Salon | Newsreal: We need a 1-2 punch, page 2

T A B L E+T A L K
Is Bill Clinton the most besieged American president in recent history or the biggest jerk we ever elected? Join the debate in Politics.

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Men are beasts

R E C E N T L Y
"Netscape is toast"
By Jonathan Broder
Prosecutors at the state level are planning further challenges to Microsoft on new ground
(10/23/97)
The commodification of a hero
By Ellen Umansky
Muhammad Ali memorabilia auctioned in Beverly Hills
(10/22/97)
Inside the IRA
By Ros Davidson
Can "ordinary" killers make peace?
(10/21/97)
Commissioner George Will?
By Drew Lindsay
He's just what baseball needs
(10/20/97)
Free the Boulder two!
By Mark Hunter
The parents of JonBenet Ramsey are being railroaded
(10/17/97)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

C O N T I N U E D
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

U.S. automakers have taken the lead in opposing action to avert global warming. Are industrialists in other countries taking a similar position?
I was recently at a conference in Japan, and it was striking that something like 30 separate industry associations were committed to reducing emission and/or energy use to 1990 levels by 2010. The entire auto industry in Japan is committed to reducing emissions.
A major concern of global warming revolves around carbon emissions. The IPCC has predicted major problems if we reach a "two times carbon world," that is, 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide, twice the level of pre-industrial times. We are presently at around 360. How much time do we have?
Jae Edmonds of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory concludes that it will be virtually impossible to limit carbon emissions to less than 450 parts per million, but that 550 parts per million might get agreement. He argues that tighter restrictions would require convincing evidence of the problem's seriousness earlier than we are likely to get it. The most important thing we have to do now, he argues, is to develop technologies to get us off fossil fuels, and he calculates we have 25 years to do it.
Are you saying a "two times carbon world" is acceptable?
Probably -- if we reach that 550 parts per million gradually over the next 75 years, while beginning now to achieve flat energy growth and later shifting to a hydrogen-based economy. But if we get there sooner and we're still relying on carbon-based fuels, it would be a big problem.
The environmental community is worried that President Clinton may agree to support reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, rather than by 2005. How do you feel about this?
If their purpose is to put maximum pressure on Clinton to stop him from caving, that's a reasonable posture. If you ask me as someone who's knowledgeable about what can be achieved, I think they're off the mark. We need to focus on preventing a rise in energy use, by capturing energy savings out of what exists. This is what we saw from 1973 to 1986, due to a combination of rising prices, energy efficiency policies and R&D programs creating new technologies. Since then, energy use has been going up steadily. What we need is flat energy growth. And we need to move energy supply from high- to low-carbon fuels, e.g., from coal to natural gas and, over time, to renewables.
So President Clinton's position of reducing to 1990 levels by 2010 is OK?
I would be nervous about setting goals that have no flexibility. Let's say the target was set at 1990 levels in 2010, as an example. In my view, this is a tight target, and very risky if it is implemented with no flexibility. Flexibility could be achieved by permitting international trading in carbon emissions and/or through a penalty for emissions above the target.
And we should put the proceeds from such penalties into helping developing countries implement the kind of energy conservation programs we have in this country: rebates for energy-efficient products, government programs to develop appliance efficiency standards, programs for schools and hospitals, state efficiency standards for buildings and so on.
I personally would also give serious consideration to creating a "feebate" system for autos. Let's say the average fuel economy for cars on American roads is 32 miles per gallon in a given year; a car that gets more miles per gallon gets a rebate collected from cars getting less than 32 mpg.
We need a one-two punch. The first to stabilize energy growth. But the real key is to start the R&D to go beyond carbon fuels. Right now we are in a carbon economy, in which 80 percent of our electricity comes from carbon-based fuels. We need to substantially reduce that proportion in the next 25 to 75 years and come to rely on low-carbon fuels.
How do we cause that shift?
You have to invest in a lot of new things and see what works. My favorite is biomass. Right now, 25 percent of the world's energy comes from dead branches, corn husks, plants, anything you can burn -- but it's at very low efficiency. Imagine if you had a technique that could convert that energy at 40 percent efficiency, for example, gassify it and put it through a combustion turbine.
You can't do that now, but you might be able to in 10 or 20 years. You also need to try wind power and, over the longer term, photovoltaic cells that produce energy from the sun. Also fuel cells using natural gas and hydrogen fuels. I would also support R&D in nuclear energy, particularly to see if we can solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. On the demand side, hydrogen or electric vehicles are an interesting option.
How much money are we talking about here?
Right now the federal government puts $2 billion a year into applied energy technology research, of which perhaps only $1 billion is related to developing non-carbon based energy sources. The President's Council on Sustainable Development has recommended another $1 billion. But you don't want to add it all in now, because much of it would be wasted. It's best to increase the budget by 10 to 20 percent a year. The key is to do the R&D steadily over a long period. Most of the commercialization costs will then be borne by industry, over the next 25 years.
Back to big-spending government?
You need some government action. If someone thinks the private sector is going to solve a public problem far in the future, they're smoking something. The private sector will pay attention to the next quarter's returns.
There are some encouraging signs from the private sector, like the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PGNV).
The reason that the auto industry is working on PGNV is they don't want CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards imposed by the government. So a deal was cut. But if government doesn't continue to push, environmental problems are not going to be solved. Companies don't do it on their own volition.
SALON | Oct. 24, 1997
Fred Branfman is a regular contributor to Salon.

