13 May 2010

Bjorn Lomborg on The Hartwell Paper

Bjorn Lomborg has experimented with many stances on climate change over the past decade, from cherry-picking skeptic to adaptation advocate to supporter of geoengineering , and now, to support of an innovation-led approach to decarbonization. In an op-ed published today, Bjorn Lomborg endorses the approach to climate policy recommended in The Hartwell Paper. He writes
The Hartwell group correctly notes that in order to be successful, our approach to climate policy should offer obvious advantages (“rapid and demonstrable pay-back”), appeal to a wide variety of people, and produce measurable results. The Kyoto approach, of course, does none of these things.

Instead of single-mindedly trying to force people to do without carbon-emitting fuels, the Hartwell group suggests that we pursue a number of other worthy goals – for example, adaptation, reforestation, encouraging biodiversity, and improving air quality – each of which is important, and all of which may also reduce carbon emissions. As the report notes, “the all-inclusive ‘Kyoto’ type of climate policy…needs to be broken up into separate issues again, each addressed on its merits and each in its own ways.”

At the same time, the group adds, we must recognize that we won’t make any real progress in cutting CO2 emissions until we can provide developing economies with affordable alternatives to the fossil fuels on which they currently depend. “In short,” the report notes, “we need to ignite…an energy technology revolution.”

The Hartwell group argues that mass improvements are needed across many technologies, requiring the determined participation of governments. They suggest partially funding the required research and development with a “slowly rising but initially low carbon tax” that would avoid undermining economic growth.

Proving the old adage that good ideas have many parents, Lomborg explains that:
If any – or all – of this sounds familiar, it may be because I have been arguing much the same points for some time. If my experience is any guide, the members of the Hartwell group should expect to be attacked as heretics for questioning the Kyoto orthodoxy. But that is a small price to pay. As the saying goes, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” With respect to global warming, it’s time we came to our senses.
Jesse Ausubel, Vaclav Smil and Chris Green may have gotten there first, before any of us, but no matter. Bjorn Lomborg's support for the agenda outlined in The Hartwell Paper is most welcome, and perhaps presages a broader coalition for action which might enhance the chances to move past the gridlock and vitriol that has characterized the climate debate in recent years.

The Hartwell Paper certainly does not have all the answers, but it does outline an alternative vision, aspects of which will be taken up soon with the release of The Climate Fix.

11 comments:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said...

"...we must recognize that we won’t make any real progress in cutting CO2 emissions until we can provide developing economies with affordable alternatives to the fossil fuels on which they currently depend. “In short,” the report notes, “we need to ignite…an energy technology revolution.”"

This is why subsidies for high cost alternatives like wind and solar are so counterproductive. Politically powerful constituencies develop to keep the subsidies flowing to established high cost uneconomical technologies rather than to something new and different and worst of all, low cost.

Just think of all of the politically dependent jobs and capital in the wind and solar industries that would disappear if a low revolutionary cost technology came into being. Perhaps this explains some of the opposition to nuke power.

Malcolm said...

The size of the fork must indicate that giants populate the planet. That is really worrisome, this could be the end of humanity if they get a taste of human flesh.


..............oh I get it 'a fork in the road'.

Damn those photoshop images.


PS Lomberg's comments are wellcome. I still would still like to see some princple underpinning the Hartwell Paper.

Michael said...

Getting Lomborg's endorsement is an important step, given that his views have traction with many climate change skeptics and agnostics. The Hartwell Paper is important precisely because it is staking out common ground, where people with sometimes quite different views on climate change can agree about important steps that can and should be taken. Once success is witnessed in such shared endeavors, the way will be open for more open, honest, and productive conversations for action, including the enormous investment needed for energy sources that are cheaper than coal even without being subsidized.

eric144 said...

The 'rapid and demonstrable pay-back' was my favourite part of the paper. It is positively seditious to the mainstream 50/100 year perspective, (possibly) described by Ed Cook as "publish, retire, and don't leave a forwarding address".


The problem with AGW is that it is global, and those driving the juggernaut are going their own way.

