Challenging the Naysayers: Global Warming Solutions Make Sense

The naysayers keep arguing that reducing global warming pollution is too expensive, too hard, will cost too much money and will irreparably harm our economy. We've heard this refrain before. Seat belts supposedly would dramatically increase the costs of cars, make no safety difference and wouldn't be used by drivers and riders. Catalytic converters supposedly wouldn't really reduce pollution and would make cars unaffordable. Reducing sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain supposedly would cost electric utilities $2,000 - $3,000 per ton, cause electric rates to skyrocket and not help the environment very much.

Well, look what happened: seat belts are an incidental car cost component, have saved many, many, many lives, and all of us have gotten used to snapping on our seat belts because it's sensible, as well as legally required. Catalytic converters have, indeed, reduced a lot of air pollution from cars, and there aren't many complaints today. Both have avoided added health costs and insurance costs.

The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which set up the cap-and-trade program to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution from coal plants, triggered a wave of technological advances, as well as simple at-the-coal-plant engineering tweaks and fixes, that have reduced acid rain, leading to demonstrable environmental improvements in our rivers, lakes and forests, as well as less public health harms. Sulfur dioxide pollution credits are trading at $136 per ton for the seven-year advance auction in 2008, instead of the utilities' inflated arguments that they would cost about 20 times more. (Yes, Illinois would be better off if more utilities had installed scrubbers on their coal plants, rather than switching to lower-sulfur western coal.)

So when you hear that economic disaster will somehow befall the United States if we step up and act to help solve our global warming problems, think about the facts, the above history, and Americans' capacity for technological innovation, especially when given the right mix of regulatory and financial market incentives.

No, it won't be easy. And, it won't always be cheap, and it may be painful for some of the more polluting industries and their workers. But it won't always be difficult and costly. Let's look at one good example.

Here's happens when Americans convert their old incandescent bulbs to CFLs.

First of all, you know the basic numbers. CFLs use 75% less electricity than incandescent bulbs to produce the same amount of illumination (thereby saving us money on our electricity bills), avoid CO2 and other pollution from coal plants (thereby improving our health and environment), and last 7-10 times longer than incandescent bulbs (thereby sparing us time and energy to reach up to keep changing those ceiling bulbs).

Second, because of various state and proposed federal laws, as well as market factors, incandescent bulbs are likely to be largely phased out over the next five years. When you go to shop at Ace Hardware or Home Depot, most of what you'll increasingly being seeing on the shelves are modern CFLs, not incandescent bulbs.

Third, here are some numbers that might knock your socks off. Residential consumers account for about 33% of the electricity demand in many communities, and lighting accounts for about 20%-25% of their electricity use. That means around 7%-8% of overall electricity demand is due to residential lighting. Replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs, which use 75% less electricity, will thereby reduce overall electricity demand by about 5%-6%. Since coal plants are responsible for about 40% of the region's global warming pollution, this one residential sector change alone - which saves people money - will reduce overall CO2 pollution by about 2%-2.5%

That doesn't even take into account what businesses, city halls, hospitals, schools, park facilities, religious houses of worship, and sports stadiums can do with more efficient lighting. A quiet market revolution is taking place through sophisticated lighting technologies and more efficient appliances, computers, motors and controls. We're at a tipping point, as higher energy prices and technological advances kick in.

Commercial lighting technologies today are much more energy efficient, with high-tech control systems and ballasts. The paybacks are robust, and financing is widely available for building improvements. It is practically property management malpractice to ignore these opportunities in downtown office buildings. Constructing new buildings without state-of-the-art energy efficiency makes little economic sense.

What's more: super-efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs) are coming into the market. They are far more efficient than incandescent bulbs, last longer than CFLs and can produce light in any color. LEDs are now marketed as a high-end product, but prices will soon be falling.

Of course, CFLs, LEDs and other lighting efficiencies, alone, won't be nearly enough progress to solve our global warming problems. But they are a good start, and this is indicative of additional opportunities and technological innovations that can advance global warming solutions that are good for the economy, can create new green jobs and are good for the environment.

What's next? Keep an eye on what's happening with Detroit automakers pivoting to market plug-in electric hybrids and other clean cars sooner than previously advertised, technological breakthroughs with solar energy, and advancements in new, more efficient battery technologies. It won't be easy, but we can get going faster and further on global warming solutions than the naysayers are arguing.

