Earlier today, in a very interesting session featuring Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sven Teske (Greenpeace), and Joe Romm (Climate Progress), Greenpeace released the latest in their series of Energy [R]evolution analyses. This high quality report conducted by the German Aerospace Center lays out, using quite conservative estimates, how “the United States can meet the energy needs of a growing economy and achieve science-based cuts in global warming pollution – without nuclear power or coal.” And, do so not just cost-effectively, but profitably. While not in total agreement with the report, I recommend it highly and hope that this report and the type of meticulous work it represents becomes a meaningful part of the dialogue as we strive for a sensible path forward.
The breakfast release
To a crowd of perhaps 20 reporters (mainly trade press or green/energy specialists, but LA Times and McClatchy as well), Greenpeace put forward three main speakers. First, Senator Sanders who openly stated that he had not (yet) read the report. Then, Sven Teske, director of Greenpeace International‘s Renewable Energy Campaign. Finally, Joe Romm, former Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), with the Center for American Progress and lead for Climate Progress.
Senator Sanders
Senator Stevens emphasized that we have “the opportunity to create a new energy system … that we must seize”. He discussed how, mainly due to big energy company activities, “we have been slow to act”. Despite President Obama, “who does understand the problem”, “that does not for one moment, for one second, suggest that we don’t need a strong grassroots movment all over this country to support this President and push this President to move in the right direction.”
I can tell you absolutely, without any fear of contradiction, as a member of both the Energy and the Environmental Committees, that anyone that thinks that there is any shame on Capitol Hill would be misreading the reality of what is going on.
[Perhaps it doesn’t carry much weight to ask “have you no shame, no shame at all”?]
.
Senator Bernie Sanders: How to Solve Global Warming for Twice the Jobs and Half the Cost from Greenpeace USA on Vimeo.
Sanders emphasized how that, during the hearings that Senator Boxer is hosting and privately, that the scientists are clearly stating to Senators that the situation is worse than they had believed just a few years ago. IPCC authors are stating, “forget what we told you a few years ago, we were wrong, the situation is worse than we told you.”
[Forget climate deniers, the issue is to get people to realize that reality is sadly outpacing the science and that we have to run even faster to catch up.]
“The technology exists today to substantially reduce emissions. The question we should ask is why isn’t in the market today. Is it an engineering or a financial problem?”
Q: How has mood in Senate shifted? What might it take to bring Senator Inhofe along?
A: Well, that’s asking a lot. I don’t know if we’re going to bring Mr. Inhofe along.
There is no question that the sentiment in the United States has changed significantly, both in terms of understanding the threats of global warming and the pontential of renewable energy.
Obviously, one of the concerns we have to address as we address this crisis is that we are in midst of the most severe economic crisis since the Depression. I would not be honest with you if I told you that if you went to an average person on the street and said is more important that you get a job tomorrow and you can pay the electric bill or are you worry about global warming. They’d say that I’m worried about global warming, I’m worried about the environment, but I got kids to feed and my immediate concern is the economy.
Of course the polling shows economy over environment, but that doesn’t mean environment is irrelevant or of no concern.
Sanders discussed how to deal with coal states, emphasizing that we “need to build into legislation funds for building new jobs in those states”. On carbon capture and sequestration, even though “this is a technology that may not work,” legislation will likely have money for it.
That makes life a little bit more complicated.
But I think the response to this is, and I think President Obama has been very strong on this, if you want a strong economy, for a dozen different reasons, if you want to create millions of good paying jobs, you know what you do, we’re going toto focus on global warming and renewable energy.
Sanders took the chance to emphasis progress, that the Stimulus Package is a “tremendous step forward”.
We have to convine the American people the truth that if you want jobs and a good economy, then we need to tackle global warming.
Sven Teske
Teske gave a short review of the study.
He emphasized that it is a conservative approach:
- Current technologies, only.
- No retiring power plants or other systems early.
- Scenario is benchmarked against the IEA.
- “Few, if any lifestyle changes.”
In summary, “the scenario shows that it is simply cheaper, even if you don’t care about global warming, it is cheaper to go clean. And, any economist will tell you, green energy creates more jobs.”
The clean energy option would, from 2005-2030, require $2.8 trillion in investments, $1.1 trillion more than ‘business as usual’ would drive. Thus, the cost to buy seems extraordinarily higher, but that is a misguided view, ignoring the cost to own as the total fuel cost for fossil fuels (in a very low ballpark estimate of fossil fuel prices) would be $10.85 trillion as opposed to $8.7 trillion for the Energy [R]evolution scenario, or over $2 trillion less just by 2030. Thus, the “total” impact of cost to buy would be about $1 trillion less, even without considering all the other, external, costs and benefits.
Joe Romm
Joe really spoke to the audience, to the reporters, not necessarily seeking to create news but to help foster deeper understanding in those who are reporting it.
1. Media coverage of general economic debate is starting to go down the path of what occurred during Lieberman-Warner. The public debate, due to how media reports, is often not a cost-benefit analysis, but simply a cost analysis.
2. The science is very clear. We are talking about, potentially, 10 degrees fahrenheit of warming and, due to how the globe will warm, this will be higher in interior regions of the US. We are facing the potential of 15 degrees or more of warming over much of the US by the end of the century. “The American public isn’t prepared for this because they aren’t hearing it.”
3. Opponents always talk about energy prices, not energy bills. This leaves out half the solution: energy efficiency and cogeneration.
4. Many things that are good about this study, such as that it directly address heating and cooling. The discussion of increased use of natural gas is a sensible “medium term solution that beats the pants off coal.”
5. There are a number of key areas of disagreement. For example, they underestimate CSP which is the “core renewable”. The oil estimates seem very low, perhaps half what it more likely will be. Every $100 barrel is about $400 billion/year in higher US trade deficits. Thus, the “cost of doing nothing is much higher than this scenario suggests”. And, the Net Present Value (NPV) of action is, therefore, much higher. There really is a basic question of whether we do this now or 20 years from now when we’re forced to due to Peak Oil. The direct costs to implement things don’t differ greatly, but the costs of delay will be quite high.
NOTE: Two other posts on today’s event: