I won the scientifically rigorous online voting in the Economist.com Oxford-style debate, 55% to 45% — a landslide of epic proportion. And that’s not even counting all the people who voted for the “con” side thinking they were actually supporting the pro side, since, if you actually read my opponent’s argument, he doesn’t really disagree with me that we can in fact solve our energy problems with existing technologies.
You can read my posts here:
- Opening Statement: The bad news is we can’t wait for breakthroughs to solve our energy problems. The good news is we don’t have to. “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment.”
- Rebuttal Statement: I agree with Peter Meisen that “Energy efficient buildings, rooftop solar, smart grids, electric/hybrid cars and renewable electricity will become the norm for our children.” I do not agree this will be expensive nor do I think it will require technology breakthroughs.
- Closing Statement: The time has come for aggressive deployment of energy efficient and renewable energy technologies. Indeed it is long overdue. Breakthroughs are nice, like winning the lottery, but in fact, breakthroughs in energy technology that fundamentally change how we use energy are considerably rarer than most people realise
- The Debate of the Decade Revisited — Avoiding the Technology Trap
- Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution
- IEA report, Part 2: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right
- Must read: Bush DOE says wind can be 20% of U.S. power by 2030 — with no breakthroughs
- Is 450 ppm possible? Part 5: Old coal’s out, can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do NOW?
- Do we need a massive government program to generate breakthroughs to make solar energy cost-competitive?
- The technologies needed to beat 450 ppm
- The debate of the decade: Technology development vs. deployment
- Renewable Energy Subterfuge: Bush’s Sleight of Hand
- Chapter Six Excerpt: The Technology Trap and the American Way of Life
- Time to end the phony, and historically inaccurate, debate
- Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah.”