Unless we find cost-effective ways of reducing the role of fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade system would ultimately break down... Developing countries, the largest source of new emissions, won't abandon fossil fuels unless there are competitive alternatives. If we're going to use price to try to stimulate those new technologies, let's at least do it honestly.
Share
Columnist Bob Samuelson nails it again:
Unless we find cost-effective ways of reducing the role of fossil fuels, a cap-and-trade system would ultimately break down. It wouldn't permit satisfactory economic growth. Nor would it work internationally. Developing countries, the largest source of new emissions, won't abandon fossil fuels unless there are competitive alternatives. If we're going to use price to try to stimulate those new technologies, let's at least do it honestly. Most economists think that a straightforward tax on carbon would have the same incentive effects for alternative fuels and conservation as cap-and-trade without the rigidities and uncertainties of emission limits. A tax is more visible, understandable and democratic. If environmental groups still prefer an allowance system, let's call it by its proper name: "cap and tax."
"The claim that environmental protection would be a 'motherhood' issue that would unite the nation, commonly made in the early 1970s, has clearly not come to pass -- particularly when it comes to global warming."
Share
Gallup just released a study of public opinion on global warming broken down by party. The study concluded:
Continue reading "New Gallup Study Uncovers Divergence on Climate" »
Grist argues that coal is uneconomical and capture capture is unnecessary. But all evidence suggests that coal is cheap and plentiful -- and it's one of the greatest challenges the world has ever faced.
Share
David Roberts at Grist argued in two posts today that coal is largely uneconomical - that it may play an insignificant role in our future energy supply - and that carbon capture & storage (CCS) is an unnecessary and unviable technology. In his first post, he cited evidence about peak coal production - "The Great Coal Rush (And Why It Will Fail)" - raising doubts that there will be future coal supplies. He went on in his second post:
Continue reading "Grist understates the coal challenge" »
Breakthrough conducts weekly interviews with people finding novel ways to think about their fields.
Share
Breakthrough conducts weekly interviews with people finding novel ways to think about their fields. We've talked to scientists, activists, sociologists, and more. Below are links to past interviews.
Continue reading "Interviews with Innovative Thinkers" »
The challenge is to craft legislation that raises enough money for clean energy, while carrying sufficient cost-containment to assure industry and consumers that prices won't rise too high. So far, nobody has managed to get the balance quite right.
Share
Just as the utterly disappointing Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (CSA) goes up for debate, Congressman Ed Markey has released his own version of climate legislation. The "Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act" (iCAP Act - PDF) also establishes a cap-and-trade system, but it attempts to correct a lot of the CSA's major shortcomings.
Continue reading "A Fairytale Alternative to CSA" »
Why leave it to the opponents of action to define the debate over costs?
Share
by Michael Shellenberger
Breakthrough's initial analysis of the Boxer amendment (one-page PDF summary & full text) to Lieberman-Warner finds that it would cost the average American $590 every year in higher prices, and that $37 dollars, or 6 percent, would go to clean energy.
Continue reading "How Much Will It Cost - and Where Will the Money Go?" »
The Climate Security Act contains a number of cost containment mechanisms that will significantly inhibit its ability to slash U.S. emissions.
Share
By Teryn Norris
Will the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act reduce U.S. emissions? Not significantly -- at least not until 2030, and perhaps longer. That's the conclusion of an increasing number of energy experts and commentators, including the World Resources Institute and Joe Romm at the Center for American Progress. The Breakthrough Institute performed an independent analysis (available here) and came to a similar conclusion. The problem? In an effort to contain costs and avoid increased energy prices, the Climate Security Act (CSA) allows firms to delay action into the future and purchase low-cost allowances.
Continue reading "Will the Climate Security Act Reduce Emissions?" »
If we started replacing the world's power plants to carbon free energy production at the rate of one plant per day, it would take 69 years to make them all carbon neutral.
Share
by Roger Pielke, Jr.
The Center for Global Development estimates that there are 25,339 power plants around the world that emit carbon dioxide. If the world starts replacing or converting these plants to carbon free energy production at the rate of one plant per day, then it will take 69 years to make all of these power plants carbon neutral, and an 80% conversion would take 56 years.
