Campaign against Climate Change

Despite the mocking tone of some commentators this week, I find myself nodding in agreeing with some of the statements made by George W. Bush, you know, that presiding President of the US of A :-

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/59103

"We must all recognize that in the long run, new technologies are the key to addressing climate change. But in the short run, they can be more expensive. And that is why I believe part of any solution means reforming today's complicated mix of incentives to make the commercialization and use of new, lower emission technologies more competitive. Today we have different incentives for different technologies... What we need to do is consolidate them into a single, expanded program with the following features."

Outlining various steps the Bush administration considered as important, he stated that first, the incentive should be carbon-weighted to make lower emission power sources less expensive relative to higher emissions sources -- and it should take into account the US´s energy security needs.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Where I do not agree is with the weasel argument that solutions should be "technology-neutral" and the old slippery toad of "carbon intensity".

"...the incentive should be technology-neutral because the government should not be picking winners and losers in this emerging market."

What on Earth could be seen to be "neutral" about the myths of Clean Coal as a technology ? Why, it's not even Carbon-neutral yet as Carbon Capture and Storage is unproven on a wide scale.

Why should the American Government be neutral about which technologies they use for energy in future ? The old, well-established technologies are very polluting and receive massive subsidies. Investment is required for new sustainable technologies. You can't be neutral about investment in the future. You have to weight policy towards sustainable, renewable energy. You have to ditch some of the current technologies, actually. And that includes messy nuclear.

And that old chestnut, lame duck "carbon intensity". Read this carefully :-

"If we fully implement our new strong laws, adhere to the principles that I've outlined, and adopt appropriate incentives, we will put America on an ambitious new track for greenhouse gas reductions. The growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance."

Careful thinking now : that's not an ABSOLUTE CUT IN EMISSIONS, that's only a CUT IN GROWTH.

In other words, emissions will continue to grow, but NOT AS FAST.

The difference between acceleration and speed is that you still go forward with speed, just not so rapidly. Forward to Carbon hell.