Comments on: The Global Warming Debate Grows Up http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/ Dispatches from the Youth Climate Movement Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:32:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Cascadia Brian http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62624 Cascadia Brian Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:10:20 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62624 Here's a recent video of long time Carbon Trading critic Larry Lohmann... http://blip.tv/file/778753 Here’s a recent video of long time Carbon Trading critic Larry Lohmann…

http://blip.tv/file/778753

]]> By: Cascadia Brian http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62549 Cascadia Brian Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:17:31 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62549 The Indigenous Environmental Network, the World Rainforest Movement, the Forests and the European Union Resource Network, Rising Tide, Carbon Trade Watch, the Institute for Policy Studies, and hundreds of other groups and individuals have worked hard for years to expose the limitations -- and the serious social justice implications -- of focusing on putting a price on carbon. I think all of us would take strong disagreement with the statement that "Environmentalists have long believed that a price for carbon is the obvious answer". For a basic intro -- which includes research showing the problems of pricing pollutants stretching back to the 1990s -- to the problems of carbon pricing and carbon trading, check out www.carbontradewatch.org. http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/skyeng.pdf provides a great intro to the issues: it was published 5+ years ago. Although not as bad as some of your past articles (see http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/02/08/jack-johnsons-post-environmentalism/#comments) I again want to ask that breakthrough folks avoid the self-congradulatory framing of yourselves as THE cutting edge thinkers, bravely pushing the envelope on climate change. The Indigenous Environmental Network, the World Rainforest Movement, the Forests and the European Union Resource Network, Rising Tide, Carbon Trade Watch, the Institute for Policy Studies, and hundreds of other groups and individuals have worked hard for years to expose the limitations — and the serious social justice implications — of focusing on putting a price on carbon.

I think all of us would take strong disagreement with the statement that “Environmentalists have long believed that a price for carbon is the obvious answer”.

For a basic intro — which includes research showing the problems of pricing pollutants stretching back to the 1990s — to the problems of carbon pricing and carbon trading, check out http://www.carbontradewatch.org.

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/pubs/skyeng.pdf provides a great intro to the issues: it was published 5+ years ago.

Although not as bad as some of your past articles (see http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/02/08/jack-johnsons-post-environmentalism/#comments) I again want to ask that breakthrough folks avoid the self-congradulatory framing of yourselves as THE cutting edge thinkers, bravely pushing the envelope on climate change.

]]> By: links for 2008-04-11 « Kevin Bondelli’s YD Blog http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62535 links for 2008-04-11 « Kevin Bondelli’s YD Blog Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:47:54 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62535 [...] The Global Warming Debate Grows Up « It’s Getting Hot In Here [...] [...] The Global Warming Debate Grows Up « It’s Getting Hot In Here [...]

]]> By: lmeisel http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62517 lmeisel Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:04:12 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62517 Todd - R. Margolis is hitting on a an important point that often gets overlooked in the conversation: the majority of emissions will soon come from the developing world, where an increasing number of people want to move out of agrarian poverty and build better lives in cities for themselves and their children. You can't tell people struggling to get by that they shouldn't want the same comforts and conveniences that the rest of the modern world has. It's been well-established that as energy use goes up, so does standard of living. I think it's easier and more effective to look for clean, cheap energy solutions than to try and spread the "less consumption" message to China and India. Todd - R. Margolis is hitting on a an important point that often gets overlooked in the conversation: the majority of emissions will soon come from the developing world, where an increasing number of people want to move out of agrarian poverty and build better lives in cities for themselves and their children. You can’t tell people struggling to get by that they shouldn’t want the same comforts and conveniences that the rest of the modern world has. It’s been well-established that as energy use goes up, so does standard of living. I think it’s easier and more effective to look for clean, cheap energy solutions than to try and spread the “less consumption” message to China and India.

]]> By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62516 R Margolis Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:51:00 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62516 However, even if some of the luxuries are curtailed there is still a need for energy to provide goods and services to the planet's large population. Yes, you can slow population growth and stabilize, but you are still looking at a large energy demand that is not due to everyone driving Ferraris. However, even if some of the luxuries are curtailed there is still a need for energy to provide goods and services to the planet’s large population. Yes, you can slow population growth and stabilize, but you are still looking at a large energy demand that is not due to everyone driving Ferraris.

]]> By: Todd Sicklinger http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62512 Todd Sicklinger Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:02:18 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62512 The only way to stop global warming and to preserve the enviornment is to change people's perception of status. As long as status is measured by conspicuous wealth and consumption, the majority of people will focus their energy increasing their appearence of wealth and their consumption. It doesn't matter that such consumption is harmfull both to the individuals (childhood obesity, adult diabetes, lack of sleep, and limited free time) and to the enviornment, as long as people believe that their status is measured wealth and consumption they will continue to expend most of their efforts to increase their wealth and consumption. The only way to stop global warming and to preserve the enviornment is to change people’s perception of status. As long as status is measured by conspicuous wealth and consumption, the majority of people will focus their energy increasing their appearence of wealth and their consumption. It doesn’t matter that such consumption is harmfull both to the individuals (childhood obesity, adult diabetes, lack of sleep, and limited free time) and to the enviornment, as long as people believe that their status is measured wealth and consumption they will continue to expend most of their efforts to increase their wealth and consumption.

