Guest post by Robert Bradley, Master Resource
I have been studying the global warming debate from a physical scientific and political economy basis for 20 years. And I remain amazed at how the energy/climate alarmists will not concede (are ‘in denial’) that the human influence on climate can be positive, not only negative, from an ecological and economic perspective.
The work of leading climate economist Robert Mendelsohn calculates net positive externalities for much of the world from anthropogenic warming at the bottom of the canonic IPCC temperature range. And climate scientist Gerald North of Texas A&M convinced me that the models would eventually get to a warming range of 20C, plus or minus 0.250C, for a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas in equilibrium. (Dr. North was my paid consultant back in my Enron days, tasked with helping me figure out just where the middle ground was in the contentious debate.)
Mendelsohn plus North: a net positive externality from manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And a win for fossil fuels even before getting to the political economy question of comparing ‘market failure’ against ‘government failure’ to evaluate the case for government intervention.
Now to the renewable energy debate online at The Economist magazine where I was invited to oppose the motion: “This house believes that subsidising renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”
In my opening statement, I argued that renewable energy was doomed by physics for reasons that were first comprehended by British economist W. S. Jevons in his 1865 classic, The Coal Question.
Noting the taxpayer and environmentalist backlash against wind and solar facilities, as well as the inability of intermittent energies to exist without fossil-fuel blending/firming, I found myself squarely back at the premise to the motion: that fossil fuels were bad.
With peak oil and peak gas waylaid by the shale revolution, and the statistics of less pollution alongside greater fossil-fuel usage, the question then got back to global warming (my rebuttal statement). My closing statement summed up my case for the increasing sustainability of fossil fuels, not only the failure of renewable energy.
Economist debate moderator, James Astill, is upset. After all, we should all know that the human influence on climate is severe and bad and government must do something! He complains:
In my previous offering, I confess I underestimated how relaxed our opposer, Robert Bradley, was about global warming. I thought he did not consider it a problem. It now seems he is rather in favour of it. “A moderately warmer and wetter world, natural or manmade,” Mr Bradley writes, “is arguably a better world.”
I said “moderate warming,” Sir. And I said “arguably,” Sir. Why is your world so black and white, and black in favor of energy statism? Given the public and political backlash against climate alarmism and forced energy transformation, and the very comments and voting cast in this forum, perhaps it is time to debate rather than assume.
Astill continues:
This shows how far Mr Bradley has strayed from the question in hand: concerning the desirability, or otherwise, of subsidising renewables as a means to stop the world burning fossil fuels. I do not blame him exactly. It stands to reason that no one untroubled by the prospect of global warming would bother himself with wonky, expensive renewables. But, alas, that does not describe this house. It assumes that a way to get the world off fossil fuels must be found.
Astill is missing the energy forest for the politically correct trees. Compared to dilute, intermittent, and environmentally invasive wind and solar power, fossil fuels are socially advantageous. And even assuming high climate sensitivity to GHG forcing, ‘market failure’ must be balanced with ‘analytical failure’ and with ‘government failure.’ No more assuming the problem, the solution, and perfect government implementation of the ‘solution.’ The era of magical energy postmodernism must end!
I invite readers of WUWT to visit, read, and vote. I like my case. As I conclude my final statement: “The best energy future belongs to the efficient and to the free.”
Realism and optimism, anyone?
You said “Peak Oil.” No!!!!
Let the lecturing begin yet again.
I love the phrase ‘renewable energy’……. One wonders if the proponents ever went to school or skipped physics class altogether.
At 8:21 am Jon asked:
“I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?”
Here’s one that the doomsayers are loathe to mention. Crop yields have been increasing significantly around the world as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. Numerous controlled experiments have also shown that there is a causal relationship between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and increased plant growth.
This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with power, greed, ideology and faith. Science is deductive and priori while faith is inductive and apriori. The two are incompatible and should not be confused.
All kidding about the “Peak Oil” thing aside, the problem is you’re trying to have a reasoned, fact-based debate on a topic where the proponents aren’t interested in reason or facts.
