Death of the Civil Rights Movement?
August 13, 2007
What "Sicko" Misunderstands About Health Care
July 26, 2007 | Michael Shellenberger,
Jointly authored with Ted Nordhaus, and drawing on research conducted by American Environics and Lake Research Partners for the Herndon Alliance
Anyone who remembers how the last Democratic effort on health care went down in flames -- dividing the party and leading to the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1994 -- remembers the infamous "Harry and Louise" attack ad. The ad was nothing fancy -- just a typical middle class couple discussing the Clinton health care reform legislation. What fewer people remember is why the ad worked.
The ad worked because it spoke, directly and in a very intimate way, to the things that Americans worry about when they consider changes to the health care system: what the changes will cost them and how the changes will affect their own health care and choices.
The television ad was created by the health insurance lobby and ran in swing congressional districts. Those who were involved in creating and pushing the 1994 Clinton plan tend to lament that the "Harry and Louise" ad was misleading, and point to polling that showed that the specific content of the Clinton plan remained popular to the bitter end.
Voters, however, do not make up their minds based on the specific content of policies, but rather on their impression of what the policies will do. Voters in 1994, confused by the complexity of the proposal, feared it would result in less, not more, choice, and higher, not lower, costs. If progressives are going to win on health care reform, they must avoid this trap. And that means understanding how -- not just what -- middle- class voters like "Harry and Louise" think about health care reform.
1. Recognize that most voters have health care
Advocates of health care reform have spent much of the last 15 years talking to the 260 million Americans who have insurance about the 40 million Americans who don't. To be sure, many insured American voters are truly and deeply concerned about the plight of the uninsured. But when it comes down to really evaluating reform, regardless of how sincerely they agree with a relatively general survey question, insured voters think first about how it will affect their own health care. It may be true that a big part of the solution to rising health care costs is to insure everyone. However, insured voters, who are 95% of all voters, generally don't see it that way. The health care crisis that insured voters experience every day is characterized by things like rising costs and co-pays, denial of care due to preexisting conditions, the lack of portability, and obstacles to seeing specialists. They see these problems as the result of profiteering by insurers and drug companies, not as the result of too many uninsured Americans.
Indeed, many believe that covering the uninsured will likely make these problems worse, not better. Their intuitive solution is to demand that "somebody do something" to protect consumers -- namely, through restraining drug companies and insurers. This does not mean that they are opposed to covering the uninsured--but it does mean that health care proposals that focus centrally around covering the uninsured often fail to speak powerfully to the problems that many voters actually experience themselves.
2. Solve the Consumer Crisis First -- it will inspire greater empathy toward the uninsured.
In the past, progressives and democrats have sought to emphasize to insured Americans that they are at risk of losing their coverage or are in some other way insecure. But when Harry and Louise get scared--watch out. fear-based appeals overwhelmingly tend to trigger a zero-sum, conservative reaction, not a generous and progressive one. When voters are worried about losing or paying more, they become change averse.
But the opposite is also true: when voters believe a health care reform proposal would address the problems that they care about, they are more likely to embrace efforts to extend coverage to the uninsured.
Insured voters are a lot more likely to turn a compassionate eye toward the uninsured when they feel secure that their own health care needs are going to be met. A reform proposal that protects the insured so that they a) have access to basic services, b) can't be denied insurance due to their age or a preexisting condition, c) can keep insurance if they lose or change jobs, d) can't be denied specialist care by insurers, and e) are protected from price gouging will help create the psychological conditions for voters to feel secure and thus more compassionate and more generous toward the uninsured.
3. Embrace personal responsibility
When voters talk among themselves about covering the uninsured, the conversation quickly turns to whether or not the uninsured are themselves to blame for their situation. This is something that is missed in most polling, which doesn't allow the space for these concerns to emerge.
Voters do not want to pay more in insurance, co-pays, or taxes to cover those they consider to be "undeserving," such as illegal immigrants, people who refuse to work, people who do not take good care of their children, people who do not take good care of their own health, and people who have enough money to pay for insurance but are irresponsible.
To feel positive about any reform proposal, voters need to be reassured that the new system will inspire greater personal responsibility. To this end, voters respond positively to new rules, such as the notion that "everybody should have to pay something" for their health care. Voters are quick to qualify this belief with a recognition that what people pay should depend on their means. Voters strongly embraced the progressive notion of a "sliding scale," where people pay what is fair to their income levels.
In Sum
Public cynicism toward government has long driven concerns that a government-run health care system could be worse than our current private health insurance system. Voters support government insurance for seniors and children -- but not necessarily for themselves. To win reform we need to propose legislation that voters perceive as solving the consumer crisis. Then, and only then, will Harry and Louise be in the mood for comprehensive reform that covers the uninsured.
Comments
@Peter: Thanks for the comment. I'm glad you hold Breakthrough Institute to a high standard, which we appreciate.
We're actually nearing completion on a comprehensive review of the current state of the art in analysis, modeling, and empirical research into the rebound effect, so stay tuned in January for a very detailed look at this key issue.
You are right that rebound effects do not always eliminate 100% of the energy gains from energy efficiency measures -- a scenario known as "backfire." As you note, however, rebound effects are very real, and have been largely ignored in contemporary energy policymaking. Rebound effects at macroeconomic scales are quite significant, and backfire is even likely in certain circumstances.
To date, most American energy analysts will argue that rebound effects are "real but not significant" and often cite a range of 10-30% as the amount of efficiency savings "taken back" by rebound effects.
Those figures however trace their origin back to a good but limited study of energy consumption rebound among consumers in wealthy countries -- but these are precisely the scope of analysis and sectors of the economy where rebound would be lowest.
Two-thirds of global energy use is in the productive sectors of the economy (industry and business) and there, direct rebounds are typically much larger. Meanwhile, greater and greater shares of energy consumption are in the developing economies, where rebound is also greater, as demand for energy is far from saturated there, and improving the productivity of energy has profound impacts for the pace of economic expansion.
Studies of these micro-scale (or "direct") rebound effects are useful, but efficiency advocates in the U.S. have latched onto this limited research, which (intentionally or unintentionally) distracts attention from macro-rebound, indirect rebound and rebounds in developing nations.
Remember, for Jevons, his focus was on the macroeconomic impacts that are most important, and this was all intuitive. Increase the productivity of any factor and you increase both demand for all factors as well as economic output.
Now, 150 years later, as we consider the ability of efficiency to deliver lasting emissions reductions at a global scale, a growing body of research utilizing a variety of empirical, modeling, and economic methods have shed new light on these complex macroeconomic dynamics in which full-scale rebound resides, and in which the the scale of rebound does indeed become very significant.
And let's all remember, that the only scope that really matters from a climate perspective is the full scale of rebound in the global economy (e.g. one climate, one global economy).
Rebound effects are thus far more significant at this scale of analysis than generally believed, and while Owen may miss the mark once or twice, he is more right than not in his article, and worth reading closely. Stay tuned though for the kind of "nuanced analysis" on the rebound effect you've been looking for in early 2011. Take care,
Jesse Jenkins
Director of Energy and Climate Policy
Breakthrough Institute
By Jesse Jenkins on 2010 12 23
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
Any new federal government programs will run into the usual quagmire of influence peddling, favoritism .
