Sunday 21 November 2010

Technology first

Get the technology sorted first.
The iron law tells us that the basic math of global emissions will only become more unforgiving. As countries like China and India develop, they will demand ever-greater supplies of cheap energy. Global energy use will likely double or triple over the next 50 years, even if we use energy much more efficiently. If developing countries can't get energy from cheap low-carbon sources, they will get it from fossil fuels.

While the iron law of climate may seem obvious, many on the left continue to reject it, insisting that turning up the volume with dire warnings of climate apocalypse and civil-rights-style protests can overcome the basic technological and economic obstacles to action. These efforts have only resulted in the intensification of the climate wars and increased the polarization of the issue.

Coming to terms with these realities will require answering a raft of questions. If campaigns based on the dangers of global warming don't work, how can we build a different kind of political consensus for action? Given our increasingly polarized political culture, where are the opportunities for bipartisanship? How do we reduce carbon emissions in the absence of high carbon prices and what strategies can accommodate developing countries' overriding need for inexpensive energy?

In the end, all questions—whether political or economic—return to questions of technology. What will it take to develop energy technologies that are clean, cheap, and abundant? If private firms are unlikely to make sustained investments in the development of those technologies, what role should the public sector play in undertaking those activities? How do we ensure that such efforts will improve the cost and performance of energy technologies, rather than simply subsidizing the production of more of the same?

At the Breakthrough Institute, we've long championed energy innovation and technology investment as the central strategies to address climate change. This approach is consistent with America's historically bipartisan commitment to economic prosperity and geopolitical security and our long tradition of investing in new technologies that have remade American life for the better.

A technology-first policy is not the same as a technology-only one. Better and cheaper energy technologies are a precondition for successful caps or carbon taxes, not a substitute. This is, in fact, how the United States tackled past pollution challenges like acid rain and ozone depletion: First we created low-cost alternatives, and then we implemented regulations to require their widespread adoption. (emphasis added)
Again, New Zealand should be finding a niche in methane-mitigation agricultural research for free distribution to the world rather than beating itself up with an ETS (prior posts here and here).

3 comments:

  1. A technology-first policy is not the same as a technology-only one. Better and cheaper energy technologies are a precondition for successful caps or carbon taxes, not a substitute. This is, in fact, how the United States tackled past pollution challenges like acid rain and ozone depletion: First we created low-cost alternatives, and then we implemented regulations to require their widespread adoption

    Oh the irony and tragedy in that. They're learning, that's obvious: allow the evil industries to create what we need, then regulate them into dust.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, its not just methane. Second, I don't understand the "rather than". If we had the balls to stick with including agriculture in the ETS, there would be huge investment in "technologies" that involved ditching much of the expensive chemical fertiliser drug peddling we have come to regard as normal. Are kiwi farmers innovative or is it all just a myth? Now is the time to find out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @John: Methane's the big agricultural one though, no? And one where we have a shot at making a difference?

    Agreed that imposing costs on agriculture, either through ETS or a comprehensive carbon/greenhouse tax would have spurred research.

    Think of it this way. Imagine the maximum possible effect of NZ cutting emissions in NZ - all emissions drop to zero. Whatever warming is going on is delayed by what, a fortnight? So instead of reaching +x in 100 years, we reach it in 100 years and a fortnight? Why would we ever impose big ETS or carbon tax charges on ourselves - where nobody else is - to save the world that fortnight? Now, imagine instead that the costs we would have imposed on ourselves through ETS/tax are instead put to developing tech that's then shared globally under creative commons patents to reduce global emissions. Surely that has to have greater effect.

    ReplyDelete