SierraScape April - May 2008
Back to Table of Contents

by Ken Schechtman, PhD
Vice Chair, Executive Committee

I may be among the few denizens of these pages who was disappointed by a key feature of Al Gore's Oscar-winning film. Mr. Gore earned his Nobel Prize as the individual most responsible for establishing the broad consensus that global warming is real, reflects human activities, and has catastrophic potential consequences. But when it comes to solutions, the barriers to be overcome and the sacrifices we must embrace, his prescriptions have been politically compromised and far less praiseworthy.

My concern about "An Inconvenient Truth" and about the content of many environmentalist gatherings is that, with distressing frequency, the overt remedial message consists primarily of "we can do it" style cheerleading. In one frame is the urgent challenge and daunting science suggesting the need for 70% carbon emission reductions. But in an instant of magical transformation, it is implied that an escape to that intimidating 70% can flow seamlessly from a political renaissance in Washington and pain free conservation and efficiency, but with little sacrifice and with pliant barriers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Consider:

• The new law increasing fuel economy standards to 35 mile per gallon by 2020 is welcome news. But annual increases in miles driven of about 2.2% imply a 30% jump by that year. So while the law will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day from where we would otherwise be (Union of Concerned Scientists estimate), the anticipated increase in miles driven will leave 2020 transportation sector emissions slightly greater than they are today. And remember that 70% target.
• We are often reminded that 20% home energy use reductions can be realized with a four or five year return on investment if we will bite some easy bullets with changed light bulbs, efficient appliances, and lowered thermostats. That's great. But if longstanding annual population growth rates of about 1.0% continue and if everyone does these things tomorrow, carbon emissions will return to current levels in 18 years. And, alas, not everyone will do them.

The most daunting barriers to reversing global warming reflect the impertinence of carbon in its disdain for national borders. I illustrate the point using the transportation sector in China. But similar considerations apply to many developing nations and to the broader Chinese economy, the world leader in producing coal, steel, cement, and numerous other carbon intensive products.

There were 6 million cars in China in 2001 and 20 million in 2006, a staggering 333% five-year increase. China now has 13 to 14 vehicles per 1000 people as compared to about 1000 in the US. If China had the same number of cars per capita as us and if their fleet achieved worldwide fuel economy averages, they would emit twice as much CO₂ as all the cars in the entire world emit today. Quantified differently, the CO₂ emitted by Chinese vehicles would be about 40% of the emissions today from all sources worldwide.

China will never match our vehicular gluttony because of Malthusian constraints and because of inadequate space for roads to carry 1.3 billion cars. But growth in China and other developing economies is of a magnitude that staggers perceptions of the challenge of global warming, of the chasm between projected trends and 70% reductions. After witnessing that growth in Doha, the capital of oil rich Qatar and in the city of Dalian, one of countless economic dynamos in China, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman attached perspective to our pursuit of conservation and efficiency:

"Hey, I'm really glad you switched to long-lasting compact fluorescent light bulbs in your house. But the growth in Doha and Dalian ate all your energy savings for breakfast. I'm glad you bought a hybrid car. But Doha and Dalian devoured that before noon. … I'm glad that solar and wind power are "soaring" toward 2% of US energy generation, but Doha and Dalian will devour those gains for dinner. I am thrilled that you are doing the "20 green things" suggested by your favorite American magazine. Doha and Dalian will snack on them all, like popcorn before bedtime".

We should of course pursue those 20 green things. They empower people. And since America's behavior has profound global impact, multifaceted leadership is our obligation. But vastly more important is appreciating that empowerment becomes a stillborn memory without ongoing and robust challenges; that without broadly dispersed sacrifice, major economic compromise, and critical technological advances, our revolution will be devoured like popcorn by the onslaught of global warming.

For example, a Prius is about the best the world can do if a cost effective car is to be human sized and have standard range. But a Prius isn't remotely close to a 70% reduction. So we desperately need improved batteries or low cost hydrogen technology. China builds two new coal fired power plants a week and those plants will spew carbon for decades. Carbon sequestration technologies must develop large scale operational capabilities to counteract the damage, and it will be very, very expensive. Wind and solar are not cost effective in most places and they often produce energy when it is least needed. But technologies for storing that energy are in their infancy. We must upgrade the technologies and tax the competition so wind and solar become competitive. It is our job as the world's great technological innovator to spearhead these efforts, but it won't happen with sacrifice-free delusions. So again quoting Friedman in reference to the then 20 presidential candidates:

"Today's presidential hopefuls are largely full of hot air on the climate-energy issue. Not one of them is proposing anything hard like a carbon or gasoline tax, and if you think we can deal with these huge problems without asking the American people to do anything hard, you're a fool or a fraud".

