No Free Subsidy

I see my colleague Andrew is getting on board the neo-contrarian argument about climate change -- it's real, it's caused by human activity, but it's just not worth doing anything about:

The key will be private and public innovation of non-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture technology.

You can find a more elaborated version of the argument from Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in Democracy. I thought their book, Break Through, made a number of interesting points but this article focuses in on their core bad idea -- "Kyoto is dead—and that’s a good thing. In its place, we need massive global investment in new clean energy technology."

There's just no reason to think of "massive global investment in new clean energy technology" as an alternative to the mainstream environmentalist interest in putting a price on carbon. Massive investment requires a lot of money. And if the point of raising the money is to produce clean energy technology, what better place to get the money from than auctioning permits to generate unclean energy? If you raise the funds through a carbon charge, then you're able to subsidize technology both coming and going. Any alternative way of funding "massive global investment" is ultimately going to involve less efficiency and more economic pain.

Comments

Um, maybe the money could come from somewhere, like, the Iraq budget?

Posted by Jared | June 18, 2008 5:30 PM

I have to say, this "neo-contrarian" argument is actually starting to convince me.

It seems to me that if America unilaterally puts a price on carbon, that'll just shift emissions to countries like China, Russia, the Middle East, etc., by making those countries' fossil fuel subsidies cheaper to maintain, and reducing the incentive for them to become less carbon-intensive. Every barrel of oil we refrain from consuming will get consumed by China or someone else who's not on board with our plan.

Now if we could put a global price on carbon, that would be a different story altogether, but it doesn't look like developing countries will ever sign onto that kind of thing.

So it seems to me that every barrel of economically recoverable oil will be dug up and burned by someone. That's depressing, but I just can't think of any reason to conclude otherwise. I hope there is someone out there who can convince me to be more optimistic about this.

Posted by Noah | June 18, 2008 5:42 PM

I think the government-skeptic compromise is to put a high tax on carbon, then just pass the revenues back to consumers per capita. That will maximize the discretion of producers and consumers to seek out the most efficient means of reducing carbon.

Posted by DTM | June 18, 2008 5:42 PM

..."what better place to get the money from than auctioning permits to generate unclean energy?"

What Andrew was getting at, I think, is that the whole concept of cap and trade as a response to global warming is a fraud. Europe's experiment has been nothing but a giant boondoggle for the already wealthy and well-connected business interests. They juggle their emissions numbers by buying and selling emissions permits--and make a fortune doing so--all for little to no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. What makes you think it will be any different here?

It's nothing but a bunch of posing for effect. And even if it generates some funds for government to subsidize alternative energy research, what makes you think the government will do that rationally? It will allocate those funds politically--i.e., the funds will go to the alternative energy operations that have the best lobbyists, not necessarily the best products.

Posted by Claudius | June 18, 2008 5:43 PM

"[W]hat better place to get the money from than auctioning permits to generate unclean energy?"

A carbon tax, but you don't want to hear that.

Posted by Mario | June 18, 2008 5:43 PM

I asked Vinod Khosla this question 4 years ago when he was visiting our college.( He was talking about how disruptive change cycles have led to all human development):-

"Does your belief in disruptive innovation (contrasted to incremental) justify the non ratificiation of the Kyoto protocol by the United States?"

He said something to the effect of, "While he does believe some radical innovation would save the planet, and he hoped to be involved in it's route to the market, he also strongly believes that Kyoto should have been ratified. They should be seen as uncoupled ;belief in one doesn't exclude action in the other" .

Posted by kaycee | June 18, 2008 5:43 PM

Sure, there are lots of other inefficient uses of money which could be fixed to pay for this.

Posted by otto | June 18, 2008 5:44 PM

We should just be a free rider and let the Euros pay for this one, just like they were a free rider on our Cold War activities and military spending for 50 years.

Posted by Al | June 18, 2008 5:59 PM

Now if we could put a global price on carbon, that would be a different story altogether, but it doesn't look like developing countries will ever sign onto that kind of thing.

Right. After all, the US has led the way for decades on this with its stiff price on carbon and willingness to share new energy technology, and developing countries still refuse to get on board. Their behavior clearly will never change.

Posted by 23456 | June 18, 2008 6:01 PM

Noah,

Maybe that last barrel will get burned, but it matters how quickly that happens, particularly because various carbon capture techniques may reduce the impact. Indeed, I see that as a possible plan for countries like the United States: push domestic development of such technologies, then sell them to the Chinese et al.

Moreover, the "last barrel" is a fluid concept (pun not intended). The better-developed the alternatives, the fewer barrels are actually economic to produce. So, the future amount of oil that will be burned isn't really a fixed quantity even if you assume the externalities are never priced into carbon.

And finally, China et al aren't economically self-sufficient, which means they are not completely free to price carbon as they please. For example, they need consumers in countries like the United States. So, consumers in these countries can impose an additional price on carbon in China just through reduced demand for Chinese goods due to Chinese environmental policies.

