I’ve seen that video and just the other day I heard someone ultra-rich on the radio talking about how she would rather she and other would be billionaire philanthropists be taxed to provide health care and good education through college to all as a right, rather than have those things depend on bequests from them. I agreed with her and I agree with what you’ve written here. This must have something to do with that expression about the difficulty of fitting through the eye of a needle so long as we pursue limitless profit at any cost.
3 Likes
Yes, we could have apparent “business-as-usual” even while the results will not be the same beyond a point. Instead, we will be running as fast as we can to stay in one place, like the Queen in Through the Looking Glass. The damages from climate change will likely eat up any material gains, at least on average. The problem is that the wealthy will still find ways to get wealthier even while leaving everyone else to suffer.
There is also another way the business-as-usual scenario could never materialize. It may depend on economic fossil fuels which will run out at a point. We may have reserves which we can never economically exploit.
Fossil fuels become more expensive to extract over time. This is because we picked the low hanging fruit first, the best-quality and cheapest, leaving the more expensive to refine and the harder to access for later. And later is coming fast.
It requires energy to produce energy. The Energy Returned On Investment (EROI) number keeps getting lower and lower until, at last, more energy would have to be spent than the amount which could be recovered by spending it. Even before that point, the energy will no longer be economical to extract. This means that we will never burn all of our proven reserves. By one author’s estimate, it will be unlikely for supply problems to crop up until the second half of this century, though there may be price problems before then. However, the dropping costs of renewables like solar and wind power will likely spell the end for fossil fuels long before that happens.
By 2100, economical oil and gas will be gone. They will last us for 40 to 70 years, depending on our rate of consumption. Much of what will be left in our reserves, in oil shales, tar sands, and under the oceans, will be too costly to recover. They will become what are called stranded assets. Minable coal reserves have been substantially overestimated. U.S. coal production could peak in the next decade.
In other words, the choices are not between adapting to climate change or staying the same, but between changing on our own initiative or being forced to change later when it is much more costly and damaging. We need to use our fossil fuels to adapt to climate change while they are still in cheap supply
Many corporations (like the insurance industry), and even the military, are very aware of the potential costs of ignoring climate change. So capitalism (or at least properly regulated capitalism) may save us yet. The problem is that the externalities are not built into our economic models at present.
3 Likes
Explain then how the US became energy independent and gasoline is currently $2.29 (at least in my area).
It is true that because of fracking technologies, we are enjoying a longer period of lower prices than previously expected. I should have qualified what I wrote.
We’ve heard that we are running out of fossil fuels for some time now, and it still remains true even if we have extended what we can recover by fracking. While new reserves may be discovered, resources always go down. New discoveries would have to be big to maintain the rate of consumption. A part of the problem is our increasing rate of demand from the developing world, and especially from such countries as China and India. Demand is projected to grow 50% by 2050. Yet one estimate is that we will see oil production peak and then begin to slowly decline by 2030. Venezuela, Russia, and the U.S. have already peaked. Coal and natural gas will peak before 2040.
At least that what I read.
1 Like
There was another aspect of the question. We are not, in fact, paying the full costs of the fossil fuels we burn.
Externalities are costs which are not figured into the prices of commodities. In the case of fossil fuels, there are many such externalities, including the health costs of pollution, the military costs of defending oil-producing countries overseas, and the subsidies and tax write-offs which fossil fuel industries receive.
Such externalities are market failures, since the true costs aren’t reflected by market prices. The prices are wrong for nearly everything because of embedded CO₂. Those who benefit don’t pay the costs they should, which creates perverse incentives within our economic system to engage in climate-changing behaviors.
Global subsidies for fossil fuels run at about $500 billion dollars a year, many times what is spent to encourage renewables. If consumers paid directly for the subsidies, tax breaks, and military protection for oil, one estimate is that costs would run about $2 a gallon higher at the pump. Plus industries pay nothing for using our common atmosphere as a carbon sink. And that doesn’t even include the economic impacts of climate change. If those funds were merely redirected, we could encourage renewables without enlarging the government. A true free market would charge both companies and the individuals who use the fuels. Instead, we privatize the profits and socialize the costs of fossil fuels.
Although our own environmental standards have tightened, companies get around them by moving manufacturing to countries with less strict regulations. That effectively moves our fossil fuel emissions from such industries across borders and overseas, and incurs huge transportation emissions as well. But the emissions all end up in our common atmosphere. Between 1995 and 2005, Europe reduced its domestic emissions by 6% while its total carbon emissions got worse by 18% due to such imported emissions. Similarly, we are moving our deforestation to other countries as well.
3 Likes
In the discussion of a topic which is based on projections it might be a good idea to not bring in another topic for which past projections were proven wrong when unanticipated feedback kicked in. This is not to say fossil fuels will last forever, but simply that “the reports of its death have been greatly exaggerated”.
