The NY Times has it Backwards

The New York Times' Monday editorial criticizes President Bush for seeming "disconnected from reality" when it comes to climate change. That may be an accurate assessment, but the Times, too, is disconnected - not from the seriousness and urgency of the problem, but from the need for breakthrough technologies in dealing with it. It seems the Times believes, as Al Gore has said, that "we have all the technology we need" to deal with global warming. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. Our technology is nowhere near the level it needs to be to make a dent in the global warming problem. They have it backwards:

The error is placing too much faith in grandiose projects and technological leaps to solve a problem that is urgently here and now. The most realistic path to reducing global warming gases is to limit emissions across the economy by putting a price on carbon. That would give private industry strong incentives to develop greater efficiencies and cleaner fuels.

The Times is just plain wrong that a regulation-centered approach will produce the kinds of technologies we need right now to stop global warming. The editorial bemoans Bush's rejection of Kyoto, but it's simply not true that what was missing from Kyoto was us. Kyoto was poorly designed to begin with, and we should learn from its failure to adopt a better strategy. We can limit until we're blue in the face, but no amount of regulation or carbon taxing is going to bring down the price of clean energy.

The Times contends that technology innovation follows regulation, but the reverse is just as often the case. Consider that for both the 1989 Montreal protocol that phased out ozone-depleting chemicals, and acid rain regulation in the United States, regulation only passed when cleaner technology was cheap and readily available.

When it comes to reducing emissions, cap and trade schemes present a Gordian Knot: increase energy prices too much and face a political backlash from consumers and industry alike. Increase them too little and the impact on greenhouse gas emissions will be nil.

What's more, even if the United States jumps whole-heartedly onto the cap and trade bandwagon it will do nothing to address the elephants in the room - China and India, and the rest of the developing world. These nations have made clear that they will not take steps to reduce their carbon emissions unless doing so becomes consistent with rapid economic development. With developing nations quickly eclipsing the rest of the world in terms of emissions, an effective plan to deal with global warming must include them.

Where does this leave us? With the U.S. blaming developing nations, developing nations blaming rich nations, and everyone blaming the United States, I think it's pretty clear that finger pointing isn't helping anyone.

The Times calls for Bush to embrace the Lieberman-Warner climate bill, now before Congress. But the truth is, this bill will do startlingly little for clean energy, instead falling into the same old trap of pitting ecological action against economic development. What we're missing isn't a place to lay the blame, nor is it harsher regulation - it's energy that's fast, clean, and cheap.

Comments

The Chinese government has full authority over utilities and wields a strong hand in many investment decisions. That is not the case in the US, so here the amount of government spending isn't the key. The Waxman-Markey bill has emissions targets and a host of policy provisions. The private investments which they'll generate will be worth many times what the bill sets aside for the government to spend. Your piece frets that apples are not oranges; both can be used to make a fruit salad.

By jay alt on 2009 07 31

Anyone who has taught science or read Tom Friedman's book, The World is Flat knows that our culture has become not only complacent but lazy in promoting science, technology, engineering and math. This will be part of our downfall if we don't correct it soon. Thank you for bringing this to light and call to action.

By Glenn Fay on 2009 07 27

Please drop us a comment: What do you think the U.S. needs to do to win the clean energy race?

By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 07 27

"but he kept the details vague"

All politicians are the same, even this one that holds so much hope for the USA!

By Nuera Green Network on 2009 07 27

I believe the most productive application for photovoltiac solar panels is at household level, rather than in vast arrays at centralized locations far from urban settings.

When a household has the means to recharge the battery pack of a plug-in hybrid vehicle, they gain the choice of driving or cutting utility bills. Imagine; this incentivizes the reduction of both driving and household energy consumption.

The households with a modest photovoltiac panel system and plug-in hybrid vehicles can survive an emergency grid failure indefinitely! They gain the means to more closely monitor household energy consumption. Their routine driving evolves into shorter trips whereby in time more trips become possible without having to drive. Walking and bicycling thus become more viable travel options, and mass transit more practical to arrange.

You should see how this is a 'breakthrough' concept. Run with it.

Art Lewellan
Author, "The Seattle Circulator Plan"
(blacklisted in Seattle)

By Art Lewellan on 2009 07 23

Perhaps the reason that China, South Koream, and Japan are pushing ahead faster is that their relative amount of LNG imports are higher. My own experience in Korea was the observation that they went heavy into nuclear in the 80

By R Margolis on 2009 07 21

It is great news to hear that China and India are so committed to large scale solar power. Having visited India several times recently, it is obvious that they are in a near crisis situation with regard to air quality in the large cities. But with a large commitment like this there is good chance for reversal. It is kind of alarming to see the US potentially falling far behind in the area of cutting edge green technology, as this would be squandering a huge and vital economic opportunity.

By memory foam on 2009 07 17

One of the most talked issues today is about financial crisis. Everything is affected by this not only the situation of every citizen but also the situation of the environment. When the drift was first spotted in the early 1980s, it stirred only academic interest. But this year, as more economists and politicians began to take note of it. The great American middle class is no longer so great. It is shrinking steadily, goes the theory, and shedding its members into the economic extremes of wealth and poverty. Borrowers of payday loans just don't live up to the stereotype of them

By Payday Loan on 2009 02 05

You're substantially correct; technology can't be legislated into existence by fiat. If that were true we'd all have have a fusion powered flying car by now. Instead, we have toilets that can't flush the output of a 5 year old without assistance and we're fixing to get cruddy lights that probably take more energy to make, dispose of, and recycle than they save.

Pournelle and Possony wrote a smallish book "The Strategy of Technology" which posits that the dominance and progress of the US and the west is precisely because of treating technology as a strategic resource. You can find it online.

Were we to heed this, we could easily put an X-program in place to develop cheap space access (at least cheaper than Shuttle and disposable rockets.) We already know how to build spaceborne solar power; at least we know roughly what to do given that we haven't built this. Combine the two and we can at least solve the power plant problem within a generation. Sprinkle in some additional nuclear capability. Note again that this doesn't require technology leaps, at least in the vein of "and now a miracle happens," although it will require incremental improvement in what we can already do.

Admittedly this doesn't solve automobiles and it doesn't solve batteries etc but it IS a rational starting point that *can* work, *can* create jobs, and is a solution that is "green" and also doesn't require legislating penalties on the use of what we already have.

One step at a time.

By G Alston on 2008 02 06