Obama’s Climate Policy: A Work in Progress
April 15th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
My latest Bridges column is out. Here is an excerpt:
An effective carbon policy will also require humility. No developed country has decarbonized its economy at a rate of more than about 1-2 percent per year for any length of time, including those who have signed on to Kyoto and those who have implemented even more aggressive climate policies. Thus, no one really knows how fast a major economy can decarbonize, or what measures will actually work. Given that policy makers are moving into the policy unknown, every policy put into place will be an experiment. Some will work while others will not. Setting grandiose long-term goals with fantasies about specific targets and timetables is a distraction and will likely set back the task of reducing emissions.
The Obama Administration is currently learning many of these lessons as its climate policy aspirations are engaged in the emerging Congressional debate. Whether these lessons will result in a healthy evolution of policy proposals remains unclear. What is clear is that Obama’s climate policies are a work in progress.
Read it in full here.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:52 am
A good first step would be to acknowledge that climate science is a “work in progress” and the quality of the science to date is pretty weak. Willie Soon is right.
“Willie Soon, a Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist with scores of peer-reviewed papers and books to his credit, said he is “embarrassed and puzzled” by the shallow science in papers asserting the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming. “We have a system [of peer reviewing scientific literature] that is truly, truly appalling.”
The failure of peer review is only the start. If few scientists ever try to replicate the “findings” of others, the likelihood that most published studies contain serious errors increases dramatically. If those publishing studies refuse to make data and methods available, it only gets worse. And if the databases for temperatures, ice extent, etc. continue to be plagued by an appalling lack of quality control, the science suffers even more.
Climate scientists should focus on cleaning up their own mess before focusing on changing the world.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Saying that no country has decarbonized this fast is rather besides the point. Only now is there even any real serious talk about trying. This is not an effort in which historical efforts offer a lot of valuable lessons, since nobody tried to decarbonize in the past. Quite the contrary, increasing carbon usage was always the goal, and still is in many places.
I agree that efficiency is by far the best place to focus. But we also need to stop looking at this as something we need to do painlessly. Pure adaptation is also going to seriously impact economic growth and GDP size. The significantly greater percentage of GDP which we will have to spend on fixing, replacing, and redesigning infrastructure, which would be better spent now on reducing the need to do that later. The IPCC addressed this issue quite clearly and in great detail.
And all this focus by deniers and skeptics on any person with plausible scientific credentials avoids the point: every major science academy in the world fully supports the IPCC, its methods, and its conclusions, and has said so repeatedly. Yes, valid skepticism (and I include both Pielke’s in that category) play a vital role.
But we cannot base public policy on what a few percent of scientists think. If serious skepticism of actual AGW were as large as some deniers think, it would show in the statements of the science academies (most of whom are not climatologists and are not impacted by funding of climate studies). It doesn’t because valid skepticism of the major conclusions is really becoming a fringe phenomenon. I emphasize “major” conclusions – like the ‘A’ in AGW, because there are many areas of debate and skepticism in the details. But if Willie Soon or Lindzen have such strong points, why can’t they convince the NAS to make a statement acknowledging it? The reason is that most of their positions do not hold up to scrutiny.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Hi Roger,
You wrote, “To supply this much energy in 2020, while meeting a target of 14 percent reduction in emissions, is highly unlikely. Consider that the target could be reached if coal consumption were reduced by about 42 percent, being replaced by renewables plus nuclear energy. But this would imply more than a doubling of the supply of renewable plus nuclear energy. Due to the challenges faced in establishing new nuclear plants, this alone seems impossible to achieve in the next 10 years. However, scaling up renewables may be even more daunting. If we assume that the nuclear power supply doubles between now and 2020, wind and solar would have to increase their role in supply 80-fold over current values to make up the difference.”
I don’t understand that paragraph; it seems like it may contain an error. You initially say that nuclear plus renewables would need to “more than double” by 2020. Then you say that, “If we assume that the nuclear power supply doubles between now and 2020, wind and solar power would have to increase their role in supply 80-fold over current values to make up the difference.”
Did you actually mean that the 80-fold increase would be needed if nuclear power did NOT double by 2020, but instead stayed the same (or went away entirely)?
Mark
P.S. According to the EIA, here are values for U.S. electrical generation, in thousands of megawatthours for 2008 (http removed so the comments won’t be held):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html#_ftnref4
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1_a.html
Total = 4,156,745
Coal = 2,016,456
Nuclear = 806,425
Wind alone = 52,036
Total renewables (including wind) = 123,726
So if wind alone grew by a factor of 80, that would be almost exactly equal to the total U.S. electrical generation in 2008. (However, a factor of 80 in 11 years–i.e., by 2020–would be a doubling approximately every 16 months. Not very likely!)
April 15th, 2009 at 10:33 am
The EIA data also show that wind is running at about a 25 % overall capacity factor. By which I mean (actual Watt-hours)/(installed Watt-hours)
The answer is not blowing in the wind.