T A B L E+T A L K Is Bill Clinton the most besieged American president in recent history or the biggest jerk we ever elected? Join the debate in Politics. D A I L Y+Q U O T E Men are beasts R E C E N T L Y "Netscape is toast" By Jonathan Broder Prosecutors at the state level are planning further challenges to Microsoft on new ground (10/23/97) The commodification of a hero By Ellen Umansky Muhammad Ali memorabilia auctioned in Beverly Hills (10/22/97) Inside the IRA By Ros Davidson Can "ordinary" killers make peace? (10/21/97) Commissioner George Will? By Drew Lindsay He's just what baseball needs (10/20/97) Free the Boulder two! By Mark Hunter The parents of JonBenet Ramsey are being railroaded (10/17/97) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		C O N T I N U E D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - U.S. automakers have taken the lead in opposing action to avert global warming. Are industrialists in other countries taking a similar position? I was recently at a conference in Japan, and it was striking that something like 30 separate industry associations were committed to reducing emission and/or energy use to 1990 levels by 2010. The entire auto industry in Japan is committed to reducing emissions. A major concern of global warming revolves around carbon emissions. The IPCC has predicted major problems if we reach a "two times carbon world," that is, 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide, twice the level of pre-industrial times. We are presently at around 360. How much time do we have? Jae Edmonds of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory concludes that it will be virtually impossible to limit carbon emissions to less than 450 parts per million, but that 550 parts per million might get agreement. He argues that tighter restrictions would require convincing evidence of the problem's seriousness earlier than we are likely to get it. The most important thing we have to do now, he argues, is to develop technologies to get us off fossil fuels, and he calculates we have 25 years to do it. Are you saying a "two times carbon world" is acceptable? Probably -- if we reach that 550 parts per million gradually over the next 75 years, while beginning now to achieve flat energy growth and later shifting to a hydrogen-based economy. But if we get there sooner and we're still relying on carbon-based fuels, it would be a big problem. The environmental community is worried that President Clinton may agree to support reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2010, rather than by 2005. How do you feel about this? If their purpose is to put maximum pressure on Clinton to stop him from caving, that's a reasonable posture. If you ask me as someone who's knowledgeable about what can be achieved, I think they're off the mark. We need to focus on preventing a rise in energy use, by capturing energy savings out of what exists. This is what we saw from 1973 to 1986, due to a combination of rising prices, energy efficiency policies and R&D programs creating new technologies. Since then, energy use has been going up steadily. What we need is flat energy growth. And we need to move energy supply from high- to low-carbon fuels, e.g., from coal to natural gas and, over time, to renewables. So President Clinton's position of reducing to 1990 levels by 2010 is OK? I would be nervous about setting goals that have no flexibility. Let's say the target was set at 1990 levels in 2010, as an example. In my view, this is a tight target, and very risky if it is implemented with no flexibility. Flexibility could be achieved by permitting international trading in carbon emissions and/or through a penalty for emissions above the target. And we should put the proceeds from such penalties into helping developing countries implement the kind of energy conservation programs we have in this country: rebates for energy-efficient products, government programs to develop appliance efficiency standards, programs for schools and hospitals, state efficiency standards for buildings and so on. I personally would also give serious consideration to creating a "feebate" system for autos. Let's say the average fuel economy for cars on American roads is 32 miles per gallon in a given year; a car that gets more miles per gallon gets a rebate collected from cars getting less than 32 mpg. We need a one-two punch. The first to stabilize energy growth. But the real key is to start the R&D to go beyond carbon fuels. Right now we are in a carbon economy, in which 80 percent of our electricity comes from carbon-based fuels. We need to substantially reduce that proportion in the next 25 to 75 years and come to rely on low-carbon fuels. How do we cause that shift? You have to invest in a lot of new things and see what works. My favorite is biomass. Right now, 25 percent of the world's energy comes from dead branches, corn husks, plants, anything you can burn -- but it's at very low efficiency. Imagine if you had a technique that could convert that energy at 40 percent efficiency, for example, gassify it and put it through a combustion turbine. You can't do that now, but you might be able to in 10 or 20 years. You also need to try wind power and, over the longer term, photovoltaic cells that produce energy from the sun. Also fuel cells using natural gas and hydrogen fuels. I would also support R&D in nuclear energy, particularly to see if we can solve the problem of nuclear waste disposal. On the demand side, hydrogen or electric vehicles are an interesting option. How much money are we talking about here? Right now the federal government puts $2 billion a year into applied energy technology research, of which perhaps only $1 billion is related to developing non-carbon based energy sources. The President's Council on Sustainable Development has recommended another $1 billion. But you don't want to add it all in now, because much of it would be wasted. It's best to increase the budget by 10 to 20 percent a year. The key is to do the R&D steadily over a long period. Most of the commercialization costs will then be borne by industry, over the next 25 years. Back to big-spending government? You need some government action. If someone thinks the private sector is going to solve a public problem far in the future, they're smoking something. The private sector will pay attention to the next quarter's returns. There are some encouraging signs from the private sector, like the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PGNV). The reason that the auto industry is working on PGNV is they don't want CAFE (fuel efficiency) standards imposed by the government. So a deal was cut. But if government doesn't continue to push, environmental problems are not going to be solved. Companies don't do it on their own volition. SALON \| Oct. 24, 1997 Fred Branfman is a regular contributor to Salon.