Global Warming to Take Back Seat to Economic Crisis?

[Pangloss]

This has come up many times in discussions here at SFN -- the question of whether western nations are politically capable of putting their standard of living at a lower tier of importance than the problem of global warming. I realize this is a complex question that is not easily answered with a simple example like the one I'm giving here, but I think it does form an indication of how far we're willing (or unwilling) to go.

 

Economic crisis to delay other Obama goals

 

Although Obama has not publicly identified which priorities will have to wait, advisers and allies have signaled that they may put off renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, overhauling immigration laws, restricting carbon emissions, raising taxes on the wealthy, and allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

 

"Our intent is to follow through on all of our commitments, but obviously we have to prioritize," said David Axelrod, the senior adviser to Obama. "When you have the worst job loss since World War II, pretty obviously we have to focus on trying to slow down this trajectory and turn it around, and that's job No.1."

 

Rahm Emanuel, the incoming White House chief of staff, said that on domestic policy, only one thing matters. "Our No.1 goal: jobs," Emanuel said. "Our No.2 goal: jobs. Our No.3 goal: jobs."

 

The key point here being that even a Democratic president, presiding over a Democratic congress, with no possibility of partisan veto and almost no possibility of partisan filibuster, still believes that it cannot pass even a simple restriction on carbon emissions. This believe is not based on political resistance, mind you, but is instead predicated on a notion that it is too expensive to pursue at this time.

 

Now as I said this is a complex issue -- the current economic crisis IS very severe, and this does not say that people are unwilling to ever lower their standard of living to ANY degree for the sake of fixing global warming. But given that most people are not looking for work (93%), most people are paying their mortgages on time (94%), and gas prices are down, it really does beg the question of what economic conditions WOULD be appropriate for tackling the problem. Would the same politicians be willing to undermine a period of economic SUCCESS in order to tackle Global Warming?

 

My personal opinion is that we (now I'm talking about America specifically here) should pursue emissions reduction in spite of the economic crisis. Perhaps not in Obama's first 100 days, but definitely in his first year in office. (I think it's also worth noting that even if he's not pursuing emission reduction, he will be pursuing alternative energy as PART of his economic recovery plan, and that helps with GW in the long run.)

 

What do you all think?

[CaptainPanic]

I oppose the point of view that reforming our energy sector will cause a loss of jobs and an economic setback.

 

It is possible that prices go up. But, if investments also go up, and jobs will be created the economy grows. The basics of economic growth is to get the same product, but in higher quantity or of higher quality.

 

Car prices went up, but cars are also more luxurious.

Prices of communication went up, but we became mobile and connected to internet.

Prices of all kinds of goodies go up as quality goes up.

Prices of energy may go up as we will live in a cleaner environment with less dependency on the Middle East.

 

Of course, there are examples where products are the same price but of higher quality (computers are a good example). The bottom line is that we all still live in a house, have a car, some furniture, a garden, means of communications and decorative stuff... and that hasn't changed much in the last 4-6 decades. But our economy has grown a lot.

 

The economy will only take a step back if your country is one of the last ones to change, because then you have to buy all the technology (knowledge) and hardware from other countries.

 

Sustainable energy has a high initial investment, and therefore a longer payback time. But the nice thing is that once it has been paid back, you practically get your energy for free (only maintenance to be paid).

 

Economic models comparing sustainable energy to fossil energy or nuclear energy almost never encompass the entire lifetime of the investments, which is not very fair, since initial investments for sustainable energy are higher, but the operating costs are lower.

 

In short: I believe that investing in sustainable energy right now might even reduce the effects of the crisis.

[SH3RL0CK]

With regards to any Partisanship concerns, I think it is worth noting that the Kyoto treaty was rejected 97-0 by the US senate when originally submitted. (Hint: both parties have the same basic stand despite their talking points).

 

I agree with what I think is Obama's idea: the best chance of becoming weaned off fossil fuels would be the development of an economical and environmentally friendly alternative. This appears it could be happening with wind power and also with biofuels (nearly 10% of the gasoline in the US is corn-produced ethanol).

[Sisyphus]

As you say, the "Green Economy" is a big part of the economic plan as a whole, and I don't think that's just talk. In fact, it occurs to me that the economic crisis might actually serve as an excuse for some sweeping changes that the Obama administration would want to do anyway but wouldn't be able to without a crisortunity. In that way, it really would be "Obama's 9/11."

