Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 | 2 a.m.
Sun Archives
Beyond the Sun
Adele Morris is a fellow and policy director at the Brookings Institution, which, in partnership with UNLV, runs the Brookings Mountain West think tank.
Her work focuses on energy and natural resource policies related to the economics of climate change. Brookings Mountain West brought her to the university last week.
How do you connect environmental and economic issues?
There is increased awareness now of the external costs of natural resources use. The market process can’t take certain things into account right now. Gasoline is a perfect example. You know how much you pay at the pump, but that price doesn’t reflect the costs to society.
Real costs are associated with that — health impacts from air and water pollution, national defense issues, the economic losses from environmental degradation and the impact of climate change.
These impacts all have a price eventually, and they all have to do with how we produce and consume energy. That’s why there’s such concern about finding alternatives to fossil fuels.
Where do you come into all this?
I’m looking at the most cost-effective way of reforming markets so those external costs are incorporated into the real costs. Alternatives to fossil fuels have issues too. They might be more expensive or take up wilderness lands or they’re financially risky. At this point, every alternative to fossil fuels comes with some kind of trade-off. That’s what the policy community is struggling with.
Other countries have been working toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions to alleviate climate change for years. Now the U.S. is trying to do a lot at once, like build giant solar plants in Nevada. Should the potential impacts be analyzed more before we cover the desert with photovoltaic panels and mirrors?
When you’re setting policy, you want to go to the problem. The objective isn’t solar power or conservation, it’s stopping climate change. The way to do that is to bring greenhouse gas emissions back into balance with the planet’s ability to absorb them. That requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions while increasing forests and other carbon sinks. Solar is just one part of a potential solution.
So how do we make this happen?
We need to fund basic research on new technologies that will help us limit greenhouse gas emissions, as we’ve been doing, but also fund research to take those concepts out of the labs and into the real world.
Most companies cannot do the research and development on their own. So there needs to be a commercial incentive to implement change. The most efficient way to do this is to put a price on carbon and greenhouse gas emissions.
Without that you’re stuck subsidizing renewable energy or imposing severe mandates. That’s much less cost-effective than taxing the thing you want less of.
When do you think we might see comprehensive climate change legislation?
The House has already passed a bill, but getting something through the Senate is a steeper climb. A lot depends on timing. A lot of other things have higher priority right now — creating jobs, banking issues, health care legislation and a war. Congress and the president have to deal with the most pressing issues first. In the end, it’s going to be harder to promote a bill that will, ultimately, raise energy rates. How do they get climate change to the top of the agenda when so many people have lost their jobs? The prospects for that legislation have deteriorated pretty quickly. The odds are not good.
So are we resigned to ecological disaster?
Climate change won’t be solved by the passage of one bill. It’s something we’re going to have to manage over hundreds of years.
The best outcome of whatever policy we implement is that nothing happens. That’s the most difficult thing about it. This is a long-term problem. It will keep coming up until we deal with it. That’s difficult in the current political climate. Moderates are scarce and the bases of the parties are miles apart. Eventually the public will demand action. But that doesn’t mean nothing should be done now.
We just need a more modest approach. That could mean more action on the state level or smaller steps at the national level. Making the costs more predictable would go a long way.
How will we know when we've stopped "climate change" anyway?
Can these people stop it already! Global warming has been exposed as a fraud already. There has been no warming in 15 years, stop lying to the public. We don't want your lies or taxes, leave us alone!
"How will we know when we've stopped "climate change" anyway?"
Well in Nevada, the economy will be completely recovered! Unemployed people who used to work in Casinos will now be managing engineers for the 200 new high tech concentrated solar thermal plants. No longer will people be working as secretaries, construction workers, cab drivers, etc, etc,. Now the economy will completely shift to green jobs and we all know that Las Vegas is full of people who have been trained in high tech green energy. No more tourism in Vegas. We all know that doesn't work. The democrats will shift all of that tourism Las Vegas is famous for over to green manufacturing jobs...
When does the Tsunami hit?
Sunlizard: I was afraid it was all about the "green jobs fairy".
I think we can stop "climate change" by stopping funding for people who study climate change. Or at least halve it until they start making an accurate prediction.
Is anyone reading this being swayed by the uninformed opinions of the commentators above?
STOP climate change????? Who do they think they are?? I can see that the global warming issue is a real problem...with all the SNOW here and overseas! What a bunch of dopes.... ALL the way to the bank.
