That horse has left the stall (4.00 / 2)

I tend to agree with all this.  Even if we really acted right now I think it is too late.  Add in politics and there is very little chance we'll stop the icecaps from melting.

On the other hand, what I really worry about isn't even on most scientist's radar: Venus.  

We only barely understand what has prevented Earth from becoming either Venus or Mars with runaway global warming or cooling.  If we break that, we are truly doomed.  

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 16:28:17 PM CDT

I am sad to say (4.00 / 1)

that I completely agree.

---

by: fladem @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 16:28:27 PM CDT

Jeez (4.00 / 1)

Pessimistic much?

You are really shortchanging the possibilities of science and human ingenuity. Just because current policies aren't nearly bold enough doesn't mean that this is all a hopeless endeavor.

We tackled the ozone layer problem quite well in the 1990s, once that became a big issue. The same can go for carbon emissions. It's not like the answers aren't there -- nuclear power, solar power, wind power, more efficiency, electric cars, and technologies we haven't even discovered yet.

I too wonder if life will be hellish in thirty years or so, with major droughts and millions of climate refugees and mass extinctions....but we have the power to avoid it without throwing up our hands and saying "we ain't stopping it".  

---

by: existenz @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 16:30:45 PM CDT

I didn't say stop trying (0.00 / 0)

I just said stop hoping that we are going to stop it.

The issue isn't stopping it or not. It is how bad it will be. Right now, our efforts need to be aimed at making it less bad.

Unfortunately, we are moving in the wrong direction, no matter how many positive stories we here to keep morale up.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 16:35:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

pessimism (4.00 / 1)

The ozone layer was a relatively simple problem compared to this - basically we had to ban one category of chemical compounds used primarily as refrigerants and aerosol sprays, and for which there already existed safer substitutes. Global warming is a far, far greater problem in scope, maybe the biggest problem we've faced as a species. This isn't just a matter of replacing SUVs with plug-in hybrids: this affects virtually every facet of contemporary human civilization, from energy production to manufacturing to agriculture to pharmaceuticals to transportation, and it's intertwined with a massive series of man-made ecological disasters, from water scarcity to ocean acidification to soil degradation to mass extinction.

Even if global warming were this government's top priority - and it's pretty clear that it isn't - it's far from clear that it would manage to pass the kind of radical reforms necessary to prevent disaster, given the nature and structure of our government and corporate institutions. And of course, that's just for our country - to make this work, we need the world on board, including India and China.

Like a lot of optimists, you note the possibilities of science and human ingenuity. But human ingenuity basically comes down to our large brains and opposable thumbs, and it's far from clear that these are actually all that valuable adaptations over the very long term - after all, they're what gave us the ability to burn fossil fuels in the first place. When it all comes down to it, we're a species like any other, and any species that consumes too many of its resources too quickly is in serious trouble.

---

by: stras jones @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:03:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

there's no reason to give up. (4.00 / 1)

There's a big difference between an average of 2 degrees warmer and 3 degrees, and that difference could be measured in millions or billions of lives.

It would be irresponsible and immoral to just walk away now and condemn those people to die.

---

by: limpidglass @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 16:38:47 PM CDT

But we can try..... (0.00 / 0)

I look at global warming similarly to my personal health.  

Genetically, my family is prone to several illnesses - heart disease and diabetes being the two biggies.  My grandfather on my father's side died of heart disease in his 40's.  My father and his brother died around the age of 70.  Two of my 4 brothers died of heart related issues before turning 50 (I am 47 - and a bit concerned)...  Heart disease can be brought on by a number of things, but are certainly not helped by my family's genetic makeup.  So I have the option of trying to be smart about my heart (watching weight, exercising, diet, checkups, etc.), or just saying "screw it - the heart will crash some time, so just let it be."

The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly over the past millions of years with no input from humans.  Effectively, the earth's "genetic makeup" states warming and cooling will happen.  But then there is our impact on that cycle.  By releasing greenhouse gasses, we speed up that warming cycle, just as eating McDonalds excessively speeds up my heart's demise.  So, we have the choice... Give up and continue spewing out these gasses with no concern for their impact on the cycle, or make an effort to minimize their effect.

