The Greenback Effect
NEWS: Greed has helped destroy the planet—maybe now it can help save it.
|
|
|
|
Since I spend most of my time haplessly battling global warming, I encounter a fair number of climate-change skeptics. They're usually clutching some tattered study about tropospheric temperatures from six years back, or muttering about sunspots, but they're almost never carefully weighing the actual current science. The wellspring of their skepticism lies not in chemistry or in physics but in ideology, and their syllogism goes something like this:
Markets solve all problems;
Markets are not solving global warming;
QED, global warming is not a problem.
This proof has certain logical shortcomings, beginning with the fact that it's illogical. But it is emotionally comforting. For those who wanted to stop thinking about politics and responsibility and morality and science and all that stuff, the advent of Reagan-era market fundamentalism was a godsend, and anything that threatens to disrupt it is an identity-challenging tilt of the psychic pinball machine.
So what I tend to say to these people is, I hear you. Markets are powerful. Let's think about why they've failed here and how to make them work.
And there's a one-word answer: information.
Markets are impotent in fighting the greatest challenge our planet has ever faced because we've given them absolutely nothing to work with. They exist in childlike innocence about the crisis because carbon carries no required cost. And in fact almost everything that environmental campaigners are doing at the national and the international level is an effort to fix that problem—to feed information into markets so they can help slow the rise of carbon. That's right: If there are true believers (or at least true hopers) about markets right now, they tend to be green.
Let's take the widely touted proposal for an 80 percent cut in carbon emissions by 2050 via a "shrinking cap" on emissions that would cause the price of carbon to rise steadily for the next 40 years. (Full disclosure: I helped run a nationwide campaign last year calling on Congress to endorse that target.) Here's what the cap would mean in practice: If you were sitting down tomorrow to run the financials for your new power plant, there's no way you'd go with coal—the cost would make your spreadsheet shriek. Instead, you'd look much, much closer at solar-thermal power plants or banks of windmills. If you were a property developer whose clients had any ability to calculate, your next office building or subdivision would be closer to the trolley line (which you'd be pressuring the city to build), and all the walls would be stuffed with insulation. If you owned a car company, the rising price of carbon should be enough to prevent you from designing one more bulked-up suv—and so on.
The point is, markets are powerful precisely because they allow information to filter down quickly and thoroughly, creating new realities—a new medium in the economic petri dish. Given that solving global warming will require huge systemic change over a very short period, that's a useful mechanism.
Clearly global warming will carry enormous costs. Taller levees. Higher food prices. Treating malaria patients in New Delhi and maybe New York. One estimate put the tab higher than the combined cost of both World Wars and the Great Depression. What we need to do is make the markets foresee that cost and act accordingly.
Close the enron loophole In some regions, natural gas bills have almost doubled since 2000. Blame Ken Lay and his friends in Congress. Unlike other commodity markets, which are federally regulated, electronic trading on energy markets is immune from government oversight, thanks to a loophole inserted into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by an unknown senator acting at Enron's behest. Now investors such as Amaranth Advisors, a hedge fund that controlled more than half of all natural gas deals at one point in 2006, can corner the market and cause rates to skyrocket. Michigan Senator Carl Levin has been trying to close the Enron loophole for five years; he says it soon may be tied up for good.
—Rebecca Clarren
Click here to see more Bright Ideas.
Of course, as any economist will quickly point out, such action will also come with a cost. Since carbon is going to have to get more expensive for markets to do their thing, someone is going to get hurt. So the next part of the equation involves figuring out who should bear that price. And here, interestingly, is another place where economic orthodoxy works pretty well. Take that shrinking cap on carbon emissions: One way to make it work is to hand out permits to big carbon producers—oil companies, coal companies, and so on—and steadily shrink the availability of permits. Those permits would be very valuable, and their cost would be passed on to consumers, whose price at the pump or off the back of the fuel-oil truck would increase. But the question is, How do you award those permits? (Or how do you set tax rates for carbon, etc.—the logic is the same.)