Posted by DTM | June 18, 2008 6:02 PM

Surely to the degree that raising carbon costs will damage investments which cannot easily be transferred to new uses - such as investments in housing and other location decisions - raising money by taxing carbon will cause more unhappiness and resistance than raising money in ways that don't damage those sorts of investments. People will fight to keep their no-alternative-use investments much harder.

Posted by otto | June 18, 2008 6:05 PM

There's something I think the contrarians are missing in the "cap and trade doesn't work" fight.

The necessary changes--building cleaner power plants, researching new technology, buying more efficient cars, living closer to work--all involve big upfront investments or disruptions that take a while to pay off. We're all way more flexible with future carbon emissions than we are with our current emissions. So any changes I make aren't going to be motivated by what it costs me today to emit carbon, but by what it costs me in the future.

That means it makes good policy (and political!) sense to start the carbon taxes small and slowly tighten things up from there. The promise of high taxes in the future actually changes people's behavior today.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 18, 2008 6:16 PM

I just love it. For years, the folks who's core business depends on cranking out carbon said there wasn't a problem.

Now, they realize/admit there is a problem, but say it's too expensive to stop, so we'll just have to adjust to the new climate.

In other words, somebody wants to continue externalizing the costs of their business practices, and we're supposed to just suck it up.

Recognizing that future friends, acquaintances, and potential employers will be able to Google this post, you can quote me on this: Fuck that.

Posted by cmholm | June 18, 2008 6:19 PM

Because putting a price on carbon-based fuels is the worst possible policy to support renewables, apparently.

Posted by nanne | June 18, 2008 6:20 PM

The key will be private and public innovation of non-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture technology.

People who talk about "carbon capture technology" as if it were a presently viable part of some solution to climate change are engaging in Green Lantern environmentalism.

There is, at present, no "carbon capture technology." Is it possible that there could be, someday? Sure. Is it worth looking into? You bet.

But there is similarly no reason in principle why there couldn't be a "cure for cancer," "vaccine for AIDS," or "fusion power plant," and we've been working like hell on those problems for decades. Really wanting a technology to exist is not the same as actually having such a technology.

Posted by alkali | June 18, 2008 6:20 PM

Exactly. There is no harm in trying for the silver bullet technological fix, but we should probably work on other mundane solutions in case that doens't come about.

Posted by blah | June 18, 2008 6:26 PM

BTW, Shellenberger and Nordhaus at the end of the article call for national cap-and-trade markets both as experience gathering for a future international market and as a source of revenue for green technologies.

They seem to have good ideas, they just want to state them in the most inflammatory way possible.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 18, 2008 6:27 PM

Matthew's argument doesn't make much sense. Sure, you could pay for the energy technology investments through a carbon tax or emissions permit auction, but that doesn't mean those measures would be the most economically efficient way of doing so.

Posted by Mixner | June 18, 2008 6:39 PM

The most effective and pain free way to stop global warming:

1) Divert a large portion of military spending into into public investment in efficiency and renewable technology especially into stuff private industry does not do easily like train infrastructure, HVDC lines and storage to support renewables.

2) Put into place efficiency and renewable portfolio requirements

3) Put into place a carbon tax (or auctioned permit system) and refund the revenues back to the public. This provides pain free price signals to reinforce public investment and regulation.

Posted by Gar lipow | June 18, 2008 6:56 PM

Shellenberger and Nordhaus don't envision cap-and-trade and large-scale investment in R&D as being mutually exclusive - to quote from "Scrap Kyoto,"

This is not to suggest that the presidential candidates should abandon cap-and-trade–far from it. Even a modest cap-and-trade or cap-and-lease program has the potential to raise the money needed. But such efforts must be re-conceptualized as a clean energy investment program, not a pollution-regulation regime.

What is important is that we change the narrative that is being told, from one of stopping the apocalypse to one of creating a better world. An investment-centered approach would help achieve this fundamental shift far more effectively than cap-and-trade.

-Adam Rodriques
Fellow, The Breakthrough Institute

Posted by Adam Rodriques | June 18, 2008 6:58 PM

People who talk about "carbon capture technology" as if it were a presently viable part of some solution to climate change are engaging in Green Lantern environmentalism.

There is, at present, no "carbon capture technology." Is it possible that there could be, someday? Sure. Is it worth looking into? You bet.

But there is similarly no reason in principle why there couldn't be a "cure for cancer," "vaccine for AIDS," or "fusion power plant," and we've been working like hell on those problems for decades. Really wanting a technology to exist is not the same as actually having such a technology.