Continue reading "The Conversion Clock is Running in Reverse" »
The vast majority of Britons say they would vote down proposals to increase taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a recent poll.
Share
The vast majority of Britons say they would vote down proposals to increase taxes in order to fund projects to combat climate change, according to a recent poll. The Independent reported earlier this month:
Continue reading "Thumbs Down to "Green" Taxes in Britain" »
A new partnership between Google Earth Outreach and the British Government's Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Antarctic Survey promises to show you the real-time climate changes occuring in our world.
Share
 On Monday, May 19, 2008 the offices of Google Earth Outreach and the British Government announced the release of new layers in the hugely popular Google Earth application that will help illustrate the great wealth of data being accumulated on the real changes taking place in our world, and what such trends mean for the next century ahead.
The announcement is two fold: there is both a layer available highlighting what scientists in the Antarctic have been studying (courtesy of the British Antarctic Survey), and also a prediction for world-wide temperature change over the next century (courtesy of the Met Office Hadley Center).
While this information has been available to scientists for quite some time, this is the first time it has been presented in such a slick and efficient manner for all the armchair quarterback commenters out there who are interested in a fair and non-politicized view of the situation.
So have a look. It's certainly cheaper than chartering a flight direct to Antarctica yourself.
What stands out is a clear consensus about the need for massive public investments to bridge the technology gap -- and a bit of humor about the enormity of the challenge.
Share
Some of the world's leading energy and climate experts have now officially responded to Roger Pielke, Tom Wigley, and Chris Green's May 8, 2008 "Dangerous Assumptions" article in Nature, which showed that the U.N. IPCC has radically underestimated the technological challenge of reducing emissions. (The reason? In a word: China.)
What stands out is that there is a clear consensus about the need for massive public investments to bridge the technology gap -- and a bit of humor about the enormity of the challenge.
Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba -- a big dog in energy circles -- writes:
I largely agree with the overall conclusion of Pielke et al. that the IPCC assessment is overly optimistic, but I fear that the situation is even worse than the authors imply.
Oy vey: there are actually people who think Pielke et al. are being overly optimistic.
Continue reading "Experts Respond to "Dangerous Assumptions"" »
Reductions of the magnitude we need with existing technology are either not possible, or so costly as to be certain of slowing global and developing country growth, according to a new report.
Share
By Roger Pielke, Jr.
The World Bank and UK government issued a report today titled, "Strategies For Sustained Growth And Inclusive Development." Here is what the report says about the implications for climate change of development in the developing world (p. 86), something that the report calls absolutely necessary:
Continue reading "World Bank and UK Government on Climate Change Implications of Development" »
Coal resurgence on a global scale could have a disastrous effect on the climate. What can we do about it?
Share
After decades of decline, Japan's coal industry is undergoing a massive revival. The New York Times reports:
Continue reading "Japan Joins the Global Coal Resurgence" »
Enforcers of climate orthodoxy from left and right conspire to stifle debate over solutions.
Share
If you want to get a sense at how the enforcers of climate orthodoxy on both left and right restrict the debate over solutions, just witness the way Grist's David Roberts and Joe Romm of Center for American Progress conspired with the right-wing Washington Times to slime Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr. a few hours ago.
Continue reading "Anatomy of a Smear" »
Could growing a sea of absolutely tiny nano-fiber hairs prove the key to actual returns from solar energy?
Share
Scientists at the University of California, San Diego have developed a new method for growing hair...on solar cells! The improved technique, they say, will ultimately be used to increase the efficiency of photovoltaics something on the level of six or seven orders of magnitude.
So, say you got your average 200W solar cell today, in the future of tomorrow that sucker just might net you:
200 W ^ 7 = 12, 800, 000, 000, 000, 000 W
That's almost 13 quadrillion watts!
Continue reading "Farming Nano-Fibers: The Next Breakthrough in Photovoltaics" »
Well, okay -- not quite. But it did just issue a bright orange smack-down of environmentalism for not facing up to some inconvenient truths about global warming. Contrary to what Grist will tell you, Wired's June 2008 issue is a must-read for anyone who cares about climate change.
