In a column this morning on global warming, Robert Samuelson puts the global challenge of energy and economic growth into the proper perspective:
Thanks to Blue Crab Boulevard for the pointer. More commentary, here.
UPDATE: Judd at Think Progress isn't happy with Samuelson.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity
From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.Our CEO, Skip Bowman, has been addressing just this challenge in a number of speeches he's delivered since joining NEI in January 2005. Here's part of what he had to say last November at a symposium sponsored by the World Nuclear Association:
The world is approaching a crossroads -- two possible futures -- in terms of energy supply.Whenever anyone says that we can go forward while forgoing development of nuclear energy -- or any single energy source for that matter -- they're forcing us down that first, harrowing path.
Down one path lies a future I do not care to contemplate: A world in which we fail to supply the energy needed to ensure that most of the world'’s people are fed and sheltered, educated and employed -- —a world in which children yet unborn are condemned to a life of poverty and misery and sickness.
But down the second path lies a brighter world: A world in which energy development is managed in a sustainable way, a world in which we no longer fight wars with guns and bullets, a world instead in which we use science and technology -- —including nuclear energy technology -- —to fight poverty and sickness and environmental devastation.
Thanks to Blue Crab Boulevard for the pointer. More commentary, here.
UPDATE: Judd at Think Progress isn't happy with Samuelson.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Energy, Technology, Environment, Electricity
Comments
But back here, on planet Earth, allow me to help Mr. Samuelson put the challenge of energy and economic growth in the proper perspective. I would suggest the following three steps—the last two are easy to formulate but difficult to execute.
(1) Recognize that man-made global warming is a serious problem
An overwhelming consensus among climate scientists has developed in recent years that man-made greenhouse gases are contributing in a significant way to the global warming problem. Mr. Samuelson throws up his hands and claims he doesn’t know whether he should believe the consensus view or the view of a few fringe elements who don’t want to recognize the global warming problem. It seems obvious that the first step in tackling the problem is to recognize its existence. Unfortunately, Mr. Samuelson—and some of Mr. McErlain’s favorite bloggers—do not want to take even this first step.
(2) Utilize, in the near term, existing technologies to slow the growth in greenhouse gases
It is fatuous to pretend that the issue is whether the emission of greenhouse gases can be reduced (or stopped) overnight. The real issue is how to slow their growth, thereby limiting (not eliminating) the global warming problem—that is, how to balance the competing claims of economic growth and environmental protection. An increased role for nuclear power would seem to be a crucial component of any viable short-term strategy. However, too many of the items on this site—for example, the continued whining about Al Gore, or the uncritical acceptance of the claims of industry lobbyists—do nothing to advance this objective.
(3) Develop, over the long-term, new technologies to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases
Everybody wants to see this happen. More power to the techno-fantasists on this one.
1. Here at NEI Nuclear Notes we have never claimed that nuclear energy was a "silver bullet" when it comes to limiting the growth of GHG emissions in the electric sector. In fact, we've gone to pains to stress just the opposite.
2. As to the question of Al Gore, all we have done is to point out something that Robert Scoble, John Tierney and Raymond Learsy have all said before -- that you can't have a credible program to limit global GHG emissions without having nuclear energy be part of the program.
3. I think there's a lot more common ground here than you would like to acknowledge. As to Skip Bowman's quote, can anyone tell me how the first scenario he outlined was any different than what many climate change advocates say is in store for our planet if we don't act now to stem the growth of GHG emissions?
In the end, I think we're all on the same side. The nuclear industry can contribute and wants to contribute. All we want is a place at the table.
I'm having a hard time finding how your conclusions are different from the Samuelson article.
All three of your points are made in his article.
1 - Recognize that man-made global warming is a serious problem.
Samuelson says "I'm unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system."
The majority like he said recognize it's a problem.
2 - Utilize, in the near term, existing technologies to slow the growth in greenhouse gases.
"The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent -- and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables" (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent."
From the quotes above, it looks like IEA modeled ways existing technologies can slow GHGs. Yet "In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today."
3 - Develop, over the long-term, new technologies to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases.
Here's Samuelson's conclusion:
"The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology."
Sounds exactly like what you said.
It appears you're just taking those same conclusions and calling them you're own. Read the article again. You'll find that Samuelson and you are saying the same thing.
