11 June 2010
Follow Up on Public Opinion
There was a lot of interesting discussion following my post on public opinion and climate change. In the short term I won't have a chance to respond to every comment and email arising from that thread, but let me offer the following as a capsule summary of my views (and the list below is a set of assertions that I back up in TCF). I believe that the evidence amply supports the following conclusions:
1. A large majority of the public, in the US and more generally in most places worldwide, believes that humans are influencing the climate through the release of greenhouse gases.
2. A similar large majority of the public finds the prospect of such an influence to be troubling.
3. Public views on #1 and #2 have been up and down, but remarkably, have been fairly consistent for a period of several decades. There is a noted partisan split (especially in the US, but also elsewhere) in public opinion.
4. The public consistently ranks climate change as a relatively low concern when asked to prioritize. Issues such as the economy, jobs, education, crime, war and others are regularly deemed more important.
5. The public supports action to reduce emissions, to diversify energy supply, to increase energy security and to do so comprehensively and internationally. This support is bipartisan.
6. Such support has been consistent for decades and exceeds the level of support observed for other issues for which action was taken.
7. The public overwhelming is willing to pay some price for the attainment of energy and climate goals, but that willingness is severely limited. The price must not be high.
8. Increasing numbers of the public believe that climate science has been exaggerated in public debate. This trend occurs across the political spectrum.
9. Public support for emissions reductions is, at best, only loosely tied to public opinion on climate science. Even as the public believes in increasing numbers that the science has been exaggerated in public debate, support for action remains strong.
10. The public, as on most every complex scientific or technical issue, is not particularly literate about climate science.
The bottom line?
The contours of public opinion on the science and the economics of climate change have been set now for many years, even decades. The public believes that humans affect the climate, that they want action, that that action should not cost too much, that there a range of reasons for action and that climate science is often exaggerated.
These views have been stable for a long time and absent something really dramatic, are unlikely to change appreciably. Thus, they provide a set of ground rules or boundary conditions for effective climate policy.
The public's opinions are clear and consistent, however the experts do not seem to have yet heard them.
48 comments:
Roger
Your Hartwell paper received this reply from Europe's climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard.
"And the carbon markets can provide us with more finance for clean development if we can drive up the carbon price somehow. "
The British government will have a detailed model of how they expect energy prices to rise by 2020 and 2050. Not just electricity, but gas.
Here is my poll question
Are you happy to pay these increased prices for energy to reduce the risk of global warming ?
I expect the answer would be an overwhelming 'No'. I expect Americans would have a similar response if they were presented with the same numbers.
Nothing else really matters in the current political context. Your Hartwell proposals were dismissed more or less instantaneously by the EU.
Yes, your ideas would have a good chance of public support, even from me, but not while the main AGW aircraft carrier sails on regardless.
I think the experts have heard them, but, for various reasons, are not willing to accept public opinion as boundary conditions for policy.
Experts perhaps don't consider themselves public officials, so perhaps they feel these Gifford Pinchot maxims (1910-1920) don't apply to them:
1. A public official is there to serve the public and not to run them.
2. Public support of acts affecting public rights is absolutely required.
3. It is more trouble to consult the public than to ignore them, but that is what you are hired for.
4. Find out in advance what the public will stand for. If it is right and they won’t stand for it, postpone action and educate them. "
It might be interesting to explore further why that is. One hypothesis might be that many fields of science do not require a course or more in government or policy studies prior to graduation. Perhaps that should be a requirement for all policy-relevant science fields (it was in natural resource sciences, at least in the past).
Dear Roger,
You write, "These views have been stable for a long time and absent something really dramatic, are unlikely to change appreciably."
But how can you say 'absent something really dramatic' when Climategate has only just happened? How much more dramatic could something be than the Climategate scandal? Climategate did happen, and happen it did just six short months ago. I don't think Steve McIntyre et al. have even finished digesting the contents of Climategate emails. Meanwhile, the polls have indeed, and presumably in large part as a result of Climategate, swung hugely towards skepticism.
