Energy upgrades needed to protect the economy....

Today’s post: Weds, 6-11-2008

Relying on fossil fuels for energy, we are now realizing, is NOT environmentally safe. This is particularly true for burning coal; but it’s also true even if to a slightly smaller extent for burning natural gas.

What is still often missed even with the recent run up in the price of oil -- & of gasoline in the United States, is that it is no longer ECONOMICALLY safe.

When they are healthy, economies grow. And, usually populations grow. So the demand for energy will reliably increase as economies can only grow if they have access to more energy.

Since our supplies of fossil fuels are finite, & our effective access may even have begun to shrink, this means that the time has come or will very soon that prices will go up & that will likely accelerate if we continue to use fossil fuels only. It’s also incredibly important that we have put other sources in place well before we run out totally.

In addition, to these last comments that were in last week’s post, here are some more related points.

Severe weather, droughts, floods, &disruptions to water supplies can & do cost millions & millions of dollars. They also can cause health problems & deaths.

And, flooding of developed & populated coastal areas can create similar problems. Some things can be located to higher ground & some areas be protected with dikes as the Dutch have done for centuries. But not all of the people & economic value can be salvaged given such flooding world wide. And, these protective steps cost a lot of money.

Increases in tropical & insect borne diseases from global warming have similar risks & costs.

If we can prevent or minimize all these things, by adding renewable energy on a massive scale, sharply increasing energy efficiency, & likely also adding a good bit more nuclear power, the money saved will likely be larger than the costs, however high, of these energy upgrades & transitions.

Here’s a recent report suggesting it really is necessary to do all of the above.:


“$45 trillion needed to combat warming

By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 6, 7:06 AM ET
TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
2008

The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a "energy revolution" that would greatly reduce the world's dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth "Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.

A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.

Scientists say temperature increases beyond that could trigger devastating effects, such as widespread loss of species, famines and droughts, and swamping of heavily populated coastal areas by rising oceans.

Environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized countries and Russia backed the 50 percent target in a meeting in Japan last month and called for it to be officially endorsed at the G-8 summit in July.

The IEA report mapped out two main scenarios: one in which emissions are reduced to 2005 levels by 2050, and a second that would bring them to half of 2005 levels by mid-century.

The scenario for deeper cuts would require massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy.

Assuming an average 3.3 percent global economic growth over the 2010-2050 period, governments and the private sector would have to make additional investments of $45 trillion in energy, or 1.1 percent of the world's gross domestic product, the report said.
That would be an investment more than three times the current size of the entire U.S. economy.”

As I remember, this report also said that a large number of new nuclear plants would need to be built as well.

But there can be no doubt that we must “massive investment in energy technology development and deployment, a wide-ranging campaign to dramatically increase energy efficiency, and a wholesale shift to renewable sources of energy” whether or not we add more nuclear power if we are to avoid severe economic collapses at some point in the next 20 to 50 years.

Of course, 1.1 % of the entire world economy is a LOT of money. But it IS doable.

Meanwhile, in the United States, two measures to move in the needed direction were defeated recently.

1. Oil companies currently have the money to invest in beginning to shift their businesses to providing energy & transport fuels with renewable sources – not just oil.

I’d strongly prefer that they do this themselves as it seems to me to be prudent management on their part. And, I personally prefer businesses to do things rather than be pushed by government regulation.

But the need is clear. We are already 10 to 25 years late in starting to make these changes & are running out of time.

The largest oil companies have simply NOT done the job & begin to look as if they are incapable of it on their own.

So, when the bill for the US government to step in with tax policies to jump start this change—which is actually in the best interests of the oil companies in my view, was defeated recently, I think every legislator who voted against this bill, should be replaced in the next election for that district. It does NOT matter if they are Republicans or Democrats, I think they should be opposed next time if they run for election again in BOTH the primaries & the actual election.

We cannot afford the delay their lack of knowledge & understanding will otherwise cost us.

2. Similarly, the current bill to renew R & D tax credits & existing tax credits for renewable energy lost recently.

If this situation is not repaired, the United Sates will become less economically competitive due to reductions in R & D spending. And we will GO BACKWARDS on implementing renewable energy at a time we should be quadrupling our efforts.

The legislators who either introduced killer amendments or riders to this bill or voted against it, must be replaced at the next election.

We cannot afford the delay their lack of knowledge & understanding will otherwise cost us.

Our economy, our survival, & our way of life may well depend on replacing these people with legislators who will help speed the solution to these problems instead of voting against solutions or delaying solutions.