How Scientism Enervated Environmentalism
September 19, 2007 |
Bill Chaloupka, professor of Political Science at Colorado State University, has an insightful essay in Jon Isham and Sissel Waage's new book, Ignition. In it he argues that environmentalists must understand the ways in which their moralizing about capital-N Nature contributed to the anti-environmentalist backlash in the west.
The packaging for 1970s green moralism, however, was not out of the pages of Emerson or Thoreau. Instead, it followed the pattern of another old New England religious tradition, the jeremiad. Loud, insistent, unwavering demands--often informed by an apocalyptic sense of doom about nature's capacity to adapt to human intervention--durably set the tone for green moralism. Thus the political terrain of environmentalism became caught between future and past, soldiering on with the moral and cultural composition of a cantankerous, hundred-year-old Protestant Bible-thumper, utterly convinced of its vision of the future, but still hampered with the self-image of an outsider who would never quite be welcome in King George's court. Add to the package the greens' scientific evidence that the actions of humans were bringing the end nearer. The perfect political storm was settling in.
Chaloupka is no anti-environmentalist. He has fought for years for wilderness protection, green space, and urban sustainability. We met him for the first time at Jon Isham's Middlebury conference in January 2005, which is also where we first met Bill McKibben.
Against the naive view that environmentalists are passive victims of a corporate-funded, right-wing organizing, Bill wants to restore some agency -- and responsibility -- to environmentalists. We have to consider that every move we make creates a counter-move by our opponents. Environmentalists sometimes imagine themselves as doing little more than delivering the Truth of Nature through Science -- witness the widespread and mistaken believe that "An Inconvenient Truth" had some gigantic effect on public opinion when all the research shows the contrary.
Bill finds a nice metaphor to yank environmentalism out of Plato's cave:
I've been telling my students for years that politics is more like wrestling than solo clarinet. Here's what I mean. As much as we tend to praise brilliant political leaders like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan--with the kind of praise we might otherwise reserve for a wonderful soloist--they both led political enterprises that engaged in an activity more closely resembling wrestling than solo clarinet. One wrestler moves, the other responds. Repeat as necessary. In the political ecosystem, responses are continual. No important move evades response. It is sometimes said of political operatives that they think like chess players, plotting several moves in advance. What is meant by that metaphor is that political folk are always anticipating their adversaries' responses at the same time that they look for openings and opportunities to launch initiatives of their own.... Environmentalists were not willing to enter a wrestling match; they played their clarinet solos and expected other Americans to be as intoxicated as they were by the tune.
What Bill's doing is hoisting environmentalists on their own petard. After years of urging others to think ecologically while seeing politics as a one way affair -- speaking the Truth of Nature through Science -- Bill points out that real world politics is messy and increasingly democratic -- so much so that the green demand that we simply obey Nature (a demand that presumes that Nature speaks with but one voice) falls on deaf ears.
While other movements (at least in significant part) were founded on the insistence that institutions grant them respect and an opportunity to participate, greens persisted in issuing grim predictions and insisting that authority be ceded to them, implying not merely that they should have a voice in the conversation, but that the conversation should end, the sooner the better.
This authoritarian scientism resulted in a kind of dismissal of real world concerns, like jobs, economic growth, and development. He adds that environmentalists ignored the conservative movement's harnessing of cultural resentment, in the west in particular, until it was too late.
Resentment against "the 60s," antiwar radicals, feminists, and others was already starting to mobilize in the 1960s, as personified by George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Kevin Phillips's "culture war" strategy for Nixon's 1968 campaign, and a legion of hard hats, cowboys, and other "real Americans." Surprisingly, it took until the late 1970s for the reaction to focus on environmentalism... Rachel Carson's breakthrough had been turned inside out.
Soon enough, greens were one of the prime targets for one of the most powerful recurrences of an age-old American political ritual, namely, a rowdy, populist politics of resentment. Reagan won the presidency after a campaign in which he uttered a steady stream of uninformed and condescending dismissals of environmentalism (and welfare, and affirmative action, and so on). The groundwork was laid for what would later become the wise use movement, made up of those bitterly opposed to environmental regulation as a signal of government's more general badgering of "real Americans."Before the 1980s ended, Rush Limbaugh would be carrying on about greens. Soon thereafter, the right would decide that global warming was a fiction.
Lest we think those bad old days of anti-environmentalism are over, consider that every effort to pass global warming legislation in Congress will be attacked for raising energy prices or taxes or both -- and those attacks will have a powerful impact and cannot be countered with ever-more reports about how bad global warming is going to be for our children and grandchildren. People have far more immediate today that must be addressed.
Creating a new politics means letting go of the jeremiads, which alienate more than they educate, and abandoning enviro-scientism, which is intended as truth-telling but is experienced, more often than not, as a dismissal of the very real concerns people have about their jobs, their bills, and their futures.
There are signs that environmentalists are starting to take all of this very seriously. Yesterday, Carl Pope of the Sierra Club posted a long review of our book on Grist. We'll be responding in more depth later, but we were heartened by his recognition of the problems Chaloupka and we identified.