E.g. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/40-say-agw-is-exaggerated.html
And look, I agree that I am ready to take action on climate change, even though I am skeptical. But I am very concerned that CO2 emissions may not be the biggest environmental problem facing us. And if not, then the public needs to know about it.
If it becomes clear that the science is not only exaggerated, but wrong, this matters, and it matters a lot. Surely, all of the public think the same way here. I for one would much rather support something that is based on certainty, not guesswork. E.g. I find the reality that the world will be populated with 9 billion people competing for scarce resources in 2050 far more scary than the CO2 threat. Humans breeding is far less hypothetical than the sum of all climate feedbacks being strongly positive. And if it's 2 degrees hotter in 2050, I remain concerned that the 9 billion people will be more of a problem than the 2 degrees. But I can't see politicians doing anything about this (oh, other than closing their borders to the influx of refugees...) and so it troubles me to see so much focus on hypothetical climate change.
I don't think the Climategate scandal can be dismissed so lightly, or that these recents swings in public mood against climate science are going to prove to be transient.
All said, though, perhaps I need to read your book. :)
Roger,
Given the particulars of the American political system and the partisan split on climate change science, would you not agree that framing the discussion in terms of simple majorities is problematic?
I'd suggest that given these circumstances, all the forces of delay really need to do to succeed is convince enough republican voters and a slice of democrats to effectively stall any meaningful policy action (in large part because of the new norm 60-vote requirement in the Senate).
And I think it is on this basis that many people (myself included) argue that the delayers tactics (i.e. mispresenting the nature and magnitude of uncertainties in climate science) have been largely successful furthering their objectives.
I would further suggest that if enough people really understood the potential and likely magnitude of CAWG impacts, then they'd be more inclined to support more aggressive policies. IOW, if the mitigation costs were framed as insurance policy against potentially astronomic damage costs ala Weitzmann rather than "would you be willing to pay MORE for..."
Now before everyone jumps on me for lumping all delayers together, let me say that I don't think it's a monolithic group funded by fossil fuel interests. There are of course many people (particularly in the blogosphere) that are genuinely skeptical of the science and/or take issue with how the science is used in policy debates. But in the larger picture, I would suggest that such skeptics are 'useful idiots' from the POV of the corporate interests who stand to lose from meaningful mitigation policies.
This is similar in many ways to public opinion in the US on government debt: a large majority of the public agrees that the growing debts poses a serious threat to the nation's economy; it wants something done to balance the budget, but is unwilling to accept the painful measures of large tax hikes or spending cuts necessary to balance the budget in the short run.
Further, there are similarities in the role of science (climate or economic) in guiding policy: macroeconomic models are no better than climate models at predicting the detailed effects of debt on the economy: Sector by sector, how much will a level, x, of debt affect economic production, employment, income, etc.? How long will it take for these consequences to arrive? Is there a specific threshold debt that would trigger a runaway inflationary catastrophe?
As with climate, it's impossible to attribute specific economic events to growing debt because the national economy has a great deal of natural variability and is affected by many things beside the debt.
And finally, just as the Hartwell paper recommends decoupling energy from climate, the US has tacitly adopted a policy of decoupling spending from revenue.
Deficit hawks have been no more successful than environmentalists at using dire warnings to stimulate meaningful action. Given the public's unwillingness to accept painful measures to avoid long term threats from climate or debt, many policy wonks recommend technological fixes, hoping that investments in research will eventually produce sufficiently cheap clean energy to decarbonize painlessly, and that economic growth will eventually allow us to balance the budget without raising tax rates or cutting government spending.
This is, of course, just an analogy. Climate and debt are not identical and there are important differences between the two, many of which make the debt problem much easier to address, both politically and technologically. Nonetheless, comparing the obstacles public opinion poses to seriously addressing either may prove instructive.
Public opinion is clear on tackling Climate Change - IT IS NOT A PRIORITY.
Who are these "experts" and how have they demonstrated their expertise?
"10. The public, as on most every complex scientific or technical issue, is not particularly literate about climate science."