 

But yeah, obviously it's still far from ideal and not what they were expecting to be dealing with, so the plan has to change, too. Obama claims he intends to get around to everything eventually, and we'll just have to wait and see if and when that happens. I don't think it's just a matter of being willing to compromise a standard of living, though. In my mind it's not so much that the economy is hurting as it's highly unstable, unpredictable, and generally unprecedented. So it's not just a matter of "we have to accept x unemployment and y DJIA to achieve Z goals," it's "**** **** **** THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE." So that kind of necessarily has to take top priority.

[npts2020]

Part of the instability in the economy is the instability of energy prices. By converting to constant sources (wind, solar, tide etc.) this instability should be greatly ameliorated. Knowing your approximate energy costs five years hence would be a boon to planners.

[iNow]

Part of the instability in the economy is the instability of energy prices. By converting to constant sources (wind, solar, tide etc.) this instability should be greatly ameliorated.

 

It's worth noting that the prices for solar and wind energy WON'T be constant, in fact, they'll decrease regularly much like Moore's Law did with computers and chips.

[Sisyphus]

It's worth noting that the prices for solar and wind energy WON'T be constant, in fact, they'll decrease regularly much like Moore's Law did with computers and chips.

 

That prices would decrease is inevitable, but don't overstate the case. Moore's Law-like improvement is so extreme it can't be counted on for anything - not even computers.

[iNow]

Indeed. Point taken, although I do see significant gains in efficiency and cost to be had in thin film solar. Crystalline silicon is another story for sure.

[jackson33]

I don't know about Obama, but most of his advisor's including Emmanuel and Axlerod, realize the private sector will end the recession. Their goal IMO is to increase the size of government and the agencies involved, with an increased roll played by Unions, which is the lifeblood of their party. They also know any promoting of 'Alternative Energy' in the name of 'Global Warming' will have to come from controlling control over the US resources and attitudes stemming from cost of current sources of energy. Regulations and taxing of these sources will be coming, probably on day one. Keep the price high of current energy, to keep interest of alternatives going...

 

Computers and/or chips, prices fell by competitive pricing. Applied Materials (AMD), Intel and others have continuously fought with consumer product producers for use of their products, over an all new consumer product. Computer Company's have dropped prices primarily to bring new demographics into buying their products, just as Auto, TV and most manufacturers of elective (non-essential) items. E-Machine, which had the first under 300.00 Set up was from Taiwan in total (bought up by Gateway, late 90's) but had an unlimited buy order in the US market, shipped all they could produce.

 

Power Companies are regulated in most States (if not all) to profits, even having to apply to raise prices. It is also considered essential and are involved with massive distribution infrastructures. Electrical power is basically a continuous product, most never used or said another way, if no body was using at all, would still require the system to operate at nearly the same rate. Wind Farms, Solar Farms and some Geo-thermal sources (Cal/Nv) are already linked into the current grids/systems, however it will take years (estimates up to 100 years) to build and incorporate these sources if even possible (access to user from sources). The further the user from the source, the greater the loss. No one seems to address the land usages required, where and then the cost to build maintain each unit in the farm for a comparable wattage, compared to the current generations systems, including Nuclear.

[iNow]

I don't know about Obama, but most of his advisor's including Emmanuel and Axlerod, realize the private sector will end the recession. Their goal IMO is to increase the size of government and the agencies involved, with an increased roll played by Unions, which is the lifeblood of their party.

 

Yeah, because republicans have been so very good at keeping government small, out of our lives, and out of business. Hypocrit.

 

Computers and/or chips, prices fell by competitive pricing. Applied Materials (AMD), Intel and others have continuously fought with consumer product producers for use of their products, over an all new consumer product.

First, AMD is the ticker symbol for Advanced Micro Devices, not Applied Materials (AMAT). Second, they don't fight anybody. They work with customers who have a need, they build tools to meet that need, and deliver those tools. Some customers want 200mm, other customers want 300mm wafer tech, others want Implant tech, still others want Etch. I really don't know what you're talking about, and I understand this sector pretty well. In reality, Applied Materials has been working in the solar sector for over 2 years now, delivering it's first two SunFab facilities in Q4FY08.

 

 

Computer Company's have dropped prices primarily to bring new demographics into buying their products, just as Auto, TV and most manufacturers of elective (non-essential) items.

While demand played a role, new customer demographics was irrelevant. The cost came down because the manufacturing process improved and new sources of competition kept entering the market and making their own advances (like Novellus and Sun). Either way, this has nothing to do with global warming's reality, what we need to do to combat it, and how our government will step up to the plate to prevent us from shipping billions of dollars every year to other countries for energy.

