Open Letter to Senator Inhofe
December 11, 2007 |
On December 5, Senator Inhofe cited our book during Senate hearings on global warming. Here's our response:
December 6, 2007
Senator James Inhofe
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-3603
Fax: (202) 224-5167
Dear Senator Inhofe:
During yesterday's Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, you cited a passage from a New Republic piece we wrote in advance of our book, Break Through, From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility in support of an amendment by Senator Voinovich. The Voinovich amendment would have required certification of available clean energy technologies before emissions caps would go into effect. While we certainly appreciate your willingness to consider our arguments calling for an innovation and technology centered approach to addressing climate change, we want to make clear our argument on investment and cap and trade legislation such as Lieberman-Warner.
We make clear in both the New Republic piece you cited, and in our book, that addressing climate change will require a substantive federal commitment that involves both investment in clean energy technologies, which you appear to favor, and regulations to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. In the book we note "[t]here is no doubt the need to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules, provide regulatory certainty so that nations and businesses alike can plan their investments, and increase the costs of fossil fuels relative to cleaner energy sources. But regulation cannot be the sole policy egg in the global warming basket, for without investments to encourage technological breakthroughs, we won't come close to achieving the emissions reductions we need to stabilize the climate."
To be clear, we advocate an aggressive regulatory policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But we also favor, as you noted, an aggressive investment to bring new, clean and cheap energy technologies to market. Based upon extensive summaries by innovation experts in the academic, energy and international communities, we estimate that at least a $300 billion investment over ten years by the federal government is necessary to achieve the kinds of technological innovations necessary to quickly bring make cheap, clean energy technologies widely available in the near term. We've attached a letter from some of America's leading scientists that persuasively makes the case for this level of investment.
While we have been disappointed that some environmentalists have failed to address the need for investment in new clean energy technologies, we've been equally disappointed that many politicians using innovation and entrepreneurship rhetoric have failed to back up their strong words with a substantive commitment to investing federal resources to achieve clean energy innovation. Your remarks at the hearing indicate that you agree with us regarding the importance of technological innovation and economic opportunity. We hope your words of support will be backed with support for substantive investment -- in the neighborhood of $30 billion per year -- in research, development and deployment of clean energy technologies.
As I'm sure you're aware, we have substantive disagreements with you over the causes, solutions, and need for action around global warming. But even those who deny the human causes of global warming can recognize the need for America to achieve energy independence and the importance of establishing the United States as a world leader in the rapidly growing clean energy economy. A robust federal investment will help achieve these two important national priorities.
Finally, we recognize that such an investment is sizable and that decisions regarding the federal budget do not occur in a vacuum. With ongoing efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan placing a strain on the Treasury, we think it important to look at the potential auction of cap and trade credits as the primary means to fund clean energy investment. As we noted in the New Republic article you cited, "what matters most about the global-warming legislation being considered in Congress is how much money it will raise to invest in clean energy. Auctioning emissions permits to polluting firms could generate" the revenue necessary for investment. Given your stated support for innovation, we hope we can count on our support for an aggressive early auction schedule that will raise the revenue necessary to invest $300 billion over ten years to ensure that the technological innovation and economic opportunity you cited in your remarks becomes a reality. If, however, you feel that other revenue streams would better raise the $300 billion necessary to combat the problem, we'd be willing to listen to your ideas.
As a Senator, you've undoubtedly heard more than your fair share of empty promises of support failed to be followed by substantive action. You've made clear your support for innovation in the area of clean energy, and we look forward to hearing of your substantive proposals to make that innovation a reality.
Again, thank you for advocating our call for a global warming strategy that focuses on investment in technological innovation and economic opportunity. We hope that we can count on you to back up your strong words with substantive action as the debate over climate change continues.
Sincerely,
Ted Nordhaus
Michael Shellenberger
Attachment: Energy Scientist Letter
Cc: The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Chair
Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee
Comments
I have new renewable energy that acts like a blackout cure due to it's ability to produce energy 24/7/365. How can we get in touch with the department of energy to inform them about this?
By Jorge Perez on 2009 03 12
I think he simply needs to hear about the newest and most reliable renewable energy powered by magnet drive turbines by Nova Alternative Energy. Ireport has an article about the solution for blackouts by Nova.
By jorge perez on 2009 03 08
An area of public investment that Obama hasn't put anywhere near enough money into is public transportation. It will address a lot of important issues.
