On Tuesday, I attended the Set America Free Coalition’s first in a series of energy policy events featuring 2008 presidential candidates.  The speaker was Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS).  After profusely, effusively (and a little awkwardly) thanking his hosts for giving him the time for a genuine “policy speech,” Brownback launched into a reasonable, if not groundbreaking, oratory advocating a range incremental steps toward energy independence for North America over the next 15 years.  His best turn of phrase was probably when he called for US dependence on the Midwest rather than the Mideast for our energy.  It’s one of his campaign speech staples.
In addition to extensive facts and figures, Brownback’s talk featured a number of logical and political word games endemic to this genre of “I have a plan to fix energy insecurity in 10-15 years” pitches.  His official energy policy platform calls for increased US ethanol production based on boosting agricultural output in Midwestern states like Kansas (of course), increasing domestic petroleum exploration and production, and expanding use and production of biofuels.  In other words, Brownback—like many of his competitors for the nomination from both parties—thinks our salvation lies in converting food crops and agricultural waste into clean and abundant vehicle fuel.  And that’s pretty much where his plan ends.

Naturally, finding the technology to achieve the miraculous conversion of biomass into gas at a viable price and scale is the key to Brownback’s energy security solution.  Conveniently, he did not get much into the substance of how, whether or how soon that technology will work.  He’s not alone.  Politicians these days toss all their (and our) hopes onto the technological bandwagon for two simple reasons: (1) neither they nor we understand or are expected to understand the technologies (especially when they haven’t been invented yet!), and (2) it is a lot easier to predict a technological revolution than to call for costly, concerted action to change our national infrastructure or our cherished, fuel-burning way of life.  In addition, industries doing energy R&D want government dollars, and politicians are happy to promise those dollars as long as doing so relieves public pressure to undertake tougher legislative solutions.  Meanwhile, we’re all temporarily forgiven for driving polluting cars while we wait for the technological panacea that won’t cost us a penny extra but will save the environment and rid us of our oil addiction. (more…)

Given the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see summary here ) and the recent meeting of one of its working groups in Thailand  there is increasing focus on what should be the actual fixes to try and slow and then reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases  in order to stabilize climate change.
 
People disagree on what should figure into the solution, which, in and of itself, is not bad, as reasonable people can disagree. But usually most people say that nuclear power must be included in the mix. While one might expect opposition from environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, which has come out with a recent report on The Economics of Nuclear Power there are others who are also skeptical. 
 
A case in point is the enormously status quo elite establishment group, The Council on Foreign Relations. A report it commissioned, Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks  found that:

nuclear energy, despite its attributes, is  unlikely to play a major role in the coming decades in strengthening energy security or in countering the harmful effects of climate change. In particular, the rapid rate of nuclear reactor expansion required to make even a modest reduction in global warming would drive up construction costs and create shortages in building materials, trained personnel, and safety controls.
 

Undoubtedly the best line in the 1986 Australian comedy film Crocodile Dundee was when the protagonist Mick Dundee is approached by a mugger carrying a switchblade. Mick says, “That’s not a knife, mate”, then draws a very large bowie knife and continues “This is a knife”.
 
I thought of that line as I read Climate Change 2007: Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. This report, released last Friday, actually the summary of Working Group II Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fourth Assessment Report, lays out in very clear and direct terms what the future holds. As Jeff Goldblum said, in another 1986 movie the Fly, “Be afraid, be very afraid.”
 
And therein is the problem. Not nearly enough people are afraid, or even concerned. And we should be screaming our lungs out about what is our future is bringing. Note I did not write may bring or might bring. I am writing about what is coming. Forget about terrorism or nuclear proliferation. We are talking about wrenching global catastrophe unprecedented in human history. One is going to have to go back nearly 250 million years in time to find something comparable; the Permian mass extinction,  which was the greatest mass extinction ever recorded in earth history.
 
For those who think that this is hyperbole see the new book, Under A Green Sky, by biology professor Peter D. Ward. He discovered that the near-total devastation at the end of the Permian period was caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide leading to climate change.
 
Let’s look at what the report’s authors wrote. Scientists, unlike politicians, don’t try to sway people’s minds with dire predictions, preferring to let the facts speak for themselves. But they really don’t need to do anything more than that.

(more…)