Chris
06-26-2013, 09:12 AM
Bjørn Lomborg is an economist who looks at the environment economically. He was initially a denier who pointed out even if global warming was true you need to prioritize it among the world's myriad other major problems. He now somewhat skeptically accepts the obvious fact man has an effect on his environment.
President Obama's new climate policies outlined Tuesday include both brilliant and useless ideas. The confusion stems from Obama's unwillingness to confront three climate fantasies:
Renewables are a major part of the solution today. No, they are almost trivial. Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels – by 2035, in the most green scenario, we will still get 79% from fossil fuels. Wind and solar will increase from 0.8% to 3.2% -- impressive, but not what is going to matter.
Biofuels should play a major part of the solution. No. For now, biofuels simply diverts food into cars, driving up food prices and starvation, while clearing forests for new fields emit more CO2 than biofuels save.
Efficiency can cut emissions. No. While efficiency is good, studies show it has little climate impact, because its savings gets eaten up by more use. As your car gets more efficient, you drive it further, and the money you still save get used for other carbon-emitting activities.
But carefully implemented, Obama's plan also shows the way to the three climate truths.
Fracking is this decade's green solution. Obama recognizes gas as a "bridge fuel." ...
Adaptation is smart, and Obama is right to stress it....
Finally, we need innovation in long-term green energy, which the president suggests to fund with $7.9 billion for fiscal 2014....
Agree especially on the adaptation: Whatever changes man has caused will be too slow to undo so we should focus on adaptation.
Disagree on funding: Not against green energy, just favor letting the free market pick winners and losers, not politicians. Yes, fossil fuel subsidies should be ended as well.
@ President's speech promoted policies both brilliant and useless. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-georgetown-column/2455723/)
President Obama's new climate policies outlined Tuesday include both brilliant and useless ideas. The confusion stems from Obama's unwillingness to confront three climate fantasies:
Renewables are a major part of the solution today. No, they are almost trivial. Today, the world gets 81% of its energy from fossil fuels – by 2035, in the most green scenario, we will still get 79% from fossil fuels. Wind and solar will increase from 0.8% to 3.2% -- impressive, but not what is going to matter.
Biofuels should play a major part of the solution. No. For now, biofuels simply diverts food into cars, driving up food prices and starvation, while clearing forests for new fields emit more CO2 than biofuels save.
Efficiency can cut emissions. No. While efficiency is good, studies show it has little climate impact, because its savings gets eaten up by more use. As your car gets more efficient, you drive it further, and the money you still save get used for other carbon-emitting activities.
But carefully implemented, Obama's plan also shows the way to the three climate truths.
Fracking is this decade's green solution. Obama recognizes gas as a "bridge fuel." ...
Adaptation is smart, and Obama is right to stress it....
Finally, we need innovation in long-term green energy, which the president suggests to fund with $7.9 billion for fiscal 2014....
Agree especially on the adaptation: Whatever changes man has caused will be too slow to undo so we should focus on adaptation.
Disagree on funding: Not against green energy, just favor letting the free market pick winners and losers, not politicians. Yes, fossil fuel subsidies should be ended as well.
@ President's speech promoted policies both brilliant and useless. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-georgetown-column/2455723/)