By on 2010 05 17
Oil, gas, coal, nuclear energy - is a serious threat to the planet and each of us ... Propose a mutually beneficial partnership for the project a clean energy source which is gravity. For more information visit: www.energyland.org.ua For the interested partner is ready to discuss specifics. Sincerely, Igor.
By Energyland on 2010 05 16
As an American from the West Coast who lived in Australia for six months, I can attest to the serious and prolonged burrito drought ravaging the entirety of the continent! Anyone with the gumption to start a burrito chain in Oz could make some good money...
Great profile of a great BTGen fellow. Leigh is missed around here.
Jesse
By Jesse Jenkins on 2010 04 01
Jesse-
Sorry for taking so long to reply to your comments. I think I would characterize my position on CLEAR as a willing pragmatist, rather than an ardent supporter of a cap-and-dividend model. That said, a lot has happened since my original comment and scant little of it bodes well for passage of a Waxman-Markey type climate bill--or most any other kind of climate bill, for that matter--in 2010.
First, Democrats in my homeland of Massachusetts somehow lost the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat, fumbling what the mainstream media loves to call the Democrats' "filibuster-proof super majority" (when in actuality, the Democratic Senate Caucus has shown little ability/willingness work together to get any significant legislation passed).
Second,President Obama omitted the projected $646 billion in revenue generated by a cap-and-trade in the 2011 budget, perhaps, signaling the Obama Administration's unwillingness to get behind a pure climate bill in favor of a broader jobs bill or energy bill.
Now it's really a question of strategy. Should those advocating for climate legislation continue to push for what is arguably not the strongest cap-and-trade scheme, to be passed by what is arguably not the strongest/most united Democratic Congressional Caucus? Or might it be a better strategy to consider other alternatives? I don't necessarily mean CLEAR specifically, but state, local and regional levels have been where the real innovation in carbon markets, clean energy policy and energy efficiency has been taking place anyway.
Yes, we need federal legislation, but I think it's a mistake to assume the feds have to be the ones to lead on this issue. They will eventually come around one way or the other. But right now, there will be many more immediate victories in this whole thing if we chose to push in places that are more likely to bend.
By Tim on 2010 02 02
Glad to see your Part 2 was more favorable to the CLEAR Act. Advocates for spending the money always seem to assume the money will be well-spent. But check out the "clean" coal, nuclear, and ethanol lobbies. Anyway, there are tons of reasons to return the money to consumers instead, and I think the politics are coming around. In CA, if we wait around much longer there will be a state initiative to suspend AB32. Dividends are the best defense. I don't know where you came up with the idea that dividends are for the "elite." R&D spending benefits PhD's the most until it eventually trickles down to West Oakland in 2030. And without dividends, West Oaklanders would be paying higher prices. Hope you guys can join the CLEAR bandwagon (sure, keep asking for better targets, or for 350, or for where the CERT funding goes), but don't just be the two old guys in the balcony from the muppets.
By Mike S. on 2010 01 29
Pretending there are limitless resources available to support our current economy is the dangerous denial in question. There is no magic silver-bullet technology that makes energy cheap and clean. The obvious (and politically distasteful) answer is to fully pay for the energy we use - which means including a price on carbon for our gasoline and electricity.
The marketplace will adjust, creating entire new industries in both transportation and electricity efficiencies and conservation.
"It is not a momentous technological undertaking," to transform our economy away from fossil fuels. Its technologically possible today, and the "costs" of implementation are actually investments in our collective future.
See Dr. Saul Griffith "Climate Change Recalculated" to understand what it will take to build the renewable energy infrastructure we need.
By LMerry on 2010 01 14
This is a measured response given how CP has slammed BTI this year. Well done.
BTW, Romm's inside-the-beltway perspective is that ACES is all that DC can muster, no ratification of a climate treaty is possible, and, without ACES, the chance of avoiding klimakatastrophe is zero (and only a little better with it). This is not the same as saying ACES is a strong bill, just as good as it gets.
I think you all would find common ground with the following haiku assessment of ACES:
Jacks or Better
ACES
By Greg Robie on 2009 09 29
The bottom line for me is that a carbon tax isn
By muskel on 2009 09 26
Test 1
By Shane Rathbun on 2009 08 12
Anything change did not happen.
This is sad!
By mortgage_loanmodification on 2009 08 02
I think we still have to wait for a while to get the real effects of the stimulus plan. It will take several years to get back on the track again.
By Inversiones inmobiliarias on 2009 07 29
Green Energy
I think clean energy is a point which should be considered by each person in particular, not only by the government.
Two years ago, my brother, who is an inventor, created a solar-powered mini-electric station, which we use up till now, and half a year ago a small electromobile for kids, now he is working on other useful things, and he does not need billions of dollars for this. He takes his ideas mostly from
So I think we should not only sit and wait for help from the authorities. We can start making our planet clean today!
By Lucy on 2009 07 27
"getting most Americans to realize that the only way to solve the problem is"
I think this is where the problem ultimately lies, it will take another 10 years to get 'most' Americans onside.
By Gotta Go Green on 2009 07 27
Many are waiting for the marvel from him now.
But there will be change at a price of only large victims i think.
Under very long time.
By Loan modification on 2009 07 17
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
To the guy above, I guess it depends what state the carbon is in...lots of things are good until they are modified or used in high quantities.
I pray that electric cars become a reality in the next 10 years because of our terrible reliance on oil.
By Green Recycling Gal on 2009 07 09
Alisha,
Great post. I too am jazzed about a VW plug in hybrid diesel. The is the best of all worlds
1- internal combustion engine that can be fueled with bio fuel (i.e. home brewed bio diesel made from used vegetable oil)
2- electricity generated from renewable sources to charge the battery.
There are several studies that point out the emission reductions that can be realized by replacing crude oil (i.e. gasoline) with electricity (even produced from dirty coal). EPRI and NRDC did one such study (http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/ElectricTransportation/News/epri-study.htm).
Controlling emissions is easier to do from stationary sources (read power plants) than moving vehicles.
I am a proud owner of a plug in hybrid. Namely a 2005 Toyota Prius that was upgraded with a Hymotion 5KW Lithium Ion battery back made by A123Systems. The car gets over 100MPG during the summer months for over 30 miles. The electricity is generated from my rooftop 4.7KW solar array. I live in upstate NY and produce over 6MW of electricity per year. Yes, I said UPSTATE NY!
I am living proof that using clean decentralized renewable power can be used for transportation to displace non renewable fossil fuel.
By Christian Grieco on 2009 07 09
Nice thoughts has been added. needs no addition
Shelly Smith
===========================
foreclosure auctions
By foreclosure auctions on 2009 07 08
Another big part of the acid rain story that generally doesn't get told was the deregulation of the railroads (starting with the 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act), which made it much cheaper to ship low-sulfur coal from Western coal fields. That meant that by the time the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments established the SO2 emissions trading system to stop Acid Rain, fuel-switching to low-sulfur coal was economically feasible, even for coal plants in the East, and compliance with the regulations was easy. While Natural Gas may provide some low-cost fuel switching, there's simply no analogous way forward to the completely transformed, low-carbon global energy system necessary to stop global climate change.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 06 30
I think China can take care of itself.