 

 

Electrical power is basically a continuous product, most never used or said another way, if no body was using at all, would still require the system to operate at nearly the same rate. Wind Farms, Solar Farms and some Geo-thermal sources (Cal/Nv) are already linked into the current grids/systems, however it will take years (estimates up to 100 years) to build and incorporate these sources if even possible (access to user from sources).

Bullshit.

 

 

The further the user from the source, the greater the loss.

Which is why solar is so much better. Again, you're arguing with points which actually defeat your own position. Also, not sure you've been paying attention, but it's this is one problem they are specifically trying solve every time they reference "smart grid" in stories and releases.

 

 

No one seems to address the land usages required, where and then the cost to build maintain each unit in the farm for a comparable wattage, compared to the current generations systems, including Nuclear.

Bullshit. Also, nuclear takes FAR longer (and tons more money) to scale than wind and solar, so there is yet another weakness in your position.

[ecoli]

Jaskson33 - I think you're arguing the free market perspective incorrectly (if that's what you're trying to do). iNow has demonstrated that the free market is helping alternative energy market make vast improvements in areas which technological innovation is best able to improve.

 

IMO that's evidence that the free market can provide alt. energies efficiently w/o government subsidies... which is how we end up with inefficient corn-based ethanol production, for example.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

PS - what do people think about replacing a tax credit for those developing *any* alternative energy source rather than a gov't. subsidy picking and choosing specific techs.

[jackson33]

ecoli; No, I was trying to separate Energy as an equal to a product. I have no problems with energy being regulated to the degree it is and because it most certainly does not fall into any category of 'Free Markets'...

 

I am not an advocate for corn ethanol, think it is/was a mistake and if left up to industry, the same thing could be produced at less cost, less intrusive into food products and not require subsidies.

 

As for tax deductions or other incentives to use green technology, enviromental friendly products and especially costly autos/truck or fuel systems where applicable (Electric delivery trucks/cabs etc), I have no problem.

 

In fact I don't have any problem with the environmental movements, so long as common sense prevails. This would be allowing the current systems to exist, operate, be renewed until alternative methods are viable competitors.

IMO, those viable competitors are non existent today, at least in current forms and will develop in some garage.

 

iNow; Power loss/waste, is still a major problem and up to 7-8% from many generators to the consumer. I still feel when home/building power storage becomes a reality, rather than the continuous streaming of a power source, efficiency will increase in the thousands of percent.

 

As for Republican's, its still government to me. I do believe Republican's had tended to restrain government size more than Democrats, Johnson or Carter, opposed to Nixon/Reagan/Bush I, but will NOT argue they decreased anything.

 

No, demographics or if you prefer discretionary income, always plays a roll in product production and or distribution. Your going to produce a product lined to those that will pay premium prices first, then go down the line. Those hated big three auto makers, have been trying their best to keep supplying SUV's/Trucks (best profit margins) to an acceptable client, but maneuvered into regulations making that not their choice...

 

I'll check out the M/GW produced by one Nuclear power plant, built today and just how many Wind or Solar Units it requires to equal that production, but think you'll find for the cost and/or space required, there is no comparison, certainly not long term. Solar units on houses or buildings are fine and I support those that can afford the cost...

[bascule]

Or you can pursue solutions that target both problems simultaneously. What about a New Dealesque public works project to produce wind power?

[ecoli]

Or you can pursue solutions that target both problems simultaneously. What about a New Dealesque public works project to produce wind power?

Because if wind power is ultimately rejected by the market, you've wasted a lot of taxpayer money.

[iNow]

In fact I don't have any problem with the environmental movements, so long as common sense prevails. This would be allowing the current systems to exist, operate, be renewed until alternative methods are viable competitors.

IMO, those viable competitors are non existent today, at least in current forms and will develop in some garage.

 

This comment gleefully ignores the vast assistance oil and coal receives from government, and reaks of a double-standard. It's as if you're saying, "It's okay that the government helps the fossil fuel industry, but they should not be allowed to help green energy start up." Do you not see the internal contradiction in your views? It's painfully obvious to me... You're ignoring evidence which defeats your position, and applying your critiques in a lop-sided and biased manner.

[npts2020]

Would I be out of line saying that energy is a national security issue and should be addressed by the federal government? IMO The production of energy causes more strife in the world politically, ecologically, and economically than any other activity of the "market". It seems to me to be a no-brainer which method does the most to solve those problems, but then I guess the "market" is handling this energy thing pretty well on its own, eh?

[bascule]

Because if wind power is ultimately rejected by the market, you've wasted a lot of taxpayer money.