1 Like
Is the US energy independent?
How did it acquire whatever level of independence it does enjoy?
Explain how the price of gas in one area of the US is supposed to stand as a challenge to what you’ve quoted.
It is what I have read.
New technology and finding new reserves.
Alan was just repeating the “Peak Oil” argument which if it had been correct would have meant we would all be paying much more for gasoline than we currently do.
This may be just a matter of understandable reaction against “world is ending tomorrowism” that any movement like peak oil will inevitably get associated with it. Or like someone looking at the last downward tick of a graph and asking “global temperature rise? what temperature rise?” while neglecting to take into account a longer stretch of graph that shows a general upward trend.
It is true that a decade or so ago, I wouldn’t have foreseen that gas would still be this affordable in 2019. It is also true that within my own lifetime I have experienced gas at less than $0.50 / gallon (and over heard geezers reminiscing that they had declared back in the day that if gas ever climbed over $0.50/gal that they would start walking. So the fact that we can speak of $2.50/gal as surprisingly reasonable (and have also experienced that any slightest market uncertainty can easily send it north of $4/gal without disturbing us enough to make us adjust habits) is a sign of our mental adjustment to new norms. Since it is a finite resource, our present course is simply unsustainable. Period.
The best we can hope for is that we can be goaded off of it while we still have the (only somewhat expensive) options of controlling / reducing our energy appetites and finding greener sources. An ounce of healthy alarmism about this now is probably worth a ton of saved catastrophe later. Better to be prepared and wrong (or thus successfully avoiding what could have been so wrong) than to be unprepared and wrong.
2 Likes
I worked at a filling station in my youth, back when dirt was new, and sold gas at $0.12 / gallon.
Notice I did say back there that fossil fuels will not last forever.
Also no one has mentioned that if the US was to take all the measures necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that it would not solve the problem if the rest of the world doesn’t follow along. I believe China is the leading contributor by a factor of 2.
Starting to sound like “Mom, why can’t I poison the planet. The neighbors all get to.”
You are correct. What I should have said was that the projection is for rising prices in the future, with increased competition for dwindling oil resources.
Three-quarters of all greenhouse gases since the industrial revolution have been emitted, not surprisingly, by industrial nations. Since the poorest countries use little energy per capita, they generally need not make great efforts to reduce climate change. The exceptions are China and India, whose huge populations have great impacts. China overtook the U.S. in 2008 to become the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The 15 largest emitters, in order, are: China, the U.S., the European Union, India, the Russian Federation, Japan, Korea, Canada, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, Australia, and South Africa.
But those are present emissions. Historically, the U.S. was responsible for 30.3% and Europe for 27.7% of the carbon emissions which have built up in our atmosphere. It isn’t surprising, then, that many developing countries consider our advantage unjust.
Different countries have different per capita carbon footprints. Annually, Americans average a 16 ton carbon footprint. This doesn’t even count the emissions other countries produce with their manufacturing to create the products we buy. The global average carbon footprint is only 4 tons annually in comparison. The Chinese only have a per capita carbon footprint of 7.5 tons annually, and the Indians 2 tons.
The average American is responsible for twice as much CO₂ emission as the average Japanese or European, which means we could have roughly the same standard of living while burning far fewer fossil fuels if we were more clever about it. U.S. emissions dropped by about 12% between 2005 and 2012 because of the major recession in 2008, increasing auto efficiency standards, converting power stations from coal to gas, and the solar and wind boom. We have room for a lot more improvements, and we obviously have the capacity to change.
2 Likes
The world is making progress in fighting climate change, though not fast enough so far.
Brazil cut its deforestation of the Amazon by 80% in a decade. Primarily due to its efforts, worldwide deforestation has dropped to about half its previous rate. Brazil also now generates almost half of its energy from renewables.
Among the nations which are already switching to renewables, Germany is at 25%, Spain at 35%, and Portugal at 50%. Denmark gets 40% of its electricity from renewables, is shooting for 100% by 2035, and plans to ban the sale of new fossil-fueled cars in 2030.
In Germany, 65% of renewable power sources are owned by individuals, cooperatives, and communities who are decentralizing energy production. Citizens are taking the matter into their own hands, aided by a far-sighted, 20-year guaranteed premium price paid to anyone for renewable energy. Many people are willing to pay slightly more for their power to help deal with climate change.
France plans to be coal free by 2021. France and Britain plan to end the sale of gas and diesel cars by 2040. The European Union plans to have 35% clean vehicles by 2030 and to become carbon neutral by 2050.
Over three dozen countries have set a price for carbon, and support for a carbon tax is growing globally. A carbon tax seems much less radical now, since it would offer predictability to businesses, enabling them to plan efficiently. In 2014, seventy countries had feed-in tariffs to set a long-term purchase price for electricity produced by renewables. Many others mandate a percentage of renewables to encourage their adoption within a realistic time frame to combat climate change. There is a global covenant of mayors for climate and energy in 7000 cities in 12 countries. In 49 countries, emissions have already peaked. In another 8 countries, emissions will likely peak in the next decade or so.
