Our Take, with Doug Sheridan
With another year of climate-change fatalism underway, it's not enough to point out the glaring shortfall in current plans to reduce global emissions. Alternatives are required.
Our Take, with Doug Sheridan
With another year of climate-change fatalism underway, it's not enough to point out the glaring shortfall in current plans to reduce global emissions. Alternatives are required. So we (again) offer up our opinion on a better way forward...
We support more baseload nuclear—and, as able, geothermal and hydro—power in lieu of coal, solar and wind. We'll also need more load-following gas-fired plants to handle daily and seasonal variability, while simultaneously prioritizing reductions in fugitive methane emissions (across all sectors, not just the oilfield) that could undermine natural gas's environmental benefits.
EVs, while worthy additions to our menu of transportation 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 the freedom to offer hybrid vehicles or other innovations that suit customer preferences.
Nations, especially wealthier ones, should discontinue subsidies for wind, solar and other inadequate technology. In their place should be targeted investments in basic R&D designed to help develop by 2050 technologies much more effective at reducing carbon emissions than what we currently employ.
For their part, climate activists should stop pushing subsidies and mandates. In their place they should consider proposals for putting carbon taxes to the test of democracy via national referendums. A share of proceeds from a modest economy-wide carbon tax approved by voters could go to R&D for energy innovation. The rest could go to road maintenance or to citizens in the form of a dividend.
If passed, these carbon taxes must replace and eliminate all national energy subsidies, mandates and taxes. Nations should also consider the impact of any carbon taxes on trade and competitiveness, and explore the possibility of border adjustments with other nations. Any carbon tax should be required to be (re)approved by voters every few years.
These steps won't get the world to net zero—an unrealistic and unnecessary goal. But that's okay, because they'll bend the emissions curve enough to buy time to make smarter decisions post 2050 based on better info and better technology. More importantly, they'll reduce the chances nations bankrupt themselves throwing endless subsidies and non-solutions at climate change.
Sooner or later nations—their leaders and voters—are going to have to fully awaken to the fact that climate change simply isn't the immediately solvable crisis they were led to believe. That means we need to adjust how we approach and respond to it.
Remember: Gov'ts can run deficits from green subsidies for decades before the consequences are felt and understood by the public. But voters won't tolerate a too-high carbon tax for long—it will have to be kept low. And a modest long-term carbon tax, say $20/mt would be a far better alternative than endless subsidies.