This weekend’s 12,000-person protest in Washington against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline proved that the environmental movement has a strong presence in the coming elections.
But for all that strength, the movement is missing one key ingredient: A tangible plan for our economy without the tar sands pipeline.
Sure, activists have clear demands for greater support of clean energy, effective clean air and water standards, strong local land rights, and national action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But the short-term economic arguments in favor of this pipeline — no matter how grossly inflated — may outweigh some of those environmental concerns. No one has yet presented a comprehensive, business-focused vision for the U.S. without the pipeline. Until now.
The Rocky Mountain Institute just released it’s latest book, Reinventing Fire, which provides a “grand synthesis” of decades-long research on how to create a profitable transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to an efficient, clean energy economy by 2050 that is 150% bigger than today — with no major technological breakthroughs and no major act of Congress.
Yes, you read that correctly.
We had a chance to sit down with RMI’s Co-Founder and Chief Scientist, Amory Lovins, to chat about how the plan came together:
It actually came out of the analysis. We simply followed the numbers where they led and found we could get internal rates for turn of say 33 percent in buildings, 21 in industry, 17 in transport without price in carbon. We could meet all of the normal investment expectations in each sector by combining modern efficiency and renewable supply techniques. The policy innovations needed to unlock or speed options by private sector could all be done administratively or at the state level. So it is not a policy-free approach. Quite the contrary, policy innovation is an important component, it just happens not to require any act in congress.
The RMI plan utilizes what Lovins calls “business acupuncture” — finding key pressure points that can potentially unlock large amounts of innovation within the entire energy and transportation system.
In outlining specific sets of actions based upon difficulty of implementation and profitability, the Reinventing Fire plan is designed to give business and policy makers an aggressive-but-realistic blueprint for considering dramatic change in the energy sector.
A realist might scoff at the idea of using no fossil fuels by 2050. But as RMI has proven in its research and implementation over the years, the solutions to our energy problems are often just beneath the surface. In many cases, all it takes is a healthy dose of creativity in thinking about new approaches to deployment, says Lovins.
The main ingredients are awareness of what’s possible, paying attention, and business leadership, clearing away some policy obstacles (administratively or at state level), and going out and making money, which is what business is good at. You require no new inventions, our required are only normal maturation and refinement of existing technologies.
For many in the activist or scientific community, projects like the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline are “game over” or “a line in the sand.” But that’s not necessarily true.
With a strong plan in place to prove that such projects are completely unnecessary, the argument can get beyond “climate morals” and move deeper into the economic and political realm. Opponents of the pipeline would be wise to use this plan to their advantage.
To hear more, listen to this week’s Climate Progress podcast at the top of the page. In this week’s show, we’ll also speak with Rick Fedrizzi, president of the U.S. Green Building Council, about why the building design and construction sector is “never going back.”
You can access previous episodes on our podcast feed. And yes, our feed will be on iTunes soon.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
It’s a nice theory, but while the sun is free, so are coal and gas, with btu’s included. I’d like to see more details.
As for 2050, that’s too late. Fossil fuel companies love these kinds of timelines. Amory needs to keep up on climate science, and realize that a lot more urgency is needed, including from government.
His basic argument is correct. Clean energy is already close to being economic. But how can he ignore the need to eventually drive Congress to charge fossils for carbon and other externalities? And how on earth can he not vociferously oppose the tar sands pipeline? Whether it’s game over or not, that thing must be stopped.
I’ve heard Amory’s speeches at conferences, and he is brilliant and informative, especially on the subject of cars. He needs to move toward the need for urgent political action, because we already have it on the side of the fossil fuel companies. And “create, create” sounds too much like Pielke’s “more research” to me.
Still the obsession with growth. The planet cannot bear an economy 150% greater than it is now, no matter how many clever techno-fixes we come up with. Without steady-state economics, followed by economic diminution and a humane reduction in global population by at least 50% (best achieved through radical wealth redistribution) we are stuffed.
Absolutely! Growth is not the answer.
????
Although I’m glad to hear about the new book, I don’t understand — and don’t agree with — the comments made in the second and third paragraphs of the post.
Among other problems with them, what in the heck does this mean: “But the short-term economic arguments in favor of this pipeline — no matter how grossly inflated — may outweigh some of those environmental concerns.”
Really? Can you explain? Am I reading the blog that I think I’m reading?
Be Well,
Jeff
Hi Jeff — I’m referring to job creation. Check out the link and you’ll see variation in job number figures.
Look at all the polls. Environmental issues are far down the list compared to job creation numbers. Although the environmental movement has an increasingly strong voice, clearly Americans are looking for jobs, jobs, jobs.
That’s just the reality. When people hear job figures, no matter how inflated and no matter how damaging to the environment, that can push aside other concerns.
Do you disagree?