Two of my brothers went with the first option.  Two with the second.  My mother would really appreciate it if I did not give up, too.

---

by: GWMustGo @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 16:55:16 PM CDT

but you would opt for mcdonalds over starving, ya? (4.00 / 3)

How can we ask Indians and Africans to LITERALLY starve because we are concerned with fossil fuels down the line?  

Most of the increase is going to come from places where they justifiably don't really care. Even if we get the USA to 50% rebewables by 2050, a steep goal, the new surplus carbon from developing countries will swamp that reduction.  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:24:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

...and your point is??? (0.00 / 0)

Using your "logic".... Somebody is hungry and only has $1.07 for a dollar menu item, so they buy it.  It might not be healthy for their heart, but it is all they can do.  Since there is ONE person in the world like that, NONE of us should eat healthy.

I never stated "everybody must do this."  But none of us trying because some of us cannot afford to is ridiculous.

---

by: GWMustGo @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 15:05:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Any policy that doesn't try to get everyone there is doomed to failure (0.00 / 0)

that is my point.  The 'me' in your metaphor is the whole world.  It is not the USA.  Of course it is important to do something, but even the most radical of approaches, so long as they do not alter Chinese and Indian behaviour, is not going to really dent the problem.

---

by: Valatan @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 19:57:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How to save the world (0.00 / 0)

A while back I posted this as a quick hit:

http://fora.tv/2009/01/16/Saul...

which, while a bit annoyingly gee whiz in style, in substance gives a pretty good idea of what is required to keep below the 350 ppm threshold.

And it does seem that this is what is required to prevent run away temperature rise induced by feedback loops.  A 3 degrees centigrade increase may well unachievable-it will either be less or substantially more.

---

by: John Halle @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:14:22 PM CDT

"stop patting ourselves on the back for what so far have been ineffectuve and utterly inadequate steps" (4.00 / 2)

Also see:  the economy, torture, ending the war, and (apparently) health care.  

---

by: Valatan @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:17:01 PM CDT

before piling on Chris, note the point of the post (4.00 / 2)

Is not to say we should give up because it's hopeless. Quite the opposite, the intention is a call to arms.

We need to be reducing the total output of CO2 and related gasses, and we are, at best (under the current administration), only going to be reducing the change in increase.

This is a recipe for eventual disaster. I am even more pessimistic than Chris is about this. But it is our moral duty to do all we can. He agrees. He is just trying to say "Stop thinking we're currently doing ANYTHING worthwhile, and get to work!"

---

by: jwill @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:18:16 PM CDT

I agree (0.00 / 0)

And this is an excellent post from Chris - one of the best I've seen lately on the politics of global warming. False optimism leads far too often to complacency, in my experience, and complacency on global warming is going to get a lot of people killed.

The fact is we don't courageous, informed representatives working to stave off ecological disaster. We have idiots like this:

Obama's budget request suggested a 14 percent cut below 2005 levels by 2020, while Waxman had pressed for a 20 percent cut. Several of the Democratic moderates had initially suggested a 6 percent target for 2020, but Waxman balked at that proposal. Butterfield said yesterday that he would be willing to accept Obama's targets. "Let's shoot for 14 percent," he said. "I can live with 14 percent."

---

by: stras jones @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:16:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

This is one reason (4.00 / 1)

I think that reducing the amount of energy we need should be more central. This doesn't necessarily entail doing less, but it would mean investing seriously in finding ways of doing more with less.  

Like most policy problems, we create a problem, then look for ways of solving the problem, instead of finding ways to stop creating the problem.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:46:18 PM CDT

Never work. (4.00 / 1)

Jevons paradox:

the Jevons Paradox (sometimes called the Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.