By Beer and Burgers on 2009 06 29
Cap and Trade sounds a lot like the "Energy Deregulation" that allowed Enron to mess with California's energy supply back in 2001.
It sounds like a system where middlemen are set up to just add cost, not value.
It seems simple taxation (and penalization) would put more dollrs in the government's coffers and steer industry to respond more quickly. The more quickly the proper response is enacted, the sooner jobs will be created in new sectors. If jobs are created in "artificial" sectors only created in a madening arbitraty system, those jobs are at the greatest risk of disapearing once the artificial stimulants are removed.
We must understand that the US consists of less than 5% of the global population. We are often seen as the richest nation - especially in our own eyes. Our transportation system - getting to and from work - is based on hauling around at least a ton of car per commuter. Various forms of public transportation could transport more people more qickly in our growing sprawl cities - using half the energy, generating half the CO2.
This issue is near and dear. Growing up in and living near Los Angeles, I know how many man-hours are wasted on the freeway. I understand how tis slows eonomic activity. I see how our present system of transporation is a great tax on our people.
I understand how the tiny particles generated from engine wear, from tire wear, from breaks and stirred by passing cars - how thes particles embed themselves into our lungs and have plagued many in my family with asthema and increased susceptability to various alergies.
In the "libertarian" point of view, increased medical costs of our present policies have an impact that is hard to quantify economically - but the inpact is certainly heavier on the end-users and not on those in the supply chain that profit the most rom causing us commuters harm.
Under cap and trade - electric utilities are putting off investments in upgading their pollution control devices - perhaps amonia scrubbers, catalytic converters and other devices.
These allownaces extend the artificial impression that these older plants are more economical to operate.
Providing subsidies - perhaps paid for by the direct taxation of carbon emissions - to go directly into helping high electric cost areas replace their old powerplants with the latest more efficient and less poluting technolgies - that would certainy improve the jestation of US efforts to reduce carbon emissions and still grow electricity production.
When the electric grid loses about 50% of the energy pumped into it in transmission losses,the increase in efficiency at many power plants become far less valuable than increases in efficiency at the consumer end. (Overall in the USA, the "fuel to end-use" efficincy of our electric grid is below 25%.)
A natural gas fired microturbine "on-site" at a local facility can outproduce the "fuel efficiency" of our electric grid. When considering electricity production to carbon dioxide emissions, on site generation produces far less CO2. Any hydrocarbon fuel has an advantage over coal in that hydrogen oxidation (H2O exhaust) packs a lot more punch than burning carbon - aka coal - (Almost all CO2 exhaust), and electric utilities have become far too addicted to cheap coal.
Placing on-site generation in a distributed manner throughout a community provides the best coverage. If (or more likely when) stuff fails, people, consumers and producers will be better able to continue normal economic activity.
The more economic activity around an area that just underwent any disaster will recover more quickly if the surrounding areas are unaffected. That would be a great energy policy - to put applied research dollars into distributed on-site technolgies and est sites incorporating solar, powerhaps wind, natural gas fired microturbine-cogeneration and hybrid microturbine/fuel cell technolgies. These technolgies together have much promise in reducing our overall energy consumption.
Just reversing the provisions of the 2005 Federal Energy legislation that prevented small solar energy installations from getting paid back dollar for dollar on energy sold back to the grid - reversing tose provisions would "supersize" America's decrease in CO2 emmissions while lowering costs ver time. When the price the utilities pay back oversized solar energy installations is tied to the amount the utility charges other consumers for electricity, the utilities are afraid to raise rates because they would face paying out more to solar energy providers.
Eventually, the electric utilities would have so many solar energy installations feeding their grids, the electric utilities would lower electric rates to consumers faster to prevent paying out more to the many "producers" who overproduce solar electricity.
Releasing small solar energy providers to achieve must faster payback on their individua privaate investments will significantly cut into CO2 emmissions over time as the base-load of solar energy installations increases.
The present strategy to "cap & trade" put forward seems to reward Centralized energy providers - only.
Centralized energy producers would do best to invest in ways to "store" excess electricity from variable input renwable sources. Many alternatives are attractive including the reversible methanol fuel cell and running pumps to create algea based "gasoline" fuels - both which recycle carbon dixoide directly into fuels - closng the carbon cycle. (We need to stimulate our economy in this direction anyway, or risk falling farther behind others that do take the progressive path.) And electricity storage can also be acomplshed with reverse-hydro, flywheels, capacitors and other methods used today.
Batteries alone wont't work. I've heard of schemes where utilities get people to buy electric cars charged up during the day, and discharged at night. This scheme puts the cost of the maintenance of the rapidly cycled car battery on the owner of the car!
"Cap and Trade" is just another example that those who profit the most are the ones who can afford to hire lobbyists to write laws with our taxpayer's Congress.
By CZ on 2009 06 29
I think it is fantastic how the stimulus funds are making a difference. They are being taken advantage of all the time with the installation of geothermal heat pumps to replace high energy heating and cooling systems.
By Joseph on 2009 06 27
Hi Sid,
Consumerism and non-consumerism are two extremes ideologies. Both are based on good intentions. Consumerism, if taken to the extreme, will result in Earth irreversible damage. Non-consumerism, if taken to the extreme, will be applicable to very few people and therefore be ineffective.
However, my observation is that the developed world is going in the path of extreme consumerism. The life cycle of most "non-perishable" products become shorter every year. Product warranties become shorter, consumers are encouraged to replace perfectly functional products with newer ones. The older ones are usually dumped. How many people replace their functioning cell phones with a "free" new one? How many people buy a new printer just because it costs less than replacing the ink cartridge kit or the toner kit?
What message do we send to the manufactureres when we replace their products every year? Make a shiny product, use inferior materials, go through less quality inspections, and give a short warranty. No one cares about the long time usage as long as he gets an extra gigabyte, an extra mega pixel, or an extra mile per gallon.
Old products become undesirable, which means it is more difficult to sell used stuff, which means many people prefer to dump them rather than to go through the effort of selling their old products for a small fraction of what they paid for them, just short time ago.
Many products cannot be fixed, once they break down. Either they do not have spare parts in the market or their repair will cost more than a new product. In this way many products end up in a landfill just because a little piece of plastic was broken or for a short circuit.
Now what about replacing products for energy conservation reasons? Is buying a new energy efficient car or appliance, while your current one is perfectly functional, good for the environment? How much natural resources and energy is required to manufacture, transport, market, advertise, sell, and deliver a new car? How much damage to the environment is caused by getting rid or recycle your old car? Cars and appliances are a more realistic examples for the percentage of natural resources vs. human ingenuity. The iPhone example is an extreme one.
