The Problem, in a Nutshell

June 13, 2011 by Keith Kloor | Filed in climate change, Energy | 34 comments

Humankind doesn’t innovate in really profound ways that change whole societies until they are in a situation of emergency.

Thomas Homer-Dixon, speaking last week at this conference.

Keith Kloor

34 Responses to “The Problem, in a Nutshell”

Howard says:

June 13, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Yeah, except for the microelectronic revolution, the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, etc. What emergency prompted the invention of the printing press?

Agriculture started in a warm period of the Holocene Optimum between the Younger Dryas and the 8.2 kiloyear cold period.

I can’t find any emergency responsible for the invention of the hand axe, the Clovis point, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, Democracy or of the Republic.

The only thing I can think of invented in an emergency situation or based on the fear of emergencies is Religion.
Tom Gray says:

June 13, 2011 at 1:03 pm

Climate scientists have been saying this for years and have been trying to invent crises. If someone even suggests that perhaps we should consider the matter thoroughly to put the issue in perspective with other issues, they are branded a heretic and excommunicated.

Humanity has faced crises as profound as climate change and overcome them
RickA says:

June 13, 2011 at 1:05 pm

The quote seems very true to me.

Many people don’t see any emergency yet.

.8C seems so small, given the difference in average temperature between summer and winter.

20 mm of sea level rise since over the last 1/2 century is virtually unnoticeable.

So, I would recast the problem a little, with respect to climate change, to say that the small changes we have experienced in our lifetime don’t appear to rise to the level of “emergency” to the average person.
kdk33 says:

June 13, 2011 at 1:39 pm

What Howard said.
Sashka says:

June 13, 2011 at 1:41 pm

I strongly disagree with this “observation”, see Howard’s comment for some of the obvious counterpoints.

He doesn’t seem to notice the obvious irony. On one hand he notes that “Predicting how the systems will react to even minor problems is very difficult as well” which doesn’t stop him from predicting on the same page: “Given a price on carbon, we’re going to see a profound shift in the character of energy production in our societies”.
Jeff Norris says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:23 pm

Keith or anybody else.
Trying to be objective isn’t Dixon suggesting that we have to induce a crisis in order to create the needed innovation to combat Climate Change and or the crisis of resource depletion. From reading the article he admits that a price on carbon will create “shocks and crises” but the good news is that they will create “extraordinary opportunities”.
While I agree that when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully, I am not sure that a hanging every two weeks is the best way to encourage right thinking among the populace.
Michael Tobis says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:27 pm

Sashka, no, I disagree with your complaint. Predicting a profound shift is different from predicting the nature of the profound shift.

Fukushima seesm to have foreclosed on our last nonradical trajectory that is based on available technologies.

Something big is going to happen, globally. The passive questions are what that will be, and when it will happen. Or, you can look at it from the perspective of an empowered democratic civilization, in which case the question becomes how we can increase the likelihood for a civilized outcome.
RickA says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm

I see this quote as related to the famous observation “Necessity is the mother of invention.”

Certainly, not all inventions change society, but some do.

They are mostly driven by necessity.

If we really feel compelled to invent carbon free power generation (other than hydro or nuclear), we will be able to do that with enough investment, person power.

Think Manhattan project for fusion (for example).

I don’t think people perceive the “necessity” yet.
Jeff Norris says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:44 pm

Should have added this quote to 6
Given this reality, we’ll almost certainly need some kind of devastating climate shock to get effective climate policy. That’s the key lesson of the recent financial crisis: when powerful special interests have convinced much of the public that what they’re doing isn’t dangerous, only a disaster that discredits those interests will provide an opportunity for comprehensive policy change like the Dodd-Frank financial regulations.
http://www.homerdixon.com/articles/20100822-nytimes-disasteratthetopoftheworld.html
Keith Kloor says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Jeff (6).