The answer favored by big industry is, Give us the permits. For free. Because we've spent years getting rich burning coal; if you're going to interfere with the system, make sure you don't touch the profits. But the more logical alternative is for the government to auction the permits off; with the proceeds we could, if we wanted to, simply send a check for, say, $1,000 to every American, which would go a long way toward covering the increased costs we Americans would face. This so-called Cap and Dividend concept—pushed for years by Peter Barnes, a cofounder of the progressive phone company Working Assets—is actually gaining some traction: Barack Obama, for one, has endorsed the permit-auction idea.
You could also, of course, take the auction proceeds and subsidize the transition to new clean-energy technologies—solar-thermal plants or windmills or whatever. This method has real attractions too, especially given that the most compelling analogies for the change we need come from the industrial boom catalyzed by World War II or the technological vigor of the Apollo era, both prompted by massive government spending. And consider that World War II was a three-year crisis for the United States, not a four-decade transition, and the moon shot was almost the opposite of our current task—instead of focusing immense resources on one mission, we need to spread them widely on a range of projects. In essence, we need to put all of us into orbit.
The weakness of our current government-spending model can be summed up in one word: ethanol. That is to say, the process is so twisted by regional interest, vested interest, and lack of interest by anyone but lobbyists that even when the political will is there to provide substantial subsidies, the results can be ludicrous. We are now spending billions upon billions to subsidize the conversion of corn to ethanol, a practice that creates the scantest possible environmental benefit while driving up food prices enormously. The main beneficiaries are the biggest of industrial farmers, and the losers include people around the world who now have considerably less to eat (and are increasingly figuring out that we're to blame). Or take nuclear power: It's far from the lowest-cost (or lowest-risk) option for our energy future, but it has a dedicated band of lobbyists eager to win massive federal subsidies. (See "The Nuclear Option")
In the best of all possible worlds, a wise Congress would figure out just which technologies will work best, and how they can be implemented most efficiently. But that's asking an awful lot. There are days when I'd be willing to give up every penny of the wind and solar subsidies we desperately need if that meant we could also kill the subsidies for "clean coal" and atomic energy—a level playing field, with the cost of carbon entered accurately into the equation, might be just what we need.
None of this means Washington doesn't have additional work to do. For one thing, we don't all start on a level playing field. Government must make sure that those disadvantaged by history get a boost from the coming economic transformation, and that those who can't afford to insulate their homes get the help they need. And we need much higher levels of funding for basic research in energy conservation and generation—fundamental investigation of breakthrough technologies is not something business is good at. Oh, and buses, and subways. These are the reasons we pay taxes.
There's a deeper flaw to my argument: Continuing to rely on a growth economy for change keeps us locked into the wider damage an ever-more market-centered civilization causes—the constant "creative destruction" beloved by economists and hated by those of us who would like to, say, live in the same community for a long time.
Which is why, in my ideal world, we'd use the power of democracy to add even more pieces of information to a market system. Tariffs that encourage local economies, for instance, because the data now show that more self-reliant societies are also more durable and more satisfying. Perhaps we should work for some totally different economic system—I hear pretty regularly from a different breed of skeptic who insists we'll never solve our problems until we go "beyond capitalism." But that debate is going to take a while—for the atmospherically relevant time frame, we're not going to change our basic economic framework any more than we're going to sign on to some new nature religion that would turn protecting the planet into some kind of Eleventh Commandment. Given how fast the ice caps are melting, speed is of the essence. And markets are quick. Given some direction, they'll help.
Illustration: Guy Billout
just as it has little consciousness of any other way of living in the world it continues instead to create substitutes that would see the whole toxic mess continue without much change such is the ignorance and delusions of market focused growth growth growth economist
'mankind' (sic) cannot stop climate change via global warming, he can argue about it till he is blue in the face but that ain't going to change it or stop it - thats called denial
change if it is to come will come from communities and individuals - we are entering the age of the end of empires and in that sense NO government can really solve this challenge only communities from the ground up and that in and of its self will be a huge challenge - uniting people for one cause
living simply so that others can simply live is the future we are headed for and the big business that are astute enough to recognize it are panicking trying to see how they can hold their market share when they fail to recognize the demise and total transformation of the market is inevitable just as the future is ironically - and to much dismay from conservatives - GREEN
now that the $ has become the highest human value the realization creeps in that greed and unconscious dogmatic beliefs in the market and governments are like believing in the tooth fairy and santa clause
'the environment'...