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for your response, and sorry for my grouchiness. That said, consider this:
The following are two very different sentences:
1. But the short-term economic arguments in favor of this pipeline — no matter how grossly inflated — may outweigh some of those environmental concerns.
2. But in the minds of many voters, and apparently to many politicians, the short-term economic arguments in favor of this pipeline — no matter how grossly inflated — may outweigh some of those environmental concerns.
Version 1 is written as if YOU agree with it, i.e., as if you think that the jobs outweigh the environmental issues, or at least “may” outweigh them.
And Version 1 is the way you’ve written it in the post.
Version 2, on the other hand, clearly indicates that the writer is making an observation about what other people may think, as part of setting the political context to explain why the new book will be helpful.
Version 1 and Version 2 are very different in terms of what they mean and what they imply. VERY different. And because the posts go out to (what?) 40,000 folks or so, and because they are available for cherry-picking and being taken out of context by “the other side”, such differences are important, it seems to me. That’s why I was struck — early this AM, before my coffee — by the statement.
But (in the interest of explaining my reaction, or perhaps over-reaction) that’s not the only issue. As I read them, a couple of those paragraphs say, or strongly imply, that the movement had been without any sensible economic/jobs insights, aims, plans, or so forth until this book arrived to save the day. Your intro *almost* makes it sound as though the movement, folks championing renewable energy, and etc. have been in the dark about the (obvious) connection between jobs and the work involved in making the necessary energy transition — until now, with the arrival of this new book. In short, those two paragraphs sounded too over-the-top to me in terms of setting the context for the new book. To be clear, I’m not at all negative on the book: it sounds great, and I haven’t read it yet. But, the context you set for it makes it sound like the movement has been deeply amiss up until now. That would seem to let other people (politicians, etc.) somewhat off the hook up to this point — after all, if even YOU have thought that the short-term economic priorities may outweigh the environmental issues, and only now (with this book) you can see things differently, then others who have been saying so (that the economic priorities outweigh the environmental ones) have been seeing thins sensibly, up until now. That’s the implication.
In any case, no biggie. Just my reaction to the contextual set-up you provided, as I read it.
I look forward to the book, and I hope it helps.
Be Well,
Jeff
Buildings are the key – today demanding over 50% of our energy use. We can increase comfort, health and the economy while reducing energy use in buildings up to 70% and heating and cooling energy by up to 90% through Passive House and near Passive House building retrofits. We are doing it in New York – check out the open houses this weekend at NY Passive House – and see the future today. Link here: http://www.meetup.com/NYPassiveHouse/
Best,
Ken
PS – Amory is a big supporter of Passive House building and retrofits.
Stephen, had you said “may outweigh, in the public’s mind,…” it might have sounded different; as it is, it sounds, or can sound to some, as if your “may outweigh” meant “may be more important [so we should go for the pipeline”
It’s our job not only to speak up for the environment but to point out to the logical *fallacy* that even if the numbers given to us are “not” inflated, that we “should” go for it. This is logically false even if we care not at all for the environment, for the simple reason that one could create the same number of jobs in another way…it’s a false dichotomy of “pass this and get these jobs or else you wont’ get that same number of new jobs”..this second point is need to emphasize too, I think.
On another front:
Of course the “business case” is important to make, but the fact that it so overwhelms other cases, is a sad statement about our country (and indeed the global developed country corporate capitalist culture, how’s that for alliteration?) As if the harder to measure or unmeasurable ‘protect the environment’ is so far far below. Remind one of Bill Clinton in the 90s pointing out that every $1 spent to immunize kids reaps $X later..sure, I agree, we _should_ make that case, but the fact that that was (virtually) the only case made repeatedly and strongly and forcefully, as opposed to “protecting kids from disease and suffering is also, intrinsically good” shows how far we’ve become the modern corporate capitalist version of a society which “knows the price of everything and the value of nothing”
I’m a big fan of Lovins. Hansen however spends a fair bit of time in his book showing how dangerous it is to assume “could happen” equals “will happen”. He specifically compares Lovins past prediction on energy transformation with the fossil fuelled reality that has emerged. His point isn’t to disparage anyone. His point is that you have to keep the focus on stopping fossil fuels via effective carbon pricing. Hoping that fossil fuel use will decline without a carbon price has been a recipe for disaster so far.
I have to reluctantly agree. It would be nice if the free-market would lead us to a low-carbon economy on its own, but that’s not going to be the case. The free-market can do it, but it appears that it wouldn’t do it without the right market-incentives (i.e. a price on carbon). I’m staying hopeful that some renewables could become cheaper than fossil-fuel alternatives within the next 10 yrs (as many are predicting for solar), but I still think we need the right policies. Even the IPCC said we will not see a rapid deployment of renewables without government policy.