One bad aspect of consumerism are the packages of perishable food. Our grand parents used to go to the grocery store with their own bags (neither plastic nor paper) their eggs box, their milk bottles and fill them. The products that had their own packaging had a much larger actual product per package ratio, like sacks of rice and flour. These sacks were then recycled for other home usage. They did not have recycling bins in their yards. Today the ratio between the actual product and its package became much smaller. Tea bags are now coming in an individual plastic bag to preserve "freshness" - I cannot tell the difference between a fresh and an old tea. The same with one-tea-spoon size sugar or instant coffee, or artificial sweetener bags. They used to be found only in restaurants. Now everyone buys them. Go to Costco and see how they package these small gadgets, like bluetooth headsets and memory cards, in huge transparent plastic cases.
Why not channel human ingenuity into developing products with long term vision, with fixable parts, with green thinking. Why not enhancing the 'cap and trade' system from the Kyoto Protocol beyond energy consumption. Companies and individual should pay the realistic price to erase their foot print on the environment. If you manufacture a printer you should pay NOW the price it takes to get rid of it at the end of its life cycle without hurting the environment. Maybe then replacing the ink cartridge kit will be the more economic solution and it will be recycled efficiently.
I think that we need to formulate 'wise consumerism'. It is our children and grand children that will have to pay the price for our reckless consumerism.
Regards,
Danny
By Daniel on 2009 06 23
Why wait for Congress?
Future cars will need no fuel and can become power plants when parked.
Breakthroughs include the MagGen. These magnetic generators will initially make it possible to cut the cord on a plug-in hybrid so it no longer needs to plug-in. Later, they can replace the batteries in an electric car. Then, the MagGen can run when the car is parked and sell power to the utility. Prototypes are under development.
Next is a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE, which can power a hybrid. It will need no fuel and is another path to ending the need to plug-in. The engine can run when parked. Both systems can wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.
The SPICE will be powered by hydrinos - which let a barrel of water equal hundreds of barrels of oil.
Scientists and engineers will doubt these technologies are possible until they have been validated by Independent Laboratories. That is an important step on the agenda.
Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Payments to car owners driving a hybrid with a SPICE, or powered by MagGen, are likely to be substantial.
The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power.
Parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective path to winding down fossil fuels - and a rebirth of both the automobile industry and the world economy.
By Mark Goldes on 2009 06 16
No, CTF, the alternative is not a revenue-neutral carbon tax. That may sound good in an economic model, but in reality it would be subject to all the same market failures impeding progress and innovation and the same political challenges impeding the establishment of a price on CO2 high enough to drive real change in investment and consumer behavior.
The alternative is a proactive clean energy technology agenda that spurs clean energy innovation, accelerates deployment, and makes clean energy cheap. See our recommendations here.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 06 15
The alternative is a revenue-neutral carbon tax like the one scientists, economists and opinion leaders have been advocating from the beginning...
By CTF on 2009 06 15
So, what's the alternative... and why even have such a legislation on the books with at the outcome such modest results...?
By Terrence Murray on 2009 06 15
Experts say the US dollar will collapse as China and Russia will start changing their currency reserves from dollar to Euro. It is advised to invest more in Europe as the future is brighter overe there. Look at Fiat's purchase of Chrysler. I would have never thought about happening something like this.
By on 2009 06 11
We all know that banks make a lot of money on every dollar we deposit. Their benefit is many fold surpass the amount we can imagine. They do not care much about people who just can not pay their monthly payments. It is advised to seek help from an attorney who can represent you for changing the terms of your loan. He can renegotiate payments with your lender.
By Mortgage Loan Expert on 2009 06 08
Geoengineering is chemical trespass on the lives of all beings. Permission has not been sought from the victims. Instead, it's "trust me, I believe in my science education, and I know what I'm doing."
Beg to differ. Since the geoengineering experiment has been running in our skies for ten years now, it's valid to conjecture that geoengineering is a great part of the CAUSE of climate change and the extreme anomalies that are now occurring daily--of drought, inundation, heat and frost. Walt Disney warned us: Mickey hauling the sorcerer's water bucket, sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind, one techno-bandaid applied over another as the planet's harmonic weather system is disrupted time and again.
It is irresponsible and immoral to tinker with everyone's weather on the strong-headed notion that "I don't need permission" to do this. I find that no other one issue so disturbs people than the idea that our weather is no longer natural, authentic, God-given; no other issue so generates fear, I find, than informing people that the white streaks of cloud now appearing daily above us are manmade and not water vapor but chemical in nature.
The best thing that could now happen would be a complete cessation of airplane-induced weather modification, together with a "Marshall Plan" approach to reducing the combustion of ancient-sunlight fuels.
By forest shomer on 2009 06 05
Payday loans are an essential part of the U.S. financial system, providing loans to those who have bad or no credit that need the money fast. Yet, for one reason or another, legislators are targeting this financial system. Some states, such as Georgia and North Carolina, have even banned the industry all together.
By club penguin on 2009 06 05
As you say: "It would also be inaccurate to say that the legislation "would mandate emissions reductions" since firms would be able to increase emissions if they purchased off-sets. And it would be inaccurate to say that the legislation "would reduce emissions" since the reduction of the emissions is by no means guaranteed or even mandated."
So what's the point of this bill? Two come to mind:
(1) a Wall Street bailout, creating a junk market where emitters will be forced to deal in dubious tree offsets to continue or increase their emissions; and
(2) an emitter bailout, stripping the EPA of jurisdiction over CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act, which recently was upheld by the Supreme Court.
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 06 04
Call me stupid but isn't the debate on the cap and trade isue way,way off-base...Shouldn't we be discussing a new system of light-rail? Shouldn't we be discussing population control? Shouldn't we be discussing further exploration of nuclear fusion and other alternave energy sources? Shouldn't we have a NASA-like program that would put an end to global warming by the end of the next decade.
As I said, I'm a stupid fat hick in the midlands(who can't spel)...I'm not fighting for ethanol or petro...I'm fighting for a scientific(rather than)economic debate on this most important issue. I"m fighting for a nationl(international) war on global warming, which paralels Johnson's war of poverty..
By Ted Shlechter on 2009 06 02
By my quick math, this is actually a pretty sizable investment considering the relative size of Australia's economy, compared to the U.S.
Since I don't know how long the $465 million investment in R&D is sustained over, I'll assume here it's sustained for 9 years, as with the CCS money (a conservative estimate I'd wager).
Assuming that, the sum total of these investments (USD 3.6 billion total and USD 574.7 million annually) is the equivalent of USD 10.3 billion annually as an equivalent portion of the nation's GDP (US GDP is 17.9x larger than Australian GDP, according to Google). That's not too shabby, and a good start from our friends Down Undah.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 06 02
Thanks for clarifying Leigh.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 06 02
viacom sucks
By me on 2009 05 30
Flue gas scrubbing was only part of the acid rain solution. The cap on SOx pushed manufacturing offshore, and low-sulfur sub-bituminous coal, like Powder River Basin, substituted for bituminous coal from the heartland. So the Rust Belt and the heartland took a hit for the environment, whether they volunteered or not. Let's remember that as the CO2 debate goes forward.