With the recent discrediting of the Climate warmers in revelations of Climategate, Emailgate,Glaciorgate, Amazongat, Africagate and now Al Gore's Hurricainegate, I am sad to see a Professor at UNLV supporting this nonsense. Yesterday, UK Physiscits Blasted the Global Warming "science". Its a fraud junk "science". I don't understand how throwing money to 3rd World Countries is going to help the climate but I do understand the Socialist idea of redistribution the money in the "Each according to their abilities to each according to their needs"
I reject almost all of the global warming/climate change B.S.
NASA learned 10 years ago that the polar ice caps were melting.......ON MARS. This obviously has nothing to do with mankind.
"PS. Watch the ignorant propaganda fools call me a nut without debating any of my points or being able to discredit the UN treaty or HAARP."
You are a nut...no debate required.
Sergio: because he's too busy counting the money that is rolling in! The corrupt scientists wanted in on the take.
No one wants to bother with you, Sergio, because you have a seemingly-endless supply of pseudoscience conspiracy theories to throw out there.
Are you one of the people who believe HAARP will be used to project a hologram of Jesus into people's thoughts (aka, the evil PROJECT BLUE BEAM!)?
Quack, Quack!
"How do we know how much power is needed or can be produced by HAARP? It's a secret project."
So much of a secret project that there are webcams! Oh no, secret webcams? Nope, publicly accessible webcams.
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam1.h...
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/cam2.h...
As for your patent conspiracy? It seems my air purifier is a top secret HAARP machine, as it also ionizes the air by changing polarity of particles.
Let me ask you one simple question, Sergio: why would anyone believe that this facility, which maintains a web presence, releases regular reports about its activities, etc, has some secret villainous purpose?
"According to HAARP's management, the project strives for openness and all activities are logged and publicly available. Scientists without security clearances, even foreign nationals, are routinely allowed on site. The HAARP facility regularly (once a year on most years according to the HAARP home page) hosts open houses, during which time any civilian may tour the entire facility. In addition, scientific results obtained with HAARP are routinely published in major research journals (such as Geophysical Research Letters, or Journal of Geophysical Research), written both by university scientists (American and foreign) or by US Department of Defense research lab scientists. Each summer, the HAARP holds a summer-school for visiting students, including foreign nationals, giving them an opportunity to do research with one of the world's foremost research instruments."
A summer school for kids? Yup, sounds positively evil to me.
Currently according to the EIA The following is the break down for the total electricity generated in Nevada in 2007 by source:
coal 22%, natural gas 68%, hydroelectric 6%, Renewable ( solar wind and biomass) 6%. The renewable percentage has declined from 9.6% to 6% from 1997 to 2007.
Meanwhile Harry Read having failed at passing cap and trade (carbon tax) is trying to use the EPA (environmental protection energy) to regulate carbon. This will increase not only the cost of electricity but the cost to heat your homes, your transportation, food and the costs of all US manufactured products. Factories in Nevada will leave for Oregon and Washington where power is primarily from hydroelectric or more likely move overseas. The EPA has told Harry they will not begin regulation until after the mid Term elections in order to provide cover for him. These taxes will hurt the poorest the hardest. Beware.
Disprove one single study by HAARP, Sergio.
And you may want to reread the national archives pages. No confirmed aliens, no confirmed encounters, etc.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ope...
I am a big believer in Global Warming. We need more of it.
Why does anyone listen to these people?
"Her work focuses on energy and natural resource policies related to the economics of climate change."
Does anyone think this woman would ever say anything contrary to the global warning religion? She would talk herself out of a job. She and others like her have no credibility.
Climate changes as long as the ozone layer changes. New ozone layer in process ? More yellow gas study.
The control of so called 'greenhouse gasses' is a complete waste of effort. The theory of Greenhouse gasses violates the laws of thermodynamics so cannot be true. The statement that climate control could take hundreds of years is true, apart from the fact the climate would still be doing its own thing because it is driven by natural processes, only some of which we understand, some we are yet to know about. CO2 has never driven climate and is not a pollutant. CO2 is the most important gas in the atmosphere. Without CO2 there would be NO LIFE on this planet and certainly no sentient beings who by now should realise their own capabilities and abilities. Controlling climate is not one of them.
I simply dont trust this whole 'climate change' thing. Its a smoke screen designed to somehow tax people more.
So climate changes... Its changed for millions of years all on its own. We just have to adapt to it.
GoreBull Warming