Jeff Kueter, president of the Marshall Institute, responds to my blog post of last week titled, Will You Walk into My Parlor? which was critical of an upcoming briefing on climate science. Here is his response:Indeed, that last bit was my point exactly. Thanks to Jeff Kueter for taking the time to respond.Your April 30 post “Will You Walk Into My Parlor?” was brought to my attention over the weekend. Whether you agree with the premise or not is a subjective matter, of course. The premise nonetheless is true. The United States likely would not be engaged in efforts to cap, tax, regulate, or otherwise impose artificial limits on carbon emissions without the justification provided by the anthropogenic global warming argument. The Institute has long called for expanded investments in the technology base underlying the energy sector and adoption of incentives (or other means) to accelerate the deployment of those technologies, as both a response to the probable risks of AGW and as an end in and of itself. (see, for example http://www.marshall.org/pdf/
materials/86.pdf , http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=274 , http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=607 , and http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/449.pdf as examples). And while haven’t recently looked at the decarbonization matter, we certainly don’t oppose it and have tried to highlight it as circumstances allowed (see http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/7.pdf ).If one wants to debate whether public policies supporting decarbonization are worthwhile, then by all means, let’s do that on its own merits rather than wrapping it up in the nebulous discussion of what climate science does or does not say.
8 comments:
Roger, I think it would be a good idea for you to go ahead and make this 'compelling' case for decarbonization regardless of the reality of AGW. There are a lot of people who would like to see it.
The price of fossil fuels have reached a point where efforts to de-carbonize should be undertaken regardless of what one thinks about 'Climate Change'.
The Chinese and Indian's are demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt that there isn't enough coal to go around.
If they start gobbling up oil like they are gobbling up coal the price of oil will be $500/barrel in no time flat.
Congratulations young ninja, you have made it to base camp. Mount Everest stands before you.
Stan - me too. I am rather baffled by why it HAS to be a good thing, why the case is COMPELLING, absent a pollution (in its widest sense) issue with FFuels.
I can think of energy security - horrid Venezuelan Commie dictators etc, but oil, gas after LPG CapEx, and coal, are very widely sourced?
I can think of energy diversification, although that's tough with oil for transport, and there's limited substitutability left (until it gets to $500, natch).
I must be missing something blindingly obvious.
Roger,
Since we (and the Marshall Institute, apparently) seem to agree that energy policy should be set to achieve energy sources that make sense (have a net payoff) regardless of climate science uncertainties, would you also agree with this way of stating it:
We should design energy policy as if climate change is not an issue.
This last statement is dangerously denier-esque, but seems to be logically equivalent to the above position. i'd be curious about your thoughts on this.
-5-Brian
"We should design energy policy as if climate change is not an issue."
I'd phrase it a bit differently. I don't think that the human influence on climate should be ignored. I would say that the first steps toward accelerating the decarbonization of the global economy do not depend upon climate change as a primary justification. However, the final steps mights. Climate policy has been too wrapped up in debating the final steps, so much so that the first steps -- and their broader justifications -- are typically ignored.
Roger,
I'm not really asking whether you prefer to phrase it this way, but whether this one possible but correct way to phrase it. Would you agree, then, with:
We should design energy policy for the next decade (or so) as if climate change is not an issue.
I'm just trying to map out the subtle shades of your position.
So you are just offering a fig leaf to cover the double embarrassment of 'alternative' energy pushers who do not have enough to bring to the table (in terms of energy), but yet dug in hard behind the AGW hypothesis to win subsidy handouts for themselves?
Yes, we have to find a way 'to move forward' indeed. :)
Post a Comment