April 15th, 2009 at 10:56 am
dean says:
“But if Willie Soon or Lindzen have such strong points, why can’t they convince the NAS to make a statement acknowledging it? The reason is that most of their positions do not hold up to scrutiny.”
LOL. That is a very good question, but probably a very poor answer (there are many other possible answers, after all). The fact that temperatures have not increased significantly in 12 years should be causing some back-pedaling by NAS and other such organizations that now have their figurative necks stuck out so far that they can’t help but losing their heads. If things don’t start warming, it will be very comical to watch all these “experts” squirm.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
The use of a single year’s extreme warmth (even well above the warming trend) in 1998 as proof (sic) that it isn’t warming any more is an example of people doing what they accuse their opponents of doing – using one measure to prove (or disprove) a trend.
The rate of warming has slowed a bit this decade and there are very good and obvious explanations for much if it. But the upward trend continues. Even the recent winter in the US was well above the historic temp average, and only seemed cool to people because they are comparing it to recent warmer winters.
However, jae’s final statement is true. Most analysts are expecting an el nino to start later this year, and many climatologists are saying that the decade of the 2010’s will see serious acceleration. One more year one way or the other won’t affect this, but if the strength of the trend of the 1990’s does not return in spades in the 2010’s, there will be some serious searching for what’s going on, unless something obvious occurs to temporarily counter the trend (like Pinatubo or bigger).
And if jae has another explanation for why the NAS is not backing up any of the more serious skeptics, please share. 10-20 years ago, many non-climatologist scientists were fairly skeptical. That their opinions are closing in on climatologists tells me that climatology is filling in the gaps and has its act together. “Okay, NOW I’m convinced” has been a common statement of many prominent non-climatologist scientists in recent years.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
dean says,
“That their opinions are closing in on climatologists tells me that climatology is filling in the gaps and has its act together.”
Or it tells you that constant demonization of sceptics by activists has made most scientists decide that being a sceptic is not worth the hassle.
Peer pressure is a powerful force and it is naive to assume that scientists are immune.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“The rate of warming has slowed a bit this decade and there are very good and obvious explanations for much if it.”
What are they?
“…and many climatologists are saying that the decade of the 2010’s will see serious acceleration.”
What specific numbers do the “many climatologists” predict, and do you have any identification of who exactly the “many climatologists” are (e.g., is there some paper or report you have in mind)?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“The EIA data also show that wind is running at about a 25 % overall capacity factor. By which I mean (actual Watt-hours)/(installed Watt-hours).”
Yes, the capacity factor for a wind plant is much, much lower than for a coal-fired or nuclear plant. So while the nameplate megawatts added by wind seem very impressive, one needs to recognize the much lower capacity factor for wind versus coal or nuclear. It’s total energy (megawatt-hours) that counts. So a 1000 MW coal or nuclear plant ends up being like 3000 MW of wind power.
“The answer is not blowing in the wind.”
I agree. Nuclear power currently supplies about 20 percent of the total megawatt-hours of electricity produced in the U.S. I’d be very surprised if wind ever gets up to that percentage. The public would never stand for the large amount of high-voltage transmission that would be required to get the wind electricity from where it’s generated (the middle of the country) to where it’s needed (the East Coast and West Coast), if the transmission were above-ground. And it would be incredibly expensive the transmission was below-ground.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
. . . What are they?
Pinatubo initially, an extended la nina more recently, a solar maunder minimum to a slight degree. Otoh, specific impacts have been ahead of schedule in some places and forms, the recent National Geographic report of Australia shows, also Greenland melting, etc.
. . . What specific numbers do the “many climatologists” predict, and do you have any identification of who exactly the “many climatologists” are (e.g., is there some paper or report you have in mind)?
No I don’t have them handy. I’ve seen such references but did not note them to refer back to.
As to demonization of skeptics, there is demonization on both sides over time. The owner of this blog has suffered some, but so has Jim Hansen. And his was at the hands of his employer in the last administration. Scientists certainly are not immune to peer pressure, but I think that cross-disciplinary peer pressure is not so strong.
Find me one – one – major academy, or even a significant discipline-specific scientific organization of the scores out there, that criticizes the IPCC. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change which includes this:
“With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.”
April 15th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Dean, will you kindly point me to reports and papers containing quantitative analyses of; (1) statements of the problem(s), (2) proposed solutions, (3) a prioritized list for implementing candidate solutions, (4) time and cost estimates for development and implementation of high-priority solution candidates, (5) the expected results, both positive and negative, relative to alleviating the problem(s), and (6) proposed metrics for assessing progress on both implementation of solutions and the effectiveness of the solutions.