Environmentalism flowered between 1965 and 1975; it took on the era's emerging politics -- with all the problems Nordhaus and Shellenberger identify. In that decade, national environmental organizations chose to change things quickly but shallowly, rather than more slowly and in depth. We retreated from the challenge of creating a new and positive economy, confining ourselves to advocating incremental improvements in the old economy. Deep down, we probably knew that the way we were achieving our critically important successes would require revisiting -- but we had no idea how hard that would turn out to be.
Comments
400 million dollars to develop technology that already exists. What a bargin! Does anyone in the government pay attention to anything that goes on outside of the beltway? Save the taxpayers some money and do some research on the internet.
By sohbet on 2009 07 10
I like the stuff you post on TBI - you share a healthy scepticism of the loophole ridden, easily gamed and weak W-M. Its rubbish - the US can do better than that.
Have you seen that mad Joe is having a pop at you again?
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/22/waxman-markey-offsets-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-media/
By Robert on 2009 05 23
The best thing to do is apply the new auto policy by President Obama. So for the manufacturers out there, try inventing a ref that wouldn't cause big damage on our environment.
By buy wow gold on 2009 04 13
As a parent with small children who is frequently visited by family, they can pry my refrigerator out of my cold...
Seriously, this post is right on. We need to use less carbon based energy rather than try to solve the problem with artificial scarcity.
By R Margolis on 2009 03 17
Because we don't want to live in 40 year homes, drive 10 year old cars, and be hungry.
By Jim on 2008 12 26
I really like this quote. I feel that it is an overlooked aspect of American society.
By Yang on 2008 12 26
I think you're spot on here. I reccomend reading this post.
http://jgpointofview.blogspot.com/2008/10/ready-to-fight-ready-to-lead.html
By David Kaplan on 2008 10 17
Heck ya, Dr. Strangelove! Great post Adam.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 10 17
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus posit that there might be another way to approach our seemingly endless and somewhat paralyzing debates over energy and climate change. Are we approaching a consensus that whatever ones views about climate change and energy security, a status quo approach is unacceptable? The way out of the status quo that we might all agree on, they argue, is large scale investments in technology that could, over time lead to a cleaner and more secure energy future. Can we disagree to agree?
I have some first hand evidence that such an approach resonates with people on both
By John Freemuth on 2008 08 20
Jesse, you write a couple of things that I think miss the point I'm trying to make. First, you write you support:
"as high a price on carbon as is politically sustainable as well - both as a funding mechanism and as a way to help close those economic inefficiencies you mention."
The high price of carbon does not help close economic inefficiencies/market failures. The point of a market failure is that it is inefficiently impervious (or relatively so) to price changes. This is different than something that may be relatively impervious to price changes just because it has very low elasticity of demand (i.e. is a necessity). This is why I try to move away from the focus of "cost containment" and on to better market design, which allows the pricing to work.
and
"Do it with cap and trade or a carbon tax, you still are relying on as high a price on carbon as is economically necessary to drive reductions."
I'm going to refer to a cap/trade specifically, because I don't lump it with carbon tax as "carbon pricing." They're not as interchangeable as people make them out to be. The cap does not rely on a high price of carbon, rather the price relies on the dynamics (not just overall stringency) of the cap. As Kyoto's ETS has demonstrated, if you are obstinate enough you can engineer a very high price on carbon that accomplishes virtually nothing. But they can also be designed to systemically keep prices low without having to revert to artificial "cost containment."
It would be great if just throwing a bunch of money at "clean technology" could solve the problem, but that's a pipe dream. I mentioned the immediate consequences of a backlog of coal plants going up that will be next to impossible to get rid of for decades because of the basic economics that differentiate between costs that get something built and costs needed to shut something down.
Finally, I really just don't get the insistence that a cap/trade is a politically impossible sell. It's sorta like "who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?" Virtually everyone following this assumes we'll have a cap/trade bill passed within 2-3 years. The next president will support one no matter who wins. Lieberman-Warner almost got 60 votes for cloture. While that's not the same as votes for passage, there's substantial room to improve not just policy, but political appeal of that bill. Plus there will be more democrats in both houses next session. Lots of senators were clearly unnerved by the modeling that indicated higher prices, especially in manufacturing. The EIA numbers carry a lot of weight, they were thrown around by both sides. Some pretty simple changes in the bill would lower those permit price projections, and more votes would materialize. We're not missing many votes and they're gonna get them. So why jump ship?
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 28
p.s. obviously there are poor people in all states, including California. My point was first, that there's a reason that some states currently pay less for electricity than others: their residents can't really afford to pay that much more. There's a pretty strong correlation between electricity price per kilowatt hour and median household income by state -- and between price per kilowatt hour and lower carbon emissions. So we shouldn't assume that just because some states pay less than California or New York for electricity already, and those states have the dirtiest electricity mixes, that there's more "room" for them to pay higher prices. In fact, quite the opposite is probably true.
I also wanted to make the point that even the perception of a carbon pricing scheme resulting in wealth transfers from lower average income states to higher average income states is a real political liability for any cap and trade scheme, and in particular for a cap and dividend program that advocates per-capita dividends.