If we increase our energy efficiency, on an individual or even national basis, that just makes fossil fuels cheaper for the Chinese and the Indians and everyone else. The only way to avoid the paradox would be to have a truly global cap-and-trade type system that would go way beyond anything that's politically feasible at the moment.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:11:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not sure that resource = energy (0.00 / 0)

It may be true that if you make the use of some specific resource (like coal in the 1800s) more efficient, you see an increase in the use of that resource. But if you reduce the need for energy in general, the same would not necessarily happen.  This paradox seems to only applies to a specific resource. In the coal example, increasing its efficiency did not make energy less necessary, which is what I am talking about.

Lowering our energy usage would mean making fossil fuels cheaper in the short run.  But it would also give us an advantage over those who continued to use fossil fuels, and open up new markets for all those interested in getting away from fossil fuels.  China and India would have every incentive to seek similar technology.  Lots of others countries might prefer this, even if they cared nothing about the environment - as lower energy use would give those countries more independence from energy companies and energy exporting countries.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:25:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I drove though Iowa (0.00 / 0)

on I80, and I kept seeing huge windmill parts passing by on trucks going the other way on the freeway. Each blade was the length of two semi's. I saw a few of the giant windmills standing in the distance, turning. The looked like each one of them would be as powerful as a medium size hydro-electric facility.

Rooftop solar is growing quickly in California. It is obvious from looking around that there have been many new project starts just in the last few months.

Folks are getting started, at least, on cleaner electricity generation. For the last eight years, we have had a government that repressed the transition toward renewables. We should watch for a few years under more favorable politics before confirming a pessimistic view.

---

by: Mark Wallace @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:47:23 PM CDT

Pebbles against the ocean (0.00 / 0)

If wind energy or solar power is going to be effective, it's going to be need terawatts of energy production. We aren't even close to that and whilst I'm seeing increased interest in alternative enrgy, I'm not seeing huge government investment or a cheapening in cost sufficient to allow us to cover the Sahara in solar panels.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 05:21:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Will Those Predictions Hold? (0.00 / 0)

Chris,

I agree with you, and it's nice to see you write about this.  I do feel like there are a lot of variables we still don't know about, though.  For instances, I wonder about the 50% electricity and agriculture increase numbers.  I'm of the mind that we're going to be stuck in a depressed worldwide economy for many years going forward--and I question if we'll ever return to an economy that looks like what we have been familiar with in recent times.  I imagine that would impact those growth numbers.

I'm also of the mind that agricultural production is on the verge of some pretty serious shifts, despite efforts to largely maintain the status quo.  We can grow more food with significantly less fossil fuel inputs using current knowledge and techniques.  It may be wishful thinking, but I sense that we'll be moving more and more toward those techniques (or should I say returning to them?) over the next two decades.

Then again, corporate ag may keep their stranglehold on policy until climate change and soil destruction has left their techniques utterly ineffective.  Realistically, that's probably the more likely scenario.  On the other hand, there seems to be huge momentum behind remaking our agricultural system.  But maybe I just think that because I live in the Pacific Northwest and will be hopefully starting a farming internship soon.

---

by: Joel Caris @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 17:52:01 PM CDT

pretty much agree with all of that (4.00 / 4)

What's fascinating about the whole global warming thing, from a detached perspective, is that it's as if the problem were concocted by the devil himself in such a way as to make the solution to the problem require that we humans contradict the most fundamental elements of our nature.

It is, first, a very abstract problem: simply to comprehend it requires a level of conceptual analysis that goes beyond what most of us use in our daily lives.

Then, too, it is a problem on a timescale that goes far beyond anything we're normally used to considering. We naturally discount benefits we receive in the future; that is, we value a gift of $10 today more than the promise of $10 a week from now (as enyone who has ever procrastinated understands). And the benefits of fighting global warming acrue in the very distant future; in fact, they won't even acrue to us in our lifetimes, in all likelihood. And what's more, this will be true of any given generation, such is the slow-motion nature of the global warming calamity. For instance, a child born in 2050 will be born into a world in which global warming is already a problem; but within his lifetime, the problem will only get somewhat worse, since she'll be starting from a baseline at which problems already exist. So not only will the benefits acrue in the far future, no single generation will enjoy all the benefits of fighting against global warming - they'll just enjoy some fraction of the benefits.