The barriers are enormous. They are political, technological, and behavioral. They will be overcome only with sacrifice. We must stop building coal plants. But we must also shut down many that exist and replace them with wind and solar. And that means lost jobs and a death knell for coal towns from Appalachia, to Illinois, to Montana. When we tax carbon or gasoline as we must, somebody has to pay. When you close the SUV plant, sometimes you can retool, and sometimes you lose your job. When you phase out oil, 180,000 gas stations must redefine their infrastructure and reassess their viability. When you build the windmills and their thousands of miles of power lines, trees are felled, birds are killed, ecosystems are damaged, and sometimes (as the stalled Nantucket wind farm demonstrates) even the Kennedys become opponents because vistas are diminished. You can minimize those impediments, but there is a price to be paid.

Our goal is a redefinition of how the world uses energy, the most ubiquitous non-food product on Earth. Our mission is an economic and societal revolution that has no historical precedent. There are no pain-free revolutions and the time for discussing that pain began long, long ago. There must be shuttered coal mines and shuttered coal towns, and it has to be acknowledged. There may be dollar a gallon gas taxes and people who can't pay. There must be policies that mitigate and distribute the burdens or our revolution may become a shell of recrimination and political retreat as voters learn post hoc that they are the honored victims. And most politically daunting of all, we must define policies that transfer technology to China and India, potentially at great cost to us, because they may not do it alone; because rearranging our own house will be feel-good irrelevance if developing world emissions expand unabated. It will take years to cultivate the policies and the consensus that must be sought. And we have barely begun.

Happily, there are two upsides to this unparalleled challenge. The first is summarized in the words of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:

"There is high agreement and much evidence that all stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or expected to be commercialized in coming decades, assuming appropriate and effective incentives are in place for their development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion and addressing related barriers".

Translated, it will be a long and uncertain slog. There will be predators at every corner. But it is not too late and we have or can develop the know-how.

The second upside is the broad consensus that global warming is real. The time is beyond ripe for a courageous politician to transform environmentalism from most peoples' fifth most important issue to a central policy focus, to campaign vigorously for a redefined environment-friendly tax code and a massive subsidy for solar, to challenge us with shared and patriotic sacrifice. I can envision it now in a debate.

"My opponent opposes the gas tax we so desperately need. You oppose my plan to use the proceeds to reduce low and middle income peoples' social security taxes; to provide public transportation subsidies for low income taxpayers; to endow clean energy companies with resources that will unleash America's innovative genius in the most important job creating industry of this century. The only thing you support is energy company profits. You have no serious plan for energy independence and you know your beloved Alaskan oil is a pittance that will make energy moguls richer and global warming worse. You would continue to send our children to fight wars at least partly to protect Middle Eastern oil suppliers; to send our hard-earned billions overseas so Mr. Chavez in Venezuela and Mr. Ahmadinejad in Iran can remain fat with oil dollars, power, and influence. Are you content to watch silently as Europeans assume leadership in these vital job creating technologies, because you won't raise the money and won't pay a price? What is most revealing is your claim to be the national security candidate even as your policies empower Iran and Venezuela while ceding economic leadership to Europe. I have no apologies for asking Americans to share the patriotic burdens of reversing global warming and weaning us from dependence on oil rich adversaries who hate us".

If Al Gore had found a voice like the above in 2000, I don't know if he would have won or lost votes. But I do know that a crude but forthright Barry Goldwater paved the way for Ronald Reagan, a conservative resurgence and, ultimately, George Bush; that conservatives have defined the debate for decades because they've had the courage to enunciate their curious perception of reality. I do know that win or lose in 2000, a plain spoken Gore and eight years of subsequent affirmation would have facilitated our current task. I do know that energy prices must go up before new and green technologies might one day bring them back down. And somebody with an audience must say so as loudly and clearly as it can be said.

One final point deserves emphasis. When the subject is fundamental rebirth, when it is who we are as a people, change rarely begins in Washington. The civil rights movement succeeded when millions marched in revulsion against the moral swill of racism, when ignoring the outrage became politically untenable. Unions became viable when workers put their bodies on the line in the poignant name of justice. The call for women's suffrage was joined in the streets, and Washington was a latter day convert. There were no sacrifice-free delusions.

Our mandate is to imbue an impassioned understanding that desecrating the planet imposes the moral burden of segregated bathrooms and burning crosses. But the road to that equation is mined with potholes and interest groups. It will not be traversed with feel-good activism or pain-averse politics. It will not be negotiated until the truth has become ubiquitous so that Washington can affirm it. There is a large and unpleasant price that we will all have to pay. The time to start telling people was yesterday.