For argument’s sake, let’s accept the AGW premise that human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming (or climate change, or climate disruption, or whatever their calling it now).
Let’s say it’s true. The problem is none of the alternatives work as well as the energy sources they replace. Do people really want oil or coal, or natural gas, or do they want the power derived from those sources? Of course it’s the power we want, not the energy sources themselves.
If given a choice between clean power and dirty power, who wouldn’t want clean power? If given a choice between fossil fuels and renewable energy, who wouldn’t choose renewables? Who prefers more pollution over less pollution?
But those really aren’t our current choices. Our current choices are between fossil fuels which provide reliable, affordable power and sources that provide expensive, unreliable power. Our choices are between energy sources that can meet our needs and energy sources that can never meet our needs because we can’t blanket every field with either a wind farm or solar farm, transmit the energy to where it’s needed now and store it for later use the sun ain’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. And EVs that can’t get us one-way to Grandma’s house won’t work for us, either.
Of course we can generate a lot more electricity with nuclear. If you can get through the permits and the protests and the lawsuits that prevent us from building more nuclear power plants.
Jon says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:21 am
“And I remain amazed at how the energy/climate alarmists will not concede (are ‘in denial’) that the human influence on climate can be positive, not only negative, from an ecological and economic perspective.”
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?
=================================================
Sigh, how about flood control? Paved roads. Irrigation. Insecticides. All of these have had positive impacts on our environment.
Jon says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:21 am
“I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?”
————————–
large scale farming (and small scale farming for that matter) that feeds millions/billions of people. Irrigation that provides the water to those farms and the billion plus people who live in cities around the world. Southern California comes to mind.
Almost every human activity has impact on the environment, some positive, most neutral and some negative.
Renewable energy is just a euphemism for the Quixotic pursuit of the perpetual motion machine. I can’t believe there are so many gullible people out there that believe such a machine exists to put to practical use. Why can’t people simply deal with reality?
I have never understood why used oil, a very renewable energy source, is simply burned as a fuel instead of re-refining it and placing it back on the market. Oil does not get used up it just gets contaminated, once you run it back through the refining process you get almost a 1:1 ratio of usable oil in return. That means less oil we have to purchase and less dependency on the whims and fickleness of Foreign Governments. You would think every Politician and every Greeny would be all over that.
well, here is my penny
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/nuclear-energy-not-save-and-sound
I have been unable to locate this essay. Either it has been removed, or I am having one of those bizarro days. Link please. GK
Jon at 8:21 asks “I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?”
Easy, the ratio of self aware to non-self-aware life on the planet has greaty improved as the human population has grown. Plus we’ve eliminated the smallpox virus and will soon eliminate more pests.
There’s also a side issue of the non-climate effects of CO2. There is some reason to believe that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is fertilizing both crops and forests (and ocean algae, etc.). This needs to be considered (but I don’t think certain people want the hear the answer).
Now I know why I no longer own Enron shares! Wow!
GK:
I think this is the link you are seeking.
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/2469/Understanding-E-=-mc2
I have a lot of bizarro days. Makes life interesting.
Jon asks what positive impact humans have had on the environment.
Well, some few millions of years ago the biosphere had just about used up the most readily available CO2 and atmospheric levels were only a little above what would sustain C3 plant life (180ppm). Evolution produced C4 plants (mostly grasses and associated genera) which could survive on lower levels of CO2 but which are unable ( because of the low levels of CO2) to achieve the size/mass of C3’s. I am not 100% sure, but I think you will find fossil fuels are all derived from C3 plants.
So our contribution is to restore CO2 levels to what is good for the biosphere….around 500ppm as a minimum….( the concentration at which increased plant growth begins to level off) and if, as a consequence, the world gets slightly warmer, that too is a good thing. Life does better when it is warm…compare the tropics to higher latitudes.
I’m sure Jon can answer for himself, but to all those who have listed positive contributions of humanity: none of those are ECOLOGICAL benefits.
