what will drive the energy ‘innovation revolution’? - energy storage solutions

[UPDATE 3 p. m.
: President Bush took a different approach today to ease the energy gap, ending the president's moratorium on drilling oil on the US Outer Continental Shelf.
However, the political need around high energy prices seems to once again overwhelm concerns about climate issues and the inevitable need to change perceptions of fossil fuels. ]
Joe Romm, a former DOE official, is now working on the climate blog for no party/freedom/Progress (
Depends on who is choosing adjectives)
The Washington research team once again objected to what I wrote, in part because I missed a link to supporting energy sources for my statement, that is, by the middle of the century, the world could face three times as much energy demand.
I have posted my reply link (
And support links)
On his blog, add more links and sounds below
All of this shows that the world faces an obvious energy gap, assuming that its leaders take even a little serious about their commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
I have recently focused on the decline of the government.
Support R & D of Basic Energy (
Here and elsewhere outside Japan)
Although many experts say a significant increase is critical and affordable.
Among those who are calling for a government.
The "innovation revolution", driven by John Podesta, includes doubling federal energy research.
Romm's boss at the Center for American Progress
Here is my Mr.
Research progress on climate change. org (
He followed up there too)
: This is a key line in a series of papers by Hoffert and others on this gap (Science, 2002)John holderunpdf)
, And others: "In the middle
The century's major electricity demand without carbon dioxide emissions may be several times what we now get from fossil fuels (~10 [
Power supply to No. 13]watts)
Even if energy efficiency is improved.
"The details are in the Science paper.
Unlike you, when I talked about "energy options", I included the developing world --
The children are walking for an hour in Guinea and doing their homework in the airport parking lot.
Joe, I agree with you. over all —
Major obstacles to energy progress (
The benefits of climate also follow)
Society and politics, not technology.
But the lack of choice, whether underground, is true.
Sub-Saharan Africa or countries seeking major energy sources that do not accompany a significant increase in carbon dioxide emissions (
Or slide the grid to move the intermittent power supply).
Whether human energy demand in 2050 is high-end, or low-end (
Twice the energy)
Almost irrelevant.
In the 20 years of exploring the intertwined climate and energy challenges, I agree with almost all experts that while meeting global energy needs, we limit the impact of human beings on climate, need to be in policy. Mr.
Romm is one of those who agrees that this is not one of the two.
The debate was overemphasized. Mr.
Romm and many environmental activists, as well as energy entrepreneurs, say market, legal, public activities and leadership can drive technological change, government research funding is primarily a distraction and delay device driven by industries or politicians engaged in fossil fuels.
Regardless of the merits of this debate, there must be a lot of experienced experts in energy technology and economics (
Daniel nosela of M. I. T.
Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University
They insist that climate stability will not happen without a significant increase in direct spending on climate change. &D.
With other things.
In the end, there are two ways to accelerate away from climate change.
As Daniel Schrag of Harvard University explained earlier here, warming energy options: increasing the willingness of the public to act (
Accept the cost of energy-
Technology Transformation)
Or eliminate the cost difference between pollution and pollution-free energy choices.
The latter can be achieved by cleaning
By making climate cheaper and/or energy technology
Warming technology is more expensive (
By tax or cap).
In the comments string below, I will add more expert views on the role of basic research in driving the transformation of energy, at least on paper, and have committed to continue working for the next two generations.
Of course I want to see your scenery.
A significant increase in research will be part of what I call "energy exploration --
From the wall outlet to the lab, from the classroom to the conference room
Many experts say there is a planet,
Overhaul of a fossil
Two centuries of energy systems have been established.
Without considering the need for the study, these experts say, it ignores the reality that even if the world's most polluted countries magically abide by the non-binding climate commitments made last week, this is only the first step in limiting risk (if worst-
Case forecast held)
Climate change and coastal retreat for centuries.
Comments are no longer accepted.
Joe Romm, who has been known for his brave scientists/activists, advocates that federal energy policies need to be changed urgently.
