The potential power of feedback systems to inform consumers and, in aggregate, change behavior to greater energy (and other) resource efficiency fascinates me. When it comes to cars and automobiles, the “Prius Effect” is becoming somewhat legendary, with couples arguing about who gets greater fuel efficiency and Prius drivers’ speaking of how the system information is fostering changed driving habits.
Toyota is far from alone in this arena. One of the differentiators for the new Ford Fusion Hybrid is its “SmartGauge with EcoGuide”. Having seen material on it and crawled over a Fusion Hybrid at a trade show, I was a bit fascinated by their approach and I made a request. For the past week, I’ve had the pleasure (yes pleasure) of driving a (near) brand-new Fusion Hybrid courtesy of Ford’s test drive program for journalists. This post is a brief discussion of that feedback system.
Last evening, Devilstower spoke of his regrets that there had not been more attention to this post when first published last fall and that this had not pursued as a path to ‘win’ coal companies’ agreement on a path forward to tackle climate change. Thus, with Devilstower’s permission, a guest post discussion of an innovative strategic vision for continued (expanded) coal industry profits and significant cuts in US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that is not dependent on massive investments in the chimera of “clean coal“.
Coal mining may be the most misunderstood industry in America.
Many people think of it as a Dickensian endeavor, or consign it to the realm of old Loretta Lynn songs. They certainly don’t have a coal bin at their home, and think of the industry as something that only affects poor, remote parts of the country. However, coal is actually an enormously consequential industry responsible for more than half the nation’s electricity. Just because there hasn’t been a coal stove at your house since grandpa was a kid, doesn’t mean you didn’t cook your breakfast using coal.
Others have visions of whole towns where the men-folk march off to the mines each morning carrying a lunch bucket and a carbide lamp. While there are still many underground mines, the truth is that improving technology has completely altered both the job and the numbers of coal miners. Nobody yells “fire in the hole.” Nobody shovels sixteen tons in a day. Nationwide there are now around 80,000 coal miners — about the same number as the number of autoworkers in Indiana alone. Even in the states where coal is produced, people tend to get the equation backwards. They overestimate the impact of coal on the employment picture, and discount the connection between coal and the light switch.
I understand that the reaction from many people to this title of this post will be “why?” In recent years, the two things that most people hear about coal are the increased mining deaths brought on by relaxed regulation and enforcement, and increased environmental damage brought on by… um, relaxed regulation and enforcement. Why save an industry that destroys mountains, spoils waterways, and contributes a large percentage of the greenhouse gases that are pumped into our air?
The simple answer is, because we need to. In the short term, we can’t do without either the electricity we draw from coal or the jobs the industry provides. President Obama understood this when he frequently mentioned “clean coal” as a part of his energy plan.
This should not for a moment be taken as “hands off coal mining.” Clean coal is a fuel that doesn’t exist outside theory and bench-scale lab tests. It may never exist. If we really intend to develop technology to limit CO2 emissions from burning coal, it will take an investment of billions of dollars — money that won’t be spent on alternatives. Despite the white “clean coal” hats handed out at political events across the country, the industry itself doesn’t expect to deliver on the clean coal promise for two decades.
While we wait for promise of clean coal, the industry should understand one thing clearly: they’re at risk. There are other energy sources out there, energy sources that are clean now, and as those energy sources expand and diversify, there’s a greater and greater risk that people will simply say “enough.” We might not be able to flip the switch and turn off coal today, but we can certainly put a plan in place that phases coal out. And we very likely will.
Forget for a moment the CO2 pouring from the power plants. Coal will get no support as long as it’s seen an industry that disregards both its workers and the environment. It needs to clean up the rest of its act if it hopes to be around when clean coal emerges from the lab.
So what steps should the industry take if it expect the public support it requires to survive?
Amid many frustrations re the American Climate Energy & Security (ACES) Act (climate legislation), it is like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard when people say “it will only cost X” (”just a postage stamp a day”). There is celebratory discussion of CBO and EPA numbers showing very low costs, seemingly useful to counter R false claims of $3000+ / year costs. Truly, there are others who are more expert than I on framing but but it really seems to me that once you’re discussing costs, then it becomes a ‘wonkish’ battle over details.
Again, putting aside ACES’ weaknesses, this seems a more appropriate framing:
Acting forcefully on the climate will be profitable with most Americans.
The CBO, which is explicit about excluding many of the benefits in the bill such as energy efficiency and improved health from reduced pollution, found the costs to be minimal, something like a postage stamp a day.
This seeks to structure the discussion toward the reality that, if one does a full systems-of-systems examination of costs and benefits, the benefits of action far (FAR) outweigh the costs. (Just as the costs of inaction far, Far, FAR outweigh any benefits from failure to act.)
If people are breathlessly saying “cost only a postage stamp a day”, as their lead or headline, then reporters’ stories will be about “cost” (whether that is the Republicans’ distortion of an MIT study to falsely claim a cost of $3100 a year or the CBO’s very stove-piped $180 (or so) per year) … guaranteed. If leaders are standing up saying that this will promote an economic revival and boost the economy, then stories might be “Hmmm, benefit or cost, experts disagree … and, well, as to cost, CBO says that even cost will be very low …”
Most Americans, by the way, don’t have a clue as to the most of the rather serious implications of fossil fuel burning. They hear about Co2 emissions and sort of get the link to polar bears without ice. They might (probably not) have heard about ocean acidification . How many people living in nice neighborhoods relatively near a highway have any clue how cancer statistics change as your residence gets closer to a major highway? How many people with asthmatic children know of links between coal-fired electricity particulates and asthma rates? How many people understand that If “we” don’t talk about this, ALL THE TIME, there is no way that the message that “clean energy = improved health = better life, so WTF are we debating whether or not to do this” will become a major part of the public discussion
Thus, we should be emphasizing the quite truthful “gains” and “benefits” of serious climate action rather than getting caught up in debates about the annual level of the almost certain falsehood of “cost”.
David Roberts, over at Grist, has a great discussion (imo), Why we overestimate the costs of climate-change legislation, of how and why modelers get it wrong in tough domains like this. And, Roberts highlights / underpins a strong case that the models projecting costs are probably overstating the case and getting it wrong.
And, Roberts suggests a framing (implicitly) that turns this argument against those seeking to deceive.
These blind spots are by no means unique to macroeconomic forecasts. Models simply put a sheen of scientific precision on conventional wisdom.
Still, despite their unblemished record of failure, to object to making policy on the basis of cost projections from macroeconomists is to come off as vaguely obscurantist and anti-science. Advocating policy based on historically grounded optimism is seen as ideological.
The real question is: do you believe the American people can figure out innovative, profitable ways to transition to clean energy if they put their shoulders to it? In the end, it’s an expression of faith. But as conservatives like Manzi are eager to point out in other contexts, faith in American entrepreneurialism tends to pay off.
The other thing I wanted to emphasize is the fact that as we transition into this clean energy economy we are going to see, I think, an enormous amount of economic activity and job production emerging. I know that opponents of this bill kept on suggesting this was a jobs-killer, but everybody I talk to, when we think about how are we going to drive this economy forward post-bubble, keep on pointing to the opportunities for us to transition to a clean energy economy as a driver of economic growth.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) loves Twitter. And, on more than one occasion, her off-the-cuff comments have caused some uproar. Not the excited notes from a sports fan (shared her same sentiments at that one), but off-hand comments about major policy issues that suggest potentially recklessly shallow understanding of critical issues. After the House voted to pass HR2454, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, Claire sent out the following twitter.
You say cap & trade could “unfairly punish coal-dependent states”. Does Climate Change “unfairly punish” anyone?
Missourians will save money with energy efficiency and clean energy. And, have improved employment than with coal. Hmmm …
Those two, in short, seem to capture the key failures in Claire’s framing. There is not linkage to the greater issues of climate change nor any hint that Missourians (and others) coal-burning and other polluting habits have anything to do with the problems that we face. Or, if it does, that she fears that they will be “punished” for their polluting ways. And, there is nothing there about opportunity — whether the opportunity for all Americans or, more selfishly, Missouri’s voters. And, there is a message here about running scared out falsely based fears of cost, rather than staking out a position of leadership to explain opportunity. Opportunity not just to make a choice to reduce the risks from climate change, but an opportunity to improve Missouri’s economy.
So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.
If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail….
And reporting that Carlin was surppressed is, well, an absurdity.
They are trying to invert the “war on science” narrative.
Problem is, you would have to have actual science on your side in order for this to work.
Let’s let the Obama Administration speak about this for a moment. EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy’s on the record statement.
Claims that this individual’s opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.
The opinions were considered and studied … too bad that they were false and blatant examples of anti-science syndrome.
This Administration and this EPA Administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making.
It really is sad that CBS News allowed itself to be played, so well, by the global warming denier crowd, helping to give legitimacy to an invented story.
