John Marburger on the BBC
September 14, 2007 |
President Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, was interviewed today on the BBC (audio). Here is the quote that will get the most attention, undoubtedly (my own transcription):
The climate is in fact sensitive to CO2 emissions. As they increase, the anthropogenic contribution to global warming and climate change will simply progress. The CO2 just accumulates in the atmosphere, there is no end point. It just gets hotter and hotter. At some point the planet becomes unlivable.
His comments that followed had much nuance and focused on the imprecision of targets and timetables and how science cannot tell us how much time to act or what endpoint to choose. He concludes with a call for technological innovation.
His comments prior to the quote above emphasized acceptance of the IPCC consensus, which is interesting because the IPCC doesn't say anything that I am aware of about making the Earth unlivable.
The fallout from this comment will no doubt be interesting.
Comments
The point you make is a valid one, but your use of characterizing the environmentalist worldview as polarized completely discredits your argument. When people think of "will Change A solve Problem B," there are always entire sets of issues to look at in the middle. Policy is a huge problem with GE crops when it comes down to "patenting life" and who ends up with the cash in their pocket. If GE crops are supposed to prevent human suffering, there's going to need to be some major shifts in economic thinking in order for those crops to get the the people who need them in an affordable way. The insufficient amount of isolated field experiments prior to mass employment is also a problem. We know a lot, but nature's systems are tricky, which requires very very little room for human error. In regard to nuclear, it would be advised that you mention the issues surrounding the waste, which is a primary ecological concern, and what many consider long lasting proof of our hubris. And in reference to the previous comment, the "magic wand" question is completely ridiculous. If you believe that carbon emissions are the only thing we need to confront, you're living under a concrete block. It's definitely the most dramatic, and time-sensitive, but because of that, it's overshadowing other emergencies. What kind of world do you want to live in, and provide for your children? One where people are packed cheek to jowl in steel cities, all of our food now a creation of our intellect and absent any connection to where we had come from? One where there are no wolves, bears, eagles, whales...because they aren't essential to human survival? Humans are an amazing species with amazing potential, but it's time we start recognizing that potential, and as you advocate, actually apply our logic where we need it most.
By Jameson on 2010 05 31
Taka, thank you for your comment.
There are certainly dangers associated with uranium mining, as with any other form of mining, and those dangers are further exacerbated by risks associated with radiation exposure (although coal and other hard rock miners are often exposed to radiation as well, and the burning of coal releases relatively large amounts of uranium and other radioactive materials into the atmosphere as well).
We did not include a factoid for recent fatalities from uranium mining, and much of the earlier mining impacts, such as those in the article you cited, were fueled by demand from the military nuclear weapons apparatus, not later civilian nuclear power operations. Like the early history of coal mining (which we don't include here), the early history of uranium mining is clearly much worse than today's operations, although both coal and uranium mining still have their impacts.
It's also worth noting in this context though, that pound-for-pound, uranium is a couple orders of magnitude more "energy dense" than coal, meaning much much less uranium must be mined, processed, 'burnt' and then reprocessed or stored to produce a given amount of energy, compared to coal. In other words, whereas coal ore, fuel and waste are measured in quantities of hundreds, thousands or even billions of tons, 'equivalent' quantities or uranium are probably described in terms of hundreds of pounds or dozens of tons. Much of the environmental and human impacts of mining and waste thus scale proportionately.
In the end though, as you clearly understand, all forms of energy have their risks and impacts (which was much the point of this post), and the key is to examine their relative risks and impacts to make informed decisions about our energy supply options. Thanks for stopping by Taka. Cheers...
By Jesse Jenkins on 2010 05 17
This post is confusing on the topic of primary energy use vs. usable energy (electrons on the grid).
The AEO forecast quads are all for primary energy -- this is the raw energy in the fuel itself. (1 kg of solid coal has a certain amount of "primary energy".) Given a OECD average coal power plant efficiency of 37%, the 22.75 quads of coal burned in 2007 generated only 8.4 quads of electricity. (This is before transmission line losses, etc, but those are the same for all technologies, except efficiency.) Natural gas plants are a bit more efficient, at 45%. The transportation sector uses primary energy directly (liquid fuel into your car), so that part is "100% efficient" compared with electricity. (The inefficiency is counted in a different place.) Since not all petroleum is used in cars, let's assume it's 95% efficient when counting "usable energy". AEO Renewables are calculated directly from the energy in the lines, not from "primary energy" of sunlight falling on a given square meter, so they are effectively 100% efficient for this comparison. Nuclear is counted the same way (I think). The upshot of this is that instead of working with 102 quads of primary energy, we ought to be thinking about 72.6 quads of "used" energy in 2007. The most recent AEO numbers (downloaded from http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html and then adjusted in Excel)) show this "used" number growing to 75.2 quads in 2020.
I'm a big efficiency fan, but let's assume that number is un-changeable. Can we shuffle the proportion around between sources to add up to 75.2, while still cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 14% before 2007? Of course. Start by cutting coal in half. If the average coal plant has a lifetime of 30 years, this should be happening anyway over the next 15 or so years, as long as we don't build new plants. 4.5 quads of used coal electricity comes from 12.2 quads of primary coal energy. Expand natural gas a bit: 13.1 quads of used natural gas power comes from 29.1 quads of primary energy (AEO forecasts 24 quads of NG). Leave petroleum where the AEO says, at 39 quads of primary energy. The AEO forecasts renewables growing from 6.3 to 9.4 quads. If this is accelerated to 11.5 quads, and nuclear stays where it is, we have 75.2 quads of "usable" energy on the grids/roads, using only 100.7 quads of primary energy, and emitting 86.3% of the carbon emitted in 2007.