Posted by alkali | June 18, 2008 6:20 PM
=================================================

Right, pure fantasy:

As of 2007, four industrial-scale storage projects are in operation. Sleipner [7] is the oldest project (1996) and is located in the North Sea where Norway's StatoilHydro strips carbon dioxide from natural gas with amine solvents and disposes of this carbon dioxide in a deep saline aquifer. The carbon dioxide is a waste product of the field's natural gas production and the gas contains more (9% CO2) than is allowed into the natural gas distribution network. Storing it underground avoids this problem and saves Statoil hundreds of millions of euro in avoided carbon taxes. Since 1996, Sleipner has stored about one million tonnes CO2 a year. A second project in the Snøhvit gas field in the Barents Sea stores 700,000 tonnes per year. [13]

The Weyburn project is currently the world's largest carbon capture and storage project.[14] Started in 2000, Weyburn is located on an oil reservoir discovered in 1954 in Weyburn, southeastern Saskatchewan, Canada. The CO2 for this project is captured at the Great Plains Coal Gasification plant in Beulah, North Dakota which has produced methane from coal for more than 30 years. At Weyburn, the CO2 will also be used for enhanced oil recovery with an injection rate of about 1.5 million tonnes per year. The first phase finished in 2004, and demonstrated that CO2 can be stored underground at the site safely and indefinitely. The second phase, expected to last until 2009, is investigating how the technology can be expanded on a larger scale.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
=================================================

Hate to bust your bubble but I am working on a project now to get the environmental permits to build and operate a carbon-capture power plant sited near an active oil field in a state that starts with the letter "C"

Posted by Campesino | June 18, 2008 7:07 PM

Imagine if Manzi and Sullivan were addressing fundamentalist (be it Islamist or otherwise) terrorism with the same argument: that while it's a genuine threat to global peace and prosperity, the proponents of taking action inflate the risk, deflate the cost, and slap a layer of pompous moralizing veneer over the whole thing. So, therefore ... we shouldn't do *anything at all* about the genuine threat!

Isn't this precisely the GOP caricature of the "Democrat" position on terrorism?

(Leave aside the fact that no Democrats actually believe in that do-nothing approach to terrorism; and that Manzi's argument willfully conflates the scientific/economic analyses of the emissions threat with the political/rhetorical advocacy of taking action.)

Why do Jim Manzi and Andrew Sullivan want to appease the threat to our freedoms?

Posted by The Confidence Man | June 18, 2008 7:10 PM

All of this discussion misses the fact that the energy source with the highest carbon profile is the burning of coal to make electricity. Thus is would seem that the first order of business should be examination of the replacement of coal by other fossil fuels with a smaller carbon profile, in particular, natural gas. In particular, natural gas powered plants produce far less carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour of electricity produced then coal.

The problem is, where is the natural gas to come from?

1. Several years ago, the late phycicist Thomas Gold proposed that there might be large deposits of natural gas deep inside the earth which was there when the planet was formed, in addition to natural gas deposits formed from decay of plant material over the last 500 million years. He based this on the observation that there are large clouds of hydrocarbons observed in the galaxy, in addition to the occurrance of methane in the atmospheres of the Jupiter like planets. This is an idea that should be explored by deep drilling.

2. Another priority investment should be in the development of methods to produce natural gas from coal, leaving the excess carbon behind in solid form where it can be buried.

Posted by SLC | June 18, 2008 7:13 PM

The overall insight from "Scrap Kyoto" (and, to some extent, Yglesias's take on it) is that cap-and-trade can be a useful fund-raising tool, but is not an adequate (or even substantial) way to reduce emissions. Thus, our energies would be better spent by working on an investment plan (perhaps supported by modest cap-and-trade) than by trying to design and implement a massive trading scheme à la Lieberman-Warner.

-Zach Arnold
Fellow, Breakthrough Generation
www.breakthroughgen.com

Posted by Zach Arnold | June 18, 2008 7:18 PM

In my opinion, the overall insight from "Scrap Kyoto" (and, to some extent, Yglesias's take on it) is that cap-and-trade can be a useful fund-raising tool, but is not an adequate (or even substantial) way to reduce emissions. Thus, our energies would be better spent by working on an investment plan (perhaps supported by modest cap-and-trade) than by trying to design and implement a massive trading scheme à la Lieberman-Warner.

-Zach Arnold
Fellow, Breakthrough Generation
www.breakthroughgen.com

Posted by Zach Arnold | June 18, 2008 7:18 PM

Campesino:

Humans generate 27,000 million tons of CO2 each year. Of that 27,000, the carbon capture projects you cite are capturing a number in the low single digits. I entirely agree that it would be a good thing if we could increase that figure by several orders of magnitude. But the fact that very smart people are working very hard on the problem does not mean we'll get there. We may, but we may not.

It's also important to distinguish two kinds of "carbon capture":

1. Capture of carbon emitted in power generation or industrial processes is certainly feasible on a commercial scale for at least some facilities (the projects you cite demonstrate that). That kind of carbon capture would reduce the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, if we could do it on a large enough scale.

2. Some people speculate that it might also be possible to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon -- that is, lower the amount of atmospheric CO2 by taking already-emitted CO2 out of the atmosphere. There is no evidence at all that that is feasible. Again, it might be worth looking into, but no one should ever count on that being a soluble problem.

Posted by alkali | June 18, 2008 7:37 PM

Maybe that last barrel will get burned, but it matters how quickly that happens, particularly because various carbon capture techniques may reduce the impact. Indeed, I see that as a possible plan for countries like the United States: push domestic development of such technologies, then sell them to the Chinese et al.