Otherwise, acid rain and global climate change are as different as an ant and an elephant. The problem is that people can't comprehend the scale of the CO2 emissions. Each metric ton of CO2 is as big as a house, and a 500 MW (typical) coal-fired power plant emits 3 million tons of CO2 each year. That's about 2 cubic kilometers each year from each plant in the fleet.
Also, the chemical scrubbing that worked for SO2 or for natural gas sweetening and IGCC won't work for the CO2 in flue gas. SO2 is only a trace constituent in flue gas, unlike CO2, which is on the order of 15%, so the amount of sorbent required for CO2 chemical capture is enormous compared to SO2. And for post-combustion capture out of flue gas, where there is also a 75% nitrogen ballast hiding the CO2 targets, even more sorbent is necessary than in IGCC, natural gas sweetening, and other easy applications.
SO2 scrubbing uses as a sorbent lime or limestone, which are cheap and which make gypsum and are therefore not regenerated. The sorbent for CO2 scrubbing is expensive amine or, alternatively, chilled ammonia. The amine sorbent must be regenerated by heating to release the CO2, and the heat exchange surfaces scale with heat-stable salts (from residual SOx making sulfuric acid and combining with the amine sorbent) and are gummed up with fly ash sludge. Each ton of coal burned to produce the energy to do the scrubbing adds another 3 tons of CO2 to the scrubbing task, and if you need to burn a ton of coal to scrub 3 tons of CO2 you are just running in place and not producing any power.
Post-combustion carbon capture, from the emissions of coal-fired power plants, is what the world needs urgently, and post-combustion chemical carbon capture is a dry hole. Here is an alternative solution for carbon capture: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090013867.pdf
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 05 27
Cap and trade is crazy. Effectively, we Americans will be adding an additional tax to our energy bills. Why are we about to do this? Because the United Nations shouts 'climate crisis'. The problem with the scenario is that the United Nations is a political organization riddled with intrigue and power grabbing. Why the heck are we relying on them for scientific judgment? Why aren't we listening to our own climate science commission? We don't have one, that's why. As I said, it's crazy.
The underlying premise of cap and trade--that CO2 drives global warming--is based on United Nations' climate reports that are tainted by politics and agenda. Plus, there's been a lot of new climate science discoveries since Kyoto that's omitted from the reports. You don't have to be a scientist to realize they don't pass the smell test. See www.energyplanusa.com . America needs our own objective scientific assessment of global warming. I am a Democrat who for the past 20 years believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now after reading the UN reports I realize the fix was in and we were all mislead. The UN reports are politics not science, yet our government treats them as fact.
By Rmoen on 2009 05 27
Seven, that assumes the subsidies are stable over time. In contrast, an effective clean technology deployment program would target incentives to specifically drive cost reductions over time. For example, the subsidies would fall in time with economies of scale and cost curves, providing a steady incentive and pressure to innovate and improve cost margins. Japan did this for solar, and now solar is independent of federal subsidy (although at Japan's much higher electricity rates). Germany did not design their solar deployment incentives in this way, and there experience has been less ideal. See this post for more: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/04/soaking_up_the_sun_solar_power.shtml
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 05 26
As long as we have state and federal incentives to create "clean" sources, and subsidize the output, the incentive to drive down price by increasing efficiency is not there.
By seven on 2009 05 26
I have reviewed the financial statements for several wind energy companies. A few are new and a few have a couple of years production in Europe. I can not find current financial statements. For the most part, they don't even in News releases share the state, land, tax abatement and cash subsidies in addition to Federal subsidies and subsidies on each KWH. I am sure they have to share many years of audited financial statements to apply for bank loans.
Sure see a lot of non disclosure.
By seven on 2009 05 25
OK, I'm not going to give you an analysis of your content. What I am going to tell you is that it made more excited to see your up coming show, The Next Internet Millionaire http://www.frogmix.com/search/Internet+Millionaire !
By ikase on 2009 05 25
Good questions Jessie. There is some contradictory information about the amounts of cash allocated in the 09-10 budget. The Commonwealth will spend A$2 billion over nine years for CCS, and A1.6 billion over four years for building solar power plants. I have not yet been able to determine the time frame for the A$465 million to establish 'Renewables Australia'. I'll post again when I get more details. Cheers, Leigh.
By Leigh Ewbank on 2009 05 20
Thanks for looking out for things Down Undah, Leigh. So glad to have you and the rest of the 2009 Breakthrough Generation fellows joining the team in our office here in just a couple weeks.
A question: what does the annual investment figure amount to? How much will be invested each year in solar, CCS and R&D? Seemed like the figures above were spread over different periods of time, and just wanted to be sure. Thanks for clarifying.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 05 18
wow this is an amazing graph! very telling. we're going to use this today as we talk about cap & trade internally here.
By Alisha Fowler on 2009 05 18
If the EPA is correct and we max out on international offsets, at $15/ton that's $18.7B. So we're indescriminately sending more money overseas than we're spending on cleaning up our own energy innovation.
By Dave Douglas on 2009 05 16
Hi,
Excellent assessment. As this bill worked its way through the subcommittee, I was shocked to see that there were no visible efforts, either by national or regional environmental organizations, to target these reluctant oil-patch Democrats. What we need to organize are local call-in days and door-to-door lobbying in these districts, to convince these representatives that their constituents actually do care about energy efficiency and climate change. Until this kind of grassroots mobilization happens, representatives will continue to advocate for the utilities, mining operations, and oil fields that are their current vocal constituency.
Any ideas on why national organizations shy away from these local efforts? After Obama's example of success from the ground up, I would think grassroots mobilization would prove an attractive strategy.
Thanks,
Jennifer
By Jennifer Thomson on 2009 05 14
Some of us in the soil carbon movement have been saying that climate change is not an environmental issue, in the traditional framing. We don't even yet have a frame for it. The problem with carbon is that it's NOT a problem, it's a cycle, mainly biological.
The poll may be another indication that the environmental framing won't work.
That global warming is an "environmental problem" may be true, depending on who is surrounding you. But it's probably useless.
By Peter Donovan on 2009 05 13
Our economy adopted a budget that increased spending at more than twice the rate of inflation, even in the face of a national recession and of the extraordinary damage done to the economy. As the year drew to a close, we began to hear repeated and insistent warnings that their state government budget was approaching a crisis stage. State budgets are hurting in the U.S. Some state budgets have reached a crisis stage, such as in California, where the state is over $40 billion in the hole. In order to stem the amount of spending, and in order for the states to avoid getting massive personal loans, they
By State Budgets on 2009 05 09
The Obama's cabinet has to focus on many things including the energy, housing market, loan modifications etc.
It's not easy, but I think people's primary focus right now is to stay in their beloved home and not to loose it.
By loan modification help on 2009 05 06
The idea that "it is cheaper to pay someone outside of the US" to reduce emissions may be true from a regulated entity's perspective, but not from the perspective of overall societal benefits, considering economic benefits of local reinvestment and ancillary health and environmental benefits.
