J. Wayne Leonard
12/17/2010
If we are to overcome the challenge of climate change, we will have to expand the use of renewable energy. But that doesn’t mean rejecting the most effective alternatives available today. Natural gas stands out among these alternatives. Existing gas-powered generators can reduce CO2 emissions in the electricity sector by 10%. A clean energy standard that includes natural gas focuses on what’s realistically available in the here-and-now. It can reduce carbon emissions right away while buying us time to develop and hone other electricity-generating sources that don’t rely on fossil fuels. Most importantly, it would not require us to shut down the plants that rely on our most abundant fossil fuel: coal.
Leonard is chairman and CEO of Entergy Corp., which produces and distributes electric power.
Bjorn Lomborg
Bryce says the Kerry-Lieberman energy bill would be a waste of money for carbon capture and sequestration. He says there are three technological hurdles that are potentially insurmountable: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move newly captured carbon dioxide is insufficient; and there is a staggering volume of waste. He looks at each hurdle in turn and why they present problems to the bill. Before Congress throws money at the procedure, lawmakers should look closely at the issues of cost and scale that hamstring nearly every new energy-related technology.
The campaign against human presence on the planet is not relegated to a radical fringe, but permeates the upper echelons of science and mainstream organizations. The concept that humans are merely carbon dioxide emitters and our presence is primarily destructive has dangerous implications. Applebaum points out that human ingenuity and creativity are largely responsible for raising living standards around the world. And it is human innovation and compassion that will help to bring about the cessation of fossil fuel use. Engendering hatred for mankind teaches only apathy.
Comparing global climate change to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Tidwell claims that sweeping, political change is the only hope of saving the planet from large-scale destruction caused by greenhouse gas emissions. While many distractions and inhibitions have prevented legislation that would effectively cease the burning of fossil fuels, the “go green” movement–hyped by the media and thus appearing larger and more significant than it really is–shares the blame. Rather than obsessing over green fads, the author calls Americans to real action.
Over the past week there have been resignations and investigations of top scientists in England and the US. This event amounts to a peer review of a putative scientific “consensus” by bloggers. The story so far has played itself out largely on blogs, often run by the same scientists who had a hard time getting printed in the scientific journals. “Climategate” has provided a voice to the scientists who had been frozen out of the debate. While this episode raises disturbing questions about scientific standards in highly political areas such as global warming, Crovitz says it’s remarkable to see how quickly corrective information can now spread.
McArdle looks at the concept of geoengineering to develop large-scale projects to decrease the CO2 in the atmosphere. She says the scale of the carbon reductions that will be required in developed nations are massive. However, the political will to achieve them is very weak, even in Europe. Even if we somehow develop the political will, unless we also make some radical advances in cheap renewable energy technology, China is going to burn all of her coal, plus all of the oil we don’t buy from the Saudis, rendering most of our efforts moot. Geoengineering has to be an international undertaking or every country will just play to its own agenda.
Food companies and restaurants in Sweden may be listing the fossil fuel emissions that went into the production of the food. Smith says so far it’s an experiment to test whether people change their buying habits to purchase the supposedly eco-friendlier foods. However, there are problems because politics and science seem to be colliding as Swedish locally grown food gets the lowest ratings, which indicates that buying imported food is not only economically bad for the country but also environmentally.
Despite their environmental policy differences, Canada and the United States will fight climate change together.