As the doctor said, we need more scientists who are willing to come forward, come forward and express their opinions clearly. Romm is doing.
If this is allowed here, I would also like to suggest establishing a binding commitment to recruit another 1,000 top talent
Inclusion of scientists in senior positions
Positions within the federal government.
The American progressive center is almost non-partisan, it is progressive, and Joe Romm is a paid hacker that spreads propaganda and false information with a fraction of his value.
He also ran a biased website that banned my behavior in about two days, as you can see here.
= Once once in American history, we are committed to doing great and beautiful things.
Regardless of motivation, it is hard to say that landing on the moon is not grand and heroic.
Where is our spirit of innovation and adventure?
What does it take to mobilize and motivate our country to get back up and do something great?
If we can get to the moon, why not?
Receive andy revkin by email on Sunday night (more on Dr.
Lewis's work and ideas are in my article on global warming in the Journal of the American Retirement Association)
: This is a classic "or/or" decision tree.
But this requires a decision to take both sides.
We need to do everything we know how to do now. starting today, we need to do research and development to help us figure out how to do things that we don't know how to do right now (
Like massive power storage, etc)
From today on, energy is the only commercial area I have ever seen, and people are trying to constantly put forward arguments against R & D to develop a more advanced, cheaper and better next generation, technology . . . . . . Whatever is spent on deployment and commercialisation, like any healthy high tech
There should be 10% revenue in the technology industry (
Pharmaceutical companies or IT companies are spending more now)
Energy is now a $3 trillion/year business in the United States. S.
In this case alone, R & D costs amounted to $300 billion per year;
Let's give 90% of this to D, which is "behind" $30 billion/year. LewisGeorge L.
Professor Argyros, Division of Chemical and Chemical Engineering Chemistry, Beckman Institute and Kavli Institute of nanosciences
Otherwise, the market will push it.
If you try to push it centrally with tax subsidies, nothing will be done and a lot of time will be wasted.
Old words apply;
I only learned yesterday: it won't make money if it doesn't make sense.
Email received on Sunday night: I agree with Nate.
I will add three more points. 1.
We need research and development to build scalable energy technologies that are currently available. 2.
We need to avoid being locked.
In the underlying technology, such as the first generation of biofuels, which was considered a grand slam a few years ago"dunk carbon-
Neutral technology/energy that is said to be available and scalable for related technologies.
Now, on the way to the ipcc wg iii, there is only a few hundred/year of energy, estimated at 100-
By 2050, 400 j/year of biomasss/biofuels energy, we are facing an imminent food crisis.
In addition, we now understand that biofuels are not only the use of land and water, but also very energy-efficient.
Use on a life cycle basis and discharge-
If the energy input is fossil, it will produce
If their expansion needs to change the land,use.
Many biofuels supporters now acknowledge this and are working on it
Breakthroughs in biofuels that require research and development and technology. 3.
Because of the high population-to-land ratio, the development of many developing world will be energy intensive.
If people move from rural areas to cities, most of the buildings will be high-rise buildings to avoid slums.
The buildings use a lot of cement, steel, flat glass and some aluminum.
They will be built on the broad boulevard and will require a lot of cement and steel construction.
The energy intensity of these metals/materials is one order of magnitude higher than most other manufactured products.
In 2006 alone, China produced 48% of the world's cement and 49% of the world's flat glass;
35% of the world's steel;
And 28% of the world's aluminum.
What is happening in China will spread to the Far East, the South and the rest of the South --east Asia.
Unless R & D can be supplied relatively-
Competitive carbon emissions
On a very large scale, global emissions will continue to rise no matter what the "West" does.
In other words, the problem is far greater than the problem of commercializing and deploying current technologies.
Chris Green of McGill Universitythespacereview.
Com/article/355/1 only talks about the 20TWe system, there is no reason to stop there.
