Carl Pope, head of the Sierra Club, in a January 22, 2009 article entitled “Moving the U.S. off Carbon with Less Pain, More Gain” takes issue with Bill McKibben’s November 5, 2008 article entitled “President Obama’s Big Climate Challenge.” (Both published in Yale Environment 360, a publication of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies). McKibben identifies the scale and risk of the challenge noting it will be unpopular and could damage Obama’s political future.
Pope begins his critique by acknowledging that he shares McKibben’s conviction that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 90% by mid-century. But Pope argues that the right investment in technology is all that is needed to manage this reduction. The essence of his position is that a well-designed package of market reforms — which does not require austerity — will lead to a prosperous, low-carbon future. He writes, “The assumption that the costs of climate recovery will be prohibitively high simply does not stand up to scrutiny.”
I believe that it is Pope’s positions that do not pass scrutiny and that it matters a great deal whether Pope is correct. Pope himself says there’s a fundamental difference between a mind-set that concludes sacrifice is needed and a mind-set that sees only an economically attractive transition. He labels this as the difference between “sacrifice” and “reform.” Of course, “sacrifice” sounds disconcerting, even scary, while “reform” sounds comforting and moderate. Pope has thus slanted his argument against what he calls sacrifice. By implication, Pope’s position is that no significant lifestyle changes will be required from us.
Pope’s main arguments begin with a reference to a McKinsey & Company report, which says reducing U.S. emissions by 2030 could be achieved with a negative cost, since the need for reductions represents investment opportunities that would increase the productivity of the overall U.S. economy. Pope discusses the case of California, pointing out that in a 35-year period the state’s residents maintained constant per capita energy consumption while the rest of the nation increased 50%. Unfortunately for Pope’s thesis, this period of California’s history is not one of reduction in energy use. Remember that Pope conceded we need a national reduction of around 90% in greenhouse gas emissions. To achieve that reduction, Californians per capita will still need to make reductions on the order of 50 to 60% by 2050 (while the rest of us may need to reach a full 90%). Is Pope suggesting that Californians can make 50 to 60% cuts in their energy use without sacrifice?
Pope next presents a picture of today’s creaky and anachronistic energy system. He says, “Right now, we generate electricity in power plants designed — and in some cases built — in the Taft era (hydro), the Coolidge era (coal), or the Kennedy era (nuclear). We ship electricity in transmission grids equipped with electromechanical switches whose fundamental design goes back 80 years. We burn gasoline in internal combustion engines that haven’t changed much since Henry Ford, and those engines are in SUVs built on 40-year old assembly lines. And 50 percent of the fuel we use to heat and cool our buildings radiates directly into the sky because many of those buildings have never been modernized for energy performance.”
Pope’s portrait is, at best, highly misleading. He does not propose replacing the Taft-era dams with new ones. (And why would he? I suspect their generators have been replaced or rewired many times.) Aging coal plants are not necessarily inefficient. It’s true that coal plants were once less than 20% efficient and now are near 35% (including the latest ones) but there is little room left for improvement in the technology of turning water into steam. Electromechanical switches are not high energy consumers and replacing them with electronic ones will save little fuel. Contrary to Pope’s assertion, the internal combustion engine has in fact improved by about 1.5% per year ever since Henry Ford’s time. (The best-explored alternative, the fuel cell engine, has never made it out of prototype phase.) In short, Pope’s evidence does not support his implied conclusion that there are significant reductions in fossil fuel use to be gained by modernizing the nation’s electricity generation and auto assembly processes.
Pope moves on to endorse a complaint we often hear from business interests, namely that rapid improvement will come to energy markets if we only eliminate barriers to innovation. But what barriers does he have in mind? It isn’t barriers to innovation that explain the snail-like process toward carbon capture, or the recent cancellation of Future Gen in particular – it’s the sheer technical challenge of storing billions of tons of CO2 underground for thousands of years. IGCC power plants on a world-wide basis have not proven themselves reliable and efficient. Improvements in wind and solar technology have come from massive amounts of government subsidies, including major contributions from the government’s own research labs like NREL. Both wind and solar are now growing at 50% per year (still with subsidies) and there has been massive public and private investments in both technologies – but prices remain high, and the sum total of their contribution to the nation’s electricity supply remains under 2%. Pope seems to imagine that shifts in U.S. government policy can mandate rapid technical breakthroughs. But the evidence shows that governments in other nations have subsidized and invested for years without earth-shattering results. Wind power still requires a big propeller and a generator.