Correct. And most people tend to accept "sky-is-falling" nonsense when they are not literate on a subject (thats exactly why the "environmentalists" have been so successful in scaring the hell out of the public in order to get so many unnecessary and sometimes even harmful regulations passed). However, I think these socialists have bit off much more than they can chew in the case of "climate change." Energy is a basic human necessity, just like food and shelter, and therefore folks will pay much more attention to its regulation than it has to, say, species diversity. Even Joe the Plumber is not going to stand by and be robbed in the name of something they cannot see. And the longer they "look," the more they see that the whole thing is a fairy tale, anyway. I think people are wising up much faster than you think, Roger.
BTW, I just did a survey of 10 people here at the office, and I only found one lady who thinks there is a reason to raise the price of energy by ANY amount to counter "climate change." In fact, most folks I know joke about "climate change." Say the name "Al Gore" to anyone and watch his/her expression. My survey is undoubtedly biased, but no more than the one you posted from Princeton the other day...
Yes, well done! A much better summary and who would disagree.
Here is public opinion in a nutshell:
"If you tell us that the world is warming and we are to blame then we will believe you. You are the experts and we are not. But if it involves sacrifice on our part we are not interested. We dont believe you that much."
"however the experts do not seem to have yet heard them"
It's not the 'experts' that are the problem. It's the activists.
The folks at General Electric can do a back of envelope calculation on whatever goal one might have and present various options at various price points.
The same with the folks at General Motors.
One can then choose to accept less then perfect solutions that move the ball down the field at a price the public is willing to pay or continue to insist on solutions at a price the public isn't willing to pay.
The best friend of Big Coal isn't Senator Robert Byrd. The best friend of Big Coal is Joe Romm.
This is the real bottom line
***
A new blueprint for a global climate agreement would force the United States to massively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions but could also limit developing countries' attempts to grow their economies, diplomats at the resumed global climate change talks said today.
A new draft negotiating text, prepared by the UN secretariat at the close of two weeks of official talks in Bonn, proposes that rich countries cut their emissions between 25-40% by 2020. The draft follows submissions to the UN by more than 185 countries.
It also outlines a goal of cutting global emissions by "at least 50-85% from 1990 levels by 2050". Rich countries specifically would have to cut at least 50-95% from 1990 levels by 2050".
The new targets are more ambitious than those proposed at the Copenhagen climate summit last December but have done little to appease developing countries. Most are still bitter that pledges from rich countries pledges to cut emissions have been nowhere near enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The new draft text is also guaranteed to infuriate the US, which has so far only pledged to cut its emissions 17% by 2020 on 2005 emission levels – far less than European Union countries who have committed themselves to 20% cuts by 2020 and a 30% cut if other countries show similar ambition. "If this text were to be adopted, then the US would find it particularly difficult. It means they would have to do very much more," said one European diplomat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jun/11/climate-change-draft-text
Marlow -
With regard to your statement "But in the larger picture, I would suggest that such skeptics are 'useful idiots' from the POV of the corporate interests who stand to lose from meaningful mitigation policies."
One could also say that action enthusisasts are "useful idiots" from the POV of the corporate interests who stand to gain from certain mitigation policiesn such as cap and trade.
So if both sides turn out to be pawns of different industries- where does that leave the debate?
Roger: "9. Public support for emissions reductions is, at best, only loosely tied to public opinion on climate science. Even as the public believes in increasing numbers that the science has been exaggerated in public debate, support for action remains strong."
I think the clear link between climate science and public support for action is in cost/benefit (as it should be). If the cost is high (in fuel or carbon taxes and damage to the economy) and the benefit low (need for emission cuts exaggerated and practical cuts in emissions this decade possibly only making millidegree differences in 2050 temperatures), the public will not support action on the basis of climate issues. People will only support very low perceived cost actions.
So the continuing argument is really about the cost/benefit ratio, which is part climate science, part values (of the benefits of preserving stasis in the environment), but likely mostly economics (impacts on the standard of living of people at all income levels).
Number 7 is the key: “ The public overwhelming is willing to pay some price for the attainment of energy and climate goals, but that willingness is severely limited. The price must not be high.”
As anyone knows anything about the facts of energy use knows the 80% reduction by 2050 political goal is going to be priced high, absent a miracle. The failure to admit that upsets me the most about the vocal advocates of those limits. They want reductions but have not offered real alternatives.