I don’t think Homer-Dixon is suggesting at all that a crisis needs to be induced. See here.
Sashka says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:55 pm

@ MT

Yes, formally-logically you’re right except he does predict the nature of the shift as well: i.e. 30-30-40 “solution”. Another thing is that predicting the shift itself is also very tricky. Consider the impact of growing oil prices on our economy and consumption patterns in particular. Over the last 20 years the gasoline prices essentially quadrupled which is a much higher tax on consumers than anything you guys would ever dream of pushing through. The impact is pretty minimal, won’t you agree?

Something big is going to happen, globally.

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future.
Marlowe Johnson says:

June 13, 2011 at 2:59 pm

“Over the last 20 years the gasoline prices essentially quadrupled”

Evidence?
Sashka says:

June 13, 2011 at 3:05 pm

@ Jeff (9)

Public had no idea what anybody involved in the process was doing (not does it have much better idea now). Except that the public was eagerly participating in pumping the bubble buy buying real estate on the sub-prime mortgages.
Sashka says:

June 13, 2011 at 3:30 pm

@ 12
http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html
Marlowe Johnson says:

June 13, 2011 at 3:45 pm

@14
Those figures aren’t adjusted for inflation. If you look here, you’ll see that the inflation-adjusted price of gasoline has less than doubled since 1990.
jeffn says:

June 13, 2011 at 4:28 pm

@15 and it more than quadrupled since 1998 according to the site you linked to. Cherry picking dates is fun cause the price swings all over the place.
Gas prices are actually lower today than they were in 1980 (in real terms), about 3 times as high as 1986, just over double what they were in 1990, triple what they were in ’95 and more than four times as high as they were in 1998.
If only there was someone interested in global warming who worked closely with the White House between 1995-1998, maybe we could have seen a gas tax hike during those historic low prices. Maybe if Al Gore had been VP at the time.
Jeff Norris says:

June 13, 2011 at 4:46 pm

@Keith (10)
Your right he does not say the crisis has to be induced but he seems to say that Carbon pricing will cause crisis and therefore create innovation. Having a plan Z or a Go to Hell plan is great, but in the article is he not stating that Carbon pricing will hasten the implementation of plan Z. Carbon pricing is the prerequisite in order to create his 30-40-30 solution.
I just listened to this interview from March 2. http://www.homerdixon.com/podcasts/index.php?id=26
In my subjective opinion he initially comes off as a very rational well spoken individual. When you start thinking about the implications of what he says he sounds like someone who both fears and longs for the upcoming global collapse he is predicting.
He seems to suggest it is buy a gun and build a bunker time but don’t worry face book and twitter will save us in the end.
Jeff Norris says:

June 13, 2011 at 5:03 pm

@Sashka 14
Comment 9 was a quote from Mr. Dixon. I wonder if he still feels Frank Dodd was a comprehensive policy change when much on the actual change falls under the heading of TBA. Like the Heath Care program a lot of the legislation was what is to change not how the change would occur. The devil is always in the details.
harrywr2 says:

June 13, 2011 at 5:05 pm

Michael Tobis said

<i>Fukushima seems to have foreclosed on our last nonradical trajectory that is based on available technologies</i>

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/322538/unfazed-fukushima-kepco-add-11200mw-nuclear-capacity
<i>Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) firmly indicated that it is not about to change its heart on nuclear as it is now lining up the installation of new eight units that will add up 11,200 megawatts on its installed generation capacity.</i>
The ‘death of nuclear’ that Greenpeace would like everyone to believe in is ‘greatly’ exaggerated.
Howard says:

June 13, 2011 at 5:15 pm

RickA:

Smart people who like to fuck with shit and make money are the “mothers” of invention. Throwing more money and people at problems does not yield power that is too cheap to meter. Fusion power is always 40-years off. Sure, a lot of problems have been solved, but they only peal back layers to reveal the next, harder problem to solve.

Setting up artificial hardship to induce creativity will only create new and ingenious ways to work around the artificial hardships, likely through black markets.

What is proposed is a War on Drugs template to decarbonize energy.
Sashka says:

June 13, 2011 at 6:05 pm

@ 15

Not that we are done with inflation adjustment, any interest in addressing the point that I was making? Or was it just to show that you heard about inflation adjustment?
RickA says:

June 13, 2011 at 6:15 pm

Howard #20:

Calm down man!