Share
Wired just went live with a powerful challenge to environmentalists as its cover story for its June 2008 issue.
Dave Roberts at Grist is, predictably, freaking out. (You can always tell when Dave finds something exciting because he goes on and on about how boring it is.)
The special issue is the opposite of boring. It's totally provocative and interesting. While I don't agree with all of it (I'd like our few remaining old-growth forests to remain standing!) Wired nails a bunch of hugely important issues that greens (that means you, Dave) still haven't grappled with.
Continue reading "Wired Calls for the Death of Environmentalism" »
Leaders in renewable energy are warning that a carbon price won't be enough to support promising new energy technologies.
Share
Leaders in renewable energy are warning that a carbon price won't be enough to support promising new energy technologies. From a Capitol Hill briefing hosted by the Energy and Environmental Institute earlier this month, Renewable Energy World reported:
Continue reading "More Voices Whittle Away at Carbon Price Orthodoxy" »
An Environmental Defense report upholds cap-and-trade as the silver-bullet climate policy solution. But what about investment?
Share
A recently released Environmental Defense Fund report, "What Will it Cost to Protect Ourselves from Global Warming?" concludes that achieving deep emissions reduction targets in the United States is feasible with a cap-and-trade system. The study looks at 5 reports finding that cap-and-trade will result in lower economic growth, and the study concludes that the economic sacrifice is so little that cap-and-trade is an ideal climate policy. According to the study, the elements of well-designed climate policy are as follows:
Continue reading "Environmental Defense: What about Investment?" »
Carbon capture & storage has become a new fault line in the climate movement. Young activists are vigorously opposed, but should they be?
Share
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) - a technology that would capture carbon emissions at centralized sources like coal plants and store them underground - has become a new fault line in the climate movement. On one hand, CCS is firmly opposed by a large segment of the youth movement, including Energy Action Coalition. A recent report by Greenpeace, "False Hope," concluded that "investment in CCS risks locking the world into an energy future that fails to save the climate." And in a recent letter to Congress, 43 nonprofits declared their opposition to public support for CCS:
Continue reading "Carbon Capture: Solution or Scam?" »
Of the $5.6 trillion that Senator Boxer says climate change legislation will raise through auctioning pollution allowances (permits), a measly seven percent -- about $10 billion per year -- will go to clean energy research, development and deployment.
Share
Senator Barbara Boxer has released a new summary of what the dominant global warming legislation in the Senate -- Lieberman-Warner's Climate Solutions Act (CSA) -- will do. Most importantly, the summary shows what it won't do: fund clean energy.
CSA won't make a big investment in clean energy. Of the $5.6 trillion the bill's framers say the legislation will raise through auctioning pollution allowances (permits), a measly seven percent -- about $10 billion per year -- will go to clean energy research, development and deployment. I'm defining "clean energy" broadly to include carbon capture and storage.
By contrast, about $16 billion per year (11 percent of the total) will go to the fossil fuel industry, and 45 billion (about a third of the total) will be rebated to consumers.
What will $10 billion buy? Almost nothing.
Continue reading "Peanuts for Clean Energy" »
To call for investments in deployment while railing against "the breakthrough crowd" creates a false dichotomy.
Share
Wind power is on the cusp of becoming a major energy supply source for the U.S. According to a recent report from the Bush administration, wind could provide 300 gigawatts by 2030 for just under 2 cents a day per household. Joe Romm has a piece in Salon calling for policy that will nudge this very advanced technology into large-scale deployment.
Continue reading "Romm Calls for Breakthroughs - By Another Name" »
Judging by his recommendations for improvement, Du Pont seems not to have heard of climate change.
Share
The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed today by Pete du Pont on our "abysmal national energy policy" - past administrations have done a poor job of preparing the our energy system to meet the demands of a growing population and expanding economy. Judging by his recommendations for improvement, Du Pont seems not to have heard of climate change. His major recommendation is to boost domestic oil and coal production by building more coal plants and lifting the moratorium on offshore drilling in Alaska.
