Anyway, today's op-ed from a resident environmental titan comes from Bill McKibben, who in the Washington Post says he's been on the right side for the last 20 years. He is still keen on regulation, though thinks businesses won't allow it, and then writes:
Do they understand that technological change alone cannot achieve the 70 percent reductions in fossil fuel use needed to stabilize climate? We'll also need real shifts in attitude, behavior and habit. These changes are possible (the average Western European uses half as much energy as the average American while leading a quality life), but they will take real political leadership on issues ranging from mass transit to sprawl to the size of cars.Certainly mass transit and smaller, more efficient cars are all good th ings, but I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that people just are never going to accept significant lifestyle changes, even if the lousy planet gets 10 F hotter than it is. Probably even 15 F. Technology changes are going to be the solution, but some scientists seem to think they can bring about all the reductions needed. In particular there was a paper in Science in 2004, "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years With Current Technologies," by Pacala and Socolow that argues just that point. (Frankly I'm still trying to figure this out, because there was a big 2002 paper in Science that argued the opposite: "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet" by Marty Hoffert and many others.) At least some people think we can get 70% reductions with existing technologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment