadians would have some of same immigration related issues as Americans do.
By Sid Shome on 2008 04 30
You might consider two other underlying political themes we are seeing right now:
-- One is the growing attacks against 'outsourcing,' the latest being Hillary equating outsourcing companies with the Nazis. The idea that 'liberal' candidates can say foreigners doing work for American companies is wrong unless the foreigners are in the US illegally seems a tad contradictory.
-- Another is the class warfare theme. The underlying assumption of this is that there is a fixed size economic pie and the people's problems come from 'others' who have more than their share. Liberals focus on the rich, but it is difficult to see how this sentiment will not bleed over onto illegal immigrants.
By Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com on 2008 04 30
From what I read, China is rapidly trying to grow all their energy sources. Solar, nuclear, LNG, the works.
By R Margolis on 2008 04 29
You don't think the fact that he's working with KPCB and Generation Investment Management is a sign that he is committed to attacking this thing technologically? Am I being too optimistic by giving him lots of credit for doing that kind of investment work?
By Jake de Grazia on 2008 03 24