Price does not necessarily equate to cost, because allowance auction revenue can be invested in ways that both reduce the regulated industry's costs and subside low-carbon alternatives, maintaining high marginal incentives for decarbonization. But international offsets divert revenue from these purposes, so it is not clear that even the regulated industry would benefit from offsets.
To the extent that offsets do reduce costs, they do so only from the perspective of near-term GHG reduction targets. If those targets are sufficient to achieve climate stabilization, fine; but they aren't. Industrialized countries may need to substantially decarbonize their entire economies by mid-century to avert catastrophic climate change. So offsets do not avoid high-cost emission reductions; they only defer those reductions until later. Offsets are basically a policy of procrastination, which does not necessarily reduce long-term costs. Offsets trade "short-term gain" for "long-term pain".
Finally, climate stabilization will require some form of regulatory action by developing countries, but how will they be encouraged to adopt binding GHG regulations if the developed countries have bought up and monopolized all of the low-cost reductions? For example, if the US and EU buy up all domestic and international reductions costing less than $10/ton to meet their compliance obligations, then other countries that subsequently adopt similar regulations may be limited to compliance options costing over $10/ton. How does that help to encourage international action on climate change?
By Ken Johnson on 2009 04 28
Hi Payal, thanks for your work on this report as well. Excellent analysis. Yes, I noticed that the level of offsets allowed is set in absolute terms, not as a percentage of required allowances, which would make the volume of offsets allowed decline proportionately over time as the cap goes down (and would make more sense). Seems crazy to think we'd be able to find 2 billion tons of good reliable offsets today, let alone in 2040 or 2050 as you point out. Thanks for the comment.
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 20
Thanks for this informative post.
By Photovoltaic Cells on 2009 04 20
Hi Jesse,
Thanks for your insightful blog and publicizing our report. Just a minor point, but the percentage of emissions allowance that can be met by offsets steadily rises over time (see the figure).
So by 2050 offsets can equal 2/3 of emissions allowances. Realistically, this doesn't make sense, because by 2050, one would expect source countries of offsets (India, China, Brazil) to also be reducing emissions, either through international agreements of their own domestic legislation. But this is what the bill allows!
By Payal Parekh on 2009 04 20
Jesse, sorry for the late reply.
On your last point, I would phrase it a bit differently. Compromise is inevitable, but I'm not sure that has to mean "cost containment," as in the kind of cost containment that is so aggressive it undermines the cap. Remember how before everyone talked about how a cap/trade would disproportionately hurt the poor? But that argument, while not gone, is generally muted now that policy makers have gotten serious about returning most of the revenue back to consumers to alleviate price increases. Its hard to scare someone with "your electricity bill will go up 10%" if the other side can say "yea but we'll mail you a check for $800 every year, more than the difference."
You could do this to address the regional cost issue as well, distributing some of the carbon revenue to states based on their vulnerability to a carbon price. Then, just like with the poor, there's no argument of "well what if the carbon price rises to X," because then the assistance goes up as well. So I'm still holding out hope that our need for compromise will not entail an overreliance on cost containment and other gimmicks, but obviously you can only be so optimistic after Waxman-Markey.
So if we take your point that offsets and assorted garbage will make their way into the bill, does that mean we need to spend the carbon revenue on clean energy? Maybe, but I think you have to be very careful to accomplish more than nothing. The cap sets the level of carbon reduction in the capped sectors, so from a practical perspective spending carbon revenue on deploying more wind farms than the cap otherwise would have compelled will lower the carbon price and a few coal plants will burn more coal or cofire less biomass or whatever to make it up.
You could spend the money on pursuing reductions outside the cap though, like protecting international forests, clean development generally, or trying to reduce our emissions in noncapped sectors (like agriculture). And most climate bills do some of this. But if you're spending on clean tech deployment in capped sectors, you're either raising or lowering the national cost of meeting the cap, but probably not contributing extra reductions beyond the cap. And I'd be generally skeptical, outside of addressing certain market failures such as transmission capacity and information problems with efficiency, that a broad program of energy deployment would really deploy resources more efficiently than private actors investing with their own money.
I could be missing part of your plan though. How do you see your deployment program interacting with the cap itself to exceed it?
By Max Epstein on 2009 04 20
Hi CTF, thanks for the comment. In theory, I do tend to lean towards a carbon tax as a more transparent and straightforward way to set a carbon price, but like I said, a similar end goal can be accomplished through a cap and trade system with a price ceiling (or even a price floor as well), which makes it more like a carbon tax anyway. However, I'm not a fan of "revenue-neutral" carbon pricing, if by that you mean returning all of the carbon dollars to individuals or businesses through decreased taxes elsewhere or direct rebates. I think that defeats the primary purpose of the carbon tax, which is to raise significant revenues to reinvest in accelerating the transition to a clean energy economy. Given the political limits placed on carbon pricing, we are highly unlikely (I'd even say we flat out are not going) to establish a price signal on carbon that is sufficient enough to drive the transition to a clean energy economy at the pace and scale we need. Beyond that, there are many non-price-related barriers to a clean energy economy that the private sector cannot overcome, even with a better price signal on carbon. For that, we need a smart policy of targeted public investments in clean energy R&D, accelerated early stage commercialization and deployment, enabling infrastructure, education and low-cost financing to bring down capital barriers to efficiency. Almost all of those are "public goods" - i.e. their benefits are diffuse whereas the costs to any private sector actor would be concentrated and prohibitive. This is a role for public investment. Public investments built the railroads, highways, and fiber optic cables that united a transcontinental nation and enabled ever more efficient commerce. Public investments electrified rural America and irrigated the arid West. And it was public investment in technological innovation that gave birth to jet engines and commercial aviation, gas turbines and nuclear power, microchips and the Internet. Each of these smart public investments supported and catalyzed innovative American firms and businesses, spurred lasting economic growth, and served as the foundation of the nation
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 17
p.s. Max: thanks for the tip about the total allowances allocated in those years. I'll dig into the bill and see what you're talking about. Sounds weird, and haven't heard anyone else talk about that yet. What do you think about my concluding point though: that cost containment is inevitable, so we'd better be (a) thinking about the best kind of cost containment and (b) designing the rest of the policy to make up for the limits on carbon pricing that cost containment entails?
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 17
Max, thanks for the comment. Yes, I'm not "gaga" over the Waxman bill, that's for sure. There are still a lot of crucial details to be worked out, and what we have now is a discussion draft only, but I'm not at all excited by it. You can read more of my coverage of the bill here: http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/04/new_climate_bill_proof_of_misp.shtml The bill's authors try to make a big deal out of the fact that this is an "energy and climate bill", not a cap and trade bill, relying on the slough of additional regulations and standards in the bill, like the RPS you mention. But indeed, those regulations do little really to add to the bill's robustness, or even to help spur the development and deployment of clean, cheap energy technologies. For that, the bill should focus on reinvesting the proceeds of the carbon allowance auctions into clean energy development and deployment, enabling infrastructure (like a 21st century grid) and low-cost financing options to break down capital cost barriers for energy efficiency (in that order of priority, IMO). That would truly accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy in the U.S., create jobs, strengthen our economic competitiveness, lower the ultimate cost of compliance with the carbon regulations and actually make up for the limited price signal the cap and trade system is likely to produce (given all the offsets or other cost containment provisions). Watch the House Energy Subcommittee markup of this bill closely over the next couple of weeks. If Chairman Markey goes back to the kind of bill he introduced in 2008 (iCAP), which invested billions in clean energy, we may have something worth fighting for. If not, it'll be time to start from scratch while we wait for cap and trade to run aground somewhere down the line. (Note: our comments at the blog accept limited formatting and no html. We had a problem with it earlier and have turned it off. Sorry for the less-than-ideal comment formatting. We're trying to upgrade our comments fields soon. Bear with us!).