However, once the lunar power system is in progress, we will also be able to start moving energy
Use activities such as mining and heavy-duty manufacturing to further help solve the problem of the whole "human beings on Earth", not just energy issues
Part of the climate.
Good column, Andy.
You provide a clear
The world faces enormous challenges in meeting the growing demand for energy.
Even without considering AGW, it is difficult to satisfy this appetite, and it is difficult to continue to improve living standards around the world.
AGW should not be used as a reason for severe suppressionneeded fossil-
Instead, nuclear energy and other clean technologies are encouraged to be adopted quickly.
I believe that high energy prices will cost alternative technologies.
Competition and speed they adopt.
The government should focus on basic research.
The policy part is not difficult: we need all kinds of energy to meet the growing needs of the world, while making an orderly transition to sustainable and eco-friendly technologies.
Anyone?
100 GW of steady-state power available from existing oil and gas drilling technologies.
Resources seem to be well distributed among people under 48 (
Rich geothermal resources in Alaska and Hawaii).
Take a look at my blog post on today's climate Atlas:/Environmental Defense blog.
Given this potential, it seems that the project is seriously underfunded, which supports Andy's view here.
Here is a press release link from MIT on egs potential research. . . /Web. mit.
Edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.
HtmlANDY REVKIN received by email on Sunday night: Andy, overall, I have to say that I have a little more knowledge of Joe Roma's position on this issue.
Of course, further research and development will reduce costs and even provide some breakthroughs. (
For example, in my group at NREL, we continue to look for practical ways to improve optical efficiency and reduce heat loss from the solar collector in the trough. )
However, we have mastered all the energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies we need to achieve a huge carbon reduction, and we have no longer waited for the luxury of deploying the technologies we have or waiting for better technologies.
Fortunately, the relative cost of renewable energy technologies today is quite reasonable. In particular, if there is a factor in fossil fuel subsidies, if we price carbon commensurate with the cost of environmental damage. (
See University of Maryland's recent report on the cost of climate change in the United StatesS.
And, of course, Stern's comments. )
We know from experience
Scale deployment will generate significant economies of scale and cost reductions related to the learning curve.
In addition, at the same time
Massive deployment of efficiency will save billions of dollars.
In particular, solar and wind energy are huge resources that can be used fairly quickly in light of the urgency of the climate change crisis.
Many utility studies have shown that wind energy can provide more than 20% of the energy at half the price per kWh, with moderate integration costs to ensure overall schedulability.
The wind has been well supplemented by solar energy and low
Cost of hot storage.
Add distributed battery storage in plug form
Long-time Smart Grid in hybrid electric vehicles
In the future, you will have a clean, solid power grid.
We can achieve massive carbon reductions in the United States. S.
Using today's technology is the focus of ASES's research on climate change (at //www. ases.
Climate change).
The situation has indeed gotten worse since the study was published.
Jim Hansen and others were submitted in their latest scientific paper.
We must reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to less than 350.
Known as "slow feedback", such as the change in the ice sheet's echo rate is much faster than expected.
IGCC with carbon capture and storage and new nuclear power plants may be launched in the next decade or so to the extent necessary to improve efficiency and renewable energy deployment.
Unfortunately, while China is building many new coal-fired power plants, they are also deploying renewable energy on a large scale.
As China's largest consumer goods customer, once we show that we are serious about reducing our carbon emissions, we will be able to join forces with the EU to demand that our products be manufactured in a way that does not pollute our atmosphere.
I certainly don't think the huge changes needed for the world's energy infrastructure will be easy.
Yes, the obstacles are social and political and (
Even)technological.
This is indeed a huge challenge.
But winning World War II is also a huge challenge in many ways.
Just like the challenges we face, I think the only reason we can face them is because we have to do so.
Dear Dr. Kuchi. D. , P. E.
Chief engineer/group manager for building and thermal systems. National Laboratory of renewable energy.
Andy revkin received CO 80401 gold via email on Sunday night: Andy, have you ever slept? ! :-)
My point is that you two look at this issue from a different perspective.