Fortunately, Pope does accept that a rapid national transition to a low-carbon economy will not be without some pain and expense. He acknowledges that some parties will not be as better off as others. He admits that there will be a significant price tag to accelerate the transition. But he aims to convince us that this price tag will come from making those who emit carbon pay for their pollution and the costs of climate disruption. Somehow, in his view, taxing the emitters will both accelerate the transition from fossil fuels and make the overall global economy fairer. But he ignores the basic fact that the emitters of carbon are us! It’s not the Ford or General Motors plants that are the problem, it’s the trucks and SUVs that we Americans have chosen to drive and the big houses we have chosen to inhabit. Does Pope believe that we will call a significant new tax on personal carbon emissions a “reform” rather than a “sacrifice”?
Pope says he agrees with McKibben when the latter says, “Doing what actually needs to be done . . . would involve — directly or indirectly — raising the cost of continuing to live as we do right now.” But then he focuses on the wastefulness of people who drive Hummers, or air condition rooms that have fires blazing in the fireplace. (This is a miniscule part of the population) He acknowledges how much “energy waste happens because ordinary people live in leaky buildings with outdated appliances” but doesn’t recognize the sacrifice implied when he also concedes that such people “cannot easily or affordably upgrade.” He expresses sympathy for small business people buying a Ford Econoline with an old design that gets 15 mpg, but then wonders why they don’t drive modern hybrid panel trucks that get 30 mpg. (He criticizes Detroit for not offering such a vehicle; but I doubt any global manufacturer offers one.) Pope seems to conclude it is Detroit’s fault for not offering better vehicles, while completely ignoring the choice of tens of millions of Americans to drive SUVs when more efficient cars are available. This familiar environmentalist refrain – blame the producer but not the consumer – serves to obscure the financial hit (another sacrifice, perhaps?) that millions of owners of low-mileage vehicles are now bound to take.
Pope claims to share McKibben’s despair over U.S. materialism but insists that austerity for the American people will not be required. He hypothesizes two schools of thought on this issue. One school suggests modest carbon reduction goals to mitigate economic pain or the give-away of carbon permits to businesses. The other school compensates those who use carbon sinks. He notes in this case that Peabody Coal does not own the Amazon, nor Exxon-Mobil the Maldive Islands, but the corporations use the Amazon and Indian Ocean to absorb their emissions at huge cost to others. Who are these “others”? I assume Pope means me and all the other citizens – citizens, that is, who use electricity from Peabody Coal and drive vehicles fueled with Exxon oil. Once more, in Pope’s version of the story, the responsibilities of citizens are not called into question – oil companies are the sole evil-doers.
Pope goes on to compare his views on revenues from carbon permits with those of McKibben, and finds the latter’s lacking. Pope wants to use the revenue from carbon permits to aggressively pursue better technologies. He argues for investing in energy efficiency rather than new power plants. He believes that serious energy market reform and regulation of the producer can rapidly reduce the demand for fossil fuels of the consumer by putting a price on carbon emissions. Pope then calculates that a carbon price of around $30 per ton can be funded by a gasoline tax of approximately 30 cents per gallon. Revenues would go to the U.S. Treasury, and Congress would allocate them first to low-income consumers to mitigate the increased costs of gasoline and electricity, and second to investments in climate change solutions with a focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Finally, he wants building codes to reflect the American Institute of Architects’ goals of achieving carbon-neutral buildings by 2030 (new construction only), ignoring the 100s of millions of existing inefficient buildings.
