I realize it’s hard to get an accurate read on the true state of affairs — even government agencies are likely to have their biases. But I don’t think solely relying on you favorite think tank (or any single think tank) is the best way to go. So, in the interest of a more balanced view, I suggest you read this as well:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html

my god do these people get paid for looking in there glass sphere and flipping tarrot cards or what?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm#map

5 years in as many days.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120977344875064131.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

My point is that most of the energy the world over is currently generated with fossil fuels: oil, gas or coal. In terms of traditional pollutants (sulfates, nitrogen compouds, particulates, etc.) gas is cleanest, coal the dirtiest. They rate that way as far as GHGs emitted per unit energy as well, but for the sake of argument let’s concentrate on only the health and environmental effects, the economic impacts, and the national security impacts they generate. Oil is a problem because most of it has to be imported. And even if drilling were allowed to proceed in ANWR and offshore the effect on prices and imports wouldn’t be very great. Neither would it significantly impact the global geopolitical situation. Unconventional sources of oil (e.g., tar sands, oil shale, or coal to liquid conversion) are problematic because they are difficult, energy intensive, and expensive to extract and/or produce. They also increase the health and/or enviromental impacts over conventional sources. So, regardless of what their effects on climate are, continued reliance on fossil fuels will continue to drive prices of all three higher, increase the energy intensity of their generation, and accelerate traditional pollution.

You say, “I think we all, or surely most of us, agree on the need for a more coherent energy policy.” I’m afraid I don’t share your optimism. Rather, at least among participants of this blog, it seems to me the more pervasive opinion is that we don’t need an energy policy. My impression is that the predominant opinion is… Let the market take care of it. As if it were that simple. The fact is, the market forms around policy, not the other way around. Thus, unless the policy is changed, it stands to reason that it will be difficult for alternative energy sources to compete effectively unless they: (1) exactly duplicate the consumption patterns of existing sources, (2) exactly duplicate the capitalization/cost structure of existing sources, and (3) be cheaper than them even within those constraints. And that’s close to impossible. It’s difficult to summarize in a short sound bite (you’re the economist, so I assume you appreciate that). But let me ask: if all farm subsidies were eliminated, and all subsidies for corn ethanol were eliminated, what do you suppose would happen? My guess is bioethanol would get even more competitive while food prices would skyrocket. Needless to say, that experiment isn’t likely to happen, because no one would allow it for a variety of reasons. So much for letting the market take care of itself, huh?

Perhaps a more realistic example is this: the way policy is currently set up in many localities promotes the construction of power plants that are relatively inexpensive to build but cost more to operate — in other words, they favor gas or coal plants rather than something else. The reason is that utilities aren’t required to (or even allowed if they wanted to) levelize their costs over the lifetime of the plant. They can pass on increases in the cost of operation to their customers, but not the cost of construction. The cost of operation of a gas or coal plant is much higher than a wind farm, a solar farm, a geothermal plant, or even a nuclear plant, because the fuel prices of the former are considerable whereas the “fuel” prices of the latter are negligible. Thus, there is no incentive to build a relatively expensive plant even when its levelized cost over its lifetime is likely to be cheaper. On top of that, it is also the case that in most localities the more energy a utility produces the more money it makes. Thus, there is no incentive to economize or conserve.

You mentioned Friedman’s comment that “the validity of a theory or model is not in how “realistic” it is, but in whether or not it produces reliable predictions.” That sounds good in theory, but in practice the reasoning gets a little circular. In other words, how do you know whether the predictions are reliable until the model is put into practice so you can generate some data? And how do you put them into practice without making the necessary policy? You can’t. By the same token, why on earth would you implement a set of policy decisions (in order to put a model in place) if it/they had no apparent reality status? You can’t do that either. The examples I mentioned above bear directly on this point. I don’t really know what the outcome of eliminating farm subsidies or ethanol subsidies would be on the cost of food or corn ethanol. But as Friedman implies, we’ll never know until we try it. So what do you think… should we give it a shot? If so, why? If not, why not? My guess is however you answer those questions they very much depend on how “realistic” you feel your assumptions are in the face of little evidence. After all, it may be that the food crises that are developing around the world simply represent a temporary supply shock which can be easily resolved by redistributions in the supply chain — kinda like the response to the Arab oil embargo in the 70s. Then again, maybe not. How lucky do you feel? And no matter how you answer THAT question, the fact of the matter is, we’ll never know for sure until Monday morning.

On the other examples I think I stand on firmer ground (as firm as it gets, anyway). I think so because there is more evidence. California, for example, now has a decades long history of tinkering with energy policy. It hasn’t been completely stellar (they’ve made some mistakes), but in balance it’s been pretty good. CA is number 1 among all states in terms of energy efficiency per capita GDP. And that’s in spite of the fact that CA is generally considered the traffic capital of the nation, if not the world, and produces more oil and has more refineries than all but a handful of other states. They did it largely because they implemented policies that emphasize energy efficiency rather than production. And until very recently they did THAT not in the name of reducing GHGs, but in the name of reducing traditional pollutants. I think it’s important to stress the fact that CA did not do what they did in an attempt to address global warming, they did it for another reason — wasteful use of fossil fuels were killing people. I’ve lived in CA now for the better part of 25 years. And I have to say, the air quality is a whole lot better than it was, even though the population is a whole lot higher than it was. In the mean time the economy has grown.

The only people who will make money on CO2 induced global warming are the guy operating the hedge funds at the expence of the consumer. (Then again the government had to bail out bears & strean.)

No good can come from something built on a lie.

Our energy problems would be greatly diminished if we allowed drilling again. The Bakken formation has 3Gbbl recoverable w/current technology.

Feed the bears locally available eco-fascists, not SH seals!

I think we all, or surely most of us, agree on the need for a more coherent energy policy. I just as sure that we will have disagreements about what that policy should be, and especially what its goals should be. A simple, but probably telling example, would be to ask whether we should — or whether we want to — reduce our dependence upon oil for geopolitical reasons, or for environmental reasons. Now maybe one, such as myself, would think we ought to take both into consideration, but one reason is more vital or urgent than the other. Depending on which one comes first, this can alter how what we view as a more coherent energy policy.

As for temperature predictions for the future being necessary or sufficient for a good energy policy, I’m not sure I see where you are going with that. Do you care to elaborate?

No polar bears in the Antarctic.

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fed/oeip/ca-pdo.cfm

I guess one could respond to that in several different ways, but it seems to me that what is getting lost in the discussion is why the discussion itself is deemed important. It seems to me its importance lies in developing an energy policy for the future — because, after all, GHG emissions are not only intimately tied, but almost exclusively so to the generation of energy. So the bottom line question is… are predictions of whether or not the earth will heat or cool in the near term, medium term, or long term both necessary and sufficient to address our future energy needs? Certainly some consider them necessary, but they sure as heck aren’t sufficient. And in fact, I think that when you concentrate on the sufficiency issue, the necessity argument begins to significantly diminish in importance.