Romm felt the urgency of the problem, saw the existence of the solution, and wondered why people did not choose to implement them as soon as they needed.
It seems necessary to enforce it in the form of regulations or carbon emission caps or taxes.
We can go that way-in fact, I'm pretty sure we should go that way as well, as long as it's a little bit delayed, but I don't think that's enough either.
For example, we have learned from McKinsey's report Romm that people can now take some actions that will generate net economic benefits for them and reduce carbon emissions, but they did not (
Or at least not to the extent they can). Why not?
What strength does it take to get them to do things that are directly economic benefits and further steps that will not be done?
Before the most serious problems come to us, I cannot see the extent to which our democracy or other democracy is necessary in this regard.
Human beings are willful and capricious, often irrational in action.
That's how we are.
This winter, I will most likely save myself a lot of money and reduce the carbon footprint of our home by adding insulation to the attic;
Instead, I lined up for 2 hours for my new iPhone on Friday (
Cool though :-).
Maybe I will keep warm in the future, but we will definitely be attracted by shiny new things.
This is one of the things R & D can bring to us-new products and ideas can change the mindset in a way that regulations can't change at all.
Toyota Prius has largely won a large number of followers relative to other hybrid competitors, mainly because of its unique look, not because of its price, which was certainly insignificant at the time
The benefits are clearer now, which makes our Prius boss look more and more smuggled).
We hope that energy production technologies can make coal-fired power plants and coal mines look more old and outdated, so that no developed or developing country can proudly build another country, and therefore, even energy companies will close existing factories with a sense of relief rather than regret.
The cost is part of it-a coal plant can be ugly, but if it saves hundreds of millions of dollars on alternatives, then the money is very tempting for anyone.
Therefore, the costs of alternatives and efficiency measures need to be broadly competitive, especially when you consider the needs of developing countries that are unlikely to agree or enforce regulatory measures.
But the other part of it is the existence of some kind of ability, at least in people's minds, which is unmatched by other choices.
In some areas, wind energy may compete fiercely with coal, except that it cannot provide more than 20% of the capacity of the grid, except that it has no cost.
Effective storage solution, in addition to the fact that it needs to build new underutilized transmission capabilities, other than the fact that some people think windmills are ugly or kill birds, etc . . . . . . But also figure out how to get rid of the "exceptions" that still make coal look viable ".
R & D that brings new product solutions-maybe a combination of different energy options, maybe improved storage, maybe shiny new (Superconductive! )
Of course, the cost of transmission lines is also high.
Competition-is actually a transition without the need to use undemocratic force.
But this demand for R & D is certainly not any reason to delay taking action that we can now take reasonably.
The best universities in America should be convinced
If nothing else, their own research
10% per chip to create an AmericanS. -
Leading a consortium of energy R & D collapse projects, politicians are hesitant.
10% is modest. for example, Harvard and Yale earned less than six months last year --
Both companies have tens of billions of dollars in donations.
The resulting fund may be a supplement to Google.
The Gates Foundation and other sources may be close to the $30 billion figure mentioned above by Nathan Lewis, if not all.
The biggest benefit is that, as an independent beginning, it does not require the cooperation of the government (
Or an Exxon executive.
If there's a difference, Mobil.
Although the resulting patents and technologies may satisfy the American people.
Of course, the poster above is right.
We must have a major government commitment to energy research and development in this country, fulfilled by our best scientific minds from various disciplines.
We need innovation, cost-effectiveness and scale in energy transformation.
This does not conflict with private venture capital research: positive results may come from any one source and will be shared.
At the same time, energy research and development funded by this country's government is decreasing, and we can't blame this on Bush/Cheney: this demand is obvious in the Clinton administration, and the Democrats currently have a congressional majority.
Andy pointed out that the challenge is not technology, but politics.
Look at the whereabouts of recent research and development funds: "clean coal" and "biofuels", the reasons for these two losses, but there are reasons for strong industry support.
