October 24, 2007
Solving the Energy Problem
Stephen Pacala
Professor of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University
Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the 66th Year
At 10:15 AM at the Friend Center, President Giordmaine called to order the sixth meeting of the 55th year. John Marx precented the invocation. About 210 persons attended. Eugene Haring, taking precisely four minutes, read minutes of the last meeting. Jordan Young introduced his guest Pat Taylor. Two visitors were introduced – Richard Prospero by John Tiebout, and Linda Mead (a future speaker) by Tom Cawley. A minute’s silence was observed for Raymond Cobb, recently deceased, who was the Old Guard’s longest-standing member.
Henry King introduced the speaker, Stephen Pacala, Princeton’s Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. His talk was entitled “Fair and Practical Ways to Solve the Climate and Energy Problem”. Judging from Nassau Club scuttlebutt, the discussion is embittered by those who see Al Gore and the Nobel committee as an opportunity to bash an incompetent, self-serving Republican administration, and those who, like Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation, ridicule the entire idea of global warming, regarding it as a weapon for assassinating Al Gore. Our speaker refused to fall into either of those camps.
He dismissed fairly easily three opinions – that there is no climate problem, that we lack the technology to solve it even if there is a problem, and that solution of the problem would be too expensive. Recognizing that not all the evidence is in (and never will be), he nevertheless claimed that virtually no scientific school exists, nor is there any definitive evidence saying, there is no problem. He did not envisage catastrophic scenes like all our coastal cities being under water because he was certain we would never allow things to go that far, but there were various “monsters behind the door” – unstable icesheets, cessation of the dominant ocean-circulation, wind up to 200 m.p.h. plus, and massive drought south of the Sahara due to fossil-fuel burning. He summed this up by saying the jury on climate change is now in.
As for the argument that we lack the technology to cope, he pointed out that a previous Secretary of Energy, when shown the evidence, stopped his stalling. The speaker divided what would be needed into seven segments to be tackled if we are to cease increasing CO2 emissions over the next fifty years, and he posited that there were fifteen technologies available in the marketplace each capable of coping with at least one-seventh of the need. These include car efficiency, nuclear fission, clean coal, wind turbines, bio-fuel, and halting de-forestation, which is actually in a better state than most people think, and all of which were affordable. He did not think conservation alone would suffice. And procrastination would only make solutions much harder, a proposition he demonstrated in detail
He spent some time on the fourth and flavour-of-the-moment opinion – that we cannot solve the problem because the big emitters won’t play fair. He regarded this as a more sophisticated objection, though specious, and useful to the governments of the two largest emitters, China and the United States, each of whom can foot-drag by playing off the cupidity of the other. He used powerpoint to present a sequence of graphs, each requiring more mental agility than its predecessor, yet having the cumulative effect of giving credibility to his arguments.
He was impressive in countering the present argument of unfairness, in that he proposed an end-run round the problem by concentrating on the individuals who pollute. He focused on individual responsibility, taking a nation’s responsibility as determined by the aggregate of individual usage. To describe this scheme would take more time than we have, but what came across was his conviction that it could be done mathematically by creating a “cumulative emissions curve”. Gradually only the wealthy, whose numbers would grow, would exceed the “personal emissions cap”. Moreover, surprisingly, he said that most of the laws now pending, are in line with his theory and it may very well happen just before or after the next general election.
Seven questions followed and we were in danger of exceeding our time limit. The meeting was adjourned half-a-minute late.
Respectfully submitted,
John Frederick
Henry King introduced the speaker, Stephen Pacala, Princeton’s Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. His talk was entitled “Fair and Practical Ways to Solve the Climate and Energy Problem”. Judging from Nassau Club scuttlebutt, the discussion is embittered by those who see Al Gore and the Nobel committee as an opportunity to bash an incompetent, self-serving Republican administration, and those who, like Alexander Cockburn writing in The Nation, ridicule the entire idea of global warming, regarding it as a weapon for assassinating Al Gore. Our speaker refused to fall into either of those camps.
He dismissed fairly easily three opinions – that there is no climate problem, that we lack the technology to solve it even if there is a problem, and that solution of the problem would be too expensive. Recognizing that not all the evidence is in (and never will be), he nevertheless claimed that virtually no scientific school exists, nor is there any definitive evidence saying, there is no problem. He did not envisage catastrophic scenes like all our coastal cities being under water because he was certain we would never allow things to go that far, but there were various “monsters behind the door” – unstable icesheets, cessation of the dominant ocean-circulation, wind up to 200 m.p.h. plus, and massive drought south of the Sahara due to fossil-fuel burning. He summed this up by saying the jury on climate change is now in.
As for the argument that we lack the technology to cope, he pointed out that a previous Secretary of Energy, when shown the evidence, stopped his stalling. The speaker divided what would be needed into seven segments to be tackled if we are to cease increasing CO2 emissions over the next fifty years, and he posited that there were fifteen technologies available in the marketplace each capable of coping with at least one-seventh of the need. These include car efficiency, nuclear fission, clean coal, wind turbines, bio-fuel, and halting de-forestation, which is actually in a better state than most people think, and all of which were affordable. He did not think conservation alone would suffice. And procrastination would only make solutions much harder, a proposition he demonstrated in detail
He spent some time on the fourth and flavour-of-the-moment opinion – that we cannot solve the problem because the big emitters won’t play fair. He regarded this as a more sophisticated objection, though specious, and useful to the governments of the two largest emitters, China and the United States, each of whom can foot-drag by playing off the cupidity of the other. He used powerpoint to present a sequence of graphs, each requiring more mental agility than its predecessor, yet having the cumulative effect of giving credibility to his arguments.
He was impressive in countering the present argument of unfairness, in that he proposed an end-run round the problem by concentrating on the individuals who pollute. He focused on individual responsibility, taking a nation’s responsibility as determined by the aggregate of individual usage. To describe this scheme would take more time than we have, but what came across was his conviction that it could be done mathematically by creating a “cumulative emissions curve”. Gradually only the wealthy, whose numbers would grow, would exceed the “personal emissions cap”. Moreover, surprisingly, he said that most of the laws now pending, are in line with his theory and it may very well happen just before or after the next general election.
Seven questions followed and we were in danger of exceeding our time limit. The meeting was adjourned half-a-minute late.
Respectfully submitted,
John Frederick