 |
 |
 |
|
|
        |
| |
|
|
|
Why We Can Disagree to Agree
In a debate at the Cato Institute, Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that liberals and conservatives don't need to agree about the seriousness of global warming. We can all embrace investment in energy infrastructure, technology, and education for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.
For 20 years, liberals and conservatives have been locked in a debate about the relative seriousness of climate change. Conservatives have either denied that it was happening or played down its significance, while liberals and environmentalists have tended to see it as ecological apocalypse meriting either extreme personal sacrifice or a supposed cost-free regulatory fix. That debate is now undergoing a major shift. Conservatives like Jim Manzi, Newt Gingrich and others recognize that humans are affecting the climate and that something should be done about it. Liberals and environmentalists, like Joe Romm and most recently Al Gore, are beginning to recognize the political futility of peddling sacrifice, and have started emphasizing the need to make clean energy cheap. To be sure, both camps are still far apart in their view of global warming, with Romm seeing it as a future hell on earth and Manzi viewing it as little more than a rounding error. But if we fixate on these radically divergent views of the problem we risk missing some signs of agreement over what should be done about it. Tribes Building New Coal Plants
"As the nation searches for new sources of energy, tribes are at a crossroads," Climate Wire reported today. "They hold 30 percent of the nation's coal reserves and have an abundant supply of oil and natural gas, but also face a growing climate change movement determined to stop development of fossil fuels and spur renewable energy."
"As the nation searches for new sources of energy, tribes are at a crossroads," Climate Wire reported today. "They hold 30 percent of the nation's coal reserves and have an abundant supply of oil and natural gas, but also face a growing climate change movement determined to stop development of fossil fuels and spur renewable energy." Last week, the Crow Nation announced plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant in Montana that may provide fuel for the Air Force. That followed news of a potential coal-fired power plant on Navajo Nation land in New Mexico. Unlikely Allies
Odd bedfellows sometimes make for difficult coalitions, and I have no doubt there will be many bumps in the road to a sustainable energy system. But the Pickens plan tells me that the coalition we need could extend very far beyond the usual suspects. This could be quite a ride.
By Frank Laird, Breakthrough Senior Fellow I kept wanting to title this blog "Hell freezes over . . ." Seeing T. Boone Pickens on TV promoting wind energy and implicitly criticizing the current administration was more than a little disorienting, not to mention quite a bit of fun. But it also has important implications for promoting a clean energy system. The Pickens plan proposes using wind to help reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. At first glance, this seems unlikely to work, since wind produces electricity and the United States uses very little oil to produce electricity. The Pickens plan squares this circle by calling for another change: promoting cars that use natural gas instead of gasoline. The rapid expansion of wind power could displace natural gas electricity generation, which then frees up natural gas to use in transportation, which reduces the need for oil and so dependence on imported oil. The obvious problem with this plan is finding ways to put large number of natural-gas powered cars on the road and create the accompanying fueling infrastructure. Whether or not the Pickens plan will work, we shouldn't miss the larger point: Pickens's announcement shows how large the potential political coalition is for an innovation policy focused on making clean energy cheap. For those of us who have watched the energy scene for many years, it's hard to overstate how shocking it is to see T. Boone Pickens promoting wind power. And his promotion of wind is concrete; he's putting the largest windfarm in the world near Sweetwater, Texas. Pickens is the classic conservative, hard-nosed, Texas oil man, right out of central casting. He has been an outspoken opponent of almost anything associated with liberal politics or environmentalism. He was a funder of the infamous Swiftboat ads in the 2004 presidential campaign. If people like him can get excited about clean energy, the potential coalition for clean energy is much bigger than I had imagined. Michael and Ted have been promoting an innovation-based energy policy precisely because it could break the old political stalemates and mobilize a new coalition that could put in place a vastly larger, long-term set of policies to make clean energy a reality. I thought they were right and had already seen people like the hip Silicon Valley venture capitalists, and even some folks from the fossil fuel industry, getting interested in renewable energy. But I never thought I'd see the like of T. Boone Pickens putting up a website that extolled the virtues of renewables. Odd bedfellows sometimes make for difficult coalitions, and I have no doubt there will be many bumps in the road to a sustainable energy system. But the Pickens plan tells me that the coalition we need could extend very far beyond the usual suspects. This could be quite a ride. Gang of Ten Could Upset Energy Debate
For the past two weeks, Democrats have been losing the energy debate -- badly. But a "New Energy Reform Act" proposal from the "Gang of 10" is starting to gain serious traction and could upset the debate.
For the past two weeks, Democrats have been losing the energy debate -- badly. Poll after poll showed Democrats losing major ground in the fight over new oil drilling, and some declared that energy could be a turning point in the run-up to November. At the Breakthrough Institute, we ran a series of responses: here, here, here, and here. But a "New Energy Reform Act" proposal from the "Gang of 10" -- a group of five Democrats and five Republicans in the Senate -- is starting to gain serious traction and could upset the debate. Drilling on America's Land, Drilling on America's Terms
All the polling points demonstrates the fact that Americans are ready to start drilling, seeing it as a tangible way to help bring down prices at the pump. Whether or not this notion is true, Republicans continue to score political points hammering the Democrats for standing in the way of a solution that voting citizens support. And, if Democrats want to not only help Americans, but come out as the political winners, it is imperative that Democrats accept drilling, but accept it on their terms, not on Republican terms.