Breakthrough is currently conducting what looks like it'll be a pretty robust analysis of the affects of carbon pricing by state and by income levels which should reveal a lot of these issues. So we're definitely taking a close look at this and we'll share it as soon as we're done.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 28
Hi Max,
There were several points you just raised, so I'll try to respond to each here:
First, I offered the Oregon examples as anecdotes. Clearly they won't map perfectly (or even closely) onto the federal scene. But I'd argue that you'll have much better luck convincing Oregonians or Washingtonians to pay more for regulations that mandate lower emissions or cleaner electricity sources than you will convincing just about any other state outside the Northeast. And the point was that even in Oregon, and even with hard cost caps on RPS bills, the battle was tough. I'll leave it to you to decide how that affects your judgment about the political likelihood of a cap-and-trade bill without any cost containment passing at the federal level. I was just sharing some of my past experiences and explaining why they make me skeptical of carbon pricing scheme's political viability.
Second, Obama's $150 billion clean energy investment plan would presumably be paid for by auctioning emissions allowances in a cap-and-trade, and I believe he's indicated that in campaign speeches before. But the campaign page is actually not explicit about that, and given the vicissitudes of campaign promises, I'd say it's pretty open where that gets financed from.
As I said above, I'm definitely open to paying for the investments with revenues from carbon auction. In fact, that's my preferred method for paying for it. As I wrote to Sam above, a $20 CO2 price would raise more than enough to fund something twice as big as Obama's $150 billion plan and still leave money left to help counteract impacts on America's poor. The point was that it's not critical where the funds come from for an investment centered approach to work.
I thought I was also clear but will clarify again that I and I think everyone here at Breakthrough is supportive of as high a price on carbon as is politically sustainable as well - both as a funding mechanism and as a way to help close those economic inefficiencies you mention. But let's be clear: saying it's economically inefficient not to price carbon fully doesn't really have any bearing on the political chances of a carbon pricing scheme without cost containment. This is politics and when was the last time politics maximized economic efficiencies?! So sure, in the vacuum of economic academia, pricing carbon to it's full societal cost sounds great to me. But this is the US Senate we're talking about, Americans are far more concerned about energy prices than carbon emissions, and we can't afford to let ideal economic scenarios stand in the way of the a politically successful solution to our pressing economic, climate and national security concerns. The moment is far too urgent. It's time for a new strategy.
I also never suggested we pay for a clean energy investment program by shifting spending from the Iraq war. I completely agree that those arguments are a completer mirage and really mean we'll just pay for it with deficit spending. Now I'd much rather go into deficit to invest in a clean energy future than the Iraq war, but deficit spending isn't my ideal funding source. Still, we shouldn't be afraid to go into deficit to solve the energy, climate and security crises we now face. If that's how we end up financing this stuff, I won't fall on my sword to stop it.
The main point here: when we're talking about an investment centered approach to igniting a clean energy future, we have options. The financing can come from a number of sources or combination of sources, which increases the likelihood you'll find a politically sustainable solution.
When you're talking about a carbon pricing scheme, you don't really have any options except pricing carbon, right? Do it with cap and trade or a carbon tax, you still are relying on as high a price on carbon as is economically necessary to drive reductions. And I am simply unconvinced that there's much likelihood of that kind of approach securing passage in the US Senate, now or in the next few years. There's not a moment to lose, so let's find something that works - and that starts with finding something that is politically sustainable.
My suggestion: a major public investment program designed to ignite a clean energy economy through targeted investments and financed by as high a price on carbon as is politically possible and sustainable over several decades. My guess is that's somewhere in the $10-$25/ton range, which would generate plenty of revenue for investment. If we can't get the price high enough to raise enough revenue, than we've got other options as to where to go to for funding. If the my guess is wrong and we can get a higher price, then great, we'll have extra funds to distribute in the most effective manner. In any case, the carbon price delivers as much reductions as it can at that price and the targeted investments augment that, most likely doing the heavy lifting.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 28
At Oklo, the plutonium was isolated for over 1.8 billion years (and that was with water entering the deposit). I agree that plutonium is not a breakfast food, but it is no more toxic than many compounds used in industry. I think that folks are more worried about radioactivty because they are less familiar with it. Gasolene is toxic, explosive, and carcinogenic, yet folks don't worry about it because they use it everyday.
According to the ExternE study, nuclear has about the CO2 release of wind (i.e., much less than natural gas). Still, both fuels will likely be part of the transition to a lower carbon economy.
By R Margolis on 2008 07 27
I think you are hearing about the wastes because people are justly concerned about them. By the way, how long is an eon, and will the governments charged with isolating them still be around for eons? Plutonium is poisonous in infinitesimal amounts.
I suggest that our current energy infrastructure is as much a curse as a blessing. While expedient, our goal should not be to perpetuate the past approach. The downsides are clearer now. We need to work for renewable and sustainable solutions independent of fossil fuels. My vote, for transition purposes, would be to use natural gas rather than nuclear. We have an ample domestic supply and increasing production. As the gas runs low we will hopefully have developed mature sustainable solutions.
In the mean time our money will be best spent on increased efficiencies in energy use rather than investments in massively expensive nuclear plants. How many proposed power plants could be tabled if we just matched Europe in energy consumption per capita?