The thing he does very nicely is provide actual facts and sources for his conclusions. You don't do this and in return blast him and us without backing your stuff up.
Why should we read what you write then? How are you credit worthy and Samuelson isn't? How do we not know that what you are saying is just smoke?
Read the article again and tell us if you still find these differences between you two.
David Bradish
I am sorry that you have found it difficult to see how my conclusions are different from Robert Samuelson’s. With all due respect, and despite your selective quoting of the article, I believe you have misunderstood what Samuelson is saying.
The point of my post—which was highlighted in my opening sentence—was that, whereas the NEI site claimed that Robert Samuelson “puts the global challenge of energy and economic growth into the proper perspective”, he, in fact, has put the issue into a perspective that is thoroughly mistaken.
Samuelson’s position, somewhat simplified, is the following:
(1) greenhouse gases are going to increase no matter what we do
(2) therefore, for the time being, we are powerless to do anything about the problem
(3) therefore, all efforts to take political action to address the problem amount to “grandstanding” or “hypocrisy”
(4) the only “salvation” is for some technical breakthrough in the future
This is not at all my position.
But let’s get specific.
Samuelson said:
“The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it” and says that this is “obvious”.
This is not only not obvious—it is untrue.
The crucial point, ignored by Samuelson throughout the article, is that the severity of the global warming problem depends on just how much greenhouse gas emissions increase. If we slow the emissions, we may limit the problem using—and this is important—existing technology, so as to buy time for more comprehensive solutions. We don’t need to wait for major technological breakthroughs to do this.
Samuelson cites the IEA report, saying that it “indicates we’re now powerless”. But, as was pointed out in a link provided by Mr. McErlain, the report actually concludes just the opposite, saying that by “employing technologies that already exist or are under development, the world could be brought onto a much more sustainable energy path. The scenarios show how energy-related C02 emissions can be returned to their current levels by 2050”.
Further, as is pointed out in that same link, “Samuelson twists the data” by citing the report’s estimates of increased emissions—in support of his do-nothing approach—while ignoring the much higher emissions the report warns will occur if nothing is done in the short term.
And you lecture me on how the “thing he does very nicely is provide actual facts and sources for his conclusions.”
The reason Samuelson plays games with the IEA report is very simple. He wants to show that no matter what is done, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase and, therefore, all political efforts to address the situation are futile. Then he can claim: “No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom…that might curb global warming.” Instead, the only way out is to hope for some unspecified engineering breakthrough at some unspecified time in the future.
Although you apparently have trouble recognizing it, my conclusions are very different from Samuelson’s. I think that the global warming problem is a serious one and requires political action in the short term. In order to ensure that the requisite support is mobilized, it must be generally and clearly understood that the greenhouse gases are a major contributor to the problem. The restrictions placed on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) not long ago—which involved, on a smaller scale, similar concerted domestic and international political activity in the face of a serious environmental threat—should serve as a model for how to proceed.
Samuelson’s article, by contrast, does nothing to advance our understanding of the issue or of the possible solutions. His real reason for writing the column was to try and convince everyone that his cynicism of nine years ago is still valid. And for this he is given valuable real estate in the pages of the Washington Post.
I would also like to say a word about your assertion that I am blasting NEI. The organization is, in effect, lobbying for the nuclear industry and so this site, not surprisingly, contains links to various expressions of opinion on nuclear power and related issues. I have no problem with this. However, the issues of energy consumption, economic growth, and environmental protection are difficult and contentious and do not lend themselves to simple solutions. Therefore, the various claims that are made ought to be assessed critically although, again not surprisingly, it seems that more than one NEI contributor has taken offense at this notion. Given the fact that the nuclear business is somewhat technical, I am disappointed that so many of the NEI links contain misleading (or worse) statements and that poseurs like Robert Samuelson (who says he never even heard of (!!) thorium—has he ever looked at the Periodic Table?), Gregg Easterbrook, or John Tierney—who expound authoritatively on hundreds of subjects but have no real competence in any—are cited as authorities.
If you would like to read a serious treatment of the global warming problem, I suggest you check out the article by Jim Hansen, a real climate scientist and one who, by the way, endorses an increased role for nuclear power, in the current (July 13, 2006) New York Review of Books. There is also an article (which I have not yet read) in the journal Science (August 13. 2006) by Pacala and Socolow claiming that:
“Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world's energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration.”