Comments

[Boxorox]

No, makes no sense at all.
First, global warming, if it really exists, is not a problem.
Second, there really is nothing humans can do to change climate change, since humans are not causing whatever global warming you are convinced is going on. It is a propaganda ploy and you and hords of others are falling for it.

I take real issue with the CFL part of the deal. They save energy only if you use them for 15 minutes or longer, the light they emit is harsh, and unappealing for use in living areas. They contain mercury which is a known toxin in the environment. They cost many, many times more than incandescent bulbs and though they may last longer, their useful life is really only about the same since they begin to dim in brightness after a period of time about equal to conventional lighting methods.

So, tell me truthfully, whre the real "sensible" solution lies in this scam?

[LeftRight]

First, where's your evidence that Global Climate Change is NOT occuring? Second, what makes you think that there's nothing we can do about it?

And as regards CFL's, I have many in my home. They are more expensive than a regular light bulb, but that's MORE than offset by the amount that I have to change and the amount that I have to spend to light them. They are MUCH more efficient than incandescents, to the point where if I run a CFL for one minute, I must turn off the incandescent within less than a second to equal the cost. And the light, while harsher when they are first turned on, softens out within seconds, and a minute at the most (in the only unheated room of my house!!!!)

So just because YOU would like to keep changing your lightbulbs regularly, I think that *I* and all these other people who believe science will just change our bulbs to CFLs!!

[worldsforgottenboy]

Boxorox,

Understanding changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect is a highly complex physics problem, and the only serious debate is on how much (NOT if) humans are contributing to this phenomena. If you ignore the nonsense on both sides (mostly from politicians and people who don't even believe in evolution) you will find people who have actually studied this and have credible concerns.

There is plenty of stuff humans can do to change the climate, in case we find out we messed things up. Unfortunately the cost estimates for those geoengineering schemes run in the tens and hundreds of trillions of dollars, while curbing emissions is pretty cheap in comparison.

The sensible solution is to stop sending all our money to OPEC and instead generate our energy locally, and curbing emissions can be done as a relatively cheap sideshow to that effort.

[NL207]

"The sensible solution is to stop sending all our money to OPEC and instead generate our energy locally, and curbing emissions can be done as a relatively cheap sideshow to that effort."


How are CFL's going to alleviate oil importation from OPEC? Minimal electricity in the US is generated from oil, only 3% of the US supply according to: http://books.google.com/books?id=llxjsjtpi9EC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=electricity+generated+fraction+from+oil+United+States&source=web&ots=DnV8bbsbWE&sig=Uk4rtsrvrrFFLv8AirwCmQ7TOPc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

CFL's are a poor choce from the pollution standpoint because they contain mercury and require hazardous waste disposal. White light LED's are now available, use even less energy than CFL's, and don't present the mercury waste disposal problem. A free market will sort this out economically and I believe in the absence of ill-considered government meddling, the white light LED will prevail for most low power applications and sodium lamps will prevail for high power applications.

"There is plenty of stuff humans can do to change the climate"

This is pretty humorous. Do you also think humans can build a time machine? Or maybe you think the evil genius, Karl Rove, has concealed a weather control machine in South Texas and is generating hurricanes down there?

[BlackbirdHighway]

Well sure, I'm just going to ignore the thousands of scientists who actually know what they are talking about, and believe whatever this anonymous internet commenter says!!

Sorry bub, but just typing some random bull crap on the internet doesn't make you an expert on climate change!

[NL207]

"I'm just going to ignore the thousands of scientists who actually know what they are talking about"

It aappears you do just that since you only listen to a select few who make these wild claims about 7 meter sea level rises and 6 degree C mean temperature increases over the next century. These fanstasies are all BS.

[DrVeruju]

Sad.

Every time climate change sceptics produce an argument against global warming, the case FOR it is strengthened by further investigation into the sceptics' argument. (Highlighted in the BBC program "Earth: The Climate Wars".)

Mercury, yes, bad - but shutting down coal-fired power stations as a result of reducing the demand for energy in turn reduces the amount of mercury (and other pollutants) they spew out.