The so-called ‘free market’ exists to serve the rich, because they control the precious bodily essence of capitalism, money. A totally free, fair and egalitarian market never existed. A capitalist market can only destroy natural capital, enslave the poor and weak and further enrich the already over-endowed. That is how it is designed to operate.
I was hoping to hear someone close to LEED talk about aspects of the more specific and smaller-scope–but more much more energy efficient–Passivhaus standard, and how LEED could incorporate some of its more stringent standards in that regard. But I am disappoint.
Passive House/Passivhaus is gaining traction here in the U.S. – if you are in the New York area this Friday through Sunday go visit one of the many open houses: http://www.meetup.com/NYPassiveHouse/
The USGBC folks we know are enthusiastic supporters of what Passive House is doing – and I’d be surprised if there wasn’t some formal incorporation into LEED in the near future.
Its a mistake to group nuclear power in with coal oil and gas.
Its also probably a terrible mistake to push renewables manufactured in China. You have some of the dirtiest coal electric there – supporting factory complexes when 1/3 the population is still using indoor coal stoves and heating.
It could be worse than just using gas in the US. No one seems to bother checking.
From 2009
China’s increasing carbon emissions blamed on manufacturing for west
New research shows extent of ‘offshore’ emissions as Chinese manfacturing for US accounts for 6% of total ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/china-carbon-emissions )
On average, the Chinese worker receives $300 a month for the same work that would pay Americans $4,000 a month. ( http://www.mlive.com/midland/index.ssf/2011/03/ap_evergreen_solar_didnt_move_to_china_for_cheap_labor.html )
I have been a fan of Amory’s and RMI for ages, but I believe they have a blind spot — a belief in the market to self-correct.
In reality, status quo technologies using large infrastructure investments rarely change simply because something better comes along. Such investments have a strong and networked financial, political, and policy bias that keeps them in place long after it has made any sense. The notion of “technological lock-in” has been well documented.
In fact, it is instructive that the countries RMI uses as examples — Denmark, Germany, China etc … all have aggressive public policies and laws that forced the changes they extoll.
Markets suffice, and resist change. Switching from CDs to MP3′s or whatever isn’t the same as switching from something in which sunk costs are huge, and future profits are huger — fossil fuel interests will resist change until they’ve cashed in on the downside of Hubbert’s peak, where profits will be astounding.
So I’d say, RMI has correctly outlined what is possible, desirable, and logical, but they have made a critical mistake expecting the market to “produce” the change merely by removing a few impediments.
Perhaps if we had unlimited time, we could let the market run the change — all we’d lose is money. But we don’t have time, and we will lose too much if we wait for the market to do what must be done.
After all, the market has been ignoring substantial opportunities for cost-effective reduction in energy use for decades, not withstanding the modest gains in efficiency we’ve achieved.
An “economy by 2050 that is 150% bigger than today” sounds good, for a moment.
An ‘economy that grows at an average of 1% per year, for decades’ sounds thoroughly inadequate.
150% bigger = 3% per year increase until 2050 (average), not 1%.
Oh brother. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised about the idea presented that the (faked, temporary) job gains outweigh environmental concerns after the same author in the same blog defended Bank of America a few weeks ago. (yes, I saw the comment that supposedly the sentence is about the greater public’s ideas, but that is not what the sentence actually says: “But the short-term economic arguments in favor of this pipeline — no matter how grossly inflated — may outweigh some of those environmental concerns.” I’m sure we’d be reading about head vices if the NY Times didn’t put these sorts of generalizations in context).
I wasn’t able to listen to the podcast (in Safari, the link just took me to my RSS feed in Mail) but the more time people who really care about this stuff spend on trying to convince themselves and others that our unsustainable economic system is compatible with a sustainable planet, the more time is wasted.
Do you think big oil is going to give up their 100 billion in profit for a gentle, “pro-business” transition to a carbon-free economy? The “market” is not going to do it. Plus, I’ve never read anything credible about a carbon-free way to enable air travel, so I’d be interested to see how the book deals with this issue. And since I didn’t see livestock mentioned, I’m also skeptical about claims of getting to zero emissions without huge reductions in meat product consumption. And even if we can grow by 50% with zero carbon emissions, BAU will bring us against other limits of our planet. And finally, who wants to live on a planet that continues the inequities of income and wealth that the OWS movement is bringing to our consciousness? A business, market-based approach is saying that we like the business and market models of today if they could be carbon free. That’s not the planet I want to fight for.