Let me first clarify for you that we do not take positions here at NEI on global warming because that is not our expertise. What we do say is that if the world wants cleaner air then you can't leave nuclear out of the mix.
On our blog we point to articles that are from all sides which is clearly demonstrated by linking to Think Progress in this particular blog.
Why are you getting upset when Eric quotes one paragraph which puts the issue into perspective? He is not saying Samuelson's entire article is in perspective. He is saying this one little paragraph is.
You said: "However, the issues of energy consumption, economic growth, and environmental protection are difficult and contentious and do not lend themselves to simple solutions."
Of course not. But in Samuelson's paragraph Eric references, it's summed up fairly nicely and brought into the proper perspective.
You've made your point against it but you need to make the distinction between what Eric says and Samuelson says.
Here's our Disclaimer to note the difference.
You said: "Given the fact that the nuclear business is somewhat technical, I am disappointed that so many of the NEI links contain misleading (or worse) statements..."
Check out my Energy Markets Report I post every week. Check out the Nuclear Performance Report. Check out another blog we linked to discussing uranium's energy content posted a couple of days ago. Check out our Nuclear Stats section on our website which we so often link to. You will find every stat there is appropriately sourced.
Does every single blog have to be technical? We have to keep in mind who are the readers of these blogs and most readers are not nuclear engineers.
You can go ahead and criticize Tierney, Easterbrook and Samuelson yet you have not offered one shred of credibility.
Again I ask: "Why should we read what you write then?"
I thought it was obvious that my criticism was directed at Samuelson’s article, not at Mr. McErlain. But I am happy to make the distinction.
I did not say that “every single blog has to be technical”—in fact, I noted that NEI links to various expressions of opinion and said I had no problem with this.
I am aware that there are informative links provided and I did not say or mean to imply otherwise. But the fact remains that there also links to ideologues, industry lobbyists, and pundits—and yes, since readers were referred to them on this site I think it fair to criticize them on this site.
In your earlier post you claimed you were unable to detect any difference between Samuelson’s perspective and my own. I have explained in detail that there is a big difference and why I think Samuelson’s position is mistaken. As is the case on any blog, the reader can decide who is “credit worthy”.
Bert writes (bold emphasis mine):
----------
Samuelson said:
"The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it" and says that this is "obvious".
This is not only not obvious -- it is untrue.
The crucial point, ignored by Samuelson throughout the article, is that the severity of the global warming problem depends on just how much greenhouse gas emissions increase. If we slow the emissions, we may limit the problem ...
----------
May limit the problem? Are you not sure? Do we know how much the increase in emissions affects the severity in global warming? This is more than a yes or no question; I want numbers. So if we can hold the increase in CO2 emissions to, say, 6% higher than today, what does that mean in terms of the average global temperature increase? Does it result in a 0.1 degree increase? A 0.2 degree increase? Is the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature linear? Nonlinear? Is there a threshold beyond which there is no return? What exactly is it? Do we know?
Unless someone can enlighten me to the questions that I have raised, I am forced to conclude that we do not know very much about the effect of CO2 emissions on global warming, and thus, Samuelson's statement is essentially correct. We do not know enough to relieve global warming.
Bert goes on to say:
----------
If we slow the emissions, we may limit the problem using -- and this is important -- existing technology, so as to buy time for more comprehensive solutions. We don't need to wait for major technological breakthroughs to do this.
----------
So Bert says here that current technologies merely postpone the crisis. To fix the problem requires "more comprehensive solutions," which I take here to mean something beyond existing technology. Thus, I can only conclude that he, in essence, agrees with Samuelson's other point that barring some major technological breakthroughs, we cannot do much to ultimately solve the problem of global warming.
Bert then adds:
----------
Samuelson cites the IEA report, saying that it "indicates we're now powerless". But, as was pointed out in a link provided by Mr. McErlain, the report actually concludes just the opposite, saying that by "employing technologies that already exist or are under development, the world could be brought onto a much more sustainable energy path. The scenarios show how energy-related C02 emissions can be returned to their current levels by 2050".
----------
If Bert had bothered to include more context than the four words he quoted, perhaps Samuelson's words might be more clear. Samuelson actually wrote:
----------
... the IEA report indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villains; they presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.