"... we'll never solve our problems until we go 'beyond capitalism.'"
The logic of turning the system that got us here against itself to try to solve the problem that system has created DOES make sense on a certain level. But as others have pointed out, a bad system is still a bad system, and as the essay points out, this would probably only yield benefits in the short term, and those benefits would most likely be short-lived.
Basing any long-term solutions on the same "greed and self-interest" approach that created the problem, and thrives on perpetuation of the problem, is most likely going to only create more problems than it solves.
McKibben is a talented writer, and thinker, and I applaud the idealism and optimism incorporated into this essay, but alas, I do not share that optimism. The current powers-that-be are the most hardened types of ideologues there are -- their "free market = everything good" philosophy is the only worthy comparison to religious faith on the planet, being equally destructive -- so I fall into the category that says, until we actually bring about meaningful change in the system itself, any change that does occur will likely have little overall effect.
I hope the optimistic are right, and I am wrong.
"close the enron loophole" box in the above article: "thanks to a loophole inserted into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act by an unknown senator acting at Enron's behest."
unknown senator? isn't it phill gramm?
isn't this well-known? shoudln't something be made of the fact that phil gramm is now one of john mccain's chief financial advisors?
Out of one pocket (yours) and into another.
Sucker.
Capitalism is the problem? Oh yeah, right. Now the left's rubbing in their idiocy. I guess the USSR was a perfect example for environment protection, right? I suggest you visit some of the areas that Communist industry turned into deserts and completely uninhabitable.
Even the chief of the Arctic research said that there is no sign of global warming. The enviro-nitwits base their hysteria on one single photo which showed some polar bears adrift on an iceberg. Honestly... that's argumentation even below kindergarten niveau. Ever considered the simple possibility that there would be a polar bear who's just dumb and jumps on the wrong ice berg? No? Oh my...
The climate has changed long before humans, and it will change long after us. There have been eras with CO2 concentrations 800, 900 times higher than now. Paleoclimatologists have also confirmed that first the temperatures rise and then, 600, 800 years later, the CO2 level rises. Or, different example, can any of you enviro-nitwits explain to me how there could have been agriculture of wine in Denmark in the 12th and 15th century? Denmark's pretty high up, so high that there hasn't been wine there ever since the 15th century and I doubt that their CO2 output back then was so high. Heck, we humans produce 0.003% of the CO2 in the atmosphere... show me how that's influencing the climate.
What needs to be done is actual scientfic work, yet there is none. There is NO scientific discussion. There is only Al Gore and he's right because it was on a movie. The politicians argue, the UN argues, none of them is competent enough to even tie their own shoelaces. But do the real scientists get to say anything? Nope. Al Gore even compares those who are cricits tot he people who said the earth was flat. Big problem there: he's not a scientist, so what would he knew? He's a politician, thus a professional liar. And secondly, this statement of his shows what an arrogant ass he is. A typical Democrat snob.
Show me actual evidence from an independent source. No, the IPCC is not independent, it's on the payroll of the UN, the wannabe world government that lets dictaroships on the human rights council, that pretends to be a community and treats democracies, which have freedom and liberty, the same way as dictatorships.
And currently, we're living in a rather stable era of the climate. This WILL change eventually, whether we do something or not. Face it, the climate on this planet has changed thousands of times.
how/when/if it'll kick us nobody knows. but it is probable.
i'm told there is now abt 130000 industrial chemicals in use.
and nature cannot transmute most of them into something beneficial to life on this planet.
our nature, the only one we have, makes wonderful stuff out of bad stuff. it makes out of feces nourishment for all growth.
when animals die, nature doesn't dump them on a pile to be burnt; instead, nature uses maggots, ants, bugs, buzzards to consume putrid flesh.
true, nature can be very cruel. betwn
the two extremes, best and the worst of our nature, the nature is infinitely valued.
we humans, being part of that nature, are also infinitely valued.
but, i assert, we can do less harm and more good for one another and to our planet; the only one we have. the rich and super rich are now on the warpath for this planet.
we've will be either subjugated or be driven in hot areas where even tomatoes would evaporate.
and don't think they would not?
ok, folks, enough crying. let's end this chat with something cheerful,
I'll be happy for u while u'r here; after u go; well, i don't know.
u might want to hear this also, My wife used to be a TEN; now that she's 77, she's still a NINE; she lost just a point in 60 yrs. but i got even better news (i like to give folks good news first and better news after that): now that isabella is not talking to her daughters, she's 9.1.