 

Doesn't the market for electricity ultimately lie in the people who plug stuff into their walls? Isn't all electricity the same, regardless of how it's produced?

 

I'd also like to see an "electrical superhighway" in the form of a true continental scale power grid designed to handle higher levels of energy distribution. Imagine if it were actually cheap to distribute electricity from geographically distributed places to different markets across the country. I've read different proposals to this using HVDC for long-distance electrical transmission, and then of course there was that interesting article someone posted here recently about using superconductor lines to simultaneously distribute electricity and liquid hydrogen.

 

Power is most certainly a national security issue and events like the New York blackout show the present system can collapse to the point that major urban centers are completely blacked out and is in need of modernization.

[Sisyphus]

PS - what do people think about replacing a tax credit for those developing *any* alternative energy source rather than a gov't. subsidy picking and choosing specific techs.

 

Sure, as long as "alternative energy source" is defined such that it has to satisfy the criteria we need. Renewable, domestic, below a certain threshold of environmental impact, etc.

[SH3RL0CK]

IMO that's evidence that the free market can provide alt. energies efficiently w/o government subsidies... which is how we end up with inefficient corn-based ethanol production, for example.

.

 

A minor point, and maybe this should be in another thread (actually there are other threads already), but I don't agree that corn-based ethanol production is inefficient. Considering that the farmer will grow the corn anyway and that after the production of the ethanol, the distiller's grain retains 90% dietary equivalent; it seems to me that this produces the ethanol very efficiently.

 

While there are studies (usually quite old) stating this is an inefficient process, the majority of the studies I have found indicate this is efficient with a postive energy balance and the added benefit of having the food as well.

[Reaper]

I don't really see why all this rationalization is taking place. May I remind everyone here that the Hoover Dam was built as part of the plan to give people jobs and help the economy. As well as providing electric power and access to clean water.

 

I don't see why investment in sustainable energy can't also be used to help jump start the economy too. It would certainly create a great deal more jobs than the Hoover Dam did.

 

I'm already smelling trouble here, it would seem that the whole "I will save the world" crap was really nothing more than political spin after all...

[john5746]

J

IMO that's evidence that the free market can provide alt. energies efficiently w/o government subsidies... which is how we end up with inefficient corn-based ethanol production, for example.

 

PS - what do people think about replacing a tax credit for those developing *any* alternative energy source rather than a gov't. subsidy picking and choosing specific techs.

 

The free market only works well if all costs can be attributed to the resource. That is why people will start buying big trucks again if gas prices remain low. They don't see the real costs of that oil - to the environment, to foreign policy.

 

Yes, it should be private industry working on a diverse set of solutions with the government rewarding those that meet certain criteria. Tax credits, tax penalties, low cost loans, etc are methods for that help. This is a big country with different regions that will utilize varied solutions to the problem. While specific technologies may not be picked, I think those that are the most economic, green, domestic and sustainable should be the winners, not just the cheapest.

[Reaper]

I guess another thing we could also do, speaking of subsidy's, is that we could also stop subsidizing the petroleum industry. But I don't see any indication that this is going to happen anytime soon either...

[ecoli]

The free market only works well if all costs can be attributed to the resource. That is why people will start buying big trucks again if gas prices remain low. They don't see the real costs of that oil - to the environment, to foreign policy.

 

That's actually not happening right now. demand for gas (at least) is still about the same as when it was $5 per gallon. I guess the recession is good for reducing carbon emissions, at least.

 

Yes, it should be private industry working on a diverse set of solutions with the government rewarding those that meet certain criteria. Tax credits, tax penalties, low cost loans, etc are methods for that help. This is a big country with different regions that will utilize varied solutions to the problem. While specific technologies may not be picked, I think those that are the most economic, green, domestic and sustainable should be the winners, not just the cheapest.

But consumers desire the cleanest techs as well as the most cost efficient. I don't think the two are unrelated. After all, what's the point of having an inefficient fuel source?

 

Also, whether or not its domestic is, I think, irrelevant. Especially if its an efficient source.

[npts2020]

Whether or not your energy source is domestic is only important if you hope to control costs and where the money goes.

[Sisyphus]

Whether or not its domestic matters from a national security standpoint. The enormous influence that certain nations wield just by virtue of controlling large oil reserves is, by any reasonable account, an undesirable circumstance. As for the market effectively limiting us to clean fuels, that's not going to happen, but rather than having the same silly argument over and over, if it helps you, you can think of the relevant regulation as protecting our collective property rights by limiting the externality (in this case, environmental damages of various sorts).