With voices from across the political spectrum calling for increased renewable energy production, it was surprising to hear one so utterly unconcerned with investment in solar and wind power - all they got was a rote, distracted nod in the final paragraph. Du Pont's arguments would make more sense if he were a global warming skeptic, but his stance on climate is muddled and confusing. He praises nuclear power because it is "clean and efficient," - as if he believed "cleanliness" were a laudable goal for an energy technology - but then he turns around and ridicules policies that prohibit the construction of new coal plants on the basis of their carbon emissions.
But there's one thing du Pont got right - we desperately need a president who can steer the country in a new energy direction.
An economic downturn isn't the most conducive environment to enact climate policy that could increase energy prices.
Share
Download Breakthrough's Memo on the focus groups. (PDF)
What makes the current economic downturn different from previous ones? According to two focus groups Breakthrough just held in Edison, New Jersey, people perceive this one as the result of individual - rather than government or institutional - failures. Whereas previous slumps in the economy were more centrally focused on job loss, the current situation is characterized by declining purchasing power due to the weak dollar, rising energy prices, and tight consumer credit.
Continue reading "To Win Climate Policy, We Need a New Social Contract" »
Economic diversification is an enabler of "sustainable development" could you imagine the condition of the rain forest without it?
Share
Of all the nationally syndicated columnists, there are a few who think outside the conventional environmentalist frame on global warming.
Share
Of all the nationally syndicated columnists, there are a few who think outside the conventional environmentalist frame on global warming. Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post is one of them. In his column this week, he imagined what the presidential candidates might say if inoculated with truth serum. His take on global warming was right on:
Continue reading "Which Reporters Get it on Climate?" »
The sudden resignation of Brazil's Environmental Minister is a reminder that governments worldwide care more about development than conservation.
Share
The economy trumps the environment - that's the hard lesson we were reminded of yesterday when Brazil's Environmental Minister Marina Silva suddenly stepped down, taking two other top environmental officials with her. From the Guardian:
Continue reading "Economy Trumps Environment" »
"It would be a stretch to rank the current problems as especially notable or dramatic."
Share
The Wall Street Journal today ran an op-ed by Zachary Karabell about the country's current economic crisis - or, more accurately, against the very notion of crisis:
There is no denying that the current financial morass is deep and painful. But taking the long view, there is something both startling and disturbing about the gloom that has settled over Wall Street and the country in general. In fact, looking back over the past century, it would be a stretch to rank the current problems as especially notable or dramatic. Something else is going on - namely a cultural rut of pessimism that is draining our collective energy, blinding us to possibilities, and eroding our position in the world.
Continue reading "Reality Check: This isn't the Great Depression" »
Certainly not the recent gas tax "holiday" proposal.
Share
The May 6 special issue of Breakthrough news delved into the issue of taxation -- what makes good tax policy? Certainly not the recent gas tax "holiday" proposal. How do you make sure a carbon tax does what it's supposed to?
-----
Continue reading "What Makes Smart Tax Policy? " »
"We would never have done this if the Israeli government was not encouraging it,"
Share
Nissan Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn announced today that his company plans to sell an electric car in the US and Japan by 2010, making Nissan the first major automaker to bring a zero-emissions vehicle to the American market.
Continue reading "Israel Leads Quest for Electric Car" »
"The principal obstacle to this herculean task is the very reason for its necessity in the first place: massive spending on the military dimensions of overseas resource competition."
Share
It's hard to imagine a scarier world than the one Michael Klare predicts in his May 1 commentary in the Nation. Global resources are dwindling and demand for them is exploding; desperate for control, the world's major industrial powers are gearing up for a violent resource war. We may be getting along fine with China and Russia for now, but we're also vying with them for control of resources in poor, unstable nations -- what happens when we have to pick sides of a bloody internal conflict?
Continue reading "The Future: Violent Resource Wars or Clean Energy Economy?" »
Ensuring that large investments in clean, homegrown energy are part of any global warming bill.
Share
Nordhaus and Shellenberger in the San Francisco Chronicle
Share
Media elites and environmentalists are howling over Hillary Rodham Clinton's and John McCain's call to suspend the gasoline tax. While the gas tax "holiday" is certainly a crass pander to working-class swing voters who are more concerned about rising energy prices than global warming, it is also a powerful warning to groups that hope to deal with climate change by increasing the cost of electricity.
