Global Warming

(11/19/2009) - One of the main tenants (if not the main tenant) of mainstream “conservative” economics (i.e. those supported by large, pro-business organizations like the Club for Growth of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), or the Republican Party, but not necessarily all that consider themselves conservatives) is that the world works better when Government stays out of people’s business.

One of my main problems with these organizations is that they tend to be very selective when complaining about government-supported projects.  They are, for instance, usually in favor of increasing military spending.  The programs large conservative groups tend to focus on do have one thing in common – they are issues supported by many economic liberals.  Trains, social welfare, unions, support for bike lanes, the US Postal Service, climate change – these issues and organizations are perennially by conservatives as punching bags. 

The problem is that when “liberal” and free-market economic principles align, the big conservatives groups tend to grow silent because their existence seems dependent on opposition to liberal values.  It’s a shame.  It think the country could be improved greatly if they allied with liberals on common agendas, but that would make Obama and liberals look too good, so I don’t expect to see it happen.

(2/9/2009) - Al Giordano recently wrote an article discussing the differences between what he calls activism and organizing.  While Giordano is biased toward what he defines as organizing, I think the distinctions he draws can be used to evaluate the modern environmental movement.

Giodano describes activism as “the practice of preaching to the choir, rallying the already converted, and trying to convince other "activists" to do your work for you (say, call your Congressman, or write your Senator for or against a piece of legislation)...Activism seeks media attention through protests and other means, errantly thinking it will draw others to its cause by doing so. This dominant tendency in "activism" becomes a circular, self-reinforcing, self-marginalizing, chest-thumping, bureaucratic and anally-retentive activity and a big waste of time with little impact on the issues or policies it seeks to change or defend.”

Organizing, on the other hand, “is based on attainable and quantifiable goals (be they small, as in, "put a stop sign in the neighborhood," or be they large, as occurred last year: elect an underdog as president of the United States). Here's a simple yardstick by which to measure: If it doesn't involve knocking on doors, making phone calls or otherwise proactively communicating with people demographically different than you, it's not organizing.  If it happens only on the Internet, that's not organizing either.”

Recessions – extended periods of negative growth in GDP – are almost universally considered bad.  As you might have heard, the U.S. has been in recession for over a year.  Hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs every month, with few prospects for new employment.  Those with jobs are saving their money in fear that they might be next, which in turn worsens the recession and increases the likelihood that they will lose their job.  Depression levels rise, health problems increase (“I can’t afford my gym membership or colonoscopy or mammogram right now”), and standard of living decreases. 

But are recessions good for the environment?  Yes and no.  The answer depends on what aspect of the long-term health of our finite planet you are talking about, and how people react to the new situation.  If we are destined to continue consuming until we are left with nothing, then the recession buys us and the planet a little more time.  But if we are going to live in a more sustainable manner, the recession is a setback. 

Scalpel, Not Hatchet

A shrinking economy is caused by reduced consumption.  During a recession, people buy less.  When people don’t buy as much, fewer trees need to be cut down, mineral extraction slows, and less energy is consumed (meaning fewer greenhouse gas emissions). 

(1/2/2009) - The basic premise of Robert Bryce’s Gusher of Lies is that U.S. efforts to attain energy independence are A) not worth it and, B) probably not even possible. Though Bryce does a pretty good job dissecting the meaninglessness of political rhetoric of energy independence from the past four years, Gusher of Lies fails to recognize the energy-related problems we do face.  Bryce’s world is one in which global warming is nothing to worry about, extraneous costs associated with burning fossil fuels don’t exist, and the average American is destined to remain a consuming, tax cutting machine forever.  This shortcoming severely limits the book’s applicability to the wider world of energy issues. 

In the first half of the book, Bryce looks mostly at the oil industry, and describes the differences between political rhetoric with regards to energy independence and the reality of the situation.  The long and the short of it is that the United States uses more oil every year as it produces less, and is therefore increasingly reliant on imports.  Even if the United States could move itself quickly off of oil or only buy oil from countries we like, the so-called petro-dictators will still get plenty of money selling its oil on the world market.  Plus, countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia need our money just as much or more than we need their oil.  Overall, Bryce does a good job describing why the foreign policy rationales for trying to achieve energy independence don’t add up upon close inspection.  If you are an energy independence diehard, this section of the book is worth a read if you are left unconvinced by shorter articles.

(12/22/2008) - One of the biggest long-term challenges in the battle to prevent global warming will be convincing China, India, and every other developing nation not to follow in our footsteps by developing a coal powered and gasoline fueled economy.  It is a problem that doesn't get sufficient attention from global warming activists in the United States, who try to tailor their solutions to the United States without considering global implications.

In a 2007 talk at the World Affairs Council of Northern California, Steven Chu (Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary) outlined some of the problems the world faces.  Chu said that somewhere between two to three billion people don’t have access to “modern energy...meaning that they cook with dung or sticks.”  He also estimated that 1.6 to 1.7 billion people don’t have access to electricity. 

This will change as countries like China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Botswana, and many more increase the standard of living within their borders.  Demand for electricity is rising around the world and most of it is fulfilled with power produced in coal-fired plants.  Chu says that the good and the bad news is that there’s plenty of coal left to feed rising demand.

(12/4/2008) - California start-up Cool Earth Solar (CES) claims that they offer, “A clean energy solution that massively scales to meet the world's power demands at prices competitive with traditional fossil fuels.”  As I have discussed before, this kind of hyperbole is standard fare in promotional literature for clean energy companies.  A simple, “We make solar PV that is price competitive with traditional fossil fuels,” would have been sufficient to grab my attention.