By Steven Hurwitz on 2008 07 27
Several nuclear reactors around the world have already been decommissioned. It is not THAT difficult. As for uranium mining, we mine uranium differently than we did in the 50' and 60's. Mining is never clean, but the same issues are faced getting heavy metals for solar cells as well (e.g., cadmium).
And if I had a nickel every time I hear about nuclear waste. The smaller volumes mean that the wastes are EASIER to manage than those from fossil fuels. We know from such events as the Oklo phenomenon that these wastes can be isolated for eons.
Yes nuclear is controversial and expensive, but it is no less safe (most experts say it's safer) than our current energy infrastructure.
By R Margolis on 2008 07 26
Also (responding to something a few posts back), not everyone in CA is rich Jesse. I know we have plenty of poor people in DC up through Massachusetts on the East Coast, and I'm pretty sure there are plenty out West as well. Plus the cost of living is higher, which distorts federal statistics on regional poverty. And on top of that, I'm pretty sure the average on the coasts is brought up by way more rich people, not a lack of poor people. So no, I don't think poor urban people on the coasts should have to subsidize electricity for rural America.
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 26
Here are some thoughts on nuclear energy you left out of your discussion.
Not only are nuclear reactors expensive to build, but they are expensive to decommission as well. No one really know what it will really cost or what we will do with the radioactive debris should we decide to dismantle aging power plants. Entombment in concrete is the present obvious answer. Has anyone calculated the CO2 contribution of mixing that much concrete?
Nuclear power is highly subsidized and this must be added to the equation when comparing relative costs of power generation. Lets try incentivizing renewable energy first before we capitulate on nuclear energy because we think we have no other alternatives.
Likewise, do we really trust our civilization's ability to store and guard some of the most dangerous substances on the planet for a period longer than currently recorded time? History has amply demonstrated that systems of government are fragile and impermanent. Nuclear waste storage must be the opposite.
And nowhere in your analysis do you mention the radioactive tailings that poison uranium miners and the residents of nearby mines. There are serious health issues involved in uranium production and undisclosed costs related to those issues.
By Steven Hurwitz on 2008 07 26
Jesse, the numbers I gave were reference case numbers, meaning assuming no carbon pricing. So obviously if you price carbon and you have fewer coal plants going up immediately that's less of a burden on the reductions you need from the clean sector. I don't get the logic that well, we need to transform our economy, so it will happen or won't but the difficulty in getting there shouldn't depend be exacerbated in any way by continuing to allow the free waste dump subsidy for fossil fuels. Strictly from an economic standpoint, if you acknowledge that carbon must be reduced, failing to price carbon is economically inefficient. And just because some private funds will flow to clean energy following public funds doesn't change the fact that substantially more would flow if a price on carbon was incorporated as well.
Also, Obama's $150 billion dollar clean tech plan is to be funded on a cap with full auction permit. Finally, I wouldn't really compare political prospects for passing clean energy legislation of Oregon state to the feds.
And on funding. It's easy to say well we'll get the money from bloated military spending, ending the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq would be ramped down under Obama, but all troop/funding levels will be decided based on mission needs and not as if those funds specifically are competing for other proposals. So whatever is saved would go to (incompletely) closing the deficit hole if not spent elsewhere. That means banking on that, or "general revenue" is deficit spending. That's paying for it, plus interest, in future taxes on labor/employment/investment. All which harm the economy.
These funds are not going to materialize without a carbon pricing scheme, and likely a cap/trade. Just my opinion, but I think you would be better served to lobby for including more of the carbon revenue for R&D in the cap/trade bills that keep coming up (and will continue in the next congress), as opposed to setting this up as an either/or.
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 26
BTW, for comparison, the Oregon Business Energy Tax Credit expansion sailed through the Oregon legislature while we were debating the RPS bill. It passed the House unanimously. And this isn't a tiny credit. It offers a 50% credit on up to $20 million in qualified project costs for energy efficiency investments, renewable energy installations, green building, and clean energy manufacturing facilities. I'm pretty sure it's now the largest business tax credit on Oregon's books. So I know the current Congress's partisan demogaugery has failed to pass the extension of the federal renewable energy PTC time and time again this year, but let's also remember that they have passed it, several times over the past several years. Federal RPS? Not so much...
That said, I don't deny there's a burden of proof on us and a true test may come next year, if Obama is elected and follows through on his $150 billion, ten-year clean energy investment plan, or if Congress pushes a new approach. I think, for now, polling, past history of government investment vs. regulation's political success, and current public focus on energy rather than climate (now the #1 political issue and energy prices are #2 on American's minds behind the ailing economy) points in the direction we're headed, and away from a carbon pricing regime.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 25
Max, if we can't deploy enough clean energy, we're sunk, regardless of what policy you use to drive deployment. If we can't fundamentally change our entire global energy grid to stop being reliant on carbon-emitting resources (as it overwhelmingly is now), then we're sunk. At the heart of all of this - both cap-and-trade and an investment-driven approach - is a clean energy deployment and energy efficiency challenge. We must fundamentally change how we make and use energy. Globally. Cap-and-trade is designed to drive that change just as much as an investment-driven regime, so if you're pessimistic about the chances of clean energy deployment, I don't see how you're optimistic about the chances of cap-and-trade's success (particularly at low costs for mitigation). Can you clarify?