And of course, it's not in any one individual's interest to do anything to stop global warming - the old tragedy of the commons. If the benefit to the climate for someone to not purchase a Hummer is that the climate will warm by .0000000001 degree less, in terms of that individual's self-interest that benefit pales in comparison to their satisfaction in compensating for their small penis by purchasing that Hummer. And let alone the fact that politicians, who serve for 2, 4, or 6 year terms, are not exactly renowned for having their eyes on a distant time horizon.

And so yeah, I'm not optimistic. But like I say, it's sort of fascinating - almost like a real-life enactment of an ethical thought experiment: what happens when the common good requires that everyone suppress every intrinsic human instinct? We'll find out - whether we want to or not.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:08:18 PM CDT

by the way (0.00 / 0)

Though the realistic pessimism is well-founded, we shouldn't overlook the fact that a world affected by global warming - the sort of world we're likely to have a century from now, will probably be a much, much worse place. And that will be the legacy of our time on Earth.

But hey, at least we got our SUVs and our Big Macs.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 18:21:30 PM CDT

Solving the Wrong Problem (4.00 / 1)

Chris is dead on.  

Basically there is one sure way to slow the increase in the release of CO2 due to energy production: nuclear energy.  Nothing else will work soon enough to make a difference.  And given the time it takes to get Nuke plants on line...this solution still won't reduce human CO2 output fast enough. We need a different approach.

The focus of our anti-global-warming effort needs to shift to CO2 removal as quickly as possible.  We need to start sucking billions of tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere immediately.  Pass a massive tax on CO2 AND a strict licensing regime to ensure CO2 removal companies are legit and then we'll have a shot at reducing the severity of global warming.  Once CO2 producers are getting nailed for every MOLECULE of CO2 they produce, they'll start shovelling money to people who offset CO2.  Once we have a good way to remove CO2 from the air we start subsidizing it to remove even more...until we're back to pre-industrial-age levels.

Basically we're like a train screaming headlong towards a collapsed bridge and the most radical solution anyone is seriously proposing is to ease up on the accelerator a little.  We need to slam on the brakes NOW.

Oh, and ass bags for cows.  That would help, too.

---

by: BeerNotWar @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:12:05 PM CDT

ass bags (0.00 / 0)

But then what do you do when you capture the farts? I'm thinking a Ghostbusters-like containment chamber, which is all well and good until the EPA comes nosing around and releases all the cow farts to terrorize the city.

---

by: Chachy @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:17:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

unfortunately (4.00 / 1)

the real problem is cow burps, not farts.  Ass bags won't help.

---

by: Mark Matson @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 20:35:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Corn vs. Grass (0.00 / 0)

Isn't the feed a big issue? I would hope a grass burp has less methane than a corn burp.

As most of you know, this is no joke. Methane is a place we could make real headway, but there is a big ag lobby to stop progress.

---

by: Mark Wallace @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 23:34:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think it's a big effect. (0.00 / 0)

There is probably some effect, but I have no idea which would be better. Methane is just produced by anaerobic digestion of food by methanogenic bacteria in the digestive tract.  

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:40:33 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

pipe it to Mars (0.00 / 0)

Solve our global warming issue by using all the extra methane to get a greenhouse effect going on the colder planet... Then all the Republicans can go galt there.

---

by: jwill @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:42:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks for making me laugh (0.00 / 0)

Oh, and ass bags for cows.  That would help, too.

LOL

Hot Dog!  

---

by: slumlord @ Tue May 12, 2009 at 19:35:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

On the other hand... (4.00 / 3)

WSJ:

If analysts are right, this underlying supply struggle will keep oil prices relatively strong in coming years. And that's a boon for renewable energy developers. Not just are they set to receive an enormous infusion of cash, low-interest loans and other support out of capitals from Washington D.C. to Beijing, they appear set to get some tailwind from high oil prices. If the worst global recession in decades can't derail oil prices for long, that's a good sign that the global economy is entering a period of oil prices high enough to support ongoing investment in renewable (a.k.a. competing) energy sources.