That's true. I definitely agree with that. But why will the Chinese use those technologies?

Moreover, the "last barrel" is a fluid concept (pun not intended). The better-developed the alternatives, the fewer barrels are actually economic to produce. So, the future amount of oil that will be burned isn't really a fixed quantity even if you assume the externalities are never priced into carbon.

That's totally true. That "last barrel" will come sooner the sooner we develop cost-effective scalable alternatives.

And finally, China et al aren't economically self-sufficient, which means they are not completely free to price carbon as they please. For example, they need consumers in countries like the United States. So, consumers in these countries can impose an additional price on carbon in China just through reduced demand for Chinese goods due to Chinese environmental policies.

Good point. In order to maximize the effectiveness of the carbon tax, we'd have to apply it to imports as well.

I am not against a carbon tax - in fact, I'm way for it! - I'm just getting pessimistic about its chances for making a dent in total global CO2 emissions. But you definitely make some good points.

Posted by Noah | June 18, 2008 7:54 PM

I think "carbon taxing" "cap and trade" etc. is a loser - as policy that might curb global warming and politically for Democrats if they try to enact it. Carbon output is growing in the US at about 1% a year. In China its growing 10-15% a year with similar growth in India and Russia. Thus, whatever steps we take to curb global warming are already useless. That's not being cynical, thats being realistic. Carbon tax plans - at least every one I've seen are a kind of socialist money grab at the private sector that historically Americans despise. Assuming you got it further than Bush advanced privatization of Social Security - that is past the laugh-out-loud phase, you would inevitably punish companies that don't pollute that bad, let real polluters off the hook and make a mockery of whatever good you were trying to do. That's what government does - it fucks thing up. Something needs to be done about global warming - no question. Unfortunately, nothing meaningful likely WILL be done. This problem will get far, far worse before it gets better - about as long as it takes for for the developing world to catch up with western living standards, or ours to fall to theirs. Killing this Democratic upswing before it has a chance to do any good by promoting cap and trade is NOT the answer.

Posted by Nathan | June 18, 2008 8:08 PM

Alkali:

Sorry, but I was responding to your statement:

There is, at present, no "carbon capture technology." Is it possible that there could be, someday? Sure. Is it worth looking into? You bet.

=================================================

Sorry, but such technology does exist and its use is proliferating

Posted by Campesino | June 18, 2008 8:26 PM

The point of the neo-contrarian argument is that a carbon tax will retard growth, thus increasing human misery. The more "effective" a carbon tax in decreasing greenhouse gases, the more it will retard growth, and the more it will increase human misery. The so-called payoff in "new clean energy technology will simply amount to energy sources that are competitive because of the carbon tax. A "massive global investment in new clean energy technology," however it's financed, diverts money away from investments that would improve the standard of living for the poor.

Shockingly, the best strategy--the one that would most benefit poor people and poor nations--is to do nothing. This is an inconvenient truth for liberals like Al Gore. They want to run the world--because they're so moral, of course. It hurts to know that they aren't needed.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | June 18, 2008 8:37 PM

In my opinion, the overall insight from "Scrap Kyoto" (and, to some extent, Yglesias's take on it) is that cap-and-trade can be a useful fund-raising tool, but is not an adequate (or even substantial) way to reduce emissions. Thus, our energies would be better spent by working on an investment plan (perhaps supported by modest cap-and-trade) than by trying to design and implement a massive trading scheme à la Lieberman-Warner.

-Zach Arnold
Fellow, Breakthrough Generation
www.breakthroughgen.com

Posted by Zach Arnold | June 18, 2008 8:47 PM

In my opinion, the overall insight from "Scrap Kyoto" (and, to some extent, Yglesias's take on it) is that cap-and-trade can be a useful fund-raising tool, but is not an adequate (or even substantial) way to reduce emissions. Thus, our energies would be better spent by working on an investment plan (perhaps supported by modest cap-and-trade) than by trying to design and implement a massive trading scheme à la Lieberman-Warner.

-Zach Arnold
Fellow, Breakthrough Generation
www.breakthroughgen.com

Posted by Zach Arnold | June 18, 2008 8:49 PM

SLC said:

Several years ago, the late phycicist Thomas Gold proposed that there might be large deposits of natural gas deep inside the earth which was there when the planet was formed, in addition to natural gas deposits formed from decay of plant material over the last 500 million years. He based this on the observation that there are large clouds of hydrocarbons observed in the galaxy, in addition to the occurrance of methane in the atmospheres of the Jupiter like planets. This is an idea that should be explored by deep drilling.

Nitpick: This idea was originally published in the USSR back in the '50s. It took Dr. Gold a while to acknowledge their influence on his theory.

Back on topic: the idea that a vast store of primordial hydrocarbons are being continually cooked out of the Earth's Mantle is a fringe theory, not supported by experimental evidence thus far... and researchers have looked. You don't need to drill very far if the theory says the goods are raising up towards you.