Read the full article...
Progressives should take a que from today's British conservative revival that a new social contract is good politics.
Share
David Brooks wrote an oped today, "The Conservative Revival," that should serve as a wake-up call to American progressives. Brooks suggests that the recent victories of the British Conservative Party reflect a larger conservative shift happening in Europe due to some fundamental political retooling. The new conservative strategy, it seems, may be to focus on a post-material, new social contract:
Continue reading "New Conservative or Neo-Progressive?" »
Questioning the conventional policy framework
Share
The conventional wisdom about climate policy has long been that we need to make dirty energy expensive. Slap on a price for carbon and watch it work its market magic, so the logic goes. But a growing cadre of environmental thinkers is starting to question that policy framework, wondering if direct investment in clean energy might do more to slow global warming.
-------
Continue reading "A Shift in the Global Warming Debate" »
Rapid deployment of CCS must be a central tenet of any sound global energy policy.
Share
Greenpeace just released a new report that it claims "proves once and for all that 'clean coal' is nothing more than a slogan aimed at greenwashing the image of an irremediably dirty energy source." From their press release:
Continue reading "Is CCS a Scam? Greenpeace vs Expert Consensus" »
What's our plan for transferring clean, low-cost energy to China?
Share
China is gearing up to announce an action plan for dealing with climate change, but chances are it's not going to include binding limits on its emissions. AFP reported yesterday that China will pledge to "actively join" a post-Kyoto Protocol deal to take action on global warming. The Japanese Foreign Ministry released a statement that said:
Continue reading "Don't Count on China to Put the Brakes on Development" »
For those seeking to understand Joseph Romm, this post documents Romm's practices as well as Breakthrough Institute's positions and efforts to elevate substantive issues.
Share
Update 11/19/09
We have known for years that Joe Romm makes a habit of threatening the careers of journalists who write stories he does not like. He does so both publicly on his blog and privately in emails to their editors and employers.
In the past, Breakthrough Institute has only responded to Romm when he attacked us personally. But on November 4, 2009, we decided that enough was enough.
His attacks had created a chilling atmosphere for reporters, activists and academics alike. Romm uses McCarthyite tactics -- career intimidation, guilt by association, character assassination -- that contradict the core liberal value of tolerance for divergent viewpoints.
In response, we decided to stand-up to Romm's bullying directly. We have written a series on Climate McCarthyism: Part 1 is on Joe Romm's Intimidation Campaign. Part 2 is about how Joe Romm labels his opponents "global warming deniers." Part 3 is about The Hyper-Partisan Mind. And Part 4 is about The Headquarters in Washington.
To be clear, we don't agree with many of the people Romm attacks. But we strongly defend their right to express their opinions without having their reputations smeared and careers threatened.
Bullies can only thrive when they are supported by the establishment and when bystanders are too scared to stand up to them. Joe McCarthy's downfall started when CBS News' Edward Murrow challenged him on the air, and when the Army's chief legal counsel asked him at a Senate hearing, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"
Last week, while interviewing one of the Superfreakonomics authors, The Daily Show's Jon Stewart stood up against the climate of intolerance that Romm more than anyone has created. "I have been somewhat surprised by how angry people are," Stewart said, "because you don't deny global warming, or say that CO2 isn't a factor, but they feel you are betraying environmentalism? The world?...Why are people so angry about this? Why do they have to be so dogmatic?"
Stewart has stood up to the climate bullies. Will others? Stay tuned.
[Updated 8/5/09]
We have received several inquiries seeking to understand Joseph Romm of Climate Progress and his frequent public criticism of climate reporters and advocates, including the Breakthrough Institute. Many of these criticisms misrepresent our positions and include factually incorrect information. This post documents Romm's practices as well as Breakthrough Institute's positions and efforts to elevate substantive issues.
Since co-founding the Apollo Alliance in 2002, the Breakthrough Institute has believed that confronting the threat of climate change, securing the nation's energy future, and ensuring ongoing economic competitiveness all compel the rapid transition to clean and low-carbon energy sources. We are leading national advocates of major public investment to accelerate clean energy development and deployment, and we strongly advocate that the federal government invest at least $30 billion per year in the direct deployment of low-carbon energy sources, $15 billion per year in clean energy R&D, and $5 billion per year in clean energy demonstration projects. We believe these investments should be financed by a modest and steadily rising price on carbon emissions and supported by complementary policies addressing infrastructure, human capital and regulatory barriers.