There's a thread-the-needle scenario where high fossil fuel prices stay high enough to support rapid advancement on the renewables front but low enough to avoid economic collapse. If we can technologize our way out of our oil addiction (and/or it turns out that there's just not that much oil left to burn), then the fight against global warming basically just becomes a matter of regulating coal, which seems much more politically doable. Still a huge challenge, especially getting China et al. to go along, but at least conceivable.

---

by: Chachy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 00:03:31 AM CDT

In that vein (4.00 / 1)

Joe Romm, who writes about the politics of climate change (from an admittedly insidery perspective) at Climate Progress, this week suggested that the US may actually have peaked in GHG emissions in 2007.  He concludes:

I think that peak oil plus inevitably stronger and stronger action on fuel economy standards, tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions, plug in hybrid electric vehicles, and low-carbon fuel standards will keep oil consumption trends flat for quite some time, followed by a steady decline post-2020ish.

And of course I am assuming in my prediction that the United States will enact into law serious energy and climate legislation, along the lines of Waxman-Markey, sometime soon, which will lead to steadily declining coal emissions post-2015.

So you see, what looks like a bold prediction is not terribly bold at all.  I think this is much more of a sure thing than, say, my standard bet that the Arctic will be 90% ice free by 2020.

Still, it would be a very big deal for the richest country in the world, the one with by far the greatest cumulative greenhouse gas emissions, to break the economic growth - carbon dioxide link.

 

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:57:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dealing with China is very possible. (0.00 / 0)

Since you can never have too much Climate Progress.

For instance, last Friday, Reuters reported:  

Chinese state thinktank researchers will soon issue preliminary proposals for a carbon tax that may one day become part of the government's efforts to tame growing greenhouse gas emissions, experts told local media.

   Su Ming, deputy director of an institute under China's Ministry of Finance, said the research on a carbon tax had been requested by that ministry and the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the proposal may be published "within a month," the National Business Daily reported on Thursday....

And last month, the UK's Guardian reported this remarkable story:    

The Chinese government is for the first time considering setting targets for carbon emissions, a significant development that could help negotiations on a Kyoto successor treaty at Copenhagen later this year, the Guardian has learned.

   Su Wei, a leading figure in China's climate change negotiating team, said that officials were considering introducing a national target that would limit emissions relative to economic growth in the country's next five-year plan from 2011....

   Last month, the Chinese Academy of Science reported that the country's carbon dioxide emissions relative to GDP should be reduced by 50% by 2020, and that total CO2 emissions should peak between 2030 and 2040 if the country introduced more stringent energy-saving policies and received more financial support and technology from overseas.

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:27:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

china (0.00 / 0)

Yeah, actually, even as I wrote it I was thinking the better way to put it might be that China will have to get us to go along - their position on the development curve plus their form of government actually make them a lot more flexible when it comes to overhauling energy infrastructure. (At the same time, it will be a lot harder for them to keep from raising their CO2 emissions a whole lot from where they are now, just because they have a lot of room to grow and they're still like sneezing out coal plants.)

---

by: Chachy @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:34:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Human beings primarily act based on experiences rather than logical inferences (0.00 / 0)

We wont seriously combat global warming until we have direct evidence that it will probably be harmful.

Right now such a prediction is a hypothesis.  The best we can predict is that the climate will change.  We can't tell people that their lives will be getting worse with global warming because climates are simply too complex to predict that with any certainty.

Once there is direct evidence of climate change being harmful that would change things significantly.

