Dreamers vs. Pragmatic

(3/12/2009) - Some writers like to frame policy choices as dreamer vs. the pragmatic.  In this telling, the author portrays the dreamer as a well-meaning individual whose ideas are sadly naive and unrealistic.  In a perfect world, we'd all love to follow the dreamer.  But we don't live in a perfect world, so their vision won't come to fruition.  On the other hand, the author presents the hard-nosed, pragmatic individual who presents a clear-headed vision of what can actually be accomplished.  As the issue is framed, we should follow the pragmatic vision, because their goals are more likely to be reached or obtained.  The pragmatic side is also portrayed as "realism."

Matthew McDermott's presentation of projections by the Copenhagen Climate Congress' Peter Lund is a good example of this framing:

"TreeHugger has covered all sorts of plans to transform the US's energy mix towards far greater amounts of renewable energy over the coming years, Al Gore's generational challenge to repower America being perhaps the most prominent. Under than plan (really more a visionary proposal) the US would generate 100% of its electricity from renewable sources within the next 10 years. A more sober projection was made at the Copenhagen Climate Congress by Professor Peter Lund of the Helsinki University of Technology:

"In his presentation "Global market penetration of new renewable energy technologies: assessing future growth rates and energy impacts", Lund said with the proper financial and political support, by 2050 renewable energy could supply 40% of the world's electricity supply. Of that 15% would be from solar power and 25% from wind power (20% of that from offshore wind farms)."

What isn't addressed here is what it means for the world if only 40% of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2050.  According to Wikipedia, a little more than 21% of all greenhouse gases come from electricity-generating power stations.  Assuming that increases in electrical use in the developing world are offset by improved efficiency in the developed world so that electricity demand remains flat over the next 41 years (a big, big, big if), then Lund is projecting that renewable energy will cut global greenhouse gas emissions by about 8.5% (this assumes that renewable sources replaces current energy sources in an even manner).  In order to reach the goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050, we need to cut power plant emissions by even more. 

The problem with the dreamer vs. pragmatic telling is that it marginalizes the "dreamer" without presenting any reason for the marginalization.  There are no physical boundaries that would prevent at least the United States from acquiring 100% of its electricity from renewable resources if that's what we decided to do as a country.  Of course, this would require major investment, changes in people's lifestyles, and more.  I think can have a legitimate debate over whether or not these sacrifices are worth it.  However, we shouldn't dismiss the possibility out of hand as a "visionary" proposal.