The difference between our government and influential companies
Especially the sunset.
It has been blurred, especially in administrative bureaucracy.
Facts, even basic long-term practices, have a weak power base in Washington.
Every day, 15 million people listen to Rush limgh's comments on our energy needs.
Many of the audience voted.
Smart and thoughtful people like Lewis and Green let some influential people hear their voices, but not enough.
Even on Dot Earth, we have people like Kim whose views are in line with those of Limbaugh, who weigh on serious scientific issues and try to make some mistakes.
Even the new energy tax for kickbacks, which is politically suicidal, will become a topic for far-right talk radio and Fox once raised.
If Obama is the one who made these suggestions after his election, it would make Hillary's health care issue look pointless in 1993, and his power would be weakened.
Cap and trade don't work in Europe: they build coal plants there again.
We need to get coal and oil companies to pay fair taxes and get out of the government trough once and for all.
This is popular among the public, and not so popular with politicians who fear fossil fuel lobby groups.
If the idea is successful, research and development will have sufficient funds after evaluating and listing the current subsidies.
New energy technologies will have the opportunity to compete as their bloated competitors will return to the real world of real competition.
Let's see if the next group of politicians have the courage and wisdom to make progress in this regard.
It would be great to surprise. Kim (2:05 pm)
Completely correct.
We 've been talking about energy conservation and alternative energy for decades, but what really highlights these issues is just high gas prices.
Sadly, if OPEC suddenly turns on its oil leader, oil prices will fall and the current energy problem will be the past. (Prius? Solar energy? What are they? )
If you don't know, 11 is mine . . . . . . Regarding what we can do together, an interesting article by gar Lipow published today at Grist provides a spreadsheet with some data, the data will be updated based on feedback from people like us --grist.
Org/story/2008/7/12/1798/98255 in a variety of worksheets it outlines options for a positive and gentler approach to carbon emissions
Free, assuming no or medium-level technical improvements.
I think more work can be done in this regard, but it seems to be a good start.
Libo seems interested in responding to any comments on numbers or concepts.
What is disturbing about this ongoing debate is that anyone who suggests that additional R & D may be helpful in dealing with mitigation challenges has been criticized by Joe Romm for colluding with people who do not want to take action.
Romm's "delayers" list, which started with George Bush and James inhoffey, now apparently includes Tom Wigley, Chris Green, and Andy Refkin.
However, one can make a compelling argument that the best way to not act is to adopt the approach that has dominated climate policy over the past 20 years --
A binding global agreement on goals and timelines.
Unfortunately, this method failed.
And will continue to fail.
Perhaps the real "delayers" are those who blindly pursue a method that cannot succeed.
New technologies are important because they can open the door to social and political innovation.
The politics of the ozone issue has changed due to the presence of CFC alternatives and the political success of acid rain capsand-
The cost certainty cap on scrubbing technology has contributed to trade.
With regard to climate change, arguing about whether existing technology is up to work is like arguing about whether there is enough money in the world to get everyone out of poverty.
Of course, academic cases can be presented, but in both cases, the real challenges are politics, society, culture, system, etc.
There is a reason why China's emissions are growing at a rate of close to 10% per year, why India has lifted its emissions cap, and why Germany and Italy are eager to build new coal-fired power plants --
Although all these countries are anxious to deploy alternative technologies as soon as possible.
I hope I can share the optimism of those who think changing the global energy system will be cheap (
Maybe even)
The background of the debate has not changed dramatically.
History has shown that technological innovation provides a way to create this kind of environmental change.
From this point of view, it is difficult to understand not only the continued opposition to large-scale investments in energy technology research and development, but also the incitement of those who do call for such investments.
Is it all together?
It seems that the whole country cares only about its "special interests ".
That's how we get on the moon, overcome the depression of the 30 th century, and maintain national unity in World War II.
To get people back on track, we almost need the financial collapse of the country.
The past few years have been about greed, ourselves, and all the things we desire.