Political willpower simply cannot solve a problem like this.  And imagine if we do invent some technology that could solve this probelm.  It wouldn't be surprising if we then took too much carbon out of the atmosphere and caused an ice age.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

---

by: transgenmom @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 05:27:42 AM CDT

We need to push Waxman-Markey. (4.00 / 2)

Joe Romm at Climate Progress who's certainly a climate realist has been very optimistic about recent efforts. He just wrote a two-piece report on Waxman-Markey (here and here). He calls it a solid B+ that according to the World Resources Institute could reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30% by 2020, and over 75% by 2050. Other sources have the 2020 reduction at about 14%, which is lower than we should be aiming, but still significant. In any event Romm predicts that the U.S. peak GHG emissions occurred in 2007, which is obviously influenced by the recession, but it's a good sign nonetheless.

Also, wind and solar based electricity are the fastest growing technologies in the U.S., and the stimulus should only increase that growth. China is also making huge strides in renewables, and has shown signals that their willing regulate carbon emissions, but they won't without some effort on our part.

If you want to help avert climate change, the most important thing you can do is to ensure the passage of Waxman-Markey. It's not perfect, but it's a significant step in the right direction that will setup future steps. It'll be a hard fight and we need strong progressive voices to be heard.

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:54:12 AM CDT

Ha! (0.00 / 0)

Simultaneous Joe Romm posts!

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 07:58:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't think of anyone better... (0.00 / 0)

to cite in a discussion of climate change and progressive politics.

The truth about John McCain.

---

by: Jawis @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:28:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

doesn't that make you a global warming "pessimist", not a skeptic? (0.00 / 0)

because you're convinced that man-made global warming is very real and dangerous, but pessimistic about the human will to stop doing it??

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

---

by: bruce.dixon @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:10:04 AM CDT

I understand your frustration. (4.00 / 2)

I remember that when I was in college (10 years ago) my mentor remarked to me that in our lifetimes we were either going to see the world get very bad, or terrible.  That's some brutal honesty from a youngish ecology professor to an idealistic student in sustainable development, but her perspective has stayed with me.

That's the fight we're waging, and there is no doubt that we've done poorly so far and there is so much that seems beyond our control.  But limpidglass (though they mistook your reality check for fatalism) makes a good point about the relative goalposts -- slightly different scenarios from a scientific perspective are huge in the amount of human suffering that results.

That said, I am so with you on the evils (and plain annoyance) of simplistic thinking.  That people think it is as easy as electing someone who isn't Bush is part of the reason we have done so poorly to date, and that Waxman-Markey isn't a hell of a lot better.

Tim Wolfe

---

by: bruorton @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:13:23 AM CDT

Weird trendlines (4.00 / 1)

This is not exactly my area of expertise.  But I think when we look back in a few years, we might see 2007-09 (or perhaps 10) as an inflection point for clean energy.  The price of oil and coal increased sharply, then nosedived through 2008; there was a glut in the solar market; and the Chinese started putting a bunch of new coal plants online.  Now it looks like oil is starting to increase in price at a steadier pace, the renewables glut is starting to even out, and the Chinese are starting to convert to renewables.  

Moreover, we are at a weird point where the European incentives from earlier in the decade, like Germany's premiums for renewables and the various cap-and-trade systems, are just now starting to mature into exportable innovations, and our own parallel incentives are only getting started.  That creates a weird situation where European clean energy companies are taking a little while finding their sea legs generating new clean energy over here.

Ultimately, I think there will be a steady increase in renewables year over year.  It might not be aggressive enough to reach 50% by 2050, I don't know.  But I think it will start soon, probably later this year or 2010.  In any case, the trendlines from the past two years of data, which are I think cause for a lot of your pessimism, are probably abnormal.

Again, I'm not an expert, just a casual observer, I could easily be wrong about a lot of this.  In any case, my thinking is based on the notion that we'll pass Waxman-Markey and continue or extend the tax credits for renewables at the federal and state levels.  So there's still plenty of need for a political fight.

---

by: Shai Sachs @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 08:23:36 AM CDT

Bad news for us (0.00 / 1)

it`s a very bad news for us.We should protect it early.

---

by: creditrepairing @ Wed May 13, 2009 at 10:10:16 AM CDT