“Each passing month brings confirmation that the global energy transition isn't materializing...”
Our Take, With Doug Sheridan
Each passing month brings confirmation that the global energy transition isn't materializing... and major adjustments to our approach are needed. So, we again offer our opinion on a better way forward—
We support more baseload nuclear and natural gas—and, as able, geothermal and hydro—generation in lieu of coal, solar and wind. Streamline permitting. We'll also need more load-following gas-fired plants to handle daily and seasonal variability, while simultaneously prioritizing reductions in fugitive methane emissions that could undermine gas's environmental benefits.
EVs, while fine additions to our menu of transport choices, should be optional—not mandated—so as to not overload grids or force EVs on those for whom they're bad fits. Automakers should have freedom to offer traditional hybrid vehicles and other innovations that suit customer preferences.
Nations, especially wealthier ones, should discontinue subsidies for all energy sources, including wind, solar and other renewables, as well as oil, natural gas and coal. They can then focus on smaller investments in basic R&D to help develop by 2050 technologies more effective at reducing carbon emissions than what we currently have.
For their part, climate activists should stop agitating for endless green gov't spending, subsidies and mandates. Instead, they should put carbon taxes to the test of democracy via referendum every four years. A share of proceeds from any broad carbon tax—which will need to be modest to be reapproved every four years by voters—could go to R&D for energy innovation, road maintenance, efficiency upgrades, or to citizens as a dividend.
The referendum should replace and eliminate all national energy subsidies, mandates and taxes. Nations will consider the impact of any carbon taxes on trade and competitiveness, and explore border adjustments with other nations if they choose. Carbon taxes should automatically go to zero after four years, unless voters approve a higher rate in that period's referendum.
With no better alternatives to address emissions, gov'ts will continue to run massive deficits fueled by green subsidies and spending. The good news is voters won't tolerate a high carbon tax—so it will have to be set low. Still, a $20/mt carbon tax will prove a better solution than endless subsidies.
These strategies and initiatives won't get us to net zero—an unrealistic and unnecessary goal that's done more harm than good. But they'll bend the emissions curve enough to buy us time to make smarter decisions with better info and technology post 2050. More importantly, they'll reduce the chances we effectively bankrupt ourselves paying for expensive non-solutions to climate change.
Sooner or later nations—their leaders and voters—are going to have to wake up to the fact that climate change simply isn't the immediate or solvable crisis they were led to believe. And that means we need to adjust how we approach and respond to it.