I’ve learned quite a bit on this blog about the science. But I think the contradictions between saying “the world economy is a ponzi scheme” and then weekly postings about how the economy can stay the same, only greener and carbon-free is getting to be (or has surpassed) “head vice” material. I’d suggest that those who already know the science also learn and think about how our economic and political system will defend BAU with all their might. Out of a long list of authors/works, Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” would be a good place to start. (and while it was written during W’s presidency, no, nothing has improved since Obama’s election)
If the challenges we face were purely related to energy and carbon emissions, I’d be heartened by this article. Unfortunately, I know better: it is the combined ecological impact of our actions that is driving us, along with most other species, toward extinction. RMI’s related infographic (on their site) shows an 84% increase in industrial production and only a 9%-13% energy savings, along with technology that appears to continue depending on increasingly scarce resources. Since we’re in ecological overshoot by an estimated 58%, this plan may be a step in the right direction, but I’m afraid it will ultimately just encourage more habitat loss and more (if different) pollution, all based on the false hope that our inherently rapacious economic system can yield a gain in happiness and longevity that justifies its costs.
Hard to see how to create a low carbon, reliable on-demand electricity grid without substantial nuclear to replace the coal burners.
You are too nice David. Right now its impossible. Period.
A solution to climate change is economic collapse. If we collapse economically we will meet our carbon reduction targets. If we don’t want to go that route, we could choose to reduce the complexity in our economy by investing in basic infrastructure like regular rail for freight and passenger and the development and protection of soil and water close to our population centers. Our financial systems are very unstable currently so I don’t think a big increase in GDP is in the cards anyway. Better to face the reality that we cannot finance and build huge infrastructure like massive solar (& what will replace liquid fuel for cars pray tell?) – we must be content with building basic infrastructure and simplified systems and with having negative growth. We can manage it and save the planet and our species.
I’m sorry to say I bought Kindle version of this book last night. It (I read some and skimmed the rest) was even worse than I thought from reading this article. It turns out that when he mentions “an efficient, clean energy economy,” he includes natural gas in his definition of “clean.” (Hence the forwards to the book by the CEO’s of Shell Oil and Exelon Corp.) Yeah, friggin’ frackin’ clean. He even defends fracking and going after shale gas — it’s just some bad corporate apples argument? We need better regulation (but not a major act of congress) and fracking will be ok. Included in the 58% growth is a 70% increase in sq. footage of buildings in US by 2050. We want building sq footage in the US to grow faster than the population why exactly? Supersize the McMansions?
Heavy transportation is solved by hydrogen (regular readers know what Joe Romm thinks about that “solution”), second generation biofuels (I haven’t read much that shows this to be ready, but would like to know more), and gas. (in addition to efficiencies). He claims government cannot and should not steer the changes he talks about in the book. However, sprinkled throughout are numerous (perhaps hundreds, although I haven’t read all of the book) changes to regulations that would be needed because business will steer the changes, but then again of course they won’t unless they have to. So no one major act of Congress will be needed, but tens or hundreds of small ones will be. I don’t see the distinction.
He even has deforestation as a “solution.” Yes, he couches it as using “waste” from logging, but he’s counting on increased logging to generate more waste. If there’s an increase of 70% of building square footage, we’ll need the increased logging! I guess we should be happy that the logging may bring us liquid fuel as a waste product to transport 50% more junk to our 70% bigger buildings. And he says no technology breakthroughs are needed, but “innovation” and “technology improvements” are. Again, that’s just semantics. Oh, and he wants the too big US to grow by 58%, including 70% increase in buildings, so I shudder to think about the rest of the world.
By definition and by law, corporations must ignore humanity and the planet in order to function. By definition we have economic collapse in our system if we don’t keep growing indefinitely. One commenter, understanding economics and exponential growth even points out that 50% growth in 40 years is too small!! Corporations and our economy cannot have the same structure if we want to save humanity. By definition and by law, Shell has to look out for Shell’s shareholders. We can pretend that working with B of A or Shell or Exelon will solve our problems, but by definition, it won’t. (that’s without even considering the insidious and criminal acts that corporate interests engage in) Yes, Shell will hedge their oil with natural gas. B of A will hedge their coal with solar. But we’re beyond needing little bits that help. And again, even if his solutions would really save civilization (they wouldn’t), his vision is not a civilization worth IMO, the major fight that is necessary. We can’t have BAU everything except fuel use and emissions. But even if we could, why does anyone think it’s desirable?
Yes, he still has the hydrogen nonsense. But the analysis on efficiency is I think worth the price of the book.
Thanks for reading the book, nosoyyo. I was too nice in my earlier comment, apparently.
RMI has something like 70 employees. Apparently they are being fed by the oil companies.
Lovins is somewhere between dangerous and irrelevant, based on your comments about his book. It’s not just hydrogen he’s wrong about. Touting logging just shows that he is just another talker, who doesn’t do his homework at all.
Nosoyyo,
I object strenuously to your generalization that corporations have to ignore the planet and humanity in order to function. The late Ray Anderson (Interface Flooring)spent a good part of his career proving that you can make modern, quality products and still have the interests of people and the planet as a core value.