I’ve been struck by the differences between the demands of Step it Up 2, and James Hansen’s repeated call for action. Step it Up 2 demands a moratorium on all new coal fired power plants. James Hansen is asking for a moratorium on all new coal plants without carbon capture and sequestration. In essence, these are the same demand, as the technology to implement CCS does not exist on a feasible scale yet. So why are these not the same demand? Why even include CCS?
To me, this is a small piece of a much larger debate, that is certainly raging among youth climate activists, and which I believe will become much bigger. The science is in, and its clear that climate change is anthropogenically driven. We now need to start working towards solutions. And which solutions will we, as youth climate activists, throw our support behind?
Is there such a thing as clean coal, given the impacts coal power has from the cradle to the grave? And what about other “solutions” to the problem of climate change, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Can we continue to support these biofuels, knowing the impact on global food prices and the environment that corn based ethanol has, or the massive destruction of Indonesian rainforest for palm oil plantations (the oil of choice for biodiesel), and the implications of an expansion of palm oil cultivation? Nuclear power has a whole set of issues, from cost, to waste, to fears of proliferation. Large scale hydro-power destroys entire ecosystems, endangers species and displaces communities. Biomass incineration has troublesome aspects as well, especially as many of the existing waste-to-energy facilities are located in low income, communities of color.
Faced with all of these “solutions”, none of which are truly clean, what are we, as youth activists to do? To me, it seems that we need to take a stance, draw a line in the sand, and refuse to put our considerable energy and enthusiasm behind any solution that will cause ecological destruction, harm already affected communities, and in any way make the world we leave our children a more unstable and dangerous place.
Instead, let us refuse to compromise and advocate for the real solutions to climate change: energy efficiency and conservation, solar, wind and geothermal, and above all else, a change in the way we think and live.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I realize that a political movement requires storng and easily communicated positions, but a line in the sand for technologies that are not fully commercialized carries risk. To replace fossil and nuclear with solar and wind you will need energy storage and grid management technologies that are much cheaper than currently exist. I am not saying they won’t or can’t happen, but you might at least want to have a hierarchy of options in case a critical technology does not pan out. Even if efficiency and conservation can cut half the US electric demand, that still leaves 500,000 MW to supply and about 60% will be on a 24/7 basis.
I am not trying to convince the youth climate members of a specific technology, just asking that you ensure your numbers (including risk and economic assessments) work out.
Best wishes on your Powershift 2007 conference.
If the government ordered a war against global warming, we’d be manufacturing so many wind turbines and solar panels that the cost of these would quickly fall below the cost of conventional sources. That’s what we need! Hundreds of billions of dollars being pumped into efficiency, wind, solar, geothermal, and marine annually by the world!
I think that can be claimed of any energy technology (i.e., large initial subsidized construction will achieve economy of scale and lessen overall cost). What will sell the public is that the mix will solve global warming with the least impact on their finances. My guess is that a large mix of technologies will be required, and that ideological concerns will have less resonance with the general public.
By the way, EPRI just issued a report on least cost carbon reduction:
http://epri-reports.org/DiscussionPaper2007.pdf
I believe it would be a terrible mistake, as the discussion paper implies, to substitute nuclear for coal.
CCS would seem to be “vaporware”, but maybe not. Of course, it can be used to recover more oil to make more GHG.
A problem with an all out moratorium on coal power is the loss of incremental improvements that, over the short term, could help. The electric power industry would have the tendency to take this as a “green flag”, which would be very bad, as already noted.
A solution being ignored is that suggested by Amory Lovins, to wit, conservation.
A solution that would seem too difficult for our Congress to allow is a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard.
Cap and trade looks to be an opportunity for game playing to keep up the appearance of doing something while the situation worsens. And, a carbon tax would seem to have only a very slim chance of being passed if the money can be used to make more more war for more oil for more GHG.
The undeterable course of self-destruction that the United States in particular seems to be taking reminds me of the old S. Harris cartoon: http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif
BTW: Lovins has been making his “negawatts” pitch for 35 years; someone may hear him eventually.
In a WorldChanging story Bill Joy notes “The demand side of energy efficiency is not as sexy as solar or wind energy, but it is much more effective.” The WC story highlighted three areas that merit further R&D:
1. Super-efficient energy storage
2. Solar energy with non-exotic materials
3. Combustion-less coal-to-energy production.
Another specific recommendation for power generation came from Woolsey, the Friendly Spook, “We need to decouple utility earnings from revenues so utilities earn profits by saving electricity instead of just by selling more power.”
All in all, a good time was had by all at RMI’s 25 anniversary. I wonder if they served Bananas Foster?
Mr. Lovins sometimes needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
One of his recent articles put natural gas fired cogen in the same category as renewables. While cogen is a more efficient way to make and use electricity, natural gas is a fossil fuel and greenhouse gas. Not sure it makes sense to have it listed together with renewables.
A negative take on the EPRI piece mentioned above. I have yet to decide for myself how I feel, but thought I would add it to the discussion.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/15/115820/296
I included it as a contrast to show there are many ways of reducing the greenhouse gases. When the climate movement decides on a set of actions, they will need to answer the alternate option sets (like EPRI).
As a Green Socialist, I am always hopeful that the need for clean energy & a healthy environment will grow alongside the understanding that capitalism, the economic system we take as unchangeable & immutable ‘natural law’ and under which we live, is a system in which profit-not human needs nor best technology nor global welfare- decides what is produced, how, where, why and by whom. Not we, the people….but they, the owners. Without Democratic ownership and management of our industrial
production, at the grassroots- where we live and where we work- we have no say in the technological
and legal framework to develop, encourage and build national & global programs for clean,sustainable,efficient & healthy energy production, food production, transportation systems, educational systems, etc….in the necessarily mass-scale required. Every argument or notion proposede in your- and indeed ALL- conversations are always prefaced by “BUT IT COSTS TOO MUCH”, etc. IF WE AS A PEOPLE DECIDED (as one writer suggested re: warfare preparations) to build what we KNOW needs to be invented, refined & built…WE COULD! Its not the missing technology or will, its the LACK OF REAL DEMOCRACY WHERE WE LIVE AND WHERE WE WORK> End Capitalism, and we can really get somewhere.