@ur momisugly Steve Lindsey. If you are talking about used motor oil and putting it back through a catalytic cracking process, I think it’s simply a matter of the amount of energy you would have to put back into it and the product(s) that would result.
My understanding of it in the current economic circumstances, with crude oil at it’s current prices, it really only makes sense to clean out the particulates, carbon and water that exists in used motor oil and sell it as bunker fuel. The process to do this has low energy inputs, and operates safely at very low pressures and temperatures. This cheap, simple process yields a cheap fuel that is in demand and avoids a TON of regulation. For example, I think it’s been something like 30 years since the last oil refinery was built on US soil.
Perhaps there’s petrochemical engineer around that can take this further.
In order for plants, or any photosynthetic organism for that matter, to grow, CO2 has to collide into the active center of an enzyme called RUBISCO. The collisions are completely random. nothing guides CO2 towards the active center of RUBISCO.
At the beginning of the 20th century there were only 350 molecules of CO2 per million molecules, meaning that only 350 collisions out of one million could result on a successful CO2 fixation reaction. The ratio is too low and the speed of the reation too slow, plants have to produce a lot of RUBISCO enzymes in order to be able to capture enough CO2 to grow, and “This makes rubisco the most plentiful single enzyme on the Earth.” (Quoted from the article I linked above.)
The composition of air nowadays is closer to 400 parts per million, which means that about 400 collisions out of one million could result on CO2 fixation, compared to only 350 out of one million at the beginning of the 20th century. That increase of successful collision rate increases plant growth, making burning fuels the most ecologically friendly form of energy.
It is logical, after all, oil and coal comes from decaying organic matter, mainly plants and animals, Those plants and animals grew by incorporating CO2 from the atmosphere, so when we burn fossil fuels we are closing the carbon cycle. You cannot be more ecological than that.
uan … those examples you listed are great with repect to the needs of humans but highly detrimental to the natural environment.
Found this GK
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/2469/Understanding-E-=-mc2
The Stern report is to me the strongest evidence that warming is beneficial. It took about seven hundred pages of mental gymnastics to come up with a set of assumptions where warming is anything but good.
I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?
!) The countryside of Germany and England is beautiful. Not one bit of it is natural. Left without humans it would revert to a monstrous forest. Pristine, but boring (and not particularly good for diversity, since it is the forest edge that supports the widest variety).
2) There are couple of parts of the world that would be desert without our irrigation.
3) The malarial swamps of Italy were “pristine”. Draining them would, nowadays, probably be regarded as an ecological disaster by the ultra-Greens. But most people would think that modern Italy is far better off without them.
Jon says:
November 16, 2011 at 8:21 am
“I’d be interested in some “positive” ecological impacts that humans have had on our planet … can you list any?”
The heroic efforts of the Canadians to clean up one of the largest natural oil spills in Alberta.
I wish I had more time to write today, as this topic warrants much more of a response. I’m talking about the specific segment of advanced liquid biofuels. This segment is hopping right now as anyone who went to the Advanced Biofuels Markets Conference in San Francisco last week will tell you (I did).
In addition to profits, it is now being driven more by two other considerations than by atmospheric CO2 considerations.
First, US energy security. Google Green Strike Group for the military angle. At some point when I have more time, I’ll upload the Powerpoint presentation on that.
Second, and something that was somewhat unexpected, it turns out that there are a lot of specialty chemicals that cannot be accessed easily from petroleum due to their complexity of structure, etc. Biological systems can do this for many classes of compounds that have high value (sometimes orders of magnitude greater than fuels). This is, in turn, driving the feedstock companies to deliver cheaper sugars from all kinds of sources. This technology is working.
Like I said, I wish I had more time to write this morning. Don’t rule out this sector. Look at where the biotech IPOs are coming from: Codexis, Amyris, Solazyme, probably another 10 S1 documents filed.
This link is a good start:
http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/11/16/advanced-biofuels-chemicals-capacity-to-reach-5-11b-gallons-by-2015-207-projects-new-database/