Copenhagen & Economic Growth - You Can't Have Both

[The2ndWheel]

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51229

"I want to point out that a massive discrepancy exists between the official pronouncements emerging from Copenhagen on carbon emissions and recent government actions to spur economic growth.

Before and during Copenhagen (and after, too, we can be sure), politicians and central bankers across the globe have worked tirelessly to return the global economy to a path of growth. We need more jobs, we are told; we need economic growth, we need more people consuming more things. Growth is the ever-constant word on politicians' lips. Official actions amounting to tens of trillions of dollars speak to the fact that this is, in fact, our number-one global priority.

But the consensus coming out of Copenhagen is that carbon emissions have to be reduced by a vast amount over the next few decades.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive. You can't have both."

[FreakinDJ]

1. Face Facts - China and India and not going to play ball

and they will continue to increase their carbon releases for the next 50 years

[endless october]

4. exactly.

anything we do we will have to do ourselves and for our own best interest.

my opinion is that we should still eliminate carbon emissions. we do it by going nuclear, and we pay for the nuclear (and solar / wind / renewables) by getting out of every war we're currently involved in. use the freed up money to build infrastructure and provide health care. if more money is needed, we end the failed drug war.

all of that makes more sense than a fatally flawed global carbon trading scheme that won't do anything but send jobs to China and make carbon brokers rich.

[FreakinDJ]

6. I beleive you are Mostly Correct

I beleive we need to Federally Legislate to remove barriers put in place by large Utility Providers and to create New Markets for Carbon Free / Green Energy products and R&D to succeed

I also beleive we need to reduce Carbon Emissions and impose Tarrifs against products whose countries refuse to cooperate.

And yes Nuclear Power with an inteligent "Cookie-Cutter" design that can be converted over to Fusion when it is economically feasable in 30 years is a necessary "Stop-Gap"

[kristopher]

2. That is false.

The more we dedicate to fighting carbon emissions the higher the payoff in positive economic benefits. Efficiency and renewables are superior to fossil fuels because they involve more human labor, less waste and higher energy returns on energy invested.

[GliderGuider]

5. He seems to support his position pretty thoroughly.

Just the international political issues around transitioning away from fossil fuels seem to present a formidable obstacle, not to mention the questions of technology penetration time, resource availability and capital requirements.

While it may be theoretically possible to transition without an economic hit, it doesn't seem like a practical, realistic probability.

You may not want to give his objections any credence, but they need to be addressed with an eye to practical, probable action before I can buy into the idea that we will make the transition to a brave new world without any substantial difficulty.

My realistic expectation is that we (the global "we") will accomplish some but not enough of the transition, that we will stop burning as much oil due to increasing price. Some nations will burn much more cheap coal to replace expensive oil, and will remain impervious to our moral entreaties, while economic or policy attempts to draw them into line will be largely stillborn doe to entrenched economic interests and political/diplomatic difficulties.

[kristopher]

7. For example

1
Industrial Electric Productivity: Myths, Barriers & Solutions
Stephen Doig, Mathias Bell, and Natalie Mims, Rocky Mountain Institute
ABSTRACT
There is an enormous gap in the electric productivity of the nation. If the country
achieved the normalized industrial electric productivity of the top ten performing states,
the U.S. would save 300,000 gigawatt-hours (GWh) each year, over the lifetime of the
efficiency measures. This is the equivalent of 8% of all electric retail sales.
Increasing industrial electric productivity is a significant near-term opportunity
that can reduce electricity costs, carbon dioxide emissions per unit of output, and increase
profits. RMI believes that increasing industrial electric productivity is an untapped source
of value, and is important to the longevity of industry in the United States.
While factors exogenous to industry play a role in shaping electricity productivity,
RMI believes it is more important to identify and overcome key and common barriers
that constrain business’ ability to economically improve electric efficiency. Using three
case studies, we provide details about how diverse industrial companies- high
technology, oil and gas, and food production and distribution—have recognized and
captured large efficiency opportunities despite these barriers.
Finally, society, as well as industry, must re-think how industrial energy
efficiency is valued, and what the appropriate incentives should be. There are a number
of policies that can aid industrial companies in overcoming barriers to increased
efficiency, such as access to low cost financing, and education on holistic design address
energy efficiency opportunities.

Electric productivity and energy efficiency

RMI’s analysis has found that the national average electric productivity is
approximately $3.80 GDP/kWh, while the average of the leading ten states is $6.10
GDP/kWh (RMI 2009).1 Closing this gap will save over 1.2 million GWh, or
approximately 30 percent of national electricity use. This is the equivalent of over 60
percent of coal-fired generation output in the U.S.
The focus of the overall electric productivity research was whether the gap can be
closed through aggressive use of energy efficiency, while maintaining a 2.5 percent
annual growth in GDP. (One way to increase productivity is to focus on efficiency to
achieve more throughput for the same unit of energy.) The analysis indicates that all
sectors – residential, commercial and industrial can achieve significant electricity savings
and that the U.S. can close the electric productivity gap.
In this paper we investigate reasons for the productivity gap in the industrial
sector and actions needed close it. While we believe there are a myriad of potential
factors that could help close the gap, our analysis, and more than 25 years of experience,
suggest that there are compelling reasons to believe that industry, itself, is best placed to
drive improved electric productivity by overcoming longstanding barriers to improved
efficiency. In the remainder of this paper we:
• Size the industrial electric productivity gap and show that improvement in a few
key areas could yield significant efficiency results;
• Suggest that differences across states, such as electricity price, incentives and
industrial mix may account for part of the gap, but likely only play an enabling
role in why the gap exists;
• Summarize our experience on the root cause barriers to better industrial electrical
efficiency;
• Provide case studies based on our work in several industrial sectors that reinforce
the need to tackle efficiency barriers by revamping the way that industries design
and build new facilities and processes or retrofit existing facilities;
• Summarize the implications and actions needed for both industry leadership and
policy makers in order to rapidly and economically close the gap.


For more information on RMI’s electric productivity report, please see the full-length report and
interactive electric productivity website available at: www.ert.rmi.org

[greenman3610]

3. utter bullshit

It is only by moving out of the blind canyon of fossil fuel dependence that we
can liberate our economy from cartels and begin to operate on energy that is free.