----------
An important point to note here -- which is rather subtle and I think is missed by those who are criticizing Samuelson's article -- is that, for most of the discussion, we're talking about changes in the rate at which we dump CO2 into the atmosphere, not the amount of the stuff that is in the atmosphere itself. Even if we reach the point where we hold CO2 emissions levels in 2050 to the point that they are today, we are still dumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Although I cannot say for certain, I assume that the rate that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere is greater than the rate at which it is being removed by natural processes (for otherwise, why are we having this conversation?). Thus, the concentration in the atmosphere will rise.
What effect this will have is uncertain. I have already covered this point, and perhaps someone can shed a little light (i.e., actual figures) on this for us.
Bert then later says:
----------
Samuelson's article ... does nothing to advance our understanding of the issue or of the possible solutions. His real reason for writing the column was to try and convince everyone that his cynicism of nine years ago is still valid.
----------
What some people call "cynicism" others call critical assessment. It is unfortunate that Bert, who more than once has complained about the "uncritical acceptance" of nuclear industry lobbyists on this blog, is not willing to apply the same standards to the whole global warming debate. But as he has made clear, he has his beliefs, he has his agenda, and he will criticize anyone who disagrees with them. That is fine, and more power to him, but the other readers of this blog will feel free to criticize his comments as well.
I am well aware your positions are different then Samuelson. That's not what I commented on. I commented that yours and Samuelson's conclusions to solve climate change are the same. Mr. Mays above appears to agree.
You said: "But the fact remains that there also links to ideologues, industry lobbyists, and pundits—and yes, since readers were referred to them on this site I think it fair to criticize them on this site."
Fair enough. But why don't you direct your criticism to the Washington Post? They are the authors of the piece. Your criticisms really do nothing here because they are not being read by the people you are critical of. Doesn't sound like a good use of your time.
Bert writes:
The reason Samuelson plays games with the IEA report is very simple. He wants to show that no matter what is done, greenhouse gas emissions will continue to increase and, therefore, all political efforts to address the situation are futile. Then he can claim: "No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom ... that might curb global warming." Instead, the only way out is to hope for some unspecified engineering breakthrough at some unspecified time in the future.
I think that Bert has misinterpreted Samuelson's article here as well. In a sense, he has it backwards.
First, Samuelson states that governments will not impose the restrictions necessary to effectively curb global warming, citing estimates of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol to back up his claim (which is something that Bert has not done; he has neither provided numbers to contradict Samuelson's statements, nor has he provided numbers to back up his own claims). Then, he concludes that all of the talk that is out there by politicians and governments of doing something about global warming is just that -- talk.
Note that nowhere does Samuelson advocate taking no action at all. He does, however, point out that, realistically, if anything is going to be effective at solving this problem, it has to be more than is currently being done, or even talked about, today. In that sense, he is doing a much better service to the planet than those out there who advocate switching to compact florescent bulbs or unplugging the TV at night.
(1) Mr. Bradish says that my “positions” are different than Samuelson’s but my “conclusions” are the same and Mr. Mays says that “in essence” my conclusion is the same as Samuelson’s—namely, that “barring some major technological breakthroughs, we cannot do much to ultimately solve the problem of global warming”.
But my criticism centered on the short term—not on any long term “ultimate” solution, which, as I pointed out from the beginning, everyone wants to see happen. My point was that Mr. Samuelson, by focusing on the fact that emissions are bound to increase no matter what we do and then concluding that our only salvation was some new technology, had formulated the problem in a misleading way because he was ignoring the fact that existing technology and concerted political action could limit the adverse consequences in the short term. I am not going to rehash all this—anyone interested can read Samuelson’s article, my comments, the Think Progress comments, and anything else he or she likes and come to his or her own conclusions.
(2) Both Messrs. Bradish and Mays have complained that I do not “provide actual facts and sources” or “back up my claims” or “provide numbers”. However, as I just stated, I was pointing out that Samuelson had formulated the problem in a misleading way. I did not think that this required a set of numbers; rather, it sufficed to call attention to what Mr. Samuelson had said and what he had left out. In addition, the Think Progress link, which Mr. McErlain had provided and which I emphasized, was a “source” that had presented “numbers” undermining Samuelson’s claims. Also, I am aware, as Mr. Bradish reminds me, that this is not a global warming site—and so I am not trying to “debate” global warming. As far as I am concerned, the debate is about what our energy future ought to look like given the established scientific consensus that man-made greenhouse gases will cause serious environmental problems. Finally, for reasons I will explain in a moment, I have my doubts that Mr. Mays is actually interested in such numbers.