You'll usually see this theory mentioned on-line in the same breath as the claim that peak oil is a hoax.

If the theory were true, one would need to account for where all of the percolating juice was going, since it would naturally tend to accumulate in the biosphere like pond scum.

Posted by cmholm | June 18, 2008 9:30 PM

I don't want to pile on, but as others noted, carbon capture technology exists already--it is just expensive. And I am willing to bet it will get cheaper over time.

But of course I am not suggesting this is a total solution--just part of it, and one where the U.S. could probably make a little money in the long run.

Posted by DTM | June 18, 2008 9:42 PM

I've said this elsewhere (ad nauseum), we're not going to do anything except burn as much carbon as we can and (some of us) pray that the result is the low end of the IPCC projections. I don't think the low end will be the end of the world, but I don't think we're due for the low end. The middle of the pack is the best we can really hope for. (There's around a 2% chance of warming outside the higher extent of the IPCC projections which would be the end of the world as we know it.)

I feel like someone from Easter Island waiting for a boat from Out There. A quote from Robinson Jeffers's "Shine Perishing Republic" is always apt and chipper:

While this America settles in the mould of its vulgarity, heavily thickening to empire
And protest, only a bubble in the molten mass, pops and sighs out, and the
mass hardens,
I sadly smiling remember that the flower fades to make fruit, the fruit rots
to make earth [...]

Etc. There's some bilge later about heading for the mountains, but the great thing about AGW is that there are no mountains to flee to. We're all in this together.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 18, 2008 9:53 PM

In my opinion, the overall insight from "Scrap Kyoto" (and, to some extent, Yglesias's take on it) is that cap-and-trade can be a useful fund-raising tool, but is not an adequate (or even substantial) way to reduce emissions. Thus, our energies would be better spent by working on an investment plan (perhaps supported by modest cap-and-trade) than by trying to design and implement a massive trading scheme à la Lieberman-Warner.

-Zach Arnold
Fellow, Breakthrough Generation
www.breakthroughgen.com

Posted by Zach Arnold | June 18, 2008 10:04 PM

3) Put into place a carbon tax (or auctioned permit system) and refund the revenues back to the public. This provides pain free price signals to reinforce public investment and regulation.

So the government is going to keep track of the carbon emissions of hundreds of millions of Americans? If not, there will most definitely be pain.

Posted by Mixner | June 18, 2008 10:20 PM

The carbon tax really is the best way to deal with the externalities of using carbon based fuels. The political problem is that it's contrary to the pols instinct to pander to voters' desire for cheap fuel. This has always been the problem. It's what kept the U.S. from making a rational response to the energy crisis of the 1970's. It's just so much easier for pols to harangue oil company executives, sue OPEC (LOL), talk about "windfall" profits taxes. etc. We did all that in the 70's too.

Posted by kafka | June 18, 2008 11:04 PM

Noah - Every barrel of oil we refrain from consuming will get consumed by China or someone else who's not on board with our plan.

True, and China has said Kyoto or Son of Kyoto is a dead issue in China if it retards China's effort to Rise with a lower population and consume like the modern, advanced nation it aspires to be.

On the other hand, in the long term, China is among the most responsible because it is lowering population while others have risen 9 to 11-fold in the last 100 years and continue to explode in numbers while also dumping their human surplus in places like Europe and N America. It doesn't cut it to have mass breeding or allow mass immigration then proudly say how wonderful you are doing conserving and using 25% less than each of your parents were a generation ago or your nation was a short while ago because it is NET that counts in global effects, not per capita. 8 kids of Mexican parents may use 25% less each, but they generate collectively 360 MORE units of energy and CO2 use than their parents did together.

Africans may nobly and morally, through conservation and use of "exciting new energy sources" like wind and solar, use 25% less energy in 2050 than their extremely fecund ancestors did back in 1900 - but there were only 133 million sub-saharan Africans in 1900 vs. 5.9 billion predicted for 2050. 133 million units of energy consumption vs 4 billion, four hundred and 25 million in 2050.

Posted by chris ford | June 18, 2008 11:15 PM

One of the things I most like about this blog is that it's not afraid of numbers.

The IPCC projects, under fairly standard assumptions for economic and population growth, ~3C of warming by the end of the century.

The IPCC forecast for the economic impact of 4C of warming is a 1 - 5% reduction in global economic output.

So, the expected economic impact is about a 3% reduction in economic output sometime well into the 22nd century.

Most economists estimate that, absent AGW, annual per capita consumption should grow from about $6.6K today to about $40K by that time.

So, the expected effect of AGW would be to make our descendants more than 100 years form now only ~5.7X as rich as we are, instead of being about 6X richer.

This is why it's very hard to justify making oursleves a lot poorer in order to avoid this. There is a possibility that we will have much worse than expected (obviously, not just worse than median expectation, but outside-of-PDF outcome), and in my view, our policy should be mostly focused on two things: (1) improving our prediction capability, and (2) preparing technologies that will act as an insurance policy in the event that such much-worse-than-expected outcomes occur.