Do you make them up or get them from Dr. Zuess. The images of the polar ice melting are not faked. The measurements of the ocean currents which distribute heat throughout the planet are from real measuring devices. Smog can be seen in every major city across the nation. Coal burning is up globally. And simply logic would dictate that the burning of fossil fuels it took millions of years to create in under a century would have some sort of effect.
The reason we are probably doomed is because of the ignorance of those who think they can argue away reality.
http://www.thelocal.se/11054.html
"He said it remains unclear exactly where the trees came from following the melting of the ice which covered much of Sweden around 10,000 years ago. Some theorize that the trees migrated from Russia in the east, but Kullman said nothing has been proven for certain."
That melting ice 10,000 years ago thing has me interested. From coal power plants? Or is the melting cycle not over yet?
And then theres the core samples from Antarctica which show past plant growth.
How warm was the globe then?
And, what, precisely is the perfect temperature for Earth, in degrees Farenheit or Centigrade? I can work with either. I started off supporting anti-global warming efforts but yet grow ever more skeptical every day.
And there's the thing about greenhouses injecting high levels of CO2 which causes plants to grow more and to use less water doing so. How would that affect global water shortages if less irrigation were need on account of higher atmospheric CO2?
And then there's the animal rights crowd wanting protections which would have the side-effect of preventing installation of wind farms and solar arrays in prime areas for those types of power.
Hmm, anybody tell that I'm quite frustrated with the whole thing?
The "Facts" on all sides appear to be rather malleable.
And with a name like Forrest Wood, how could the environment NOT matter to me!
You are preaching a system which murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century("for the common good," of course), and has built nothing but backward, repressive, and bankrupt nations.
There are problems, but humanity has always solved them. The sky is not falling, we are all not about to die, and the answer to these problems is slow, rational, thoughtful, careful change.
Rapid, radical, emotional, fear-driven change results in despotism, tyranny, and incredible human suffering.
Democracy is about slow, steady, and responsible progress.
For example, corn based ethanol production, hastily rushed into, is resulting in accelerated deforestation of the Amazon rain forest, a vastly increased dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico, and starvation in 3rd world nations. While rich Americans burn food, poor peoples STARVE; all thanks to rapid, thoughtless, radical, fear-driven change. Corn based ethanol is an absolute myth and a disaster. But it "sounded like a good idea," and the U.S. jumped into it without examing the consequences. Not to mention that it takes more energy to make corn based ethanol than the ethanol itself produces, and the energy used to produce it is generated from natural gas, coal, or nuclear plants.
In the 1970s, scientists predicted global starvation caused by population growth outstripping the food supply. But advances in agriculture increased productivity, and the famines never happened. The scientists never took into account more efficient food production, assuming that it would remain constant. In few words, the scientists WERE WRONG.
Just because a scientist predicts DOOM and GLOOM, does not mean that he or she is correct.
We will solve these problems, if we take our time and address them thoughtfully, carefully, and responsibly. If we rush, we will be worse off than we are now.
We must not give into hysteria and panic and doing things hastily.
Al Gore said that President Bush got us into Iraq because "he played on our fears" but then he does exactly the same and "plays on our fears." He tells us that if we do not tear down the rainforests, pollute our oceans with nitrogen based fertilizers, drive multiple species of animals into extinction by taking their habitats to plant corn and soybeans for biofuels, and starve the poor in the 3rd world by burning their food as fuel, the planet will be destroyed in the next 50 years.
Under reasonable, rational scrutiny, Al Gore's logic does not make sense. His radical transformation approach will kill millions of humans and millions of animals, and destroy entire ecosystems all in the name of "saving the planet."
Please, slow down, be rational and thoughtfully analyze actions and resulting consequences, in the light of history and facts.