Don’t you think taxing carbon based power is “setting up artificial hardship to induce creativity”?

Isn’t shutting down existing power, like coal (ala Hansen) or nuclear (ala Germany) “setting up artificial hardship to induce creativity”?

I am not sure why a Manhattan project is any worse than taxing, or eliminating power sources.

By the way – people only make money on inventions if other people are willing to buy them. There is nothing wrong with inventing something that solves a problem and that other people are willing to pay for (think lightbulb).

Sometimes, people invent things that other people don’t even know they want, but once it is out there, they cannot believe they could ever live without it (think iPod).

My point is that once the “necessity” or “emergency” is widely recognized, people will step forward, work on it and solve it (IMO)
Howard says:

June 13, 2011 at 8:41 pm

RickA:
Calm is overrated. Maybe my Mom should have let the school feed me Ritalin.
I don’t understand what you mean by “people will step forward, work on it and solve it” Who do you mean, idle slackers with creative genius are just waiting in the wings for the proper motivation to spring into action and create the invention of the millennium? You sound like a character out of Portlandia.
NewYorkJ says:

June 13, 2011 at 9:34 pm

Certainly, an imminent catastrophe is a strong incentive for innovation, but this is a simplification. The innovations that came from various initiatitves helped improve appliance efficiency, reduce air pollution, and reduce ozone- depleting CFCs, even if the problems that were being solved weren’t considered “emergencies” (more closer to big but slow-developing problems). Global warming is a huge but slow-developing problem. Yet significant progress in renewable energy and efficiency has been made, and there’s little doubt that much of this has been a result of environmental and sustainability concern of using fossil fuels, even if problems aren’t considered the level of an “emergency”. So I’d say the prospects of an emergency at most increases the odds for innovation, but is not a pre-requisite for it.
kdk33 says:

June 13, 2011 at 9:48 pm

Gosh, if only we really wanted to cure cancer – I mean, if it was life or death or something like that – I’m sure we could do it. We would just have to convince those wunderkinds that it was important.

Heck, I bet maybe some folks would trade cancer cures for clean energy. So, now we just have to convince people that it’s important and, surely-surely, the cure will arrive.
Jeff Norris says:

June 13, 2011 at 10:49 pm

I think we are drifting away from what types of disasters Mr. Homer-Dixon would consider necessary to change whole societies. I sent him an email asking him to stop by but it is late in Ontario Canada. My understanding is the disaster or subsequent disasters need to be Global. Think Hollywood or several minor disasters occurring in a short time, 10 plagues of Moses for example. Homer-Dixon believes our current democratic ideas are insufficient to deal with the upcoming disasters and suggest progressives prepare a “second track “government to help usher in a more “mature humanity”. It’s not so much about creating technologies but more about changing cultural values you see.
Marlowe Johnson says:

June 14, 2011 at 9:34 am

@11
gasoline demand is relatively inelastic over the short term. Over the long-term not so much. One need on take a look at the difference in fuel economy between the u.s. and europe to see that this is so.

Having said that, I agree with your general point that the carbon tax levels that most people talk about in the short-term (i.e. 10-$30/tCO2e) are nowhere near the levels that would be needed to induce a significant change in behaviour. But anyone who has studied the issue knows this. What you really need to think about is the long-term effect of higher carbon prices (i.e. $50-100) + new technologies (i.e. electrification).

The more interesting question IMO is how treasuries are going to recoup gasoline/diesel tax revenues as fleets electrify and use an energy source that isn’t taxed at anywhere near the same level.
harrywr2 says:

June 14, 2011 at 9:57 am

@Marlowe,

You might want to look at the difference in lifecycle emissions for electric vehicles vs gasoline vehicles before advocating for more electric vehicles.
http://www.lowcvp.org.uk/assets/pressreleases/LowCVP_Lifecycle_Study_June2011.pdf
Gasoline – 24 tonnes CO2e, Hybrid 21 Tonnes CO2e, Battery 19 Tonnes CO2e.
Considering battery cars cost $20K more then standard gasoline cars, battery cars are a very expensive way to save 5 tonnes of CO2.
Increasing CAFE standards by 20% will have just as great an impact at a fraction of the cost.
Marlowe Johnson says:

June 14, 2011 at 10:08 am

@28
Agreed that with today’s costs electric vehicles aren’t exactly low hanging fruit on the mitigation tree. However, as those costs come down and as the grid gets cleaner (the study you linked basically assumes 50% coal) the total benefit over the lifetime of the vehicle will start to make sense, both from a consumer perspective (i.e. total cost of ownership) and a societal perspective (avoided carbon).
Sashka says:

June 14, 2011 at 11:37 am

@27
Obviously, CBO is eminently qualified to make long-term projections. You would remember the trillions of budget surplus that they projected in late 90-s, would you not?

The “conclusion” re long term response to 10% price hike is based on the (constant!) elasticity of -0.38 from 1996 government report. That’s all they got. This is a very very thin basis for any conclusions.
What you really need to think about is the long-term effect of higher carbon prices (i.e. $50-100) + new technologies (i.e. electrification).
Maybe you need to but I don’t believe you can.
Sashka says:

June 14, 2011 at 11:46 am

Trying to clean up formatting in 30:

Obviously, CBO is eminently qualified to make long-term projections. You would remember the trillions of budget surplus that they projected in late 90-s, would you not?

The “conclusion” re long term response to 10% price hike is based on the (constant!) elasticity of -0.38 from 1996 government report. That’s all they got. This is a very very thin basis for any conclusions.

What you really need to think about is the long-term effect of higher carbon prices (i.e. $50-100) + new technologies (i.e. electrification).

Maybe you need to but I don’t believe you can.
Marlowe Johnson says:

June 14, 2011 at 11:55 am

Well Sashka this is entertaining as usual. The CBO isn’t ‘projecting’ long-run elasticities; they’re merely reporting values from peer reviewed literature. That is not ‘all they got’ btw, as you well know having read the link:

“That value was used by the Congressional Budget Office in Reducing Gasoline Consumption: Three Policy Options (November 2002) and in The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax (December 2003). Kenneth A. Small and Kurt Van Dender, in “Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel,” estimate a similar long-run price elasticity value of -0.43. Higher estimates exist, but they come primarily from the 1970s and 1980s and from international studies. For a survey, see Daniel Graham and Stephen Glaister, “The Demand for Automobile Fuel: A Survey of Elasticities,” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, vol. 36 (2002), pp. 1″“26.”

Now I’m curious. Are you suggesting that there is no difference between the short and long-run elasticity for gasoline demand? If so you should publish your work :roll:.
Sashka says:

June 14, 2011 at 12:28 pm

Have you read what I wrote? I made it clear that I wasn’t happy with const elasticity?
RickA says:

June 14, 2011 at 4:53 pm

Howard #23:

I am a patent attorney, so I think I have a pretty good idea how invention works.

I guess what I meant is that once the “emergency” or “necessity” are perceived by the public to rise to a great enough level to support a large Manhattan type project, people will step forward and solve the problem.

In other words, we just aren’t spending enough money yet, because it is not yet perceived to be a big enough problem yet.

Yes, we are publicly funding fusion research, but not Manhattan level, focused, managed research. When that is perceived to be necessary, it will occur and I believe we will invent our way out of this problem. Or we may have to invent smaller safer fission reactors, or fund thorium reactors, or fund recycling type French style reactors, all of which are non-carbon.

Once non-carbon energy production is cheaper than oil, coal and natural gas – problem solved IMO.

There are only two ways to get there: 1) invent something cheaper or 2) shortages of coal, oil and natural gas drive prices up to where existing nuclear, wind and solar are cheaper.

Personally, I think 1 would be more useful, because it would make energy available to more of the people of the world if the cost was driven down by innovation – as opposed to less energy available because of rising costs and scarcity.

The Problem, in a Nutshell

Keith Kloor

34 Responses to “The Problem, in a Nutshell”

Leave a Reply