Joseph Romm's criticisms of us are frequently unrelated to substance and consistently misrepresent our positions and intentions. For example, Romm falsely claims that we only support radical breakthroughs in technology driven by basic research and repeatedly ignores our advocacy for massive, direct investment to accelerate clean energy deployment. He also charges that we oppose a price on carbon, oppose environmental regulations, and are effectively part of the "anti-environmental," "anti-climate action," "global warming denial and delayer" movement. These claims are false and willful mischaracterizations.
Romm's practice of public attack and misrepresentation extends to several reputable climate reporters and advocates. Most recently, Romm accused Time Magazine's Bryan Walsh of plagiarism (he later changed the title from "plagiarism" to "cut-and-paste") for reporting on facts about clean energy investments in Asia, and has attacked the NYTimes' Andrew Revkin for reporting on facts and on individuals with whom Romm disagrees. Romm has also strongly criticized clean energy and climate advocacy groups for working to strengthen American climate and energy policy, including the Breakthrough Institute, Greenpeace, Energy Action Coalition, and James Hansen, one of the United States' leading climate scientists.
A growing number of independent media watchdogs and journalists are now criticizing Romm's behavior, including the Columbia Journalism Review, the Center for Environmental Journalism, and science journalist Keith Kloor. What follows is a documentation of Romm's practices as well as Breakthrough Institute's efforts to elevate substantive issues.
Understanding Romm's Efforts to Misrepresent Breakthrough
Romm Tries to Shut Down Climate Bill Debate by Attacking Breakthrough (May 2009): Joe Romm's attempt to shut down serious debate about the Waxman-Markey climate bill -- and his aggressive effort to attack and discredit those attempting to illuminate the bill's weaknesses, including reputable environmental activists and reporters -- should raise questions about his role as a credible and progressive climate advocate.
The Cap & Trade We Need (April 2009): Joe Romm claims that we oppose a price on carbon, oppose environmental regulations, and are effectively part of the fossil fuel "global warming denial machine." Unfortunately, ideological enforcers like Romm, who aim to shut down substantive policy debate, leave serious advocates ill prepared to navigate the difficult choices in the upcoming debate on climate legislation.
Anatomy of a Smear (May 2008): To get a sense at how the enforcers of climate orthodoxy on both left and right restrict the debate over solutions, witness the way Grist's David Roberts and Joe Romm of Center for American Progress worked with the right-wing Washington Times to attack Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr.
What is Joe Romm Complaining About? (April 2008): Roger Pielke, Jr. ponders ad hominem attacks from someone who seems to share many of his views on energy policy. In complementary posts, Pielke takes Romm to task for focusing heavily on semantics rather than substance, fuzzy math, and incorrect analysis.
The Emerging Climate Fault Line (April 2008): Joe Romm has launched a set of attacks against Pielke et al, calling their analysis "a pointless and misleading if not outright dangerous commentary" and paints the scientists as "standard delayers" and "climate destroyers."
Misinformation Campaign (April 2008): Unable to respond with a well-reasoned defense of their policy agenda, a few angry environmentalists are leading a misinformation campaign.
The Green Politics of Personal Destruction: Deconstructing Joe Romm (April 2008): Ted Nordhaus examines the misinformation campaign Romm and others launched against Breakthrough and Roger Pielke, Jr. immediately after the publication of the Nature piece.
Elevating the Substance: Breakthrough Institute's Efforts to Create a Constructive Debate
An Open Letter to Joseph Romm (Oct 2008): In response to Michael and Ted's op-ed in the LA Times, Joe Romm criticized Michael, Ted and Breakthrough on his blog. This post is an open letter from Michael Shellenberger to Joe Romm.
Why We Can Disagree to Agree (Aug 2008): In a debate at the Cato Institute, Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that liberals and conservatives don't need to agree about the seriousness of global warming. We can all embrace investment in energy infrastructure, technology, and education for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.