Denmark and Brazil both became energy independent via a three pronged approach: conservation, alternative energy, and traditional energy.
One needs all three to accomplish this goal. Denmark produces large amounts of energy from offshore windfarms(the kind opposed by environmentalists in the U.S. because 'they kill too many sea birds,') and through offshore oil drilling. Brazil produces energy from ethanol derived from sugar cane(which is much easier and less expensive than making it from corn) and through off shore oil drilling.
This is the only historically proven model: conservation, alternative, and traditional. Any other model is an idealistic myth.
We will solve these problems, but not with fear, panic, and thoughtless actions.
Thank you.
it is already too late. even if we stop all greenhouse gas emissions today the global warming will still keep on going for several decades.
Lets look at all this another way, lets say there is in fact no global warming. Ok well even if there isn't there is still smog in L.A. Doesn't anyone think that cleaning up the air there, just for the sake of being able to breathe clearly is worthwhile?
It's time to look at these things with some actual reason behind the words. Besides that people talk all the time and it never gets them anywhere, people need to start DOING something, but make sure your well informed with "actual fact" not al gores facts.
Oh and for what it's worth, compact fluorescent lamps tend to have a very nasty side effect. They have mercury in them, maybe not all of them but most. So be careful when your installing them, breaking one can be hazardous to your health. When your done don't throw them in the trash either, you need to keep them stored somewhere until someone finds a reasonable way to recycle them. Cant have all that mercury in the landfills that would be a disaster for the green movement...
Yep some day people will see that just because big government and big business say it's good for you doesn't mean it is. (Oh yes and al gore too).
You wanna know how to save money regarding electricity? Well that is one place where you CAN take a lesson from big business, IT in particular. Take a look at any modern data center, or the plans to build a new data center. There you will see some of the biggest innovations especially as it pertains to cutting power draw and cooling costs.
Sounds odd I know, but take a look at one. Ya wanna know one of the biggest things changes that have been made in modern data centers? They turn there machines off, when they are not being used. Whats that you say? Cut the power? Yep cut the power, turn off the machines that aren't being used, and bring them back online when they need to be. Man thats ridiculously simple. Kind of like turning the light off in a room that you aren't in...
People just need to look at little things when they are trying to save the world. I mean, on the notion of capitalism...wanna save the world? Don't talk about how to save the environment so much, tell people how to cut there costs and see how much faster people start making changes.
You wanna really cut your costs down? Well here is an idea as far as lighting goes. Do some research on solid state lighting, L.E.D.'s are a great example, and they are now being built into lights that will screw into your regular ac driven lamp. On average L.E.D.s have several thousand hour life spans, and they don't occupy a whole lot of space. Yes they are expensive right now, but as people start buying them just like most things, except oil...the cost will come down to something reasonable.
Wanna make a positive impact on the amount of trash that goes into a landfill? Buy rechargeable batteries, but be mindful of the fact that you will have to use electricity to recharge them. All of a sudden this becomes a balancing act. Which quite frankly it is. If you want to recharge those batteries without burning fossil fuels, then invest in a solar panel that can produce enough power to run the charger, I don't know exactly how much power that is but if your concerned about the burning of fossil fuels, then it's a good investment. Then again, how much carbon was produced during the manufacture of the solar panel...here we go with the balance thing again.
From what I have casually observed, people are eluding themselves at every turn, because for so long government and big business did it for them. Now it's just part of the natural course of daily life. It's a sad state of affairs really.
Here is something to ponder, just something to get people to think (wont work I know but I figured it was worth a shot), Lets say, you buy a solar powered fan from the local radao s**ck, now thing about this. How much carbon was burned in shipping that item to the store, then how much carbon was burned in loading the truck that shipped that package to the store, and so on and so forth with the shipping chain. Now before it's shipped the items have to be manufactured right? Ok, how much carbon...blah blah blah. Then there is the manufacture of the materials that went into the manufacture of the fan...people just need to start trying to look at the big picture, not just the end point. I know for some people this will be a mental overload, and for others it just wont matter. For some others, they will just pass the buck and hope someone else will do all the work for them.
There is a whole lot to think about with the climate change argument, but lets make it a little simpler for the vast majority of people shall we? Explain it from the point of view of how to save money, and for those who actually care, how to clean up the air we and our children and grandchildren...are breathing, and will breathe.
