So What if China Builds Coal Plants? 13 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Scott Sumner begins a post by quoting this from Paul Krugman:
The chapter opens with the “global cooling” story — the claim that 30 years ago there was a scientific consensus that the planet was cooling, comparable to the current consensus that it’s warming.
And he says:
Why does Krugman keep doing this? Why does he continually misrepresent what others say? My theory is that he assumes those he disagrees with are either fools or knaves. Instead of doing a sympathetic reading, trying to discern what others are really trying to say, he looks for the “gotcha.” I just read the chapter, and it bears little resemblance to his description. And I have read a lot of scientific papers on geoengineering, on both sides of the issue, so I know a bit about the field.
The chapter indisputably opens with the global cooling story. There’s just no getting around it. Go here (PDF) and see for yourself. I don’t know what else there is to say about that.
Sumner then disagrees with my view of the political difficulty of using geoengineering:
How is it easier to get international agreement to slow the rise in global warming through policy changes that will cost $100s of billions, if not trillions, as compared to policy changes that will cost less than $1 billion (the big tube)? Both strategies require international agreement to slow the rise in global temperatures. But one costs 3 orders of magnitude less. Can someone explain Krugman’s reasoning to me? And WWIII? China is building hundreds of coal plants that will emit lots of carbon and warm the climate, and I don’t see anyone calling for a military attack on China. So are we to believe that countries will sit back and let others heat up the planet, but attack other countries if they merely slow down the rate at which the earth is warming? I just don’t get this argument. As far as I know the geoengineering people are talking about slowing the rise in temps, not cooling the planet below its current level.
I think it takes a distinct lack of imagination and a childlike faith in both the government and the citizenry to believe that pursuing a major geoengineering project would be easy simply because it would “cost” less. Forget international agreement, I strongly suspect that it would be impossible to get a domestic majority in favor of the pump-sulfur-into-the-atmosphere approach. The public doesn’t really trust climate scientists or the government. There was a huge public debate recently concerning “death panels” in the health care legislation, which don’t actually exist. Much of the Republican base believes that the president was born in Kenya. Does this seem like a healthy time to begin discussions about how best to block out the sun?
And imagine if China were unilaterally considering whether to build a sulfur gas pipe. The international community would have major reservations about this, and would probably go to great lengths to prevent its deployment. We went to war over fake weapons in Iraq; you don’t think one nation’s attempt to alter the globe’s weather would generate at least a slight chilling in international relations? Particularly given that this isn’t merely about “slowing the rise in temps.” There could be serious side-effects to such a plan. Even if everyone were on board, it wouldn’t be something to undertake lightly.
Sure, China is already altering climate by building coal plants, but economies have been building coal plants to generate power for over a century, whereas efforts to intentionally alter the climate by pumping tons of sulfur gas into the atmosphere are unprecedented. The two actions are qualitatively different.
It seems obvious to me that a plan like this would be extremely controversial, and would require extensive discussion and dealmaking domestically and internationally, as costs would not be evenly distributed. On top of that it might not work, and it might generate unpredictable and costly side effects. If you’re going to be having a major public debate and extensive international negotiations over a potential climate solution, you may as well cover emission reduction strategies while you’re at it, since it would be utterly irresponsible not to attempt to address climate change both ways.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 13 comments:
Even without that bit of historical perspective, how crazy do you have to be to think that pumping immense amounts of toxic gas into our atmosphere is a good idea?
Has someone seriously suggested this?? Unbelievable!!
China will cut coal use soon because they have to or they will die in ever greater numbers. Maybe it's their form of population control.
But it does effect us as that pollution makes it to the US especially mercury poisoning in fish. I wouldn't buy any foodstuff from China nor anything else I possibly can avoid buying from them.
The only form of GeoEn that might work is spraying sea water into the atmosphere to cool it.
GW is not even the most important reason to cut fossil fuels, the economy and national security is. As someone who has produced both wind and tidal/river power, they and solar CSP are for less costly that using fossil fuels now once in mass production because they are simple machines that cost less than a new coal plant/kw or kwhr and last 50 yrs. So paying once at under $10k/home you can get a lifetime of energy for an eff home, car, preferably an EV.
Even PV is now under coal prices in winds farm lots of under $1k/kw. Coal costs $4k/kw+ fuel. CSP is under $3k/kw and wind is under $2k/kw in mass production.
I don't understand those who say using less of an ever increasing cost fossil fuel would cost more. I've always seen it cost less.
While it does cost money, no one is comparing it to how much staying the course will which is going up with a bullet. Luckily RE is going down in costs about as fast.
Next, the particulate from coal plants in Asia accounts for a significant and growing amount of the particulate pollution in North American skies. It adds to a public health problem and also settles in the Sierra Nevada mountains. This darkens the snowpack there causing it to melt faster and glaciers to retreat further. This has massive implications for water supplies and security globally, but no place more than California.
Finally, in terms of an intermediate solution, it would seem to me that Fuel-tech, FTEK is one of the best plays for maximizing coal, oil, and waste-fired power plants, while dramatically slashing output of NOx and SOx. FTEK's solutions are highly economical and better than anything the competition has.
We have made huge strides in fighting acid rain in North America and even in Europe. There is no reason why Asia cannot do the same.
You are losing credibility by claiming that 'Much of the Republican base believes that the president was born in Kenya.' This should have been left out; it is just political BS on your part.
Almost everyone I know over fifty believes that CO2 is mandatory for life, Al Gore is a con artist trying to create bigger government by selling fear, and his type of Ecomania is anathema to sanity.
Which group do you think an objective oddsmaker would make a heavy favorite?
On Oct 20 09:09 AM DLB40 wrote:
> Al Gore; his investment group and the whole global warming crowd
> couldn't care less whether it gets hot or cold. Al's now worth hundreds
> of millions of dollars with his global warming scam. If Al comes
> out with a plan to spray sea water into the air you can be sure he
> is fully invested before he goes public. Now if we could only control
> the amount of co2 that people and animals exhale we could really
> control global warming. That would be something!
Btw, I have no idea where the man was born, but it looks to me that it would be easy to settle the whole thing by making his birth certificate from HA public. Would that be unreasonable?
The truth is, though, it doesn't matter if he were from Mars, he's going to be the president for at least four years, most likely eight.
Could you imagine what the streets of this nation would look like if he were removed?
So what's the big deal? Right?
On Oct 20 03:43 PM Jimbo wrote:
> My understanding is that when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Phillipines
> a few years ago, the sulphur dioxide supposedly cooled down the atmosphere
> somewhat. I talked to some astronomers several years ago who told
> me they believed that the orbit and inclination of the Earth, together
> with solar output, was the main driver of Earth climate. Recent extremes
> of weather have been sized upon as due to AGW but we have had these
> extremes in the past. The Anasazi Indians in the West suffered what
> amounted to a thousand year drought before Columbus ever sailed anywhere.
> For the record, I do not believe President Hope and Change was born
> in Kenya. But I do believe we are being rolled by the elite who want
> to put us on a Socialist Reservation, kind of like the one in Brave
> New World. The Western Societies seem to have a Death Wish.
On Oct 20 09:20 PM Tack wrote:
> They CAN control how much CO2 humans exhale. They can eliminate them
> --in the name of saving the planet, of course-- like so many previous
> totalitarian regimes, which were accompanied by their own sick creeds.
>
On Oct 20 07:05 PM La Marque wrote:
> Ryan:
>
> You are losing credibility by claiming that 'Much of the Republican
> base believes that the president was born in Kenya.' This should
> have been left out; it is just political BS on your part.