This is not my "Jerry magire" declaration, but there are some very real and serious problems facing our country.
We can get rid of them, but when this group needs this and that group needs this, we can't get rid of them.
It's time to do the best for America.
Select the best and most qualified people for this job, not because we need a representative of a certain group.
We do this to ourselves, and we can get ourselves out of it.
Let's be the country I know we can be.
Strong, brave and loving.
Please also note: former Rand energy expert Robert Hirsch recently posted interesting and detailed information on the geopolitics of declining oil supply on the Allianz Knowledge website:/knowledge. allianz.
Safety _ safety/energy _ safety/hirsch_peak _ oil _ production.
The immediate dilemma described by Hirsch is: "The use and liquefaction of coal is a technology available, but under current conditions, the manufacture of liquids from coal releases a large amount of carbon dioxide.
So people say, no, we don't do these things because of carbon dioxide.
They do not admit that if we do not act on the coming decline in oil, the population will suffer more than most people can imagine.
"It would be good to hear a contrasting view.
Does "suffering" mean no SUV in this case?
Or does it mean severe economic turmoil?
If there is only a smart and rational president in our office, we can achieve so much.
All this is sad.
Andy, thank you for your comments on the forum.
I suggest improving energy efficiency, as demonstrated by my 1996 US patents (5,537,823)-
Efficient energy conversion system)
This will generally reverse the energy flow associated with the grid and provide a thermal efficiency of about 50% for the hybrid vehicle transmission system (
10 hp @ 45 miles/hour provides about 112 miles/hour for small cars).
Energy is defined as the ability to do work ,(
Provide mechanical power)
By making more efficient use of energy resources, we can provide energy innovation.
In developed countries it is difficult to achieve a minimal fossil-fuel society, but it is absolutely possible over time.
The problem is that the AGW crowd wants to play the American company and George Bush blame the game and participate in the redistribution policy instead of going through the task at hand.
Even American companies are looking for a competitive advantage. T.
Brian Pickens touted the wind and said we couldn't drill it out to solve the problem.
But drilling is definitely needed to transition to almost non-fossil-fuel energy.
This will certainly improve the trade balance.
If you have veto power over a nuclear power plant proposed to be built a mile from home, will you veto the plant or allow it to be built?
One of my biggest complaints about some people in the green movement is that the main incentive will be economic pain and pain, which will force us to propose a non-
Fossil fuel solutions
This underestimates the ability of an economy to be dynamic and flexible enough to develop and nurture the technologies needed to achieve the goals that most of us can agree on.
Do everything well and don't be afraid of falling energy prices.
By the way, the president took a step in the right direction.
You read it here first-I'm with Kim.
Tax what you think is safe. (
This is a debate we had before)
What you think is damaging is tax carbon (
I will start with Nic Sterne for $100 per ton.
Do not specify, authorize or subsidize.
You can correct some very famous general market failures in terms of consumer demand (
Separate arguments about cars, household appliances, household insulation, etc).
You can enforce border pricing so that carbon elsewhere in the world is not exempt from taxes on fuel or products, putting those who are under a carbon dioxide tax regime at an unfair advantage. Why this?
Because I have tried Micro
Manage Energy with the political style of America's winner selection (aka favorites)
There has been little progress since 1960, as the market itself has not responded to the losers declared winners. I developed it.
But unless oil is also taxed, there is no need for dollars to save oil.
Unless a carbon tax is imposed, it will not cost US dollars to save carbon.
I have no mortgage. e.
You tax carbon and then spend it on low-carbon products.
Refund the carbon $ of the general tax cut.
After using the oil tax to take over the strategic oil reserves, refund the oil tax.
Wouldn't it make anyone feel ridiculous that taxpayers, not oil users, pay for the SPR? (
Oil users pay taxes in Sweden.
I used to do the oil balance for every county in Sweden and found out where one of the secret reserves is and how many.
All you want is a stomachache.