Just stop and think for a while folks, just make sure you do it with the lights off, it's better for us all.
----------------
There seems to be a general agreement that a certain brown material will hit the fan quite soon. Given the cause, I tend to agree with the implied inevitability of the situation. However, just in case anyone should be interested, I want to explain what I’ve found and tried to do. Just ordering a few parts is proving to be a slow exercise here in the UK; I’m thinking that maybe someone out there has the materials closer to hand and can try the idea quickly.
Overall, the idea is to give everyone the ability to “grow their own” energy commodity, such as hydrogen. You could use a mains driven electrolyser but everyone knows the process is too inefficient (30%?) to be worthwhile. The advantages of growing your own are obvious plus any implementation could be phased in gradually so as not to interfere with other peoples’ politics.
Some time ago I found a website with details of an experiment that had been carried out with magnets and a coil in which small values of charge had been generated and stored in capacitors. There was a major problem in that it could not easily be scaled up but the principle of direct conversion of the potential energy of a weight due to gravity seemed proved.
There must be someone out there who has built a PMA (Permanent Magnet Alternator) and maybe used it in a windmill. I built one some time ago and used it in a mini hydro system. It worked and I could generate small amounts of charge but it relied inevitably on a constant water supply. So I looked for a way to get rid of the need for water. I proved that small volumes of charge could be gained by small movements of the PMA shaft i.e. by effectively “bouncing” the magnets over the coils.
So, logically if a way could be found to bounce magnets (using some kind of elastic mechanism, rubber or springs say) and accurately glide them over coils, small volumes of electrical charge could be realised. Any number of coils and magnets could be used so scaling up would be a 2-pass affair i.e. a collection of bouncing magnets over several coils would comprise a device then because the devices are simple and cheap to implement and run they become cost effective to distribute on any vertical space (walls come to mind and there are plenty of them).
The crux is getting the magnets to fly accurately over the coils. I believe it can be done with permanent magnet separators i.e. magnetic repulsion. Ferrite blocks are old technology and they are easy to manufacture in all sorts of shapes and sizes but for me the acquisition has proved difficult. It’s not always easy to get small quantities for prototypes. There should be none of the problems necessitating high torque as in the windmill case because the proximity of the coils can be such that each coil is affected independently. Movement (in the form of SHM) is virtually zero damped due to the frictionless nature of the separators so the required input energy is minimal.
What you have at the end of the day is a cheap easily distributed tool to enable anyone (assuming they want to participate) the ability to help save the planet by generating their own fuel. They don’t have to use the fuel themselves either; it could be a source of income usable to offset their conventional fuel costs. The global idea is that in the future stocks of hydrogen would be such that replacements to generating plant could be made. In this way the current plant builds in any country are re-used but are rendered clean with hydrogen.
I said I had read the comments to the original article. I hope that someone reads my comment although I realise it’s a bit late. If there is anyone out there who knows that this will not work I need to know ASAP as it will save a lot of effort and cash and I can happily start arranging my funeral knowing that nothing can be done.
Thanks at least for reading.
------------
I noted your comment on the possibility that greed might save the planet. The carrot here would be the possibility of creating a competitive environment wherein people could help both themselves and the earth.
Regards
Jim
number and are cusuming our reserves. We must not only stop increasing the human population, we need to reduce it by at least half. That means ONE CHILD PER WOMAN for the forseeable future. Will this happen? No. We are only just beginning to see what the future holds for us. It's not good.
To Mr. Cinco I would say that I entirely agree. My opinion of the “human” church is that it is for all intents and purposes dead. The very being from whom the real intention and hope of all were based is now debased by human intention.
Anyhow, my first post was about my idea. I’ve to date proven that I can fly my magnets. Maybe this is progress ?
Sleep well
Jim
The first book, published in 2007, is "Infinity’s Rainbow: The Politics of Energy, Climate and Globalization." The second is "The Path Through Infinity’s Rainbow: Your Guide for Personal Survival and Spiritual Transformation in a World Gone Mad."
Byron’s webpage is at: http://www.MichaelPByron.com.