Kunstler makes the case that the US will decline abruptly in response
to an imminent shortage of liquid fuels. This being the case, and it
also being the case that neither the US nor the rest of the world will
On 6/14/07, David Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Michael, I'm completely snowed under right now, but I can't let this pass.
> You are woefully, disastrously wrong on this. I hardly know where to begin.
> (And you don't seem to have read Kevin's post very carefully, as he does not
> at all take your position.)
I think his reportage is plausible and alarming, and I think everyone
needs to be aware of the fiasco in the making.
I don't mean to suggest whether he agrees with me or not.
> I've been in DC all week, talking to Congressional aides, members of
> Congress, and folks from NGOs about this, and let me tell you, everybody
> knows it's a scam. Everybody knows it's a sop to the coal industry. It's a
> greedy grasp for handouts by coal state Democrats. Even the coal-state
> Democrats know it.
I am sure that is part of it. (That brings up what "greed" is, which
is a question that is very deep given how we've organized ourselves,
and let's not go there right now. Suffice it to say that there is
nothing unusual about various gourps looking out for their own
interests.)
> What's on the table are massive, massive public subsidies to an industry
> that, at the very most optimistic projections (including the development and
> wide deployment of these fantastically expensive sequestration facilities,
> funded by our tax dollars), will produce a fuel that's roughly equivalent,
> CO2-wise, with gasoline. We will be displacing a modest amount of oil at
> enormous cost, with no gain on global warming.
The gain is that we dodge the crisis that Kunstler describes, giving
us time to work up a sensible strategy. We are not in a position to
de-automobilize our infrastructure fast enough to cope with the
decline in petroleum. Nobody will let this scenario happen if there is
an out. We must susbdize the sequestration, and this gives us an
opportunity to civilize the coal interests.
> It's about opportunity costs. There isn't unlimited money to spend. Every
> dollar we spend needs to displace oil AND reduce GHG emissions. The amount
> of money we're talking about shoveling to the coal industry (which by the
> way has a century-long record of making and breaking the law, misleading the
> public, killing the people that work for it, irreparably scarring
> landscapes, and rent-seeking -- why on earth would you accept that they've
> suddenly become a responsible partner in this fight?) could do far, far more
> good, in terms of both energy independence and global warming, spent
> elsewhere.
Yes, the optimum non-political solution probably involves very little
coal, but we have to cope with the systems we have. I am saying that
the confluence of crises actually has a glimmer of opportunity in it.
It will take quite a lot of cleverness to make this happen. I'm not
betting this will work out.
I am betting that liquid fuels from coal and/or biofuels will happen,
and that the Kunstler Long Emergency scenario will not play out in the
way he describes it. Whether this makes the climate situation worse or
better depends very much on whether we stick to our guns abouty
sequestration or just let them get away with BS.
> Here's another tip: quit hiding from the imaginary hippies under your bed.
> Just because greens oppose this doesn't mean it's more "mature" or "helpful"
> to support it. Consider whether the green movement might contain lots of
> smart people who have run the numbers, who have assessed the urgency of the
> problems and the range of solutions on offer, and have decided on the merits
> that this is an outright scam that needs to be met with concerted, vocal
> opposition. Nuance for nuance's sake, when the facts don't merit it, isn't
> maturity, it's vanity.
I know exactly what you are saying, but that's not who I am, I promise
you. I don't choose to buy my opinions wholesale. I am honestly
disappointed by how you are playing this. It's an opportunity for judo
and you are taking a brute force approach. Not a good idea when the
brute forces are arrayed against you.
Couldn't you instead say "if this thing has to happen, can we make
sure that the sequestration side is real and enforced, rather than
just waved at?"
I am assured by experts whom I personally know and trust that there is
nothing in the sequestration pathway that is technically speculative.
We can do this.
We can't stop driving cars and trucks in North America for a couple of
generations; we have sunk too much into the vehicular infrastructure
and too little into anything else. We pretty much can break even on
this part and work on other wedges, or we can lose big.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