Pope proposes incentives including upping the price of carbon generated to send a more powerful signal to investors to back low-carbon alternatives if progress is slow. Other incentives would return some carbon taxes to the citizens to allow them to buy more efficient products. About $60 billion to $180 billion a year would go to the government to meet the various costs of transitioning to a low-carbon economy. Pope acknowledges that he does not know how fast we can improve the energy productivity and lower the carbon/energy ratio of our economy. One might suspect that he also doesn’t know how much it would cost. He argues for redirecting benefits from the polluting and uncompetitive technologies of the past to cleaner, higher performance, new energy options. Finally he says the level of sacrifice we face will fall in direct proportion to how effectively we use carbon revenues to motivate and deliver the new energy options. However, he provides no analysis or estimates of time and costs to achieve reductions – seemingly just hoping the technology is there somewhere.
What Pope does not see is that by taking the positions discussed above, he has not refuted McKibben’s call for sacrifice. Americans are perfectly free to purchase new energy-saving products and technologies right now, but would have to sacrifice some other purchase to do so. There are triple-paned argon-filled windows on the market, for example, which would reduce home heating costs. But they are expensive enough that many would call buying them a “sacrifice.” Gas-saving cars using advanced technology have been available now for a decade. But hybrid sales are still less than 2% of the market. High-mileage Honda Fits and Toyota Yarises are available for those who can’t afford a hybrid – granted these models require sacrifices of size and comfort compared to SUVs. Americans can buy a host of energy efficient products today — assuming they are willing to give up comfort, convenience, and cash. Their cars might be a bit more crowded and might not be as safe. Americans can buy more energy-efficient houses – if they are willing to put more of the construction cost into a better building envelope, and sacrifice larger rooms. Utility bills can be lowered by settling for smaller appliances or turning off the extras in the garage. Compact fluorescent bulbs can be installed immediately, though few Americans have actually done even this. Americans have consistently rejected energy-saving technologies for the sake of style, one-upmanship, comfort and convenience.
In my view, Bill McKibben said something important and accurate when he pointed out that if Americans are to achieve the ecologically necessary reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, they will need to sacrifice many things – and not just those which are considered to be luxuries. Carl Pope, by contrast, suggests that we will not need to give up anything. Technology and innovation, spurred by simple changes in government policy, will provide us a 60 mpg 4,000 pound SUV and a 3,000 square foot McMansion that will use less energy than an electric bike and a modest apartment.
Mr. Pope’s paper came out at roughly the same time as the January/February issue of Sierra magazine. The cover of that magazine included a figure painting a cartoon house green. (Yes, the term “green-wash” came to mind.) On page 12 of the magazine, the columnist “Mr. Green” responded to a woman in Dayton, Ohio inquiring about the cost-effectiveness of solar panels on her home. Mr. Green responds that installing a solar energy system to generate power for the average household costs roughly $80,000 after rebates and tax credits. Will this woman be able to add panels without sacrifice? I think not – Americans have no such deep pockets to make these changes.
A second article in the magazine entitled “Emerald Cities” suggests in an upbeat manner that major changes are happening in urban areas and refers to LEED building standards, product of the U.S. Green Building Council which has certified only two thousand of the nation’s 5 million commercial buildings. And LEED buildings at best reduce energy use by only 25%. He does not seem to know that the so-called “green” LEED standards and Energy Star appliance ratings have saved only a few percent of the energy consumed in buildings — after pushing their brands for over a decade. And what about the 100,000,000 existing homes? How much will they cost to retrofit and can Americans do this while maintaining their current life style? I think not.
Bill McKibben’s essay, by contrast with Pope’s critique, is grounded in a realistic sense of the difficulties we face. It will be long and hard to gain significant efficiency for a new infrastructure when so called “green” buildings and cars offer on average no more than a 15% improvement in efficiency. Making the existing infrastructure energy efficient involves change of an almost unimaginable scale. This will not be achieved without massive sacrifice from Americans, voluntary or involuntary. The idea that investment in technology is all that is needed is naïve and dangerous. The crisis is huge and Winston Churchill’s comments come to mind as he readied England for a long war: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind.” There was a war on then – and there is no less a war on now as we battle the U.S. materialism over which Pope says he shares McKibben’s despair.
Pole calls for a new environmentalism. And McKibben and millions of others, including myself, share this sentiment. But a new environmentalism based on the market economy and the now discredited thesis that greed is good is essentially no environmentalism at all. Environmentalists who claim there will be no need for sacrifice, and reject Churchill’s call, are part of the problem, not the solution.