But since the beginning of the 19 th century, what is the huge power to reshape energy supply and demand?
Energy prices-
Technical trends that reduce energy use/output in manufacturing CAFE standards, home appliance standards, National Thermal insulation standards are rarely voluntary projects like Energy Star.
Surprisingly, there are some spectacular R & D projects. .
The development of fluorescent lamp electronic ballasts led by Art Rosenfield of LBL at that time, fighting all the way to the lighting industry is a good example.
Some practical leading projects help scale technologies such as compact fluorescent bulbs.
I know we won in 1988, when I saw the CFL in every floor hall of the Interstate Hotel Borabadur Jakarta to save staff the Labor to change bulbs and reduce the heat
I have developed a equipment efficiency project at the World Bank, and the results of the project are in the energy policy of 1989). To summarize (
Indeed, the main overflow discussed in July 10)
Rather than tax goods exclusively.
Recognition of the limited role of traditional designation, authorization, preferential treatment and the most important means of subsidy.
When you're as deep as we are, digging faster won't let you out.
Sherperah, Roger Pilke-
Some well-worded statements are always ready: "However, one can come up with a compelling reason that the best way to not act is to take the approach that has dominated climate policy for the past 20 years, seek a binding global agreement on goals and timelines.
Unfortunately, this method failed and will continue to fail.
Perhaps the real "procrastinate" is the ones who blindly pursue ways of not being able to succeed.
"In fact, I don't know how many people can make this case notable.
"However, one may come up with a compelling reason that the best way to not take action is to take the approach that has dominated national climate policy for the past 20 years, countries are repeatedly urged to increase R & D funds against any practical actions to reduce emissions.
"I support a significant increase in energy research and development over a longer period of time than most people --
I continue to do so.
However, people like you who use technology pessimism and call for R & D as a criticism of efforts to set binding goals and timelines --
Well, you sound exactly the same as the "real" delayers. Robert Verdi (22)
The president's step in the right direction, are you referring to his joke about the biggest polluters saying goodbye?
Or did he board a plane and leave Japan?
No one is afraid of lower energy prices . . . . . . Unless energy prices are lowered by passing environmental costs on to others or in the future.
If we can't agree on this step, then we can't make the market the main force to solve the problem. Since the market does not allocate costs to "free" things such as air, water and carbon dioxide emissions, it is impossible to identify the problems to be solved.
What is the economic pain?
Is it a tax on carbon dioxide?
If carbon dioxide is not taxed and there are people in developing countries, why is there no economic pain (
Less responsive than Americans)
Paying for the economic and human costs of climate change?
If some people in India die from air pollution-related diseases because India insists on using cheap energy, then there is no need to clean up coal burning.
About 2050 people, the population is expected to exceed 9 billion.
These billions of people will be looking for food, water and other resources on a planet where humans are already shaping the climate and life Network.
Dot Earth was founded in October 2007 by Andrew Revkin--
With the support of the John Simon Guggenheim scholarship ---
Explore ways to balance human needs with the limits of the Earth.
On 2010, when Revkin left The Times staff to teach exchange courses at Pace University, the blog turned to the Times view.
In 2011, he won the National Academy of Sciences Communication Award for Dot Earth, and Time magazine named him one of the top 25 blogs in 2013.
Revkin ended his blog on December 2016, leaving pace to return to full-
As a senior journalist on climate and related issues, time news reports for the public
Newsroom of interest to ProPublica.
Click here to view the narrative slide of the roots of the Revkin News tour.
After 2,810 posts in 9 years, a blog on a limited planet seeking a sustainable path for humanity is coming to an end.
As protests intensified in India, the Obama administration blocked a pipeline in North Dakota.
The biggest forest fire problem in California is not to let the forest burn down.
Read more . . . . . . After the death of a young and innovative field researcher, he used scat-
Sniffing Dogs helps understand how polar bears change their diet.
TED's new science curator, David Biello, explains why he saw hints of hope in the human world that is forming on Earth.