Articles by Andrew Dessler

His argument is still bogus

The Washington Post embarrasses itself today by publishing the usual delayer drivel in an op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg.

The fundamental problem with Lomborg's argument (which he also makes in his recent book Cool It!) is that it is based on the assumption that the worst-case, climate-change scenario cannot happen.

The IPCC's predictions for climate change over the next hundred years range from about 2°C to 5°C. If you assume that the warming will be closer to 2° than 5°, which Lomborg does, then it certainly does reduce the pressure to act immediately on climate change. No doubt about that.

However, there is no scientific basis for that assumption. Future warming certainly could be closer to 2°, but it could equally likely be close to 5°. We just don't know.

Why does he make this assumption? Because there is a conclusion he wants to reach: We should not be taking action on climate change. The only way you can reach that conclusion is by assuming that future climate change will be mild.

This argument is bogus. Don't believe it.

What the next president should say

Here is what I would like the next president to tell the American people:

1. The era of cheap energy is over. We will never again see cheap gas, and we can expect the price of electricity to rise inexorably.
2. In order for the United States to survive, we need to rebuild our energy infrastructure.
3. To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to implement a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system. This is a national security issue.
4. We need a Manhattan-style government-funded project to develop new forms of renewable energy. We should be spending several tens of billions of dollars every year on this research.
5. Increased drilling or unconventional sources of fuel, like oil shale or tar sands, will provide so little fuel that they are simply not worth doing.

The truth is that there is no way to avoid the pain of high energy prices. There are no easy solutions, and no way for us to continue living as we have in the past. Changes are on the way. Deal with it.

This underscores a key point that I have not seen discussed. Given that we need to rebuild our energy infrastructure anyway, it makes sense and is possible to take care of climate change at the same time we take care of energy. In this way, I don't think we have to set the problems of energy and climate in opposition to each other.

Conservation good. Drilling stupid

Op-ed in the Austin American-Statesman. Reads like a Grist post. Go figure.

Short-term high gas prices (hopefully) mitigate long-term environmental disasters

I have been reading Sean Casten's post on the economics of carbon pricing with interest. After some thought, here's my take. A carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system will, without question, raise the price of energy, at least in the short term. In the long-term, it may well be that technological developments lead us to new energy sources that turn out to be cheaper than anything we have today. But that's pure speculation.

But in the short term, the costs of a carbon tax or the costs of permits in a cap-and-trade system will follow the energy through the system and eventually raise prices at the consumer level. So prices will increase.

But that fact is a distraction. The real issues are, first, how much will prices rise, and second, what will happen if we do nothing?