The quest: Energy, security and the remaking of the modern world

The uncertain political environment, the shifting cast of characters, the corruption, the security risks, the opaque and constantly changing rules, the uncertainty as to “who was who” and “who was behind who”—all of these made others more reluctant.

All this growth, all this new construction, all these new factories, all these new apartments and their new appliances, and all the transportation that comes with this—all of it depends upon energy.

Critics point out that Hubbert left two key elements out of his analysis— technological progress and price. “Hubbert was imaginative and innovative in his use of mathematics in his projection,’ recalled Peter Rose. “But there was no concept of technological change, economics, or how new resource plays evolve. It was a very static view of the world.”

Lack of political participation was offset by participation through these new channels, as social networks came to challenge the traditional prerogatives of national sovereignty.*

Is there not a different way to handle the problem? As it is, the nuclear waste, when first generated, is stored for several years in onsite pools while it cools off. A consensus is developing that the better course is to store it in specified, controlled sites, in concrete casks, with a timeframe of 100 years that would provide time to find longer-term solutions—and perhaps find safe ways to use the fuel again.

Climate change was no longer an “academic” issue, said James Hansen, an atmospheric physicist and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. A leading climate modeler, Hansen had already become prominent as one of the most apocalyptic in his predictions. And now, wiping the sweat from his forehead in the sweltering room made even hotter by the television lights, Hansen told the senators, the long-awaited “signal” on climate change was now here. Temperatures were indeed rising, just as his computer models had predicted. “We can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming, he said. Afterward he summarized his testimcny to the New York Times more simply: “It is time to stop waffling.” The story about his testimony and the hearing ran on the Times’ front page.* As another witness, Syukuro Manabe, one of the fathers of climate modeling, recalled, “They weren’t too impressed by this Japanese guy who had this accent; whereas Jim Hansen made a bombshell impression.” The hearing “became a huge event,’ said Wirth. “A lot of people had never seen anything like this before. It got an inordinate amount of attention for a Senate hearing.” One scientist summed up the impact this way: “I’ve never seen an environmental issue move so quickly, shifting from science to the policy realm almost overnight.”

The chairman asked Eizenstat and his antagonist, the chief European negotiator, Britain’s deputy prime minister John Prescott, to go with him into an adjacent green room. The conference at this point was down to the issue of emissions trading. Prescott adamantly held to the European position, insisting that trading be no more than “supplementary,” a secondary tool. Eizenstat said that the United States would not budge, and it was not bluffing. “It’s very simple, John,” he said. “We’re not going to sign, we are not going to do it. All of this time over 15 days will be wasted. Do you really want to go back to Europe with no agreement?” “Or,” he added, “we can have an historic agreement.” Prescott recognized that Eizenstat would not budge, ard reluctantly agreed to the central role of trading. With that, the Kyoto Protocol was effectively done and negotiated, the carpenters could continue, and the follow-on conference could move into the hall.

One of the most important reasons for the rebirth of renewables took place at the state level, bearing out the famous adage of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis that states can serve as the laboratories of democracy. Without a particular innovation introduced by individual staces—what are called renewable portfolio standards—it is doubtful that renewable energy in the United States would have seen the growth it has experienced since the new century began.

The welcome was even warmer under the Clinton administration. On a hot summer day, Bill Clinton was slated to give a speech on the White House lawn announcing an environmental initiative. Among those invited was Scott Sklar in his capacity as head of the solar trade association. Since it was hot and Sklar is bald—and something of a solar showman—Sklar decided to wear an unusual hat, a cross between a pith helmet and a beanie, with a solar-powered fan. It was only with some difficulty that he was able to persuade the White House guards to let him in. When Clinton caught sight of this odd contraption on the head of one of the guests in the crowd, it caught his interest. The president, to the distress of his staff, made his way over and asked Sklar what it was. Sklar explained. The president said he should have been wearing one too. He pulled out a business card and gave it to Sklar, telling him that if he had any other things like that, he should make a point to drop by the White House.

The total annual energy R&D spending in 2008 was equivalent to two weeks’ spending on the Iraq War.®

Dow has now set a new target—another 25 percent improvement in energy efficiency by 2015. “More technology will be required in the next ten years, said Wells. “Change has to come at the molecular level.” Andrew Liveris was the one who set the new 25 percent target. “You’ve got to institutionalize this as part of your behavior,’ he said. “When you have a signal, amazing things can happen.”

The land-use provisions get trickier when it comes to considering what is called indirect land-use change—the “knock-on” effects of land use, an especially hot topic for the European Union. “Indirect” is when, for instance, a biofuel crop displaces a food crop, which in turn, seeking new land for cultivation, leads to deforestation and a potentially large release of carbon. How is this going to be measured? And, by the way, who is doing the measuring?

That is not exactly the kind of popular reaction that a politician wants to court when running for reelection (although Sharp himself was reelected several more times). So regulation, despite its relative drawbacks, does have a great advantage: it does not look like a tax.