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 17
I agree that cap and trade is fundamentally flawed and I hope beyond hope that Congress can move beyond it and work toward a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The bottom line for me is that a carbon tax isn
By CTF on 2009 04 17
huh, sorry for the huge clump, I swear I typed it in with paragraph breaks...
By Max Epstein on 2009 04 17
Jesse, its refreshing to see someone in the environmental community not go gaga over the Waxman bill just because it has a Renewable Electricity Standard (which doesn't increase the carbon reduction under a cap/trade anyway, it just makes you pay more for the same amount).
I would be careful citing the Friends of the Earth report on carbon trading though. One of their recommendations is to ban banking of allowances for use in future years, which I had never heard anyone seriously suggest before. I doubt you could find an economist who wouldn't agree that would seriously increase price volatility, not decrease it. There were a few other very curious proposals in there as well.
On offsets, I don't think the right criticism is that "there's no way we can get 2 billion good ones." If, like the CDM, only X million are certified, that would still be a net plus if we could monitor/verify them. But we can't. Like the Stanford authors you mention wrote, (full study available at: http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/seminar20090213.pdf ) there are just fundamental incentive and monitoring problems with any offset program.
Finally, a couple more gimmicks that Waxman-Markey engages in. 1) The cap actually doesn't decline for the first 8 years. I'm confused where the idea that it does comes from (though the EPA administrator is given some authority to tweak things down the line. But you never know who will be president in 2012, much less 2020. In 2004 political consensus was Democrats wouldn't win another election for a longgg time). Check out pages 360-361 in the bill text here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090331/acesa_discussiondraft.pdf
4,770 million allowances in 2012, 4873 in 2020. In the intervening years it doesn't even stay stable or anything - it bounces around between 4666 and 5391. Weird. I mean the path's a bit irrelevant because of banking, but point is way more emissions allowances (and so actual emissions) are authorized for as long as anyone's planning on still being in office.
2) The "strategic reserve" of allowances to buffer price spikes is really just an absolute price ceiling. This is because its a virtually limitless pool of allowances because it dips from every year in advance, and proportionately more from later years, when proportionately more reductions are supposed to take place already. And then its continually refilled by purchasing offsets after allowances are expended. An actual "strategic reserve" would be a great idea, but to do it responsibly you'd have to fill it with extra allowances from a price-floor in the early years, or at least borrow from years in the soon-future (within 5 years or so). Borrowing from decades in the future is just punting to the future, just like not passing anything would be.
By Max Epstein on 2009 04 17
I thought Obama's priority is the real estate business? mortgagaes, loans, houses? but now it seems that it's for energy.
By Countrywide Loan Modification on 2009 04 16
I would say that if we don't take drastic measures soon to improve both our economic problems as far as jobs are concerned as well as our energy conservation efforts, we are going to find ourselves in a real severe crisis much greater then the one we are currently in. The 700 billion dollar bailout is costing America jobs everyday as banks tighten their noose on loan approvals making it more difficult for established small business owners to grow. The big banks who are largely responsible for this crisis get there hands washed clean by the feds while payday loan shops get blamed and even banned in some states.
By bedroom furniture on 2009 04 01
My thoughts exactly, Nar. While he may be in for a few political reality checks in the near future, I believe Chu is a man with a vision. How exciting is it to finally have a competent scientist in this position rather than a businessman!
By Tyler Burton on 2009 03 29
I think the fact that Energy Secretary Chu is first and foremost a scientist and not a traditional policymaker or lobbyist will be an asset to the "reinvention" of the way the DOE approaches energy issues. It seems he may have a keen understanding as to where money should be spent to get the best scientific results -- the labs.
By NarWilliam on 2009 03 29
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
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
Sat. 2/14/09 a.m. Same old, same old. This is the same old assumption: that every person over 16 should have a car. What Detroit needs is to be retooled to produce MUCH less private car and MUCH MORE streetcars, buses, railroad locomotives and passenger cars. Not only CAN it be done, it HAS been done, and I'm old enough to have SEEN it: it was called WW II. It takes some will and some imagination. Do we have it?
By Joanne Forman on 2009 02 14
So much for bipartisanship. Seems everyone wants to play the blame game. Can't we all just get along? (Somebody please call Rodney King!)
By Joel on 2009 02 13
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
If there are two things we don't need right now are the losing of more jobs and stopping the development of green energy. Of all the things that congress wastes our money on, you would think they would at least spend a little bit of it on something useful.
By FX on 2009 02 08
Higher gas prices will only make the oil companies richer at the expense of the economy. Although the argument is legitimate for a greater push for energy measures it is a hard sell to cash strapped Americans. Higher gas prices will cripple the already fragile economy and stop any recovery dead in its tracks. A push for energy conservation is an idea whose time has come. It should not be tied to higher gas prices but to an economic recovery and moral sense of global conservation.
By Karl B on 2009 02 02
Adam,
Don't you think that R&D funding should be reserved for the 2009 energy bill? It typically sets the DOE budget that is largely in charge of the kind of funding you advocate.
In terms of short-term stimulus, I think the efficiency measures included in this bill are spot on.
By danl on 2009 01 27
India contact
By Gauatm Chaudhury on 2009 01 27
The first thing Obama should do is to keep gas prices high. This will be enough to entice private investment in green energy. The second thing is to reduce taxes dramatically and forget about any 'stimulus' nonsense, in terms of spending, which would at best be a short-term fix but will result in a long-term erosion of wealth. It's not worth it, considering that it's all 'payed for' by America's fiat money system (i.e. The Fed), itself a dastardly concept which begs for an alternative.
The federal tax cuts are crucial. Consider that any new federal taxes levied, now, will only serve some future administration in its global expansionist ambitions, which will undoubtedly include more foreign invasions and wars.
Furthermore, the following is guaranteed: Any new federal government programs will run into the usual quagmire of influence peddling, favoritism and tax dollars poorly spent on suboptimal solutions. Obama should really take the high road on this one.
By Libertär on 2009 01 22
Subject: Evolutionary Panaltruism and Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth in the Age of Cosmic Genealogy
As empirical attributes of cosmic genealogy, universal forelaws of empathy and compassion (seated within the genome of humankind and all intelligent life) form the foundation of evolutionary panaltruism. Pursued both cosmically and locally (exemplified by Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth). evolutionary panaltruism constitutes the core of unified science.
Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth, aimed at bringing active freshwater and inactive freshwater (ice) into proportional balance and culminating over time in an essentially ice-free, predation-free planet with substantially greater land mass (made viable by replenishment of freshwater acquifers and storage of freshwater where once resided coal and petroleum), has been proposed as a new cornerstone for the United Nations.
Cosmic genealogy - new age, new vision, and new direction dating from the landmark and pivotal work of Louis Pasteur in 1859 disproving spontaneous generation - manifests in modern times revolutionary research and discovery (merging astrobiology and astronomy) conducted and led by the late Sir Fred Hoyle, by N. C. Wickramasinghe, Brig Klyce, Halton C. Arp, and others.
"Life comes from space because life comes from life."
- Brig Klyce, Astrobiology Research Trust
Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth, employing existing and proposed technologies in conjunction with accelerated desalination strategies, can commence in earnest with the utilization for freshwater of tabular Antarctic icebergs. Anomalous freshwater intrusion into ocean waters as a result of climate change translates into sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion, placing at risk all low-lying coastal and island communities.
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Members are urged to undertake at the earliest possible time (preferably before ATCMXXXII, 06 April - 17 April, 2009, Baltimore, MD, USA) all appropriate steps preliminary to recommending implementation of Project Ice-SHARE/Green Earth under United Nations (World Meteorological Organization) auspices and mandate. www.geocities.com/CosmicGenealogy/GlobalWaterEquilibrium.html
In forelawsship on board,
Robert E. Cobb
www.geocities.com/CosmicGenealogy/
By Robert E. Cobb on 2009 01 14
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
Hopefully, the new plan under the Barack Obama administration will provide that extra cash on payday so you won't need a payday loan. The President-elect will first put the economic stimulus and job-creation package to the test. He is proposing a tax cut and a program he calls Making Work Pay. Hopefully this new strategy will be a better way to stimulate the economy. We know that the movements under the current administration seem to be hurting instead of helping the economy. Right now the need for a payday loan is increasing. Although we may not know exactly what the outcome will be, we should not shy away from trying out a new plan. There are signs that we may be coming out of the recession. All we need is something to provide that boost we urgently need.
By Payday on 2009 01 10
Gasoline is one of the most important factors that we need in order to continue our daily activities everyday. It is very useful when it comes to transportation because if theirs no gasoline it seems that our lives also will stop and its not a normal situation to people. Predictions rarely come explicitly true, and the predictions for 2008 weren't on target all the time, either. Gas prices dropped like they were going out of style, and it turns out that Barack Obama is going to be President. No one really knows the future, but 2009 ought to be an interesting year.
By Rhett P. on 2009 01 07
People always hate to talk about when they are laid off. But as it has become every day's news headline since Yahoo started it with cutting 1500 of its task force last year, now a need of platform has been in demand where people can express their selves in words how they are feeling about their company, whey the got laid off was that justified or not.
And every thing they want to tell anonymously.And www.layoffgossip.com is providing you that platform.
By LayoffGossip on 2009 01 07
I am one of those who disbelieve that carbon, which is a building block of all life on this carbon based earth is an undesireable element. Neveretheless, R & D on newer forms of producing energy will eventually allow us to escape the economic captivity of the mid-east; therefore, I much favor it.
The great danger, in my opinion, is that short term bridges to new energy will be abandoned. The development of readily available off shore oil will allow us to both bridge the gap but allow us to have the economic resources to perform the R & D necessary to bridge the gap.
By Richard Karkkainen on 2008 12 17
Wholeheartedly agree with this quote. To deploy innovative solutions every organization (company, institution, public agency, university, non-profit...) needs a sustainability manager on site AND we need more R&D money to commercialize low cost commercialized renewable energy.
By Justine Burt on 2008 12 15
I agree, money is only part of the solution. Entrepreneurship is required, with the willingness to adopt a real innovative approach. It is not easy, as it requires to take risks, accept that some projects will fail, but also that some others will succeed. This is how innovation works, how an industry can learn and transform itself. I'm sometimes worried that everyone is so focused on guaranteed results when tackling global warming. We also need to give a try to potential new solutions. Hers is more on the subject: http://bruchansky.name/2008/10/13/making-innovation-work-for-our-planet/
By christophe on 2008 12 12
This article really identifies major problems with the current approach to the carbon issue. Unlike Montreal, there is no off the shelf technology that can be plugged in substituting for fossil fuels in all the range of scales (i.e., nuclear can supply electricity, but would not be desirable for cars). This lack of an easy substitute is a major impediment to resolving the greenhouse problem.
By R Margolis on 2008 12 12
I agree with you in principal, but think that a blue ribbon commission is a bit too complicated a solution. I tend to agree with Mitt Romney's article for the NYT insisting that a bankruptcy is the best and simplest solution short of getting $100 billion + pumped into companies which would likely burn through it in a matter of months unless the government itself stepped in to run the companies. Chrysler in particular needs dramatic restructuring and the private equity groups that bought it up deserve to lose much of their investment. A successful bankruptcy restructuring has the benefits of eliminating much of the burdensome debts and expensive union contracts that push American carmakers' costs several thousand dollars above what Toyota and Honda spend per vehicle.
While in the long term innovation is the key to success, I think the money would be better spent by investing post-bankruptcy when they will still have trouble raising funds and be more likely to comply with Congressional demands (and the Democratic majority will be expanded). The real question is how to preserve employment in both the auto companies themselves and their suppliers and related industry (3 million + jobs) and perhaps the airline industry is a good model for continued operation during Chapter 11 restructuring.
By Taj Walton on 2008 12 11
d
By Me. on 2008 12 05
amazing, you really do a great job!
And you really know well about chinese auto.
Good point!
By china howto on 2008 11 26
According to some analyst, this problem occurs because of the improper practice of some lenders. Financial Crisis is applied broadly to a variety of situation in which some institutions loose a large part of their value. When a financial emergency strikes, taking on a budget requires strength, courage and sometimes, someone else in the ring. Similar to a great sumo wrestler
By Personal Loans on 2008 11 22
Let's stop all this talk about "letting the automakers go under/fail/etc". THEY HAVE ALREADY FAILED. If congress does not "bail them out" it's not congress's fault. The decisions that have been made, that brought us to this point, have already been decided by these organizations themselves. I think there is actually little fear that this will be any worse of a fallout than the banking debacle we're already dealing with so WOULDN'T THIS BE THE BEST TIME TO LET IT DIE AND BE RESTRUCTURED FROM THE GROUND UP?
By KeyboardCowboy on 2008 11 19
. . . and what are you going to do if they take your money and then don't make the cars? or if they just make really crappy electric cars that won't sell? If you can't let these companies go under now, you won't be able to do so in a few years. Are you going to spend more tax money for rebates so people will buy inferior cars from GM, Ford, and Chrysler? None of these companies have kept any of their promises to consumers or shareholders for years.
By Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com on 2008 11 19
A TOTALLY ELECTRIC AMERICA:
In introductory remarks to his first press conference, President-elect Barack Obama on November 7, 2008 said,
By Sam Osborne on 2008 11 16