Our best strategy in tackling GCC? "Collaborative work that promotes an equitable balance?"?

Question

From University of Victoria Research, in relation to their involvement with the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions:

"Through our activities in global change and sustainability, UVic is building a reputation for collaborative work that promotes an equitable balance of the governance, environmental, human and economic factors at the heart of sustainable global development."

In my research I've found many collaborations, most in government. The approach here seems like a solid strategy. If anyone knows of comparable associations in the U.S. please share them.

http://www.pics.uvic.ca/index.php

http://www.pics.uvic.ca/index.php

Answer 1

This is a guest post by Ned Ford, Energy Chair of the Ohio Chapter of the Sierra Club and a member of the Club's national Global Warming and Energy Committee. Ford has been actively promoting electric utility efficiency strategies since 1983.

-----

If what you want to do is solve global warming, the core strategy is energy efficiency. Efficiency may have displaced more than half of all the new growth in electric consumption last year alone. It is already adding more capacity to the U.S. electric resource than all fossil and renewable fuels combined. It has done so for almost forty years, at least. So raising it enough to eliminate the new growth and some of the existing growth is not only fairly practical, it is cheaper than keeping the old coal plants operating.

Electric efficiency programs require some modifications of conventional electric ratemaking, or a legislative decision to take the programs out of the hands of the utilities, which only two states have attempted (Oregon and Vermont), with great success to date. A speedy transition to a climate solution requires some fairly complex regulatory issues be addressed carefully and thoroughly. It's enough for now to say that we know how to do this, but we don't have a broad-based understanding of the principles in most of the states where they are needed.

In addition to end-use efficiency programs, we have a new round of appliance standards going into effect in the next couple of years, and we have a very large untapped potential for combined heat and power, essentially capturing waste heat from existing industrial facilities. The CHP potential and the end-use efficiency potential combined are easily enough to allow us to achieve the 2 percent average annual net reduction goal for 10 to 20 years. Beyond that, we will have a completely different world, where PV and solar thermal generation will probably be cheaper than new coal, a whole lot more will be known about climate change, and fossil fuels in general will probably cost a whole lot more than they do today.

There is no need for nuclear power or carbon sequestration, because neither of them are cheaper than new coal without any carbon controls. Efficiency and wind are. If you become willing (and stupid enough) to pay for new nuclear or carbon sequestration, someone will tell you that the cost-benefit relationship for efficiency and renewables just got even more favorable, and those resources should be used first.

My interest is in the near term, because nothing matters to a climate impact reduction strategy as much as net reduction in CO2 emissions starting ASAP. If we make a net reduction today, that reduction cuts an emissions stream for the entire period we need to stabilize atmospheric emissions. The rate of emissions is really irrelevant -- what matters is the cumulative atmospheric level. Although it will necessarily take decades to control global atmospheric levels, we have nothing that makes it possible to do so this decade except energy efficiency technologies, and a few other things which can nibble around the edges.

Because energy efficiency is available in such a large quantity, and will produce such large economic benefits, it will increase enthusiasm for doing more. And because the near term reductions have such a high premium in a long-term strategy, we must do better than we're doing now.

Addressing the massive efficiency potential in the electric sector will set the stage for doing so in the natural gas sector, which may be easier in the long run, and the petroleum sector, which will be harder, unless we run out of oil. Doing so in the United States will provide a level of leadership on the global scene which many of us remember was once a point of national pride. We have the technology and industriousness to be a "can-do" nation. Hand-wringing and lame excuses are not becoming -- nor, in this case, are they helping the economy at all.

If we raise all state electric utility efficiency programs to the level several have presently achieved, and couple that with a serious effort to capture combined heat and power opportunities, we have an electric sector global warming solution under way. This is economically justified by today's electric costs and resource options, and will save an enormous amount of money compared to doing nothing. An electric sector efficiency response could easily save over $100 billion annually within five or 10 years, compared to meeting new growth in electric consumption with new coal plants.

If we consider the near-term pressure on electricity prices -- in the context of what new coal plants cost today, and the context of higher plant utilization, and the context of the CAIR rule reduction on plant efficiency due to retrofit scrubbing -- it is hard to deny the urgency of getting efficiency right.

Answer 2

True, unregulated capitalism is almost indistinguishable from anarchy. It is said that Somalia is the best example of true capitalism - anything and everything is available for a price... but at what (human) cost?

Free markets can promote innovation and progress but they need structure to prevent excesses and injustice.

Capitalism is also very bad at solving long term problems or problems without immediately obvious financial reward.

This is the reason for state funded space programmes, primary education, police, etc, etc.

Evans_michael illustrates quite clearly what will happen if we leave the solutions to a free market - the problem will get ignored in search of the quick buck until a catastrophic decline (cf. Sub-prime mortgage collapse, dot.com bubble, "irrational exuberance", collapse of Atlantic cod stocks, etc, etc).

No, for the big issues - eliminating smallpox, combatting nuclear proliferation, protecting endangered species, etc - we need collaborative efforts.

After all, it is not the science that is now the issue but public understanding and willingness that, in turn, is both cause and effect of (multinational) governmental policies.

We have to accept that there will be a compromise solution involving limits to lifestyle change, costs, taxation, resource locations, equalisation of living standards between nations, etc, etc.

Even if there was one single 'right' technical solution it is unlikely to be adopted (think betamax vs VHS, apple vs MSDOS); it is now a social-political issue, not a scientific one.

The only time progress is made on global issues is when people from all sides get together - and work together (collaboration!) - to hammer out compromise solutions.

It may not be the best solution but the alternative is no solution.

Europe has quite a number of transnational, private-public initiatives, academic-industrial groups, etc that work collaboratively towards global sustainability but I know none in the US (probably more my ignorance than an actual lack).

Answer 3

No single solution exists to this challenge. However,

talented individuals in HR departments across the region

are implementing a variety of successful approaches to

further Nationalisation.

Answer 4

I disagree. Not that these collaborative efforts don't help--they do.  But you said "best strategy" and this s not it.

Look-the key to dealing with global warming and hence climate change is ending the use of fossil fuels. If we do that, the other issues involved become manageable. If we don't, forget it--our collective goose is cooked.

How to do that?  We need technology to produce and use energy that can sustain our economies without using fossil fuels.  Now, here's the key:

WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY --NOW. It snot some "far off" hope. Sure, there are many improvements that can and shouldbe made over time.  But we have electric cars now that use half the energy as gas autos--they will reduce carbon emissions even if the electricity originates in a coal fired plant. We have cost-effecctive wind turbines. We have nuclear technology that is also cost-effective and safe. We have solar power that is altready bordering on being cost-competitive and the cost is falling.

So what's stopping us? Primarily special interests blocking entry on a large scale into the energy industry by alternativve energy firms.  We need polcy revidionto open up the markets. Then the business opportunities will attract  investors--and so on.

Our best strategy?  Let capitalism do what it does best--solve problems in a free market. A REAL free market--not the pathetic joke we've got now.

Answer 5

What?  Socialism found to be the best strategy to face an imaginary problem pushed to spread worldwide socialism?  Who'd have thunk it??

The way to solve ANY problem is to give it to the lowest qualified bidder.  That's capitalism.  It's the most efficient, most productive system ever devised by man.  We'll solve this problem REAL quick, by analyzing the situation and concluding man can't change solar activity (the driving force of climate change in the real world).