I am participating in an online debate sponsored by the Economist on the “Global energy crisis.” The proposition being debated Oxford-style is:
Needless to say, I am taking the “Pro” side.
There is voting by the public for both Pro and Con. Although online voting is about as scientific as a typical argument from a global warming denier, I’d always rather win than lose (or, worse, statistically tie and then have the judges redo the calculation and give the gold to some underage host-country gymnast who screwed up their dismount, but I digress).
Three of Climate Progress’s central messages are:
- Actual observations of climate change coupled with our understanding of climate science makes clear we have run out of time for dawdling, for waiting to achieve multiple breakthrough TILTs (The Imaginary Low-carbon Technology).
- The state of energy technology means we have what we need now (or soon will) to reverse emissions trends and get on the path to averting catastrophe at very low cost relative to the benefits.
- While some very sincere and concerned people believe we need breakthroughs to solve the climate problem, many very insincere and unconcerned people like President Bush, use the “technology breakthrough” frame to argue against strong action now.
[NOTE: If you actually read my opponent's piece, it isn't yet clear where he really disagrees with me. I'm not sure he does, but hopefully that will become clearer when he posts his rebuttal.]
- The Debate of the Decade Revisited — Avoiding the Technology Trap
- McCain proposes another energy gimmick, Part 1 — pointless battery prize. Is this another $300M to ExxonMobil?
- 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?
- Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 3: The breakthrough technology illusion
- Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution
- Do we need a massive government program to generate breakthroughs to make solar energy cost-competitive?
- Breaking the technology breakthrough myth — Debunking Shellenberger & Nordhaus again
- 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.”