Breakthroughs Depend on Learning While Doing (May 2008): In response to Joe Romm's latest post in the "breakthrough technology illusion," Jesse Jenkins clarifies how many breakthroughs in clean energy price and performance require not just research but also the deployment of technologies in the real world. Breakthroughs will be achieved less in the laboratory and more by learning while doing.
Joe Romm's Challenge (April 2008): Roger Pielke, Jr. responds to Joe Romm's challenge to back up the Nature piece claim to "shatter the notion that we have all the technology we need to deal with climate change."
Solar Energy Not Quite Ready For Prime Time (April 2008): In response to Romm's claim that solar technology doesn't require federal investment, Ted Nordhaus says Romm is being overoptimistic about the current state of solar power. "It's a great time to expand R&D, not contract it."
The Debate Gets Civil (April 2008):
Joe Romm finally apologizes for attacking Breakthrough as "delayers," and we move towards more productive debate.
The Wisdom of Investment in a World of Mounting Wedges (April 2008): In response to Romm's flawed wedge analysis, Ted Nordhaus writes about why it's a risky bet to count on current technology and currently proposed policies to meet the climate challenge.
Understanding Romm's Fallacies
Joe Romm's Strategy to Lose the Clean Energy Race (July 2009): In a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Breakthrough urged Congress to fully fund the clean energy education initiative RE-ENERGYSE. Instead of substantively responding to this call, Joe Romm accused Breakthrough of attacking Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders. Romm also made several factually incorrect statements to muddle the discussion of Asia's clean energy investments. Here, Breakthrough sets the record straight.
Joe Romm Ignores Facts in Attacking Breakthrough Institute Op-Ed (July 2009): Breakthrough's comprehensive fact-check corrects Joe Romm's misleading and incorrect statements about Asia's investments in clean energy.
34 Nobel Prize Winners Write President Obama Urging Support for Clean Energy R&D (July 2009): Joe Romm continues to advocate for weakened federal climate legislation that would invest just $1 billion per year in clean energy R&D--going against the advice of 34 Nobel laureates who signed a letter urging Obama to invest at least $15 billion annually in clean energy R&D.
Is Joe Romm an Energy Challenge Denier? (April 2009): Romm continues to deny a wide body of expert consensus on energy innovation, including the positions of Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and the International Energy Agency.
Steven Chu calls for $150 billion investment in "breakthrough" energy R&D (March 2009): Once again, Secretary of Energy Chu debunks Romm's views on energy technology, testifying before the U.S. Senate and calling for "breakthroughs in energy" technology, including major investments in "transformational research."
What's driving opinion on global warming? (March 2009): Michael Shellenberger responds to Romm's assertion that new climate polling data "must be due to the messaging and the media and the misinformers."
Energy Secretary Steven Chu: Honorary Breakthrough Fellow? (Feb 2009): Joe Romm consistently claims we have all the technologies we need to address climate change, attacking those calling for "breakthroughs" in energy technology as "climate delayers." In a conversation with reporters, Obama Energy Secretary and Nobel Prize Laureate Dr. Steven Chu said solving global energy and climate challenges would require Nobel-level "breakthroughs" in at least three core energy technologies.
Despite claims, climate ranks low on public priorities (Oct 2008): Romm revealed multiple flawed assumptions in his latest attack, but one stood out above all the rest. Despite all the empirical evidence, Joseph Romm believes global warming is a high public priority. Romm and other greens will continue to peddle this false belief at their peril.
Arguing Both Sides at Climate Progress (Aug 2008): After attacking Roger Pielke for his analysis published in Nature, Joe Romm cites the same analysis as evidence in support of the idea that the IPCC scenarios have built in assumptions about aggressive reductions in carbon and energy intensities.
International Energy Agency Calls for Massive Clean Energy Technology Push (June 2008): In its major new Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 report, the International Energy Agency challenges Joe Romm's claims on energy technology, calling for technological breakthroughs in nearly every single one of its recommended technologies.
Romm Calls for Breakthroughs - By Another Name (May 2008): Lindsay Meisel examines Romm's piece in Salon, discovering that his analysis relies upon major improvements ("breakthroughs") in energy technology.