Can we assume that "perhaps presages a broader coalition for action" is what Lomborg is thinking of, or has he switched horses again ?

Alan F said...

The Germans didn't build themselves a super new nuclear waste storage facility in Salzgitter as a tourist attraction. Its where they are moving towards, more nuclear. That they've done wind, solar and gone so far as to have thoroughly tried methane sequestering (seen the facility) all the while finding those energy sources too costly in spite of their technological savvy and iron will to suffer enormous increases in cost to accomplish such speaks volumes for the current state of those same technologies.

charlesahart said...

Nuclear can play a much bigger role in the US if two things happen.

a) The NRC is funded to approve alternative cheaper and greener nuclear technology than is currently deployed. I expect the Obama administration’s BRC (Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future) will address the NCR funding issue.

http://brc.gov/

b) Nuclear technology like LFTR et al is pulled of the shelf, update and widely deployed. LFTR at half the cost of current nuclear is a game changer. Cost competitive with coal and with a waste stream 1/10000 as toxic and current nuclear.

http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/May/Too_Good_Leave_Shelf.cfm

http://energyfromthorium.com/

Panta Rei said...

Yes it's good to see the question marks raised.

In my view, given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is to engage in activites which

1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.


Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020 typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone, since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of fuel combustion emissions, and fuel combustion in turn accounted for 94% of CO2 emissions in 2007 (EPA data).

In 2020 (and again 2030), from the continuing available evidence, either

1. There is increasing consensus that CO2 emission reduction is not meaningful in overall climate change, because of all other the other factors that affect climate. In that case little has been lost, since the changes in the electricity and transport industry (see link below) carry their own benefit.


2. Otherwise, if CO2 emission reduction should continue, America is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures and can involve other industries, if necessary.



Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
Also: Any carbon tax that is imposed on industry, can help finance government subsidies towards emission processing or energy subsitution.


The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding
(compare with emission trading, "cap and trade")
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either, as described on the website.

http://ceolas.net/#cc1x

.

Panta Rei said...

re Malcolm

"oh I get it, 'a fork in the road'.... "

Thanks!
I thought it was Roger dreaming about lunch...or
Claes O ;-)

Harrywr2 said...

Another analogy to the change in approach is cigarette smoking.

The 'Kyoto' approach is that those already addicted to smoking have to quit so that those not addicted can afford to take up the habit.

Rogers approach is that we should find ways to encourage those not already addicted to not start smoking to begin with.

Alan F said...

Panta,

"Since only electricity and transport are involved..." is ignoring all the aspects of industry which are directly affected and afflicted by higher energy costs. As an example most mines are enormous users of electricity. Increase the cost of usage at a Potash mine and after trickling down through the users of fertilizer and everyone involved in the agriculture industry the last person directly and noticeably affected would be the consumer him/herself. I myself fail here to account for the mine supply companies who would be seeing their bottom line affected by a client in need of milking even more productivity out of the equipment and the unionist nightmare of trying to squeeze the worker pool.

Now try that on industry in general...

Now add to all the need for those in positions of power to get themselves elected...

The devil is ever in the details and I've yet to read a single presentation on restrictions and alternative energy that plays out within the realm of economic reality.

Panta Rei said...

Alan F

re higher energy/electricity costs

I agree that low energy price is important for industry,
and certainly one can query a lot of alternative energy devvelopment, as indeed the need for emission reduction
(in which case anway locally acting pollutants are at least as important as globally acting CO2).

My point is,
that to the extent that the alternative energy and emission reduction demands are felt necessary,
one can still keep down the cost of
electricity as said in "funding" above.

Regardless of energy supply source or emission requirements,
at least as important to keep down prices,
is grid administration and open supplier competition in those grids.

See
US electricity distribution reform
http://ceolas.net/#cc16x

and
efficient grid management
http://ceolas.net/#di1x

- including future smart metering that
rather than just "tells you that you have a light bulb switched on",
switches between suppliers also in real time and based on price.

Post a Comment