date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 19:00:19 -0600 from: Marty Hoffert (by way of Michael Schlesinger) subject: Samuelson: The Dirty Secret About Global Warming to: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu Bob: You have the guts and honesty to say what many climate/energy researchers and science reporters know but scarcely dare to utter: "The Emperor Has No Clothes." (cf. your piece below.) We six billion Homo sapiens are going boldly forth into the uncharted waters of this century with very little "on the shelf" to address the most disruptive energy technology challenge since we left East African savannas a hundred thousand years ago. The challenge of building a sustainable energy infrastructure capable of running high tech civilization at 50 to 100 terawatts, a level required for equity of the world's population at a western lifestyle, and at the same time achieving phaseout of CO2 emissions by midcentury -- the objective global warming mitigation problem -- is so daunting many fear even speaking of it will paralyze the masses. This is a huge job. Don't expect to work around global warming and keep civilization's business as usual by "adaption" without an energy revolution either. Most adaptation paths -- building seawalls, massive indoor air conditioning, irrigation previously rain-fed agriculture in drought regions -- require massive amounts of energy. Is it better to live with the delusion that solutions are at hand? There have, of course, been prior forecasts of civilization's collapse as its life support systems break down; as did happen, for example, on Easter Island and other places. But the moral of "The Boy who Cried Wolf," isn't that there is no wolf. The moral is that we should not be lulled into thinking the wolf won't come because he hasn't so far. We scientists and engineers optimistic enough to think the problem is doable, but hard, even if we disagree on specific approaches, believe the problem can be solved if we face it as an objective problem of planetary engineering; a discipline that we will need, but one that doesn't yet exist. In light of the historic failure of experts to predict which technologies will succeed, and which will fail, and on what time scales, a big danger is prematurely ruling out approaches that could work. We have to research and develop on a great deal of innovative ideas and test them, some of which might seem "crazy," knowing in advance that many will fail. Our guide has to be scientific plausibility, which gets back to education (see below). In any case, technology evolution is like biological evolution insofar as both need mutations. Most mutations fail in the battleground of natural selection. But without them evolution stops. Our best chance for a hopeful outcome from the crunch ahead in is to treat the climate/energy challenge as a war of survival in which failure isn't an option. Anyone who thinks we can muddle though should think again. If we believe our magnificent civilization, built upon the ideas of the Enlightenment and the scientific method, is worth saving, even with its evident flaws, a civilization on which we stand, in the words of Newton, on the shoulders of giants, we've got to stop dissembling about our technological readiness to solve the climate/energy problem. We have to stop saying technical solutions are here; that they basically exist, without defining what "exist" even means. It's brain-deadening to say "Cap and Trade," or carbon taxes alone, will solve the problem, because it distracts from the question of where carbon-neutral primary power will come from capable of running civilization. We simply don't have the luxury of scientific illiteracy, particularly of leaders, who in the US tend to have legal, not scientific, education, when science and technology underpin our very existence. It was precisely the belief that creative accounting trumps creative engineering that characterized the Enron Ponzi scheme. What's really scary is the thought that Kenneth Lay may have really believed he had a business plan. Economics in its predictive mode is closer to astrology than to the hard sciences. Much of it's predictions are ideological delusions (some of my best friends are economists, really)! Tell that to Harvard MBAs. To survive, we will need to educate ourselves about how the life support systems that sustain us on planet Earth work, and how they could work, to run high tech civilization without savaging the remaining nonrenewable energy resources and precious biodiversity legacy of Earth. Is there a chance in Hell this complex message can be conveyed to the public and to legislators? That appropriate R & D policies can be put in place with inspired and competent administrators in time to be serious options for the next Presidential election? If so, the media will be crucial (the reason for this cc. list). And kudos again to you Bob Samuelson, along with a few others who are media heros in my book. You know who you are. On that happy note: Cheers, Marty Hoffert Professor Emeritus of Physics Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics Room 525, Mail Code 1026 4 Washington Place New York University New York, NY 10003-6621 NYU Phone: 212-998-3747 NYU Fax: 212-995-4016 Home Phone: 516-466-9418 Home Fax: 516-487-0734 Cellphone: 516-972-4779 Email: marty.hoffert@nyu.edu Web page: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 14:34:44 -0600 From: Michael Schlesinger Subject: FYI: Samuelson: The Dirty Secret About Global Warming To: schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu Original-recipient: rfc822;mih1@mail.nyu.edu http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17025081/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/ MSNBC.com Samuelson: The Dirty Secret About Global Warming From politicians to the corporate world, everyone's talking about saving the planet from disastrous climate change. But for now, it's just talk. By Robert J. Samuelson Updated: 10:40 a.m. MT Feb 7, 2007 Feb. 7, 2007 - You could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming. Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)-an international group of scientists-concluded that, to a 90 percent probability, human activity is warming the Earth. Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority; and 10 big U.S. companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation. Strong action seems at hand. Don't be fooled. The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which-in all modern societies-buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming. Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior. Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2 emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009. Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth-lowering poverty, fostering political stability-to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity. Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renewables" (solar, wind, hydropower, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise. Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost 1 degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches, though the connection is unclear. So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises from seven inches to almost two feet. People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, frequent flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps). I do not say we should do nothing, but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favored remedy is "cap and trade." It's environmental grandstanding-politicians pretending they're doing something. Companies would receive or buy quotas ("caps") to emit carbon dioxide. To exceed the limits, they'd acquire some other company's unused quotas ("trade"). How simple. Just order companies to cut emissions. Businesses absorb all the costs. But in practice, no plausible "cap and trade" program would significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices. Neither outcome seems likely. Quotas would be lax. The program would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would also be a bonanza for lobbyists, lawyers and consultants, as industries and localities besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment. Hello, influence-peddling and sleaze. What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries-rich and poor-to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change. Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2 emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes. It's a debate we ought to have - but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit. URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17025081/site/newsweek/ © 2007 MSNBC.com