Try speaking with scientists at EPA and it is hard to overestimate the shift in morale in that institution. There are people who have dedicated their lives to public service, to supporting the interplay of science and policy making on environmental issues, who were beaten down for eight years. And, this isn’t solely a ‘partisan’ issue, as two acquaintances are relatively senior in the civil service at EPA and Republicans. One said to me the other day, “I had forgotten what it felt like to be happy to go into the office. I’m almost literally bouncing into the office. We’re being taken seriously in a way that I don’t think I could have imagined a year ago.”
These principles were reflected throughout the development of the proposed Endangerment finding, a process in which a broad array of voices were heard and an inter agency review was conducted. The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.
Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding.
Okay. So (1) not on the study team; (2) not on the review team; (3) not a scientist; (4) still listened to.
In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the Endangerment finding.
Oh, and despite 1-3, (5) some of his material influenced the Endangerment finding.
Additionally, his manager has allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. And this individual was granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science.
About this, I decided to pulse some sources and find out just how much he has been able to do related to climate-change denial on his salary, despite the fact that he is not a climate scientist and climate change is not in the position description for which the American public pays his salary. I was informed that:
He wrote his diatribes (excuse me, opinions) on agency time
They were published at least four times in non-atmospheric science journals and had multiple working papers published in his department’s website.
He participates in a climate-seminar series and is able to invite other deniers to speak
And, he gave at least four presentations as an EPA employee (at an EPA seminar before other EPA employees, twice to university conferences (paid for by you and I, as EPA paid for the costs)
Six months ago, today, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank went to town on Al Gore in With Al due respect, we’re doomed with 18 references to the “Goracle”, a right-wing term dismissive of Gore, trying to undermine his strong, science-backed discussion of Global Warming with ridicule suggesting that his substantive work somehow relates to the Delphi Oracle. At the time, too heavily caught up in The Will Affair, taking on yet another Washington Post absurdity on climate issues seems too tiersome. Happily, Daily Kos’ Plutonium Page stepped up with a pithy rejoinder: Dana Milbank Applies for Internship With Sen. James Inhofe
The Washington Post columnist isn’t quite ready to replace GOP Sen. James Inhofe’s communications director Marc Morano, but comes close.
Thank you Page for that good dismissal of Milbank’s mediocrity of a column and the shame of its occupying valuable real estate in The Washington Post. And, thank you for letting me focus on other matters.
Sigh …
Well, Dana Milbank has stepped into –it in a different way recently. And, that reminded me that 29 January absurdity. So, time to go back and take a look. And, that look suggested that perhaps it would have better to do some dissection at the time because searching the ‘google tubes’ shows up up over 1000 references to ‘milbank goracle‘, with the vast (VAST) majority being quite favorable links or comments from members of the Global Warming wing of the Flat Earth Society.
Why did terminal anti-science syndrome sufferers find so appealing about Dana “Goracle” Milbank?
In a recent discussion about showers and water use, someone commented that they take (in essence) Navy showers (wet themselves, turn off water, soap, then rinse) so why would it make sense to have an efficient system.
I don’t have low flow shower heads, but I rinse up, turn off the water, lather up, then rinse quickly. I think this works out well. …
And the response to a recommendation to get a low-flow showerhead:
Do you really think that my method doesn’t save as much as a low flow head running the whole time?
Well, actually, it likely does “save as much” … and perhaps even more. But this is postulating an either / or situation when there is greater power in “and”.
“If Waxman-Markey can’t get the votes of reliable liberals, they are then forced to go to the right to get a majority,” Pope told the Huffington Post. The bill that has emerged isn’t as strong as it could be, he said, because of the “impact of the failure of liberals to commit on the bill.”
This quotation went flying around some circles, environmentalists and progressives (and some progressive environmentalists) with a “WTF?”-type commentary.
To be clear, we should place the very real inadequacies of Waxman-Markey at the feet of those responsible: fossil-foolish interests, people gullible to deception from the global warming denial wing of the Flat Earth Society, and those scared to lead rather than have to explain themselves in the face of massively deceptive advertising. And, we should recognize that the bill has real strengths in it, in no small part due to leadership by people like Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, but also due to the committed dedication of scientists and activists, environmentalists and progressives seeking to have a science-based policy that will improve the economy while turning the tide on global warming.
Thus, with the reality that the fault for ACES’ weaknesses fall not mainly on “reliable liberals”, Pope’s comment outraged quite a few.
Knowing Carl and also knowing the reality that even the best of journalists can report what they believe is accurate while fostering a misunderstanding, it seemed sensible to query Carl directly (see after the fold for the question/response).