Earlier in this thread, I cited an article by the climate scientist Jim Hansen. Mr. Hansen claimed that if annual emissions of CO2 continue to increase at the current rate for the next 50 years, we can expect an increase of about 5F of global warming during this century. Under his alternative scenario, in which we alter our energy production patterns in the short term, “CO2 emissions level off this decade, slowly decline for a few decades and by mid-century decrease, aided by new technologies”, we can limit the increase to about 2F during this same period. As Mr. Hansen explains, the consequences that follow from the two scenarios are very different.
(3) For those loathe to contemplate the political and economic challenges posed by this situation, there are at least two tactics. One is to maintain (as Mr. Mays does) a position of skepticism about the scientific results. Another is to claim (as Mr. Samuelson does) that the political and economic difficulties cannot be overcome. Either amounts to obstructionism.
The skepticism of Mr. Mays and others about global warming reminds me that there are other areas—evolution or even the theory of relativity—where contrarians (one or two of whom are professionals with credentials) still oppose the well-established scientific consensus.
But let’s consider an example closer to home: the biological effects of ionizing radiation. As I think anyone at NEI would agree, the health effects due to radiation routinely received by workers in nuclear power plants and by the general public living in the vicinity of those plants are, at worst, slight. And so, as again I think anyone at NEI would agree, it is exasperating to find that some environmentalists—and occasionally some health professional—will still claim otherwise. In light of what is known about the biological effects of ionizing radiation—it is hard to avoid the suspicion that the individual is simply being an obstructionist and is trying to prevent the continued operation or the expansion of nuclear power.
But suppose a contrarian and obstructionist environmentalist picked up the BEIR VII report. Suppose he zeroed in on differences between the linear, linear-quadratic, linear-with threshold models. Suppose he read in Chapter 8 that “Risk estimates from [studies of workers in the nuclear industry] are variable, ranging from no risk to risks an order of magnitude or more than those seen in atomic bomb survivors” and concluded that there was great uncertainty in the field.
And suppose this obstructionist were to then ask: What is the exact relationship between the radiation dose and the biological effects of the dose? Is it linear? Nonlinear? Is there some threshold below which there are no effects or the effects might actually be beneficial? What exactly is it? Unless someone can enlighten me, I am forced to conclude that we do not know very much about the biological effects of ionizing radiation.
Well, he would sound a lot like Mr. Mays, who writes:
“Do we know how much the increase in emissions affects the severity in global warming? This is more than a yes or no question; I want numbers. So if we can hold the increase in CO2 emissions to, say, 6% higher than today, what does that mean in terms of the average global temperature increase? Does it result in a 0.1 degree increase? A 0.2 degree increase? Is the relationship between CO2 emissions and global temperature linear? Nonlinear? Is there a threshold beyond which there is no return? What exactly is it? Do we know? Unless someone can enlighten me to the questions that I have raised, I am forced to conclude that we do not know very much about the effect of CO2 emissions on global warming, and…[w]e do not know enough to relieve global warming.”
(4) Finally, I would like to add a personal comment. Elsewhere on this site, Mr. Mays has hurled completely unfounded accusations against me—claiming, for example, that I think that anyone who does not agree with me is “corporate slime” or a “lobotomized bastard”—and has called me a “jerk”. I want to reassure him that I take all this in stride. But I am actually more taken aback by his seemingly innocent remark that “other readers of this blog will feel free to criticize his comments as well”. Why does he think he needs to say this? Who would possibly think otherwise? It is Mr. Mays who has fabricated the idea that I can’t tolerate disagreement. Although I wish it had been a little more focused, I have no problem with giving consideration to the criticism Messrs. Bradish and Mays have offered. For example, when Mr. Mays highlights my use of the word “may” in a passage, I agree it was weakly worded and I should have said “will”, although I don’t think this has any material effect on the basic argument. Mr. Bradish has suggested that I take my comments elsewhere and Mr. Mays has elsewhere expressed horror that I dare criticize the moderator of this site. I am not the one who has a problem with criticism.
However, I would ask that everyone from here on in limit their comments to a manageable length. And looking at the length of some of the comments in this thread, it may be well time for some folks to get a blog of their own.