Electric efficiency enters the computation the same way renewables do (and in fact better because it avoids the few% transmission line losses). So, if you don't think we can grow renewables at a big boost over the AEO rate, just think about how to save 2.1 quads of end-user energy (per year) without hurting quality of life. Given that this is just 3% or so of total use, it's not hard to imagine. (Refrigerators, for example, can easily be 20% more efficient today -- look at all the Energy Star models available --and that's not built into the AEO model.)
What happens if we set the "used" energy in 2020 equal to the "used" energy in 2007? If we just need a "useable" energy of 72.6 quads, we can even leave renewables where the AEO predicts them to be in 2020, and just do a straight swap of coal for natural gas and efficiency. Accelerated renewable R&D beyond the AEO forecast can push the natural gas number down, too.
It's fun to play with numbers, but this post creates a false problem by ignoring the fact that the AEO numbers quoted are in _primary energy_ terms. I haven't addressed any policy question here of how one would do this, but any option which results in enough increased renewables, efficiency, and natural gas at the expense of coal (relative to the AEO baseline) ought to work.
(comment also posted at Prometheus)
By Asa Hopkins on 2009 03 16
Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas make for greater dependence on renewables, nuclear and coal. As it becomes more expensive to mine, refine and transport fossil fuels we have to make a serious committment to embrace sustainable sources of energy for future generations.
By M Vandewark on 2009 03 12
What about using natural gas and nuclear to replace coal? Yes natural gas is more carbon intensive, but 200 GW of gas turbines were built in about 10 years. It is probably the fastest carbon reducer. Nuclear plants in Asia can be built in about 5 years a piece. I know everyone prefers renewables, but gas and nuclear have the scale (and do not need energy storage) required for such a large replacement program.
By R Margolis on 2009 03 12
While overall I like the thrust of this story, I feel concerned by the call to dump 'Gaia Gore'. The truth of the matter is that most of these crises we find ourselves in are exactly because of our constant innovations and technological advances. Advances that we often make to the short-term benefit of the few at the expense of the whole and the many.
While the story of human innovation and triumph against the odds is indeed an inspiring one (and is desperately needed now), I feel the author goes too far. The author's call for a reframing of the global warming debate is a welcome and crucial one, but I can't help but feel that he misses something crucial.
Rather than framing traditional environmentalism as a 'humans-have-sinned-against-nature' view of the world, the discussion would still benefit from a continued acknowledgement of our own culpability in the current situation.
In short, love of our own technological prowess was what got us into this mess. While technology will play a part in getting us out of it, true long-term sustainability will only be achieved when we come to a point of balance with the world around us. A balance that places the health of our planet and her species at an equal level of importance with our own 'high standard of living'.
The author also does not discuss the very real issue of coming resource constraints. Maintaining high standards of living are all well and good, but how will we feed, water and resource the 9 billion human beings expected by 2042 if all of them lived as we higher-end mortals like to do?
Like it or not, sacrifices might well have to be made and we ought to get our heads around that sooner rather than later. We live on a finite planet gentlemen and while technology and innovation can help us create a zero waste economy (long overdue) and a cradle-to-cradle society, it can't put oil back in the ground once its all gone.
Traditional environmentalism and ancient understandings of how we can live in balance with our world, may well have something left to teach us still. (It doesn't need to be an either or proposition.)
I don't think we should be digging the grave of environmentalism just yet.
By Vicki K on 2009 01 12
Jordan, To clarify, I support major investments to make solar cheap. I just don't think solar will become cheap as coal any time soon -- ie, before 30 to 50 years from now. In "Fast, Clean and Cheap" we wrote:
The cite is:
Bob Van der Zwaan & Ari Rabel, The Learning Potential of Photovoltaics: Implications
for Energy Policy, 32 ENERGY POL�Y 1545, 1551 tbl.5 (2004) (stating the cost of breaking
even).
Also see the table in "FCC" for solar prices relative to coal.
A major paper by David Keith will be published in late August. He's asked that I not distribute it until then. After extensive interviews with energy experts Keith concludes, "Photovoltaics are not likely to become economically competitive with other large scale low-carbon bulk electricity options in the next 40 years."
Meanwhile, here's a few things to look at:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2008/02/ucberkeley_study_solar_breakth.shtml
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2007/08/the_times_andy_revkin_offered.shtml
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 07 24
Michael,
Can you please provide references for who the experts are who are saying that the cost of PV ( where you also referring to wind as well? ) Will not "come down in price enough to compete with coal anytime in the next 30 or 50 years". I have not read many recent papers showing that timetable.
Thank you
By Jordan Motzkin on 2008 07 18
So, in a sentance, what do you think marburgers influence is on this matter.
An educated guess would be fantastic lol
By Cowlick, public? on 2007 09 28
Thanks for this Roger. Here`s another link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6990000/newsid_6994800/6994840.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&ms3=54
Marburger is obviously correct that the decision about what to do is political, but "getting on to change the energy technology" won`t happen at a pace that reflects climate risk unless the government acts, as presently climate risk is not reflected in energy prices.
By TokyoTom on 2007 09 23
The planet would have been 'unlivable' long ago if what Marburger says is true, and climate sensitivity to CO2 was high. It isn't - it's low, and most feedbacks are negative.
By paul Biggs on 2007 09 18
Roger,
Sounds like Mr. Marburger has been spending too much time listening to Mr. Gore!
See here, for example.
-Chip
By Chip Knappenberger on 2007 09 14
Apparently the anglo-apocalyptic fever that has swept the British Isles is impossible for even Bush Administration types to avoid.
By Ted on 2007 09 14