Jesse
p.s. don't worry about the double posting. happens all the time.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 25
Sorry about the double post above.
Jesse, you still don't address the crucial issue: there's just too much market share. You could add enough clean energy worldwide in the next 22 years as the entire 2004 global consumption of coal, natural gas and nuclear combined, just covering new demand and so not even reducing emissions at all. The numbers from the EIA IEO 2007 are in the second paragraph of my original post.
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 25
Jesse,
First, if either one of us had the perfect politically acceptable solution it would be law and this argument would be moot. So in general I'm gonna stick to substance. But the $300 dollars is not just a gimmick, its more money than costs incurred, using Zach's numbers. The Congress can't even pass a 1.7 cent per kwh subsidy for renewable energy, so there's a burden of proof on you as well if you justify $30 billion a year largely on political feasibility grounds. And a production subsidy is easier to pass than a massive research program because the production subsidy directly puts cash in the pockets of campaign contributors.
Second, theres no reason why the carbon price would have to reach $50-100 a ton anytime soon at all. And by the time it would, we'd be much less reliant on carbon anyway. What would you rather have: your car today and $4 gas, or an electric car which requires no gas for 99% of the trips you take, with $10 gas? Your issue about lack of "cost containment" (though I didn't specify, I would in fact not have any traditional "cost containment") misses the point. "Cost containment" measures that get thrown around Congress are intellectually lazy desires of something for nothing. How to keep prices low? Just mandate they can never get high. If only things were that easy.
There are better ways to ensure prices never get that high, by instituting a well designed program with complimentary policies designed to address specific market failures that might otherwise introduce costs. Just a couple from each would include: 1) a fairly ambitious price floor (reserve) that would decrease uncertainty as to the path of prices, as well as accumulate a pool of extra allowances that could be released when demand spikes to mitigate potential price increases/volatility; 2) a multi-year instead of single year compliance period (retiring allowances every 3 years instead of 1, like RGGI proposes for example) which would mitigate the effect of short term price spikes on any one compliance expenditure; 3) higher fuel standards for cars; 4) higher efficiency standards for new residences and appliances.
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 25
Sam,
Good questions, one's we're definitely refining and would welcome anyone else to contribute to answering. Our research to-date indicates the following answers to these questions:
1) How much public money will it take to solve global warming? A public investment project in new American clean energy sources that was somewhere in the ballpark of $300-$500 billion over ten years would spur major development and deployment of clean energy technologies and infrastructure. The costs would more than pay for themselves with increased economic activity and job growth and could be financed through several means, including a modest price on carbon. They would also unlock even greater flows of private capital that would follow these public investments.
2)When would we begin to see reductions? Immediately. We should begin with targeted investments that spur the widespread deployment of existing clean energy technologies (as we scale up our efforts to make breakthroughs in the price and performance of next generation technologies). For example, the investment project could fund a major effort to train an energy efficiency core that could weatherize and retrofit our entire country's existing building stock over 10 years, resulting in huge savings for energy, money and emissions. We should start with a long-term extension of critical renewable energy tax credits that keep our wind, solar and geothermal industries booming and secure increased greenhouse gas reductions. We should deploy a new high voltage "supergrid" to tap our huge domestic reserves of renewable energy, including wind in the Great Plains and solar in the Desert Southwest, bringing large amounts of renewables online. We should make investments to help Detroit and the US auto industry retool and recharge to produce electric and high efficiency vehicles. Etc.
3) Where would the money come from? As I indicated before, the most likely (and probably effective) place for it to come is a modest price on carbon. A modest, $20 carbon price would raise over $55 billion per year just from the electricity and gasoline sectors alone (according to my estimates based on EIA data). That'd give us enough for the $30-50 billion a year we need for this initiative, plus enough to offset the impacts on low-income folks with targeted rebates and investments (i.e. weatherization assistance, incentives to purchase more efficient cars and appliances, etc.). Another place (that's probably just as politically challenging but would make sense): end the unnecessary subsidies to the oil and gas industry, which could raise $10-20 billion/year I believe. But when you frame this around investment and not carbon pricing, it really doesn't matter where it comes from. It could be carbon pricing, shifting subsidies from clean to dirty energy sources, charging royalties on new oil and gas production, deficit spending, new public clean energy bonds (like the war bonds of an earlier era), general budget money, or any combination of the above (or others). It doesn't really matter. I've got my favorites, you've probably got yours, but what counts is that we come up with the money, use it wisely and strategically, and ignite a clean energy economy.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 25
Max, you think we shouldn't underestimate the appeal of the kind of pitch you make for a cap-and-trade bill with $300/person rebates. My personal work history makes me highly skeptical that kind of pitch would work for something as expansive and widely-impacting as an economy-wide price on carbon.
In my last job, I worked as a renewable energy advocate in the Northwest where I helped pass the Washington Clean Energy Initiative and Oregon Renewable Energy Act - both of which established statewide renewable energy standards for the state's largest utilities.