My prediction is this: in the near future the next round of reductions (SO2, NOx, Hg and CO2) is going to be significantly more expensive than in the past. It will be so expensive that the de-regulated electric generating industry is going to shut down far more units than expected. The renewable replacements will cover those reductions until we get the truly large Bermuda high causing a prolonged heat wave and, very importantly, much reduced wind resources. The result will be a blackout because there won’t be enough capacity. Somehow that will be the fault of industry and not the zealots who favor ever more stringent emission reductions.
Roger has consistently been trying to point out that the focus of the debate should be on the energy system, not the rationale for starting to de-carbonize the economy.
A far better analogy to Jonathan's is that this depression was predicted by a contrarian, non-academic minority and that over-reliance on unvalidated, simplistic computer models accelerated the debt splurge. This came about because too many hubristic academics pretended they could model a poorly-understood, non-linear, chaotic system without knowing the correct inputs, variables or underlying drivers and all the while studiously ignoring what was happening in the real world.
If it's unrealistic to assume that technological alternatives won't come about by themselves then how is it more realistic to assume tax cuts will achieve it? Or are these cuts just naturally supposed to cause hunger, early death and general misery whether an alternative is available or not?
Marlowe and Jonathan should consider the real reason why Copenhagen failed was nothing to do with a minority of contrarian "delayers" (who were ritually ignored/ridiculed at Copenhagen). It failed due to China and India refusing limits because poverty reduction is their top priority and that means burning lots of coal. If they are delayers it's because they believe that certain death from grinding poverty now is more important than the overblown, catastrophe speculations of tomorrow. Hence their policy is to invest in energy alternatives with no stipulated carbon targets. Such an energy policy, dictated by Bric countries, and with potential for all-party agreement, is the only option on the table. You'll all have to accept it sooner or later.
Sharon F.
Don't forget the nuclear industry resurgence from all this greenwashing.
Marlow -4-
I'd add to Sharon's characterization of supporters for climate change as Useful Idiots for those who'd like to take as much power away from free markets as possible.
The other issue with discussing policies like this, of course, is the difference between "Adults" and "Likely Voters." It's really the latter group that politicians tend to strive to please (witness the perennial third rail status WRT Social Security and Medicare).
Guess which category of person is less likely to follow an issue closely enough to have followed an issue closely enough to have, if not an educated opinion, at least an opinion informed by something deeper than a headline.
And then there's that gem of motherly advice in the form of a question: "If all your friends jump off a bridge, would you jump, too?"
Of course some of the public believe in Global Warming, they have had it rammed down their throats for the last 10 years, so what would you expect.
eric144 said... 1
"Hartwell proposals were dismissed more or less instantaneously by the EU."
Even a message that resonates well takes quite a while before it transforms what comes out of the mouths of politico's.
Oh enough with the wind already! Here in Saskatchewan Canada our provincial power company Saskpower has a complete and absolute monopoly. A monopoly so complete they had one hell of a time hiding those profits during the 2008 financial turmoil and were denied the rate increase they sought that year by the government review panel. Their first big green push came in the form of windmills in a stretch of valley known to be one of the most consistently windy places in the country. In fact the Canadian National Windsurfing Championships have made use of steady supply of whitecaps for just this very reason, Saskatchewan is a very windy place and averages far more days with wind at speeds usable by windmills than without. So we have all the right ingredients:
- reliably windy days per anum
- as much land as ever need for windmills and "the crown's" right to place them on private land, wetlands, sanctuaries, heritage sites or anywhere else regardless of the owner's disposition
- as much financing as is necessary to accomplish whatever the goal
- absolutely no need to generate a profit nor fear of accumulating debt with the project
- access to the "state of the art" in wind turbines and grid technologies
- an incredibly well educated work force
So when what should have been a slam dunk for going green vanishes from the radar we can assume one of two things. No one in Saskatchewan, a province world renown for both its generosity, fierce protection of wetlands and adoption of geothermal, wood furnaces and uber insulated homes by the average citizen out of his/her own pocket wants anything to do with green tech... or it just didn't pan out for Saskpower. As I personally know one of the accountants on the original project and his honesty is beyond reproach, I'll stick with belief in the latter. The only thing that would have stopped Saskpower in its tracks was economic sustainability within a monopoly and inside a province known to be one of the windiest places in Canada where they also faced no restriction on locations or initial costs being very very very bad PR.