Let me emphasize that I’m looking for quantitative analyses of all aspects. Let me assume that the problems include one or both of (a) rates of emissions of CO2 and (b) target concentrations of CO2 in the earth’s systems at, say, 100 years into the future. Estimates of the impacts of the natural evolution of all technologies that might be important relative to both the problem(s) and the candidate solutions over a few hundred years, while somewhat subjective / qualitative, are also of interest.
I predict that you can’t point me to such reports. It’s a work-in-progress all over the planet. And that’s precisely the overarching problem. These critically necessary studies and reports don’t exist. The resulting ‘just do something’ so-called solution is doomed to failure with 100 % probability.
At the present time the just do something seems to be focused on carbon taxes and carbon cap-n-trade. Can you point me to any other product or service for which these approaches have been successful. Have such approaches ever before been applied to products and services that are absolutely essential to a happy, healthy, and safe life for all inhabitants of the planet. In the meantime, those who can afford the costs the least, and actually not at all, will be hurt the most.
As a simple and focused zeroth-order cut, can you show me the requested information for let’s say solar / wind / biomass, or any other green-grade renewable energy source of your choice, for displacing the base-load electricity now generated by use of coal in only the US. Then maybe we can take a look at China and India and Africa. I’m especially interested in the metrics of (6) above.
Thanks in advance.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
dean,
The suggestion that the demonization of alternate views is something that all are equally guilty of is unmitigated balderdash. The campaign on the part of the legions AGW activists designed to suppress all dissent against the ‘consesus’ is relentless and supported by virtually every media outlet. Hansen himself has called for sceptics to charged with high crimes against humanity.
When some lower level functionaries tried to enforce long standing NASA policies regarding public statements, Hansen complained to the media and it was front page news. End of story. Of course he loves to play the victim card because it plays well with his fans.
Lomborg, on the other hand, was treated like a heretic and was hauled up in front of a committee on ‘unscientific activities’ in Denmark for daring to suggest mitigation may not be the best approach to the problem. The ghost of McCarthy lives on.
If the only argument you have is the consensus must be correct because there is a consensus then you have no argument.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:09 pm
EDaniel – You seem to suggest that because a response is a work-in-progress, that we do nothing until all that is figured out. But with a problem of this complexity, we can’t know exactly how everything will work, and that is a standard aspect of public policy. From economics to public health policy to national security, we operate in an environment of imperfect information. THAT is the way of the world, and we can’t sit on our hands until we are positive of everything.
But the lack of perfect information doesn’t mean that we are just doing something for the sake of doing something. Climate change is one of the most intensely studied global phenomenon of this age. You may not agree with the results or think it adequate, but our information and knowledge is constantly improving. That is why there is such broad support for the IPCC process and conclusions from scientific academies.
No, I’m not going to point you to lists of studies. The IPCC report is a good place to start if you want to do the work, as it does address many of the issues you ask about. I’m not going to do it for you, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a vast amount of information available if you want to go find it. Asking a blog participant to do all your work is the oldest trick in the game. I’ve seen references to a lot of it, but I’m neither a librarian nor a scientist myself.
April 15th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Roger,
It is hard to disagree with your article. But if the situation is that clear why do people still want the impossible?
April 16th, 2009 at 5:59 am
dean, in stark contrast to you, I have done the work. The information doesn’t exist.
And no, you are additionally wrong when you say, “Asking a blog participant to do all your work is the oldest trick in the game.” Throwing out YANS (Yet Another Naked Strawman) is the oldest game in the book. Why is it my work to find the data that supports your arguments?
dean, you lost.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
EDaniel – The very detailed list of content you requested was written by you, not by me. I did not make that list or say that I had that specific information. Please quote something that I posted that you would like me to provide evidence for.
One thing I failed to provide was cites to climatologists who expect warming in the 2010’s. Over time, I can go back and find that.
In the mean time, you will find a lot of what you’re looking for here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
April 17th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Dean,
If you are citing the IPCC as if it represented real science, you probably think that the real purpose of the recent “Stimulus” package out of Washington was to stimulate the economy.
Newsflash for you — climate scientists (at least the ones producing the IPCC mess) don’t follow the scientific method. Their “science” is garbage. They don’t replicate studies and they make it as difficult as possible for others to check their work. They abuse statistics and torture common sense. Quality control doesn’t exist and their data is hopelessly contaminated.
For just one example from the many — fewer than 15% of the temperature monitoring stations in the US meet basic scientific standards. While that is a scandal in itself, the real outrage is that Hansen and his cohorts never even bothered to check. Even children in a junior high science class understand the need to insure that measurements are accurate. The incompetence, while stunning, is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude of the recklessness and indifference to the suffering of others.
What kind of scientist would demand that billions of people suffer because of his scientific “studies” without bothering to even check his instruments? Without bothering to replicate studies to provide confirmation? Without insuring transparency so that others were able to check the work? Without adopting even token quality control measures?
Descriptions like scandal and outrage are inadequate for the task.