Obviously, this is all at a very summary level. If you go to the the post that Andrew links to, it links to much more detailed analysis.

Posted by Jim Manzi | June 18, 2008 11:49 PM

There is, at present, no "carbon capture technology." Is it possible that there could be, someday? Sure. Is it worth looking into? You bet.
But there is similarly no reason in principle why there couldn't be a "cure for cancer," "vaccine for AIDS," or "fusion power plant," and we've been working like hell on those problems for decades. Really wanting a technology to exist is not the same as actually having such a technology.
Posted by alkali

A great point that should not be forgotten anytime a politician says;
"Let me tax all energy or have a cap and trade under our political control to allocate as we like to our favored donors and causes .....and stand back because I guarantee amazing new technology will pour forth and solve all our oil, natural gas shortages, solve the CO2 problem, and you'll never have to drill or have any nukes or any worries other than how to use all the cheap energy if you vote for Greener and More Moral Than Thou, Candidate Me!!"

1. While we slacked off, Europe and Japan poured money into "exciting alternative energy sources" R&D for 30 years and came up with very little in any significant breakthrough. The next 30 years could be the same. Wind is still 15 times as expensive as coal or nuclear to have as a system, Solar 30 times. The only reason either are viable in Europe is both that taxpayers give massive subsidies and also that electric utilities are forced to buy it then pass costs onto ratepayers with the monetary pain diluted by tossing fees onto cheaper coal, hydro, and nukes.

2. Putting all money from carbon taxes or the new mega-bureaucracy of "cap 'n trade" into "exciting alternative energy research" assumes a easy, quick payback after a host of brilliant solutions that we haven't found in the last 100 years of looking (only really new energy source discovered that worked reliably and on a large scale was nuclear fission. No guarantee that it won't be like other frustrating scientific quests for cheap fusion, cancer cure, grain that grows in salty soil, miracle desalinization of ocean water, ending the common cold, stopping aging ...

3. Given the uncertainty of the "magic, cheap non-polluting energy" magic bullet and the fact that the most ardent conservationists are the ones that have high personal energy use and expect others to lower THEIR standard of living, we should have a carbon tax but it should be used to do things to immediately lower carbon consumption:

a. 25% of revenues used to build nukes or provide the financial framework to borrow against where we also build like the French do - 3 years from start to generating electricity vs 10 years and more in the USA due to lawyer battles..
b. 25% to efficiency improvements in all products and getting industries to switch out of oil use.
c. Use funds for adopting China's 1 child per family policy - maybe two in nations that have reached steady state replacement. Implemented globally to cut demand. As much voluntarily as possible, but it might have to get brutal with overpopulated countries that refuse to cut population growth or individuals that have large families beyond their means and rely on their "rights" to force others to support their excessive kids.
d. R&D into "exciting alternative supplies" like the hippies old favorites - wind, solar, hemp, biodiesel - but also fund fusion and breeder reactor R&D from this 25% as we should use the other 25% mentioned above purely to build nukes to replace CO2 generating coal plants and fusion or breeders will be needed to make the extra fission fuel for nukes to continue to operate cheaply after 40-50 years.

4. Carbon sequestration appears feasible at the source of production of natural gas, stripping it, with available sediment layers nearby that could trap it - but not for coal, or messing with the exhaust of fossil fuel without greatly hurting thermodynamic efficiency and requiring MORE fossil fuel to be burned for the same anount of work.
And I am very nervous about the threat of creating immense storage pools of CO2 of millions of tons in the ground underneath us where even minor ground subsidance or a moderate earthquake might release it all back up on the surface. When Lake Nyos lost it's thermocline, all the Co2 stored in solution came out, rolled along the ground, and killed all animal life within 28 square miles of the release. The amount of CO2 involved in the African disaster was equivalent, they estimate, to the amount that would be sequestered to support running one of 17,900 1oooMW fossil fuel power plants for 2 years, 2 months. 1780 people dead, tens of thousands of livestock, 300+ people with moderate to severe brain damage (it was a sparsely settled area).

Posted by chris ford | June 19, 2008 12:43 AM

What a surprise: SLC thinks that the earth has a creamy hydrocarbon truffle filling, and the silly glibertarian boy is jerking off to his magic fart-powered cars.

This is why it's very hard to justify making oursleves a lot poorer in order to avoid this.

Shorter Jim Manzi: the combined risk of having my ass blown off in Iraq and the US means that it's worthwhile, as long as I'm in the US.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 19, 2008 12:44 AM

Sorry for the repeated posts, all - something went awry with my browser... -Zach

Posted by Zach Arnold | June 19, 2008 1:45 AM

Jim Manzi: And how do we know that such disaster-preventing technologies even exist? That's cargo cult thinking if ever I've heard it: that technology is going to progress as we expect it, in the exact way we need to rescue us from our own shortsightedness.

Unfortunately, if technology progressed as predicted, we'd all be making this discussion in space, now, wouldn't we?

(And I doubt your numbers take into effect the geometric growth of that 5% reduction in global economic output, or the distributional aspects that can and will reduce global security as states hit hard by global warming get a bit acquisitive towards the property of the states that aren't.)

Matt: The neo-contrarian argument just strikes me as just the next iteration of "I'm making far too much money to care about what will happen to the planet after I die. Screw the future." It started with denial of warming, then switched to denial of anthropogenic warning, stopped off on mars for a bit to try to find a way to blame the sun, and now is backed into the corner of "well screw it, it won't be so bad anyway."

I don't know about you, but I grew out of believing people arguing variations of "'well, things are ok so far' at the tenth floor of a fifty-story drop" a good long while ago.

Posted by Demosthenes | June 19, 2008 1:58 AM

Demosthenes,

Jim Manzi: And how do we know that such disaster-preventing technologies even exist?

We don't. Just as we don't know that there would be a disaster if we do nothing, or that drastic cuts in emissions would prevent one that would otherwise occur. There is no "know" about the future. Rational policymaking is about evidence and reason, not panicked reactions to worst-case-scenario fear-mongering.

(And I doubt your numbers take into effect the geometric growth of that 5% reduction in global economic output, or the distributional aspects that can and will reduce global security as states hit hard by global warming get a bit acquisitive towards the property of the states that aren't.)

Huh? What "geometric growth of that 5% reduction in global economic output?" What "distributional aspects that can and will reduce global security?" What are you talking about? If you have a serious, coherent counterargument to make in response to what Manzi wrote, then make it. Vague allusions to "geometric growth" or "distributional aspects" and simpleminded analogies to falling off buildings won't cut it.

Posted by Mixner | June 19, 2008 2:14 AM

This is a good place to start for an economic analysis of global climate change.

http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dice_mss_091107_public.pdf

It's a long read, but the basic point is that a well designed policy for fighting global warming will not make use worse off economically.

Posted by blah | June 19, 2008 2:28 AM

Vague allusions to "geometric growth" or "distributional aspects" and simpleminded analogies to falling off buildings won't cut it.

Shorter silly glibertarian boy: my standards of proof have an opt-out-clause for my own arguments.

The Mixner approach to public policy: squeeze your eyes tight shut and hope for a pony driving a fart-powered car.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 19, 2008 2:39 AM

Yes, I think William Nordhaus's analysis is probably the best anyone has produced so far. He favors a modest, flexible carbon tax that can be adjusted annually to provide the optimum economic impact. Nordhaus is extremely critical of proposals for rapid and drastic reductions in emissions. He estimates that Al Gore's proposal and the Stern Review proposal would have a net cost of $17-22 trillion compared to doing nothing for now.

Posted by Mixner | June 19, 2008 2:43 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HbJUE-G9pY

Posted by MUST WATCH | June 19, 2008 2:43 AM

Re cmholm

There are a number of folks who think outside the box who don't think that the Gold hypothesis is off the wall. These include physics Prof. Robert Ehrlich of George Mason, Un., and skeptic Michael Shermer. As a matter of fact, I personally think that the odds are rather long against this hypothesis being true but not such that it should not be seriously explored. The odds are equally long against the development of controlled fusion anytime in the foreseeable future but that avenue should also be explored. Be that as it may, the essential point of my comment is that replacement of coal with natural gas for electricity production is an approach that can have an immediate affect on the contribution of CO(2) by electric power plants.

Re pseudonymous in nc

Mr. pseudonymous is a far bigger asshole then Richard Steven Hack who at least makes an effort to present the blog with reasoned ideas. Mr. pseudonymous just calls names.

Posted by SLC | June 19, 2008 8:49 AM

The real possibility of catatrophic change exists. It isn't likely, but it also can't be ruled out.
If we induce an irreversable collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, we could face trillions in property loss and massive devastation. It would make the costs of emission reductions seem an absolute bargain even if inflated estimates by do-little advocates were correct. More to the point - over the long term we already know that things like this will occur. The geological record is crystal clear: CO2 levels as high as they are now are not compatible with the survival of any significant ice masses on the planet. Maybe the process will take centuries - but we thought it would take decades to melt the polar ice caps, and the first catatrophic collapse was last year. This year will be worse. The point here is that you think about things differently when, in addition to predictable incremental change, there is a signficant possibility of sudden wrenching change.

And - on the subject of economic cost projections - they have consistently and reliably been wrong when applied to environmental issues. Especially when issued by people with personal or ideological stakes in the status quo. One would think that libertarian market worshippers would have a greater regard for the efficiency of market responses to fiscal incentives.

Posted by Marc | June 19, 2008 8:53 AM

The real possibility of catatrophic change exists. It isn't likely, but it also can't be ruled out.
If we induce an irreversable collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, for example, we could face trillions in property loss and massive devastation. It would make the costs of emission reductions seem an absolute bargain even if inflated estimates by do-little advocates were correct. More to the point - over the long term we already know that things like this will occur. The geological record is crystal clear: CO2 levels as high as they are now are not compatible with the survival of any significant ice masses on the planet. Maybe the process will take centuries - but we thought it would take decades to melt the polar ice caps, and the first catatrophic collapse was last year. This year will be worse. The point here is that you think about things differently when, in addition to predictable incremental change, there is a signficant possibility of sudden wrenching change.