Adaptation and Public Investment: The Expert View (April 2008): Michael Shellenberger writes a letter to Joe Romm attempting to understand his opinion on climate adaptation and public investment in clean energy technology.
Romm versus Expert Consensus on Energy Technology (April 2008): Michael Shellenberger contrasts Romm's position -- that we don't need technology breakthroughs to stabilize emissions -- with that of energy experts.
What is the proper place for fear in our politics?
Share
The April 29 Special Issue of Breakthrough News described some of the work we've been doing on the relationships between fear and politics. Academics have done some important research, but we are just beginning to understand how this potent emotion interacts with complex and changing socio-political circumstances.
----
Continue reading "The Political Psychology of Fear" »
All of these elements are necessary, but none by themselves sufficient.
Share
by Roger Pielke, Jr.
This post summarizes, in capsule form, what I believe to be the necessary elements of any successful suite of policies focused on climate mitigation and adaptation. This post is short, and necessarily incomplete with insufficient detail, nonetheless, its purpose is to set the stage for future, in depth discussions of each element discussed below. The elements discussed below are meant to occur in parallel. All are necessary, none by itself sufficient. I welcome comments, critique, and questions.
Continue reading "Elements of Any Successful Approach to Climate Change" »
How do we transition to a clean energy economy as quickly as possible?
Share
Three weeks before the Senate is scheduled to vote on global warming legislation, presidential candidates John McCain and Hilary Clinton have both called for temporarily suspending the 18-cent gasoline tax. The proposal is anathema to anyone who is pushing for disincentives on dirty energy. But instead of just railing against political pandering, we should take this as an opportunity to rethink our politics. The big question is: how do we finance the transition to a clean energy economy?
Continue reading "What the Gas Tax Holiday Should Teach Us" »
Pollution is nothing new in China, but prosperity and protests are.
Share
The New York Times reported today that Chinese citizens marched their streets in protest of a multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant backed by China's leading state-run oil company:
Continue reading "Why an Emerging Chinese Middle Class is Good for the Environment" »
"The question is really about getting to that point where the firms can avoid paying the tax."
Share
Monica Prasad, an assistant progessor of sociology and a faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, is the author of "The Politics of Free Markets." She is currently studying attempts to use taxation as a regulatory tool, and recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times, "On Carbon, Tax and Don't Spend."
-----
Continue reading "Tuesday Interview with Taxation Expert Monica Prasad" »
Making clean energy cheaper than coal must be the explicit policy objective of a successful US climate policy. That will require not just research but also the deployment of technologies in the real world. Breakthroughs will be achieved less in the laboratory and more by learning while doing.
Share
 The following is a guest post by Jesse Jenkins, Associate Director of the Breakthrough Summer Fellowship Program. It was adapted from the comments section of Joe Romm's Climate Progress blog, and it clears up some common misunderstandings about the Breakthrough Institute and its mission.
-------
Continue reading "Breakthroughs Depend on Learning While Doing " »
Making dirty energy more expensive is not a punishment for sins of excess, but a means to an end.
Share
The chief executive of Duke Energy Corp., Jim Rogers, just proposed a national use tax on every kilowatt of electricity sold across the nation. It would fund a massive federal clean-energy research project. From the Charlotte Observer:
Continue reading "Investing in Our Future" »
Governments are under a lot more pressure to grow their economies than to be green and reduce emissions.
Share
Russia is backing out of a revised Kyoto that would put binding caps on its greenhouse gas emissions, according to a recent report from Reuters.
Continue reading "Russia Rejects Future Emissions Limits - Who's Next?" »
It is immoral to elevate emissions reductions over energy modernization when the public health benefits of modernization are indisputable.
Share
![people_and_stoves1_india_small[1].jpg](http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/people_and_stoves1_india_small%5B1%5D.jpg)
In a previous post, Roger makes an eloquent case that focusing exclusively on emissions reduction may be catastrophic for public health. He argues that malaria eradication in Africa would be associated with a modest increase in CO2. An exclusive focus on emissions reduction would deny this benefit. He makes the case that energy modernization is the key to sustainable development.
Continue reading "In Praise of Petroleum?" »
|