I do so wish those set all a quiver at the prospects of today's and the near future's green tech would put down the pipe and step back from the keyboard at least until their head clears.
Sharon/Matt,
Of course some will stand to gain from climate policies, but the important thing to remember of course is the relative size and power of those who stand to lose.
Here's a suggestion. Compare the total market capitalization of all the firms that stand to lose from carbon pricing against the market cap of the firms that stand to gain. What do you guys think the ratio works out to?
A million to one? Ten to one?
Number 7 not be "The price must not be high." but should read "The price must not radically alter their lifestyle." This is what they found to be the economical low water mark in Germany and its very much the same here in Canada.
Mr. Marlowe,
Your arguments start with ad hominem, then fall to even worse logical inconsistencies.
Energy companies' profits be not be jeapordized by carbon emissions taxation. The high energy taxation in Europe has done nothing to affect French oil companies' profits as an example.
Secondly the completely cowardly avoidance of the true cost of carbon emissions limitations is only postponing the inevitable failure: a 50% reduction in world carbon emissions by 2050 actually means an 86% reduction in per-capita carbon emissions - as the world population is slated to increase 46% by that year.
Source
http://www.itif.org/files/2010-green-economy-myths.pdf
This same article notes that higher energy prices does not equally translate into better alternative energy sources. If the need is for cleaner energy, there needs to be a clear plan or at least a goal set.
Having CO2 taxes does neither.
To say that mere good intentions is sufficient to achieve an 86% reduction in per capita carbon emissions - much less the even greater reductions needed to compensate for increased 3rd world prosperity hence energy usage - is indeed wishful thinking.
Marlowe-
My point was that it doesn't move the argument forward to state that people that feel one way about a public policy shouldn't because others (industries of various sorts)may agree with them.
Since there is self-interest enough on all sides in this ultimately energy debate (the research establishment, the financial industry, the environmental establishment, various other energy industries, owners of farm and forest land who might get payments through cap and trade for mitigation, and on and on) and political decisions are not hardwired to favor those with the greatest market capitalization, this is not a relevant argument, in my view.
Everyone who uses energy, and pays taxes, has his or her very own self-interest in debating and selecting public policies. In my view, regular people on both sides should get more active in the debate, and calling them "useful idiots" for stating their views does not contribute to a positive atmosphere for the discourse we need to have to have any policies with a broad range of public support.
You can write off wind as an alternative energy source, if your goal is CO2 reduction.
"It is the irony of ironies. Taxpayer and ratepayer-forced subsidies for utility-scale windpower also subsidizes emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). The same would be true under a national renewable portfolio standard as proposed in pending federal legislation."
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/
I meant to add that we will very likely see the same problems for solar energy. So, it now looks like "decarbonization" means doing without, period. And that means the middle class and the poor can do without, while the Al Gores and Nancy Pelosis of the world continue to create as much CO2 as possible, while admonishing the reest of us to use ever less. Sorry, Roger, but unless your ideas for "decarbonization" do not depend upon "alternative energy" or taking energy from the masses, I cannot sign on.
(alex should be JAE, here. Dang her!)
Marlowe -21-
So, how would one analyze the market cap of, say, the EPA? Or the US Congress? What about all of the lost opportunities due to the market distortions introduced by carbon taxes (in whatever guise)?
But let's assume that you're correct, in that the ratio of firms that stand to lose is far greater than of those who stand to gain. Do you really believe that's an argument for cap and trade? Seems to me like it's just another reason not to like such policies.
In any case, no amount of ad hominem changes the underlying issues.
"Having CO2 taxes does neither."
In theory, CO2 taxes should drive long term investment decisions. In practice it hasn't worked.
When an electric utility purchases a power plant, it is making a 40 year investment decision. Expectations as to what the future price of whatever 'base energy' source they use are part of the calculus.