And - on the subject of economic cost projections - they have consistently and reliably been wrong when applied to environmental issues. Especially when issued by people with personal or ideological stakes in the status quo. One would think that libertarian market worshippers would have a greater regard for the efficiency of market responses to fiscal incentives.

Posted by Marc | June 19, 2008 8:55 AM

Here's a discussion of another idea proposed by an out of the box thinker, Craig Venter, who was the first to decode the human genome in 2000. Dr. Venter proposes to develop a biological approach to actually removing CO(2) from the atmosphere, much like photosynthesis does, and produce fossil fuels as a by product. Sounds too good to be true but this is an example, much like Thomas Golds' primordial natural gas hypothesis, of the type of thinking that has the potential for addressing problems related to global warming and energy shortages.

"Venter's Energy Bug
by Sheril R. Kirshenbaum Department: Earth

No doubt all this excess CO2 in the atmosphere is mucking up the planet, throwing all sorts of plants, animals, and natural cycles off kilter.

Enter Craig Venter.

Yes, the very same fellow who decoded the human genome in 2000 faster than anyone. Eight years later, he's set his sights on something that could be even bigger--replacing the petrochemical industry!

In short, the most well-known man in genomics is manipulating chromosomes and trying to create an organism that will ingest CO2, water, and sunlight, to give off fuels like diesel and gasoline that we can use it today's automobiles. An energy bug. Really.

The latest Newsweek provides Venter's description of the anticipated 'large, bacteria-processing fermenters', comparing the process to how we make wine and beer:

We're using similar processes, but ones that are designed to produce much more complex molecules than ethanol, and therefore fuels that will be much higher in energy content, and will work well with the existing energy infrastructure.
While he feels the government has created a disincentive for new technologies and new ideas, he's developing a 'fourth generation alternative fuel' which would essentially convert carbon dioxide to energy. No, the technology is not quite available yet, but it's an intriguing idea from someone who has proven himself already. And he says the it may be years--not decades--away.

The big question: Should such an energy bug be created, how will we know what it's impacts will be? What about all of the uncertainties given the complexity of our natural system? In his words:

We're playing a very dangerous game by adding more and more CO2--it's like playing Russian roulette with the planet. So reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is very clearly a positive thing. If humanity can match that challenge, it would be a very important step towards our long-term survival.
As I wrote in my last post on Venter, I'll have to learn more before I'm able to develop an informed opinion, but once again, I'm interested to hear what readers think...

Scientific revolution or dangerous idea?"

Posted by SLC | June 19, 2008 10:29 AM

Blah:

Nordhaus and the DICE group are probably the best modeling team on exactly this question. They support exactly the position that you indicate that they do.

I've written a long article that addresses why, once you leave the world of environment-economics models and consider the real world of geopolitics, I believe it is rational to support a different policy:

http://theamericanscene.com/2007/11/30/why-i-oppose-a-carbon-tax

Posted by Jim Manzi | June 19, 2008 11:01 AM

Blah:

Nordhaus and the DICE group are probably the best modeling team on exactly this question. They support exactly the position that you indicate that they do.

I've written a long article that addresses why, once you leave the world of environment-economics models and consider the real world of geopolitics, I believe it is rational to support a different policy:

http://theamericanscene.com/2007/11/30/why-i-oppose-a-carbon-tax

Posted by Jim Manzi | June 19, 2008 11:02 AM

One of the consequences of AGW is the poleward migration of the Jet Stream. I think it has migrated ~150 miles so far. As it so happens, that was enough to park a 3 week deluge over the state of Iowa. (When you break a flood record by over 11 ft, I think it's legitimate to attribute the record to an extracurricular force such as AGW.) What's the cost of the loss of the crops that won't make it to harvest this year because of those floods?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 19, 2008 2:31 PM

Jeffrey Davis:

I certainly hope you'll be submitting a paper on it to Nature, because if you can prove this assertion, you're going to be a very famous scientist.

Posted by Jim Manzi | June 19, 2008 5:19 PM

Jim Manzi,

It's too late to expect anyone to see this, but you don't specify which "assertion" -- that the Jet Stream has migrated poleward (it has) or that I think it's legitimate to attribute the (5 sigma event) 11 ft leap in a flood level to AGW. Both are true. The Jet Stream has migrated poleward and I do think it's legit to attribute the flood to AGW. There have been a lot of 5 sigma events recently. The European heat wave several years ago. Beating previous flood levels by 11 ft. In Iowa?! Events that are expected to occur 1 year in 2 million? All that extra energy in the atmosphere is going to show up in lots of extreme events.

BTW, you might want to look into the question of Science and "proof". It's sort of like listening to a painting. Wrong category.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 20, 2008 9:29 PM