Comments on: One step at a time to saving the planet

By: The elements of change | involver

The elements of change | involver — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:49:00 +0000

[...] If we want people to help save the planet we need to start giving them clearer signals and incentives. But the biggest obstacle might be the green movement itself. More [...]

By: Elemental » Interesting links for March 7th through March 8th

Elemental » Interesting links for March 7th through March 8th — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 01:13:32 +0000

[...] One step at a time to saving the planet | Matthew Taylor’s blog – Another thought provoking piece from Matthew Taylor, asking us to pick one short term priority and sticking to it: "In contrast, on climate change there seem to be hundreds of different ideas and plans covering timescales ranging from the next few years to the middle of the century. Each of us has several opportunities a day to ‘do the green thing’ so we end up overwhelmed, confused and susceptible to lapsing into the fourth of CT’s paradigms: fatalism." [...]

By: Energy Efficiency: Running to stand still? « Fourcultures

Energy Efficiency: Running to stand still? « Fourcultures — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:06:14 +0000

[...] Taylor of the RSA thinks home energy efficiency should take priority, and Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute is [...]

By: Climate Change: time to focus « Fourcultures

Climate Change: time to focus « Fourcultures — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:20:12 +0000

[...] Climate Change: time to focus By fourcultures Matthew Taylor at the RSA has recently argued that the Green movement is its own worst enemy. [...]

By: Fourcultures

Fourcultures — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:36:45 +0000

A couple of additional points, if I may:
First, efficiency gains in energy use can easily be spent on more of the same. This is the Jevons paradox:
“It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”
There are two warnings in the Jevons Paradox: a) increasing the efficiency of technology is a losing battle for energy use reduction; b) Market-based solutions, in the absence of legislation, are unlikely to overcome the paradox. So we don’t just need better technology – we also need better social institutions that are able to keep up with the negative effects of that technology.

Second, I note that Lomborg’s latest thinking is actually closer to your’s, Matthew, than suspected (apart from his continued undertone of climate change denial, that is). He now says that top of the priority list should be:
“spending 0.05% of GDP on research and development of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies.”
This would enable ‘reasonably priced alternative energy technologies’ to come into common use ‘within the next 20 to 40 years’.
So far so good. It does appear, though, that Lomborg thinks this measure alone might ‘fix’ global warming – and do it more effectively than seeking to limit CO2 emissions by means of regulation or trading regimes. Here is where we might part company. Even a cursory glance at the figures makes it clear that massive reductions in CO2 emissions would be required, which alternative energy technologies alone would struggle to deliver – unless instead of a phase-out (of coal-fired power stations, for instance) there was a more or less instantaneous revolution in energy use. For much of this infrastructure, even a 20 to 40 year timeframe is effectively ‘overnight’. So besides the ‘pull’ measure of better, cheaper technology, we may well also need the ‘push’ measure of targets, regulation, trading and the like – and as you say, we need to prioritise.