In 2005 EIA was projecting an inflation adjusted price of coal through 2030 of $18/ton.
Nuclear(next cheapest) has a cost equivalent of about $85/ton.
So a CO2 tax would have had to be quite large to effect long term investment decisions.
The Chinese to the rescue, they are burning so much coal that the price of coal on the global markets has quadrupled.
The farther an electric utility is from Gillette, Wyoming the more likely it is using $100/ton for a 'future' coal price when making long term investment decisions.
Without 'CO2' taxes, electric utilities in Georgia, Florida and South Carolina have applications in at the NRC for new nuclear plants. Yes, the government is providing some 'sweeteners', but not nearly to the level provided to wind and solar.
In the transportation sector there is plenty of room for improvement in MPG. Auto manufacturers don't really care how a car is powered and never have. It takes huge sums of money to bring a model to market. If one wants them to invest in 'high MPG' vehicles, they need assurances that a market will exist. Gasoline taxes have never been shown to be significant a motivator in automobile purchasing decisions.
If I look at the parking lot of the local youth soccer league I see it packed with SUV's driven by people who would otherwise be considered to be 'environmentally friendly'.
Perceived 'Personal Safety' is one of the primary factors driving SUV purchases. The amount of tax one would need to encourage someone to give up 'personal safety' is enormous. There is no such thing as a politician who will upset soccer moms.
IMHO The best bet for encouraging high MPG vehicles is through a steadily rising Fuel Economy standard, manufacturers can then have confidence there will be a market for higher MPG vehicles and invest accordingly.
I would note BMW is building a $100 million carbon fiber plant in Washington State. That's a sizeable investment in a factory to make the raw material from which to make a high mileage car.
Harrywr2
My view is that the banks and their friends in government and the UN want to impose Enron's highly profitable carbon trading scheme (and its derivative market)on the world. Regardless of anything.
They don't care about science or public opinion, except in the USA where voters will throw out a politician regardless of party affiliations.
The senate rejected Kyoyo 95-0 because of the potentially devastating effects on the US economy. It was a large mountain to climb.
These are the folks trying to make it happen.
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA)
The biggest lobbying group at Copenhagen was the International Emissions Trading Association which was created to promote carbon trading more than ten years ago.
Its members include :-
BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON AG (coal power stations owner, EDF (one of the largest participants in the global coal market), Gazprom (Russian oil and gas), Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley..
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249
Harrywr2,
In addition to safety, high mileage cars tend to be pretty small. True, most people don't need 4x4 or super large carrying capacity. But have you ever tried putting, say, 2 car seats in what passes for a mid-size sedan these days? Minivans, vans and SUVs are just about the only practical family car, if only for space considerations.
Not to mention issues of head room and foot space. I find that smaller cars are just uncomfortable.
Of course, there's also the misperception regarding consumption vs MPG.
It looks like James Hansen and a few others have already proposed a plan for the USA to go carbon free by 2030. Ambitious perhaps but nice to see him optimistic for once. And we're all totally wrong. All that's needed is political will and the US can go it alone! Thankfully with Holdren, Lubchenko, Chu and the BP oil spill such political will is already here. Worth some dissemination i'd have thought...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es903884a
Ok I admit I was wrong, a mere carbon tax combined with energy efficiency regulations and existing technologies will apparently do the trick. The tax will fund a smart grid, a Thorium reactor program, a new fast breeder program and transmission infrastructure for wind and solar among other goodies.
Missing the point again. This is about delay.
Matt said... 30
"In addition to safety, high mileage cars tend to be pretty small....Minivans, vans and SUVs are just about the only practical family car, if only for space considerations."
Absolutely.
If you are the Chairmen of Ford and know that the popular family sized SUV and Minivans are going to have to get 30 or 40 MPG 10 years how much do you invest in carbon-fiber and composite manufacturing technology so you can get the weight down and the mileage up?
BMW just invested $100 million in a carbon fiber factory in Moses Lake, Washington.
Carbon Fiber costs about $8/pound. Various estimates claim 1,500 pounds of steel could be pulled out of an average car and replaced with 300 pounds of carbon fiber. 300 * $8 = $2,400 to cut 1,200 pounds from the weight of a vehicle.
