Simple Solutions to Energy and Global Warming

The June 19th issue of The Economist very well captured the state of energy and global warming today, with vague hints on future directions. Some consensus, though, appears to now be forming about the current situation and potential pathways:

1. The global economy is unsustainable and possibly headed towards collapse.
2. Peak Oil plus surging demand will continue to increase the price of petroleum.
3. Global Warming will result in a Carbon Tax.
4. It will take improvements in energy efficiency and a range of sustainable energy resources to minimize the coming pain, and nuclear power will no doubt be included.

The problem is that society suffers from a fatal flaw: we can't seem to make smart decisions until it is too late. Thus, we will agonize, then suffer, but, somehow, again recover. Is there a better way?

We should have done something after the first energy crisis in 1973, but did not even do anything much after the second energy crisis in 1979. Part of the problem is that Ronald Reagan decimated the American solar program when he became president in 1982, and the world followed suit. Understandably, too, there was no need for panic, as gasoline (in 2005 dollars) cost about $2/gallon in 1950, jumped to $3/gallon in 1980, but dropped to $1.30 in 1998. (Go to SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth in the box on the right for details on this paragraph and much of the following.)

Thus, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change came at the worst time possible when oil prices were nearing an all-time LOW. Again, in 2005 dollars, oil cost $18.76/barrel in 1972, $89.48/bbl in 1980, $14.38/bbl in 1998... and is now somewhere over the rainbow in the range of $135/bbl, in 2008 dollars. The fact that China and India were excused made it easy for the incoming George W. Bush administration to also opt out in 2000. No matter how conscientious you want to be, reducing carbon dioxide became a joke when those countries conforming to those environmental rules began to lose investments and jobs, made all the more hilarious when just the additional coal power plants of China, the U.S. and India dwarfed all the carbon dioxide savings accrued by the 182 parties who signed and took steps. By the way, India and China did ratify the protocol. It's just that they don't have to follow the strictures

In 2006 came the 600-page Stern report commissioned by British Chancellor Gordon Brown. The solution was simple: annually invest 1% of the World Gross Domestic Product to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration over the next 50 years to prevent a global recession. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said we might need to invest as much as 3% of the GDP by 2030 to limit long-term global warming. This is serious money, as a household in the UK with a weekly income of $700/month would be taxed an additional $91/month (or $3 per day) for this program.

Then on June 6 of this year, the International Energy Agency indicated that the world would need to spend $45 trillion by 2050 just to meet the target of a 50% cut in emissions suggested by the G8 nations, where the atmospheric temperature would still probably increase by a little more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit. The 2008 U.S. Federal budget is $2.66 trillion, so we are talking really big money, and not even getting close to solving the problem.

International study groups can suggest all they want, but someone has to make a decision. The G8 nations next meet from July 7-9 in Japan, where the main theme is the environment. Will there finally be a firm resolution to Peak Oil and Global Warming? No! No! No! No! No!

Our leaders will dialogue and express sincere concerns, but we might need to wait until 2012 when those heads of countries meet in the United States, when someone like, perhaps, Barack Obama, will be in his 4th year of presidency. It will take all that time, anyway, to gain some consensus and arrive at a workable plan. But actual decisions will be made only if the world is by then in the midst of depression, where, maybe millions have succumbed to a particularly hot summer, and oil rests at $250/barrel. But, then, isn't that a bit too late?

So what is the SIMPLE SOLUTION? Read those books in the box on the right. The first action step I took was reported in my first HuffPost of May 29, 2008, entitled, "Well, Barack, We Have a Problem." But what was I thinking when I only suggested a trillion dollar solution.

Comments

[research]

It's time for solar wind and electric vehicles.

It the cheapest at 1T$, it's the fastest at 50+nuke equivalent per year

and wind and solar are sustainable forever!

Nukes = 25 years

nukes = 25 years
nukes = 25 years over energy then

1Million years of deadly intractable waste.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[Wilburrr]

Nuclear power plants are not carbon neutral. Sure, a working plant does not put out carbon dioxide, but manufacturing the mega tons of concrete needed to build the plant sure does! There is a good chance, I haven't done the calculations, that a nuclear plant never becomes carbon neutral.

[noneIn2008]

You are right, the solution is simple. Increase the costs of energy and the consumption will go down. Make energy unaffordable and people will use less. However, the people might not be so happy with those who have just regulated their lives and taken away more of their meager living. What would Marie Antoinette advise?

[DavidWojick]

Asking us to first read your books is not helpful. The point of blogs over books is that blogs provide dialog. Please summarize your so-called simple solutions, so we can discuss them. I am skeptical because these issues have been extensively analyzed and no simple solutions have emerged. Your list of consensus items is also mystifying. These are among the most controversial issues of our day. I see no evidence of consensus on any of them.
David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

The solutions are very simple. For example, regarding Peak Oil and Global Warming, reduce, if not eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, our society is not conformed to take that step. That is our fatal flaw: we can't make those critical decisions until it is too late. So, then, is it hopeless? Many actually think so. Those are who I categorize as the doomsdayers. They are strategizing on how best to survive. They could be right.

However, some of us are not prepared to just give up. Yes, there is a huge timing problem, for anything that has to be done should have begun just after that second energy crisis in 1979. Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan became president in 1982 and he virtually terminated the national solar program. The world followed his lead. Of course, the price of oil dropped through the 90's, so there was no motivation to do much, plus, into this millennium, our POTUS#43 kept joking about climate warming.

After decades of thinking about possible solutions, I wrote those books located on the right. As a lame shortcut, you might want to try those ten HuffPosts I have authored over the past few weeks. They all provide related approaches to stimulate discussion. If we don't get our act together, who knows, maybe my Chapter 5 of SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth, THE VENUS SYNDROME, will prevail. Hint: worry about METHANE!

[DavidWojick]

If you think that eliminating fossil fuels is simple then you are speaking a language I do not understand, and your books are mistitled. As for the fatal flaw you refer to that is democracy, which is not a flaw. If anything it is a safeguard. Whether there is even a problem is still being debated, because the evidence is unclear. It has only warmed for 20 out of the last 70 years, despite constantly rising CO2 levels. No wonder people are undecided.
The DOE solar program is alive and well, with new results every week. Try http://www.osti.gov, especially Information Bridge which searches all DOE research reports. Solar is getting its share.
David Wojick http://www.climatechangedebate.org

[Henry]

There is a big issue with "awareness" and there is also a big issue about the literacy of the public, writ large, with respect to actions that make an impact.
How about the president of the U.S. having a fire-side chat to the American Public asking them, the American Public, for behavior befitting a conservative life style? American business wants Americans to be consume-aholics because it is good for business. But how about bikes? How about car pools? How about public transportation. We can cut 33% of our gas consumption with some coordinated effort. And biking is good for your health. Have we seen this leadership from Republicans. I remember the Carter years. Car pooling and thermostat controls. Funny when it is the liberals who are hawking the conservative life style, eh?