The Lines are Being Drawn
Joe Romm is highlighting this extraordinary assertion from Robert Brulle, a prominent academic who writes often about environmental affairs:
By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action.
This broadside follows on the heels of the State of the Union address, in which President Obama pointedly did not mention climate change or global warming. Silly me, I thought climate hawks would be too down with the blues to cast recriminations–for at least a day or two, anyway. But Brulle’s charge is easily matched by David Roberts at Grist, who also bemoans what wasn’t said in the President’s speech:
This is a failure on Obama’s part. A moral failure, a failure of leadership, but also, I would argue, a political failure.
In stark contrast, Roger Pielke Jr. has a different take:
I am amazed to see views that have been espoused by The Breakthrough Institute, in The Hartwell Paper and The Climate Fix go from being outside the mainstream perspective on climate policy to being highly consistent with the approach now being advocated by the US President. This is good news for climate policy and politics, even if it is hard for some to accept.
Indeed, I think it’s safe to say that this news will be unacceptable in some climate quarters, and that attempts will be made to recast it as anything but a victory for Pielke Jr. and the Breakthrough Institute. And those attempts won’t be pretty.
If RPJr insists on claiming that he’s winning and Joe Romm’s losing (the “hard for some to accept” bit), that’s obnoxious and unfortunate. What ever happened to being gracious in victory?
OK, carbon taxes appear to be a non-starter politically. Now what? Does a federally-set renewable energy standard for the production of electricity really have any greater chance of becoming law? Not with a Republican-controlled House. As for clean coal, why would any utility voluntarily incur the cost of capturing CO2?
So we’re back to the question that’s been kicking around for years: Is there any possible technology that can compete with coal for the production of electricity when the coal industry can get away with not capturing the CO2. The Breakthrough Institute appears to believe that there is, and it’s just a matter of funding the research. I still have my doubts; coal is just too good of a fuel.
The problem with the “Energy Quest” meme isn’t that aggressive pursuit of alternative technologies is a bad idea, it’s that without coupling it to the existence of substantial climate risks (a) there’s no deadline for acting, and (b) there’s no widespread understanding WHY it’s necessary. Problem (c) is that it costs MONEY and the Republicans now in control of the House have a shared contempt of alternative energy, hate government incentives for alternative energy development (particularly the Department of Energy), have significant ties (as do many Democrats) to fossil energy, and want to reduce government spending as much as possible in as many areas as possible (except DOD) – making this whole area a prime candidate for the DE-funding ax. Taken together, this pretty much seems to make the whole Energy Quest idea more like one more fig leaf to cover our society’s continuing fossil dependence rather than a “Breakthrough”. Bottom line – show me the money to make an Energy Quest (or the heavy hitter supporters for funding) – until then this is just a bunch of feel-good pixie dust.
Perhaps I should have added — AND show me any heavy hitter REPUBLICAN supporters with the clout to move their party to embrace implementing the Energy Quest concept.
Francis, I think if you read Roger’s related post, I imagine you’ll see he’s not gloating or even saying he’s victorious in this debate. What I am saying/predicting is that there will be furious pushback to the notion that President Obama’s clean energy/innovation tack validates his/Breakthrough’s argument.
#4, Yeah, but it’ll be fun to watch.
What the heck do they think 80% clean energy by (what was it, 2040?) means? “Clean energy” is just code for CO2 abatement. Why do they care if he says “climate” if they get co2-free energy? Do they think Obama can just say “climate change” and get the right to do his bidding? I think he’s tried that. Is this about “saving our grandchildren” or their egos and institutes? Can’t be about their credibility; they have none.
@6, see my comment to Bart, pointing out a pretty relevant comment at RPJ’s site.
#3
The mine mouth price of coal has been rising since 2003.
Since coal is transported on trains that run on oil the price of delivered coal is highly dependent on the price of oil, and oil prices are rising.
The US Southeast has lousy wind resources.
The peak year for coal fired plant construction was 1975, those plants are rapidly reaching the point where they will need substantial investment in refurbishment or be retired. Obama’s 2035 goal would be the 60th birthday of US peak coal fired construction.
On new investments, investors want some sort of market certainty.
On existing investments, investors will fight any effort to tax them disproportionately.
Cap and Trade was a disproportionate tax on those that invested in coal fired capacity and the owners of those plants fought hard against that tax.
A Clean Energy Standard, phased in at the expected retirement rate of coal fired plants doesn’t harm anyone’s existing investment.
It creates a level playing field for ‘new investments’.
Maybe windmills or nuclear power or clean coal with carbon capture or solar panels or something that hasn’t even been thought of yet ends up being the cheapest way to make ‘clean energy’. The energy industry is far more qualified to figure it out then I am.
@7 KK
Here’s an interesting example that caught my eye today of human cleverness in taking an alternate route to the goal. From the “Crime Scene” blog at WaPo (hope the link works):
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/crime-scene/around-the-nation/video-marijuana-smuggling-cata.html?hpid=features1&hpv=national
And here’s a story from Davos by BBC News on economic models and forecasting accuracy that seems to me to have striking parallels to climate predictions; just substitute climate for economic and climate scientist for economist.
DAVOS 2011: Why do economists get it so wrong:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12294332
“[the] Problem is that it costs MONEY and [with] the Republicans now in control of the House… this whole area [is] a prime candidate for the DE-funding ax.”
Happiness is…
So POTUS backs off?
Joy unconfined!
Would someone care to enlighten me – what are Brulle’s qualifications in Climate Science?
How many non-sociological, peer-reviewed (pace Phil Jones and his ‘redefin[e]’) has he produced in that field?