Daniel Lyons’ Aug. 1 column (“The economic reality of net-zero ambition“) consolidates three different critiques of energy decarbonization: A.) that aiming for net-zero carbon emissions is too ambitious, B.) decarbonization is generally too costly, and C.) local decarbonization will have next to no real effect on climate change.
I’ll start where I’m closest to agreeing. Reducing carbon emissions is what matters most. Costs of doing so rise considerably the closer to the ideal of net-zero. If getting rid of 90% of emissions may cost less than achieving that last 10%, let’s worry about the last 10% later.
Second, the writer does not actually support his conclusion that: “Additional state spending cannot override the fundamental constraints of physics, engineering, or basic economics.” Physics has clearly established that using heat to do work wastes huge amounts of energy. For every five gallons of fuel an average gasoline-powered car uses the energy of just one of those gallons to move, losing the rest to heat and friction. Electric cars are many times more efficient.
Basic economics would include all the costs of oil. The markets, however, have displaced much of those onto the public without compensation. Those costs include environmental harm from water, land, and air pollution to climate change itself. We are already paying such costs with our health but also in higher insurance costs as risks from fires, floods, droughts, and weather events increase.
The biggest subsidy to oil is the use of our military to maintain its trade. The Trump administration is essentially stealing oil from Venezuela and has threatened the same in Iran. Along with leases of public lands, outright subsidies and tax exemptions, oil and gas have huge advantages not factored into the market. If all the costs of oil were reflected at the pump, the market would long ago have favored alternatives. And we might be as angry as we should be at oil company profits.
Finally, surprisingly, local cost/benefit is where Mr. Lyons’ has presented the strongest argument for moving away from oil. He does not argue that climate change is a hoax, just that we can’t fix it. If he is right, we should be preparing for a very unstable future.
Decarbonization is where those who think we can moderate climate change and those who think warming is inevitable can both see advantages. I still hold hope that we can make a difference. Climate change is itself empirical proof that little contributions add up. But electrification also reduces overall energy demand (see thermodynamics) and, so, vulnerability to supply shocks and cost increases. The sun does not have a meter. Dispersing generation, including behind-the-meter home installations, increases resilience.
What’s at stake? Real economists are discussing a new idea — planetary bankruptcy. They are not talking about “carbon budgets.” They mean that coping with climate-related disasters, like the current fires in Spokane and Europe but also the shocks to come as warming accelerates, may cost more than all the money there is.
David Gilbert Keith lives in Deerfield