by Jesse Jenkins and Adam Solomon Zemel, Breakthrough Generation Democratic candidates from Obama on down have said they would be willing to compromise on offshore drilling--if presented with the right compromise. Many see this as a harbinger of energy-related political retreats to come ("if he's ready to open up the OCS, who's to say that Obama won't withdraw support for a cap-and-trade policy when he gets in office"). However, far from simple political posturing, a real compromise on off-shore drilling could pave the way to clean, affordable energy sources for the future, provide long term relief for consumers (i.e. American citizens), and make promises that politicians and the government can actually keep. All the polling points demonstrates the fact that Americans are ready to start drilling, seeing it as a tangible way to help bring down prices at the pump. Whether or not this notion is true, Republicans continue to score political points hammering the Democrats for standing in the way of a solution that voting citizens support. And, if Democrats want to not only help Americans, but come out as the political winners, it is imperative that Democrats accept drilling, but accept it on their terms, not on Republican terms. Continue reading "Drilling on America's Land, Drilling on America's Terms" » Now, to Refine the Energy Solution.
Climate change, economic revival, energy abundance: these are big challenges. But we need a more sophisticated plan than "take everything we can get!"
by Helen Aki, Breakthrough Generation Fellow
There's a simple relationship between energy and civilization: more energy means more activity, growth, and prosperity. The defining challenge of our era is to think responsibly about how we use energy, as we strive to meet the demands of developing nations, struggle with a failing economy, and mitigate climate change. Part of the problem is that we've taken energy for granted. Energy fuels everything we do. But we've outgrown our youthful years of abundant oil, as a nation and as a planet. Richard Smalley estimated in 2004 that if the world population were to stabilize at 10 billion people, they would demand 60 terawatts of energy in order to live prosperous, secure lives--more than four times what we currently use. At the same time, the oil that drove America's progress is becoming less and less viable as an energy source. It is becoming increasingly clear that the most sophisticated and effective option is not to simply throw more energy, any energy, at the problem(s). So what now? Democrats Are Losing the Battle of the Century
Democrats are getting trounced on the biggest election issue and quickly losing the most important political battle of the new century: energy. So why are they losing and what will it take to win the energy battle?
No, it's not the 2008 election. It's the fight over the future of American energy policy. And Democrats are getting trounced by a disciplined Republican offensive on oil drilling. According to a statewide survey released on July 30th, a slim majority of Californians now supports expanded oil drilling off our state's treasured coastline. Support for offshore drilling is even up six percent among the state's Democrats. In a land where offshore drilling has been a third-rail of politics for decades, this new surge in support for drilling is as sure a sign that Democrats are quickly losing ground to the vigorous GOP offensive to Drill! Drill! Drill! for more oil. Continue reading "Democrats Are Losing the Battle of the Century" » Why the "prices won't come down for a long time" argument doesn't work
Breakthrough Institute President Michael Shellenberger points to why the environmental argument against drilling -- "that prices won't come down for a long time" -- doesn't work.
By Michael Shellenberger, co-founder and president of the Breakthrough Institute. I have been confused as to why Americans still support oil drilling even after we progressives and greens have repeatedly explained to the American people (as I did on Hannity and Fox) that gas prices won't come down for many years -- perhaps as many as 10 years -- and even then by only a few cents. In a phrase: supply and demand. It's a powerful mental short-cut. If gas prices are too high, we need more oil. Who cares if it doesn't give us relief right now? And who cares if it doesn't lower gas prices by much? Given the way poll numbers are changing, Americans have decided they'd rather have a little price relief than continued environmental protection. Continue reading "Why the "prices won't come down for a long time" argument doesn't work" » You Have to Protect Your Core
The National Center for Atmospheric Research will shut down its program focused on strengthening poor countries' ability to deal with droughts, floods and other climate-related hazards. Breakthrough Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr. reflects on the damaging politics that often take place among disciplines in academia and the dangerous truth that the consequences of ceasing this program extend far beyond the academic walls.
By Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr. Roger is a professor of Environmental Studies at U.C. Denver, serves as a Fellow at CIRES, and worked with the National Center for Atmospheric Research from 1993-2001. Roger has done pioneering work on proper role of scientists and experts in society. He is a guest contributer to the Breakthrough blog and also maintains his own science policy blog, Prometheus. In 2003 Dan Sarewitz and I wrote an article titled "Wanted: Scientific Leadership on Climate" (PDF). In that article we made the following brash assertion: What happens when the scientific community's responsibility to society conflicts with its professional self interest? In the case of research related to climate change the answer is clear: Self interest trumps responsibility. Our argument was that the scientific community sought to take care of its own interests first while "the needs and capabilities of decisionmakers who must deal with climate change have played little part in guiding research priorities." If you need any evidence that little has changed in the five years since we wrote that article, have a look at this story by Andy Revkin in today's New York Times. The article discusses the termination of the Center for Capacity Building at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the nation's largest government-supported atmospheric (and related) sciences research lab. "Like, Totally Ready to Lead"
Dark horse presidential candidate Paris Hilton reveals her energy plan for America as she makes a move for the White House this November. Breakthrough Generation Fellow Adam Zemel examines whether the "Hilton Solution" has what it takes to provide lasting solutions to our mounting energy crisis.
By Adam Solomon Zemel, Breakthrough Generation Dark horse third party presidential candidate Paris Hilton released an online campaign ad taking on allegations about her connections to other 2008 candidates, and formally announcing her energy policy. Hilton's announcement is an effort to put an end to speculation about how she would lead our country to energy independence. Like many others, I'm not surprised to see Hilton proposing a plan that will garner support for both sides of the political spectrum (and one can only assume it is part of a larger strategy to carry the votes of centrists from both parties): "We can do limited offshore drilling--with strict environmental oversight--while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved!" | |
|
|
