And he concludes:The phrase “climate change denier” has a nasty ring to it. It links those who dispute mainstream science on global warming with “Holocaust deniers”. They are not just wrong, it implies, they are evil.
But the climate change lobby is in the grip of its own form of dangerous fantasy. It is in denial not about science – but about international politics.
We recently offered an analysis of how climate policy might get back on course, starting with a clear-eyed recognition of the failure of the current approach and proceeding to outline a pragmatic way forward.The state of international negotiations presents a huge dilemma for climate change activists. Most genuinely believe that a failure to achieve an international agreement in Copenhagen would be catastrophic. But they also know that, even if a deal is reached, it is likely to be feeble and ineffective. If they admit this publicly, they risk creating a climate of despair and inaction. But if they press ahead, they are putting all their energy into an approach that they must know is highly unlikely to deliver.
It is a horrible dilemma. But, in difficult situations, it is best to start by facing facts.
You can read that essay here:
Prins, G., Cook., M., Green, C., Hulme, M., Korhola, A., Korhola, E.R., Pielke, Jr., R., Rayner, S., Sawa, A., Sarewitz, D., Stehr, N., and H. von Storch, 2009. How to get climate policy back on course. Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Oxford University and London School of Economics, The Mackinder Programme, LSE.
8 comments:
Roger,
In the Prins et al. [2009] paper it is noted that "The core argument ... is an elementary political truth, namely that clean energy will only advance radically when it is made cheaper than dirty energy at point-of-use by the consumer."
This appears to make sense, but is that really possible in a free market? If demand for dirty energy were to decrease, wouldn't that possibly also lower the price of dirty energy? I guess this depends on whether the current price of dirty energy is based on the costs of producing rather than caused by speculation (think for example about the volatile changes in oil and energy prices during the last year or so, which surely had more to do with speculation than with true rises in the cost of production).
So, basically, the question is if it is economically feasible - in a free market - to control prices of dirty energy in such a way that they always would be higher than the price of clean energy?
Any thoughts?
Jos.
-1-Jos.
A few replies ...
1. Under a specified economic growth rate, demand for energy is a function of the efficiency with which we conduct economic activity, and efficiency can certainly be improved
2. However, all projections of future economic activity show very large increases in energy demand under any scenario for efficiency gains
From 1 and 2 I take that demand can have a relative effect (e.g., it affects the price of gasoline for instance) but does not alter the fact that over time much more energy is needed. We should of course be vigorously pursuing gains in efficiency,a s we outline in the paper.
I do not see policies focused on increasing the costs of energy as being very effective in addressing increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, for reasons that we outline in the paper.
This 15 year threshold appears to be ENSO adjusted trends. Also, the analysis seems to be based on a small subset (10) of all model runs used in the AR4. While downselecting for models with trends similar to the average may seem reasonable, permitting downselection also opens the door to selecting models with larger than average variabilities relative to the group. I've downloaded the article, so I'll have to see what they did.
In the Prins et al. [2009] paper it is noted that "The core argument ... is an elementary political truth, namely that clean energy will only advance radically when it is made cheaper than dirty energy at point-of-use by the consumer."
"moderator" responds, This appears to make sense, but is that really possible in a free market? If demand for dirty energy were to decrease, wouldn't that possibly also lower the price of dirty energy?"
It is possible for clean energy to displace dirty energy in a free market. It's happening right now, and has been for a long time. Natural gas is gradually replacing coal and oil.
Theoretically, photovoltaics, liquid fluoride thorium (fission) reactors, or fusion reactors could supply all the energy on earth for much more than the next 1000 years.
All of those technologies could displace fossil fuel technologies if, for example, they could produce retail electrical power for under 4 cents/kilowatt-hour.
It's reasonable to assume that one or more of those three technologies will represent the majority of energy produced by humans by the end of this century.
Roger, thanks for the link to your new paper.
At first glance it appears to ignore both (a) that markets and changes in efficiency are driven by prices, and that (b) the same prisoners dilemma and rent-seeking problems that have bedevilled collective action on climate policy so far won`t go away merely by shifting attention to efficiency, as prices are needed to incentivize the shift
Pretty good commentary by Rachman, but it falls flat, doesn`t it, as there simply is no "dilemma" that environmental activists face, is there? Rather, they merely face the recognition that making progress is exceedingly difficult in the face of the prisoners` dilemma issues of collective action by national all with different interests (and different internal constituencies to satisfy).
Enviros may burn out in face of the challenges, or perhaps seek a coalition of others looking for a least damaging policy (like Exxon/Jim Hansen) who oppose cap and trade in favor of greater transparency, less pork and perhaps greater effectiveness offered by rebated carbon taxes.
-5-Tom
There is not ignoring of prices, we simply don;t think that increasing the costs of carbon-based energy will be enough to do the trick. Policies that lead to a reduction in the costs of low-carbon energy are necessary.
You're only looking at the increase costs side of the equation.
"we simply don;t think that increasing the costs of carbon-based energy will be enough to do the trick."
We agree!
"Policies that lead to a reduction in the costs of low-carbon energy are necessary."
Again, agreed. But only increased demand, increased investment and increased production brings lower costs. All requires time, and pricing signals.
"You're only looking at the increase costs side of the equation."
No; I`m simply observing how markets work. Governments cannot magically lower costs (though they`re pretty good at increasing them!), nor wisely make all of the needed investments.
The pricing of current energy needs to be shifted to call out such investment, and this is the same problem of collective action we`ve been facing for decades.
Post a Comment