Some info on carbon fiber research as it relates to the automotive industry from Oak Ridge National Labs.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_releases/get_press_release.cfm?ReleaseNumber=mr20060306-00
#32 - jges
You must be joking. There is no chance of going carbon free given the available technology and CCS will never be deployed at a large scale because of the enormous costs.
Franky, I find it amazing that climate modellers who get quite huffy when "amateurs" question their science seem to have no problem proclaiming themselves experts on the economics of electricity generation despite the lack of training and experience.
jgdes -31
Kinda like a tobacco tax leads to good health.
"These views have been stable for a long time and absent something really dramatic, are unlikely to change appreciably."
I suggest that Governments simply taking action will constitute "something really dramatic" which is highly likely to change public opinion appreciably. So long as "remedies" are only hypothetical they will continue to maintain a level of hypothetical public support which is most unlikely to survive a collision with reality.
EliRabett -32-
Sure...Delay, Defeat, Deny, Destroy. Key components of security in depth. It's difficult to imagine permanent Defeat or Destruction of efforts to tilt at the windmill of CO2, so Delaying those actions and continual Denial of legislation/regulation will have to be good enough.
The Hartwell paper is a breath of fresh air, because it recognises that any action must be practically achievable. So why don't politicians get this? Because AGW is politically an environmental issue (they are wooing the green vote), and environmentalist thinking is antagonistic to the real world solutions we could put in place to make real a start on this.
For environmentalists AGW is an excuse to push sustainable lifestyles, so anything that might allow us to reduce carbon intensity and carry on business as usual, i.e. nuclear power, is anathema.
And the public supports an end to cancer, war and poverty, as well.
When will enough people realize that the focus on CO2 and climate is not the basis for making rational policy?
The paper mentioned by jgdes is complete crap.
There is almost ZERO mention in it of actual dollar figures: my initial cursory review showed only 4 references
1) An Obama administration proposal: the ARRA
2) 3 references to carbon emissions taxes ranging from $25/ton CO2 emission to $70/ton CO2 emissions
The 'plan' would cost multiple trillions at a minimum - the creation of 50-1 GW nuclear power plants alone would be at least $350 billion, and that is assuming no cost overruns (never a good assumption).
Secondly the entire concept that a $25/ton CO2 emissions to $70/ton CO2 emissions will somehow radically change public behavior (i.e. 12.5% to 35% increase in gasoline cost) is equally ludicrous.
The reduction of average energy or electricity usage by 30% to 40% alone would mean radical lifestyle changes.
The taxes in the UK and Europe are equivalent to $400/ton CO2 emissions, yet there is ZERO evidence of Europe having become zero carbon emissions much less actually significantly reducing existing emissions. This despite hundreds of billions, if not trillions spent on wind energy, PV, CSP, and nuclear power plants there.
This is even discounting the as yet unproven capabilities of Thorium reactors and other potential pie-in-the-sky magical solutions envisioned, much less the Unintended Consequences of many of the recommendations: universal installation of ground-coupled heat pumps (!)
Nowhere is it mentioned of more realistic solutions such as what Freeman Dyson pointed out: a genetically modified plant or tree which is designed to sink carbon into more easily sequestered form either as part of the living organism or as a solid (wood).
At the risk of being slightly off topic, here are some specifics on home energy use.. see this article by Mike Rosen on the two tier pricing system Xcel energy is proposing-
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_15262720#comments.
Here's one comment:
" bboulder wrote:There have been plenty of people who have already given their examples of low energy usage. Personally here is mine: 2400sq. ft., three people, 482 kwh last July. Electric range, electric dryer, microwave, dishwasher.
Turn off your TV's, and computers when not in use. Use powerstrips to eliminate "phantom" loads. Turn your thermostat up and consider a swamp cooler instead of A/C. Install CFLs or LED lights. TURN YOUR FREAKING LIGHTS OFF when not needed, even if they are CFL or LED. Don't have a dedicated refrigerator for your beer. Don't run your clothes washer/dryer or dishwasher unless you have full loads. Hang clothes outside when .."
and the response
"WHOA there Chief! I was alright with your ideas right up until you told me to turn off my Kegerator. I'm sorry, but that bad boy is staying plugged in. :P"
Energy policy is as down to earth as your neighbor's Kegerator, and deserves to be discussed and debated by all those whose lives are influenced- that is- all of us.