]]> By: Richard Graves http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62510 Richard Graves Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:58:27 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62510 Stylistic point! "Breakthrough refers to this catch-22 as “the Gordian Knot.” You can't use the Catch-22 metaphor and than call it a Gordian Knot. That is cuisinarting of metaphors. Ok, ok so I am being a cranky editor. On a point of substance - the whole issue about solar is not that a carbon price will make it competitive instantly - but that it will shift investment to hasten the drop in the cost of solar till it is below coal. It is a legitimate question if that will be fast enough using the somewhat indirect method of carbon pricing. However, this is a problem with S&N's argument. There is no evidence that their $30 billion in investment will do it faster/better. Why? Federal policy is designed to be a compromise between political forces sufficient to overcome the inertia of congress. Without a "rising tide" of effective, real clean energy investment that provides measurable, verifiable progress and benefit from institutions, states, cities, and communities, federal policy will be a hideous mish-mash of the politically viable. We cannot rely on an overly federal response to investment - it deploys too damn slowly. Maybe you could address that. Stylistic point! “Breakthrough refers to this catch-22 as “the Gordian Knot.” You can’t use the Catch-22 metaphor and than call it a Gordian Knot. That is cuisinarting of metaphors.

Ok, ok so I am being a cranky editor.

On a point of substance - the whole issue about solar is not that a carbon price will make it competitive instantly - but that it will shift investment to hasten the drop in the cost of solar till it is below coal. It is a legitimate question if that will be fast enough using the somewhat indirect method of carbon pricing.

However, this is a problem with S&N’s argument. There is no evidence that their $30 billion in investment will do it faster/better. Why? Federal policy is designed to be a compromise between political forces sufficient to overcome the inertia of congress. Without a “rising tide” of effective, real clean energy investment that provides measurable, verifiable progress and benefit from institutions, states, cities, and communities, federal policy will be a hideous mish-mash of the politically viable. We cannot rely on an overly federal response to investment - it deploys too damn slowly. Maybe you could address that.

]]> By: lmeisel http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62505 lmeisel Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:44:25 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62505 David - By "real technology policy," I mean at least $30 billion a year in federal clean energy R&D. Right now it's something like $3-$4 billion, which is just peanuts, and the best plan from any of the candidates still falls short -- Obama's plan calls for $150 billion over 10 years. But I still support it, because it represents a monumental shift in spending priorities. Of course, even if we got $30 billion a year for R&D, there would still be a lot of work to do in deciding how that money should be spent: should we focus mostly on deploying existing technologies? Or do we also need to devote a lot of resources to scaling up infant technologies and finding brand new ones as well? Roger Pielke, Jr. et al's recent <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7187/full/452531a.html" rel="nofollow">Nature commentary</a> made these questions all the more important by suggesting that the technology gap is far greater than anyone had anticipated. David - By “real technology policy,” I mean at least $30 billion a year in federal clean energy R&D. Right now it’s something like $3-$4 billion, which is just peanuts, and the best plan from any of the candidates still falls short — Obama’s plan calls for $150 billion over 10 years. But I still support it, because it represents a monumental shift in spending priorities.

Of course, even if we got $30 billion a year for R&D, there would still be a lot of work to do in deciding how that money should be spent: should we focus mostly on deploying existing technologies? Or do we also need to devote a lot of resources to scaling up infant technologies and finding brand new ones as well?

Roger Pielke, Jr. et al’s recent Nature commentary made these questions all the more important by suggesting that the technology gap is far greater than anyone had anticipated.

]]> By: R Margolis http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62494 R Margolis Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:40:45 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62494 The US may not have built any nuclear plants in the past 30 years (though the overhaul of Brown's Ferry 1 and completion in progress of Watts Bar 2 is good preparation for new build), but South Korea, Japan, China, and India have active programs. For the nuclear wedge, these countries will likely be among the major players. Now that just leaves 17 wedges to go... ;-) The US may not have built any nuclear plants in the past 30 years (though the overhaul of Brown’s Ferry 1 and completion in progress of Watts Bar 2 is good preparation for new build), but South Korea, Japan, China, and India have active programs. For the nuclear wedge, these countries will likely be among the major players.

Now that just leaves 17 wedges to go… ;-)

]]> By: David M. http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/10/the-global-warming-debate-grows-up/#comment-62488 David M. Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:48:18 +0000 http://itsgettinghotinhere.wordpress.com/?p=4559#comment-62488 Very interesting and thought-provoking. As far as solutions beyond this, what do you mean by "real technology policy"? Very interesting and thought-provoking.

As far as solutions beyond this, what do you mean by “real technology policy”?

]]>