In the U.S., 70% of all new energy-generating capacity comes from solar and wind power. The U.S., China, and India will account for two-thirds of global renewable expansion to 2022. General Motors and Ford plan to introduce a range of all-electric vehicles in the 2020s. China intends that one in five cars will run on alternative fuels by 2025, and plans to eventually do away with internal combustion cars altogether. China is the leading manufacturer of solar panels and a major supplier of wind turbines. India will sell only electric cars by 2030.
New York City has set the goal of reducing greenhouse gases 30% by 2030. The city is planning ahead to encourage trees, parks, bike lanes, mass transit, energy efficiency, clean air, and lower traffic congestion. New York State and California plan to cut their emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% by 2050. By themselves, Californians have the 5th largest economy on the planet, and yet they are on track to accomplish these goals. The mayor of Los Angeles plans to make the city carbon neutral by 2050. Hawaii is committed to 100% clean energy. Many U.S. cities and 36 states have renewable energy goals or portfolios.
2 Likes
The situation with global warming is indeed dire, and is much worse than most can imagine. It exacerbates floods, wild fires, heat waves, etc. Global warming is already happening, the main cause is our burning of fossil fuels, has caused many to suffer, and has cost us untold millions of dollars. (Sorry for the lack of cheerfulness.)
Yet there is a whole industry dedicated to global warming denialism, funded by conservative billionaires (Including the John Templeton Foundation.) Global Warming deniers use the same tactics that the tobacco industry successfully used to avoid regulation for years on end. See the book Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, and the film by the same name.
Here’s the trailer. It’s not unusual for climate scientsts to receive vulgar insults and even death threats (You’ll see examples at the end of the trailer.)
4 Likes
I’d be interested in your top pick first. I’ve got to admit that while I care I can easily get overwhelmed by the complexity of the information.
But yes please!
2 Likes
The IEA has reported that if energy efficiency measures using established technologies, were adopted, it would result in a 40% reduction in emissions.
2 Likes
I personally like the way Bjorn Lomborg (Copenhagen Consensus) places the climate crisis in a saner context. A recent interview: Bjorn Lomborg on the Costs and Benefits of Attacking Climate Change - Econlib
- Current proposed efforts will have minuscule effects in climate while inflicting a heavy cost on many (cost benefit doesn’t make sense).
- Fostering economic development will be far better for the poor and developing countries, better positioning them to mitigate and deal with the consequences.
- Reports of current climate change effects are greatly exaggerated and insignificant.
- When it comes to policies dealing with global issues, there are several with proven, cost effective solutions that should be proportionately prioritized.
- Climate change will take effect over a long time. Investing in R&D will produce better, more feasible countermeasures developed over that time. Plus, current technologies are guaranteed to be much cheaper.
This is a short, devil’s advocate summary.
The humanist worldview can be inordinately pessimistic in these issues.
1 Like
Climatologist Michael Mann describes what Bjorn Lomborg is doing as “a kinder, gentler denialism” in his book The Madhouse Effect (pages 113-114):
“Lomborg’s arguments often have a veneer of plausibility, but scratch the surface, and you will witness a sleight of hand, where climate projections are lowballed; climate change impacts, damages, and costs are underestimated; and the huge current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, both direct and indirect, are ignored.”
“Despite his professed sympathy for the plight of the developing world, Lomborg occasionally betrays his disregard for those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. In one op-ed, for example, he stated that ‘a 20-foot rise in sea levels … would inundate about 16,000 square miles of the coastline, where more than 400 million people currently live. That’s a lot of people, to be sure, but hardly all of mankind. In fact, it amounts to less than 6% of the world’s population – which is to say that 94% of the population would not be inundated.’ Yes – you read that right. What’s 400 million people among friends?”
And of course, sea level rise is not the only issue, but just one of many. I read this just this morning:
“India is among the countries expected to be worst affected by the impacts of climate crisis, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) say that even if the world succeeds in cutting carbon emissions, limiting the predicted rise in average global temperatures, parts of India will become so hot they will test the limits of human survivability. ‘The future of heat waves is looking worse even with significant mitigation of climate change, and much worse without mitigation,’ said Elfatih Eltahir, a professor of hydrology and climate at MIT.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/asia/india-heat-wave-survival-hnk-intl/index.html
So at a point we have to look at what the majority of qualified scientists are telling us, especially since some people, including some scientists, are being paid by fossil fuel industrialists to represent their interests as if the issue of climate change was a legal battle in court. IPCC reports represent majority scientific opinions, and are in fact summaries of the comprehensive research.
4 Likes