Roger,
The general public has been fed a one sided continual view on AGW. How are they to know different. Even climategate was NOT covered in the MSM. Using public response in that case is a joke.
#41 Sharon F. said...
"Here's one comment:
482 kwh last July. Electric range, electric dryer, microwave, dishwasher....Don't have a dedicated refrigerator for your beer"
My electricity usage is about that...with a beer fridge. :)
The 'energy debate' is going nowhere as long as it focuses on parts of other peoples lifestyles that environmentalists consider 'wasteful'.
Obviously, if my electricity use is the same as that of an environmentalist who considers a beer fridge to be wasteful, then there must be something in the environmentalists lifestyle that I would consider to be wasteful.
Maybe a better approach is to respect other peoples lifestyle choices and pursue finding ways for them to have what is important to them with a smaller environmental impact.
The average electricity usage is about 920 Kwh per household per month - according to the Department of Energy:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/electricity_faqs.asp
But just being below this number is meaningless: those who live in cold climates for example will inevitable use more energy than those who live in warm ones. Larger families will use more than smaller ones. People who don't work use more than at home than people who do. etc etc.
And the household electricity number is only a small part of the equation. What of the energy/electricity used in the creation of all the products purchased?
The energy/electricity in personal transportation?
Energy/electricity in the workplace?
More importantly: show me how you will be able to reduce your energy profile - not just electricity profile - 86% in order to meet AGW-CO2-Catastrophist stated goals.
That means either using only 67.5 Kwh, or converting all electricity used above that amount into 100% non-carbon emitting sources.
That means if you drive 10000 miles a year using a Prius at 50 mpg, you can only drive 1400.
Installing CFLs isn't going to do the job.
Roger Pielke Jr. is completely correct when he says that attempting to drive change via purportedly painless solutions is hypocritical at best and a waste of time at worst.
Harrywr2- But then you'd have to listen to people's opinions and not necessarily jump right in to telling them what to do.. which is exactly where this post started ;).
Point #10 pretty much nullifies the value of points 1-9.
From Point #1:
A large majority of the public, in the US and more generally in most places worldwide ...
As a statement, especially the "more generally in most places worldwide" part, it's nebulous at best.
Let's take China as an example, with a population of 1.3 billion people. The vast majority has zero understanding, let alone ability or even the information, to have an informed opinion on AGW. You'd have to go a far way to proving that there is even a legitimate methodology that could accurately gauge the opinions of the average Chinese citizen or to assign an opinion on AGW to even a simple majority of their population (something like 700 million people).
Now extend that through vast swaths of India, Africa, etc. Then add in the part about the several decades this has been the case, and the statement (from point 1) just can't be supported by facts (or you should really reference some credible sources...)
You'd be better off just saying "among the people that actually matter".
Again, Point 10 makes it meaningless anyways.
Jon Krosnick of Stadford University is taking some pretty big hits for the "poll":
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/17/opinion/lweb17gallup.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/opinion/l14climate.html
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/21/lawrence-solomon-global-warming-strategist-scores-new-york-times-coup/
Krosnick gets different results than other pollsters do by asking questions that some might consider bizarre.
....
And here is Gallup’s conclusion: “Mr. Krosnick’s article gave the impression … of an attempt to dismiss certain survey trend results because they did not fit his overall thesis.”
The media-savvy Krosnick, of course, knows all this without advice from Pew and Gallup. As he also knows, a winning communication strategy and an accurate one are entirely separate things.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/21/lawrence-solomon-global-warming-strategist-scores-new-york-times-coup/
Why do some academics feel the need to behave like this ?
It's a grown up version of 'cool'. Global warming belief is cool. We are the good guys. We are politically correct. We know what's best.
Except, contrary to their fantasies, global warming is supported by every major corporation on earth.
Post a Comment