We're talking about two of the greenest, most progressive states in the United States: Oregon and Washington. Both laws had hard, 4% caps on the cost of compliance with their new standards, meaning any utility would be off the hook if compliance with their new RPS targets would be more than 4% more expensive than meeting load with non-renewable resources. Each bill only required enough new renewables to meet just about the expected growth in electricity demand over the next couple decades (15% by 2020 for WA and 25% by 2025 for OR), and both exempted smaller utilities from the standard. Both also included complimentary measures for efficiency that would help reduce people's electricity bills and counteract any potential increase in rates from the RPS portion of the bills.
Even given all that: green, progressive states, hard cost containment (at just a few percent incremental cost), exemptions for small utilities and complimentary cost-saving measures. Even given all of that, these bills were VERY hard to pass. After outspending our opponents 2.5 to 1, the Washington ballot initiative passed by just 51.5%-48.5%. After a huge campaign in which basically everyone in the state, including the largest utilities were on board with the bill - everyone but big industry players and rural electric cooperatives - we were biting our knuckles to see if we got that extra vote that put us over a majority (once we got that one vote, several more followed, but beneath the final vote total, it was really just one or two votes that made it go).
Also keep in mind that a federal renewable portfolio standard failed to secure passage again last year, despite having a hard cost cap of 1.5 cents/kilowatt hour of incremental cost for renewables.
So when you say that we should be optimistic about the chances of passing a bill that internalizes an economy-wide carbon price of upwards of 50-100 dollars/ton (and ultimately higher), inherently causes major ramifications across the US market (that's the point right? to get people to change), ignores regional differences in equity and wealth (those states with the lowest electricity rates are also generally the poorest in the US, so no, we probably shouldn't ask them to pay what rich California's pay for electricity), and has no cost containment measures, forgive me if I'm skeptical... I also doubt that the promise of a $300 check in the mail is going to do that much to change the picture either (unless you can find some good research/polling that indicates that rebates are a political winner).
Jesse Jenkins
Associate Director, Breakthrough Generation
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 25
Meryn,
I think you just crossed the line from respectful engagement with ideas to disrespectful personal judgments. And, while this makes me feel like you won't actually be reading to comprehend this response, I will do my best to reply.
"We obviously don't have to count on everyone being only virtuous, but if we can explain to a large part of the population the *actual* workings of their minds, they will surely act differently"
This statement is a fallacy. The environmental movement has been operating under the assumption that more awareness (about humans, about "nature," about non-human life) will necessarily dictate that people change their behaviors in a positive and productive way. This is only true to an extent--when I become aware that flame burns, I do keep my hand away from the fire. However that awareness is linked to immediate physical well-being. Awareness (esp. about the things you think people need more awareness of--the human mind) does not always dictate a "positive" behavior change, largely because what is "positive" in this case is much more subjective then whether or not it is good to put your hand in a fire. If awareness necessarily dictate the right course of action, we would all, as we grew up and became more aware, become more and more similar. This is clearly not the case. Take, for example, Stoicism and Epicureanism. Both of these philosophies came about at around the same time and place, but they defined existence differently and placed widely different emphases on different parts of life.
Even more important than this, I think you are being incredibly narrow in your thinking if you believe that changing overconsumption patterns in upperclass America is going to solve the energy/climate crisis. There are a few million Americans who do need to consume less, but overall, the vast majority of people on this planet need more access to more energy and the things that accompany it--increased health, increased mobility, increased education opportunities.
I agree with your point that close attention to psychology(amongst many other things) will help advance progressive solutions to the problems humanity faces. However, we at Breakthrough recognize that no set of data will ever necessarily dictate a particular course of action. Science is a means of understanding, not motivating.
-Adam
p.s. I'd be happy to send you our reading list here at BTGen, which may help elucidate my points.
By Adam Zemel on 2008 07 25
I wonder if you could answer these basic questions:
How much public money will it take to solve global warming?
When could we begin to see reductions?
Where would the money come from?
I've never seen anyone from Breakthrough these simple questions. I would think BT would focus on figuring out how their plan will solve the climate crisis, before publishing even more half-baked analysis on why other plans won't work.
By Sam on 2008 07 25
Helen -
With regard to the cost issue, China is already building plants using more modular construction such as AP-1000. Also India is looking at vessel forging manufacture [http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C_Indian_manufacturer_looks_outwards_1607083.html]. The bottlenecks may be relieved sooner than many think...
Robert
By R Margolis on 2008 07 25
Cutting Greenhouse gas is more important than cost differences with coal. We can tax economies which use dirty fuel to gain competitive advantage. Common guys, we are heade for a global population of 12 billion and the aggregate ramifications are huge. -w
By Wade Luher on 2008 07 25
Ugh, this came out long, sorry.
While you mention that scrubbers were an important technology for SO2, the point was that the cost effective mass deployed solution was scrubbers that do less scrubbing. This was not the direction anyone was planning and so not how any public deployment projects would have gone, which would have thus been less efficient. In addition no one saw reclassifying coal coming. So while I agree CO2 is a much bigger problem than SO2 was, I disagree that you can distinguish SO2 because it was simply a matter of deploying available technology.