- The need for more government jobs in the short and mid term
- Global warming
- The obesity epidemic
- Our enormous trade deficits and the credit problems they create
By libhomo on 2009 03 08
The green energy movement is going to bring a whole new way of life and industry to not only America, but to the world. As you say, immense possibility and hope - and the realm of technological discovery and innovation is what the USA is all about. Granted, there have been a lot of things that we've invented that have done irrevocable damage, but there's things that have brought wonderful change. (The computer, internet, etc.) A green revolution where we can have transportation independent of fossil fuels, materials devoid of metals that require dangerous levels of CO2 and other hazardous waste, and energy that if it burns any fuel at all, it's extremely limited - and we can do it. Hopefully, the green jobs that Obama's been talking up are going to be a reality instead of a pipe dream clogged by the oil and coal lobbies.
By JCollins on 2009 02 13
The fund they got was got by Wells Fargo was part of the TARP program. CEO John Stumpf, taken to task in the press, has stated that the functions aren't a big deal; they're for regular hardworking employees
By Payday Loan on 2009 02 10
America is also known because of using highly innovative technology, thus, I agree that technology is also part of Obama
By Jocelyn T on 2009 02 10
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
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
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
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
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
It's interesting that on first glance, what Conley calls for may sound a lot like the old Conservative, "let everyone pull themselves up by their bootstraps" kind of mentality. However, when you look closer, it's clear that Conley isn't advocating a hands-off approach to social safety nets. Instead, the government must make an active - though soft-handed - effort to lay the fertile ground for social welfare, actively empowering Americans to take control of their lives. This is definitely something new...
Great summary of Conley's work Helen. Nicely done.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2008 06 24
Great post!! You are absolutely right. What we need is a hybrid movement of top down/grassroots. One of the models that I think we should also look to is the Barack Obama campaign which very successfully used both the grassroots and a more traditional campaign hierarchy.
By arduous on 2008 06 24
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
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
"Breakthrough"???
Mindless Marxist/Keynesian MORONS!
You (Shellenberger & Nordhaus) so typify economic dunces that babble on about "investment" (read yet more phony taxes), to support yet more so-called 'environmental studies', by the egalitarian 'collective' who in reality produce absolutly NOTHING of value!
So-called 'global warming' is de facto a GLOBAL GRAND LARCNEY scheme perpetrated by frauds and pandering demagogues - like you two.
The 'Global Cooling' scam - hatched by the same environazi's back in the late 60s was VERY suddenly dropped as a taxing scheme - and WALLAH! the EXACT opposite was suddenly claimed to be the next "crisis". And total quacks and frauds like Algore are laughing all the way to the bank; and you two are trying to get your pound of scheckles like the rest of the frauds.
Seven decades ago (when I was a youngster), there was conjecture on when -and how- "they" would figure out a way to tax the air we breathe and SUNSHINE. Well, in the late 60s, 'they' started taxing oxygen, and now -finally- sunshine is being taxed at rates you two morons want to 'grow' exponentially! You are economic fools - and your imbecillic notions WOULD bring WORLD-WIDE economic armageddon - without doubt.
AND, you are hypocrites of the worst kind! Why didn't you two WALK to the 'tattered book Store' in Colorado instead of FLYING - and ADDING to the atmospheric pollutants you decry?
Noncarborundum illigitmi!
MOST sincerely,
Tom Daniel
By Tom Daniel on 2007 12 16
I was reading today in the New York Times that Honda already has production ready hydrogen cars. What is needed is an infrastructure (refueling stations, etc) to allow them to work.
This it seems to me should be a priority for the kind of economic strategy that you recommend.
By richard reiches on 2007 12 13
What is the probability of a clean technology funding increase making its way into the Lieberman-Warner Bill? It seems unlikely, especially with the haggling over the yearly appropriations bills.
Would selling such a plan be easier if it were tied to the economic unease felt by most Americans (a recent poll showed that 57% of the country believe that we are in a recession)? Even if ethanol is not the answer (and it seems that it isn't), it has created thousands of new, well paying jobs. Ethanol production companies are making tens of millions in profits without government subsidies. Could this be a proxy for what could happen is the government spurs R&D in other technologies? How would you sell that to the American people or Congress for that matter?
By Matthew Stepp on 2007 12 12