In Search of a Green Middle Ground

The author of the book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” made headlines recently when he declared global warming “one of the chief concerns facing the world today.”   Bjorn Lomborg is often viewed as a global warming “denier” so his statement was considered a reversal of his position by some. 

Lomborg gained notoriety for his innovative approach to analyzing the costs and benefits of various investments in solving world problems.   His analysis showed that one dollar spent on fighting malnutrition yields $20 in benefits.  Every dollar spent cutting carbon produces much less than a dollar of reduction in global warming damage.   As a result, cutting carbon was near the bottom of the list of investments. 

Seeking alternatives, in 2009 he convened a group to analyze potential solutions to climate change beyond reducing carbon emissions.   The group found that R&D expenditures in green energy technologies and geo-engineering were the most economically feasible in reducing climate change damage. 

Lomborg explains the difficulty of this rational approach:

The fact that I’ve always asserted the reality of man-made climate change never seemed to make an impression on my critics. What mattered was that I had the temerity to question two key tenets of the received wisdom about global warming: …the idea that we were facing the apocalypse, and …that the only solution was to mandate drastic cuts in carbon emissions.

That’s the way it is with heresy—there is no middle ground. Either you believe global warming is the worst problem mankind has ever faced and that cutting carbon is the only solution, or you are an antiscientific ignoramus who probably thinks the Earth is flat. 

His advice to those seeking a middle ground on climate change: “make green energy so cheap everyone wants it.”

Fuel cell installation at the 100% energy self-sufficient Sierra Nevada Brewery in Chico.

One person who would agree is T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor Corp. and chairman of SunPower Corp. in San Jose.  Using a combination of solar panels and fuel cells, his company is saving $75,000 a year in energy bills with the goal to be 100% energy self-sufficient by 2015.   Rodgers’ motivation is return on investment:

“I’m not into green for its own sake,” he explains. “I’m an engineer looking for solutions, and looking to do what’s best for shareholders. As an investor, I’m also an early adopter.”

 As an investor in green energy projects, Rodgers welcomes Federal subsidies but only for start up costs:

 “They allow alternative energy enterprises to ramp up. But they have to go away. These companies have to be economically independent.” 

The problem with Uncle Sam’s take on venture capitalism is its unwillingness to cut funding of flawed energy business models.  (Think ethanol subsidies.)  It is much easier to laud successful green investments than to unwind poor ones.   This investment inefficiency drives up the cost of green energy.

Supporters of Proposition 23 who believe a carbon tax is an inefficient means to transition to clean energy are often treated like Bjorn Lomborg.   Passing 23 will allow California to adopt his goal to lower clean energy costs through disciplined R&D investments and a streamlined project approval process.

Hopefully California will lead the way by finding the green middle ground in the global warming debate.