Second, I
By Max Epstein on 2008 07 25
Folks interested in a clear eyed review of RMI and the Lovins' ability to deliver might find this useful:
Smil, V. 2000. Rocky Mountain visions: A review essay. Population and Development Review 26: 163-176.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/publications_pdf.html
By Pete Geddes on 2008 07 24
I read Carbon Free and Nuclear Free. Their fallback plan if they can't bridge the technology gap for renewables is to use coal with carbon sequestration. Personally I believe that sequestration should be on the table, but all the major risk studies show coal more dangerous than nuclear.
As for RMI, their reports show that the micropower fuel is natural gas, which is not renewable.
Yes, nuclear is not perfect, but there is no zero risk, zero carbon, and 24/7 technology that can single-handedly replace fossil fuels in power generation. We need to look at nuclear without ANY myths (pro- or anti-).
By R Margolis on 2008 07 24
Thanks for your response, Phil. To go nuclear or not is an ongoing, heated debate, and I appreciate the valid points you make.
From what I've read, the cost of nuclear is up for debate: EPRI says 6.5 cents/kWh (according to a June 2008 Economist), the RMI piece cites estimates between 7.7 and 11.1 cents/kWH, a 2007 Keystone places the (levelized) cost at 8-11 cents. Of course, the price at consumer is likely to be higher than levelized estimates (as Lovins points out).
Lovins also acknowledges that "The dominant cause [of rising nuclear costs] is severe manufacturing bottlenecks and scarcities of critical engineering, construction, and management sills that have decayed during the industry's long order lull." Components also have to be imported from overseas, and the weak US dollar drives up costs as well. Note that the high cost of building a power plant could be significantly reduced by switching from a "craft-based" approach (where each plant is individually constructed) to a "manufacturing" approach where components are mass-made in factories and put together onsite. Of course, a much larger demand for plants in the first place is necessary for this to make sense--for nuclear to become cost-competitive, yes, it does mean that we need a thriving nuclear industry.
It's true that nuclear is not yet cost-competitive with either oil/coal electricity sources, or alternatives such as renewables or efficiency measures. But the discussion of whether or not we "have all the technology we need," what needs to be deployed, what can (or should) be left out of the global warming/carbon independence solution, etc. is ongoing. Check out the Breakthrough Institute's debate with Joe Romm for reference. Depending on whether you abide by Socolow and Pacala's "seven wedges" to solve climate change, or Marty Hoffert's eighteen, nuclear seems more or less inevitable.
Nuclear proliferation under the mask of domestic electricity production is a very valid concern, and I'm not sure how to reconcile it. Transitioning to a new energy era is clearly an international endeavor, but it's hard to say where nuclear can best play a role.
By Helen Aki on 2008 07 24
Lindsay, with all due respect, I don't think you know what you're talking about.
We obviously don't have to count on everyone being only virtuous, but if we can explain to a large part of the population the *actual* workings of their minds, they will surely act differently, and quite likely in ways that will help us move towards sustainability faster. They'll put their work hours into more worthwhile efforts, and will choose to do more worthwhile things with the money they earn.
Right now, I think Breakthrough has very strong and well thought out positions on energy and framing of policies, but not so much on human nature and a desired state of affairs.
I want to give you all some advice from my heart:
Go back to the drawing table NOW. Please send this through to Nordhaus and Shellenberger. I guess they are at least more well-read than you.
Don't forget that the subtitle of the Breakthrough book reads "from the Feath of Environmentalism to the *Politics of Possiblity*", emphasis mine.
P.S. I'd be happy to consult with you, free of charge. Otherwise, my bookmarks may be of help to you.
By Meryn Stol on 2008 07 24
Meryn,
I think it's nostalgic and naive to imagine that greed and short-sightedness are modern phenomena, and that there was some bygone age when benevolence, wisdom, and harmony reigned. There have always been greedy people, and I believe there always will be; I don't want my strategy for solving global problems to rest on the eradication of these afflictions.
I agree that it's important to take a psychological approach to these problems, but I also think that positive psychology can focus on happiness at the expense of fulfillment. Humans are capable of joy, despair, elation, frustration, and these full range of emotions create a full life.
By lindsay meisel on 2008 07 24
With all due respect, it is very unfortunate that the Breakthrough Institute is propagating these industry-friendly myths about nuclear power.
First, nuclear power is not cost-competitive even with huge government loan guarantees and liability shields costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Investors aren't building new plants because the ballooning construction costs have made nukes our most expensive electricity option. Please read the Rocky Mountain Institute's the Nuclear Illusion (pdf) for a detailed and rigorous analysis of the life cycle costs of nuclear power compared to other conventional and alternative sources.
Second, we do not need nukes to beat global warming. Please read Arjun Makhijani's Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free, which is a thorough analysis of how we could de-carbonize the U.S. energy supply by about 2040 or 2050, with great attention given to cost factors. Makhijani is a nuclear physicist, not opposed to nuclear power in principle, but for a whole host of reasons nuclear does not make the cut.