In short, the explanation is more nuanced and specific than the quotation would suggest. In short (again, see after the fold for Carl’s entire comment), Carl believes that the time for equivocation had passed by mid-week. While “reliable liberals” has strategic opportunities for strengthening this legislation in the years, months, weeks leading up to the vote, by not being an assured vote early by mid-week, this helped foster deal-making with more conservative members, who sought weakening measures, rather than providing a stronger negotiating position by the bill’s managers.
I am uncertain about whether I agree with Carl. (I’d state that I disagree but he has far more experience in ‘last-minute deal-making’ than I, thus likely a more knowledgeable and nuanced perception of the situation. But, as a counter-argument, for example, what might the impact have been if 50 “reliable liberals” had gone to the mat Friday morning requiring something specific, such as $5 billion more year for renewable energy deployment)?) But, Carl’s point really is a conversation about how to play an end-game, about implications of tactical maneuvering, rather than what could (depending on one’s reading of the Huffington Post piece) be read as a strong condemnation of the role of “reliable liberals” throughout the ACES Act process.
While there are quite serious issues to consider in how ACES was weakened leading to its passage yesterday and serious issues about whether this is the bill that is required, the vast majority of the opposition to the bill relied on deceit and deception. In part, Representative Lloyd Doggett’s decision to flip his vote from no to yes came based on listening to floor statements by card-carrying members of the Global Warming denial wing of the Flat Earth Society.
The misrepresentation of ACES comes not only in terms of demonstrated anti-science syndrome suffering, but also from misrepresenting the bill’s impacts and priorities.
In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that the organization will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this bill. Every Member of Congress received a letter informing them of this policy and LCV’s strong support for H.R.2454 on Tuesday, June 23. “The stakes could not be higher; a safer, healthier planet and a new energy economy hang in the balance, and it’s imperative that members of Congress be on the right side of history,” LCV President Gene Karpinski said in the letter to the House. … LCV’s endorsement is a nationally recognized shorthand that gives candidates for federal office legitimacy with environmental voters and donors.
Earlier today, two members of the House of Representatives most dedicated to advancing the nation on energy and environmental issues announced their opposition to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act. This was, it is quite likely, a different call as there are quite strong (and even compelling) arguments to vote for the bill despite its flaws. Honestly, in their shoes, I don’t know what statement I would have made today.
Peter Defazio came to the floor to emphasize how ACES under cuts one of the nation’s greatest environmental achievements, the Clean Air Act, by withdrawing the EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions.
“This energy bill’s fine print betrays its laudable purpose. The real cap is on the public interest and the trade is the billions from the public to polluters. It is too weak to greatly spur new technologies and green jobs. An Administration analysis shows that doing nothing actually results in more new renewable electricity generation capacity than approving this bill. “Vital authority for the EPA is stripped, but 2 billion additional tons of pollution are authorized every year, forever. Residential consumer protection incredibly is entrusted to the mercy of utility companies. Exempting a hundred new coal plants and paying billions to Old King Coal leaves him, indeed, a very merry old soul. This bill is 85% different from what President Obama proposed months ago. No wonder his Budget Director called this type of bill ‘the largest corporate welfare program in history of the United States.’ Until greatly improved, until families share in the billions this bill grants powerful lobbies, I cannot support it.”
Both DeFazio and Doggett struggled, it is certain, over how to vote on this legislation. And, both determined that the bill’s inadequacies in face of what is necessary to confront climate change were just too serious for them, in good conscious, to vote for the bill.
Likely Global Warming denier Collin Peterson, rated 85% in 2008, and coal-booster Rich Boucher, rated 77%, both central in serious weakening of this legislation. are both in line for LCV endorsements as they grudgingly support the watered down bill after winning major concessions for their interests.
BREAK– UPDATE: Lloyd Doggett just made a statement stating that he will vote for the bill, in part because he has listened to the global warming denial wing of the Flat Earth society.
for the new Ford Fusion Hybrid is its “SmartGauge with EcoGuide”. Having seen material on it and crawled over a Fusion Hybrid at a trade show, I was a bit fascinated by their approach and I made a request. For the past week, I’ve had the pleasure (yes pleasure) of driving a (near) brand-new Fusion Hybrid courtesy of Ford’s test drive program for journalists. This post is a brief discussion of that feedback system.
(shared her same sentiments at that one), but off-hand comments about major policy issues that suggest potentially recklessly shallow understanding of critical issues. After the House voted to pass HR2454, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, Claire sent out the following twitter.