Third, your dismissal of the public's "fear" as uninformed and your off-handed treatment of proliferation issues is really ill-conceived. For nukes to make a difference in global warming we'd have to start adding new reactors at roughly the pace of one a week for the next couple of years, and we'd have to do it not only in the technologically advanced "stable" countries but all over the world. The risks of proliferation, missing fissile material, and waste hazards multiply exponentially. Presumably the U.S. taxpayer will once again be asked to bear all financial liability for these risks, because the industry itself certainly won't.
By Phil Mitchell on 2008 07 24
I already commented on this in the breathroughgen blog. Again, nice to see BTI tackling the tougher issues.
By R Margolis on 2008 07 24
Adam,
I agree with all that you're saying. It's just that most of the time, a nuanced position like you take does not show up in the essays here. And this time, Lindsay mentioned the opposite, while not explaining Breakthroughs - quite moderate - position.
I've read the Breakthrough book, so I know you understand the complexity of the human mind. Certainly with regard to why our lifestyles and consumption habits come from in the first place, you could provide far more attention to this. It's relevant. For example, if people would understand that they don't get that happy from more stuff, they would far more easily forgo consumption in turn for increased energy investments.
But maybe the fact that you're in the core a political think tank explains your attention to "core needs and values", which I think will generally come down to accepting what the average American says is important. Why not provide real leadership, and show them how happy they can be with a collective effort to make our economy sustainable and solve social injustice at the same time?
The need for "framing issues in ways that people care about" (I hope I got that right) is one truth you understand very well, but it's not the only way to go about things.
By Meryn Stol on 2008 07 24
Meryn,
In regards to your call to "look at the psychological side of things," I call your attention to our "Fear and Politics" series on the blog. As it says on the Breakthrough About page: "We believe that any effective politics must speak to core needs and values, not issues and interests, and we thus situate ourselves at the intersection of politics, policy, philosophy, and the social sciences." These sentences explicitly state that we at BTI do seek to understand and think about social and ecological problems and crises in an expansive light.
With this in mind, I disagree with your statement, "the real issues are human greed, short-sightedness and overconsumption" for a variety of reasons.
One of these reasons is that humans are NOT fundamentally rational beings of cold reason. If this were true, then perhaps the solution would just be to explain to people, and that once they see the reasoning, they will be swayed. Humans are both rational and irrational, motivated by a variety of needs and desires, some consciously recognized, some subconsciously pursued. The environmental movement's tactics have long been to aggressively educate the public about the issues, the assumption being that this will help garner support for tackling environmental issues. As this Gallup poll shows, this is not the case.
This brings me to the second reason. Overconsumption, greed, and shortsightedness do not come to be cultural norms in a vacuum. Things like economic anxiety, a heightened sense of mortality, and fear politics all drive us towards behaviors and impulses that are isolationist, selfish, and hostile to that which is foreign. But there are two sides to every coin. If we take great care, we can create a society that appeals to human altruism and compassion.
And so, in regards to your last paragraph, and your fear that Breakthrough "accepts our current way of living without question - treats this as a given - and only looks for technological fixes to support this lifestyle," I would say, "fear no more." This is not the belief or intention of BTI, BTG or anyone in the office. At the Breakthrough Generation Blog, and on this blog, the BTG Fellows have written extensively about the social and cultural changes we are working for, in addition to the social and cultural shifts we are hoping to trigger as we work towards a clean energy America.
By Adam Zemel on 2008 07 23
"Environmentalists of the deep ecology school fear that a tech-heavy approach to climate change glosses over the real issues (human greed and overconsumption)"
Well, I'm not an environmentalist of the deep ecology school, I don't even really know if I could be considered an environmentalist, but I do think the real issues are human greed, short-sightedness and overconsumption, and what kind other widespread psychological pathologies you could think of.
If we were a little "ecological" conscious (e.g. sustainability is not optional), and if we all understood a little more about our psychology - especially what is gonna make us happy and what isn't: surprise, it's not more stuff - than we would solve our energy problem, which is merely a symptom of these times, far more easily.
You're right that there's not a good reason to idolize nature, but this should not be used as a kind of funny way to move along the issues of these "deep ecologists" you mentioned at the start. For this essay to be complete, you should have addressed these concerns. I think that if you would have done that, you would surely have painted a more nuanced picture of the situation.
I think you could really learn from reading up on positive psychology: Lyubomirsky, Gilbert, Seligman, Csiksczentmihalyi, etc. You will see that most humans don't know much about what is gonna make them happy. That has nothing to do with an ideology, it's science.
Sometimes I'm scared that "Breakthrough" accepts our current way of living without question - treats this as a given - and only looks for technological fixes to support this lifestyle. I believe that we have more than enough scientific understanding of the world to conclude that we could better look at the psychological side of things to. It will make us better off.
By Meryn Stol on 2008 07 23
Jacob Bronowski often described how humanity's more significant adaptation was that of using technology to reshape the environment rather than simply adapting to it as other life forms have done [he even compared the harnessing of the ox to that of using nuclear fission...].
Certainly we must apply technology with care, but technology is as inate to the human condition as trees are to a rain forest.
By R Margolis on 2008 07 23
Nice post Adam. Very interesting, if obscure, anecdote. Thanks for digging this one up.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 07 20