Still Another Look At Global Warming by Velimir Lackovic

David Stipp of Fortune has referred to climate change as "the mother of all national security issues(2004)." I see no reason to disagree, since as explained in my new textbook (2007), a peaking ofglobal oil production in the near future could be labeled the father. Moreover, these are related,because when oil becomes less available, the use of coal will be drastically boosted, and amongother Jeffrey Michel (2008) clarifies what this means. I also emphasize that one difference between aclimate meltdown and a peaking of global oil production is that many readers of this contribution arecertain to experience the latter; and although less traumatic than the former - should the formertake place - it will not be the kind of rendezvous that Frank Sinatra described in those marvelloussongs that accompanied our aprs ski revels at Courchevel and St Anton.

Unfortunately, when the topic is (presumptive) anthropogenic (or man made) global warming (AGW),we have a situation where politics and psychology play a role that cannot be ignored, which meansthat we cannot always call on altruism or logic to provide us with optimal guidelines. Increasingnumbers of people are willing to sacrifice a modest amount of money and/or comfort in order to helpkeep the environment in a seemly condition, but when the bad news might originate dozens orhundreds of years in the future, of unknown extent, involving societies whose compositions areunknown, then taxpayers and legislators might hesitate to endorse even small expenditures. AsProfessor John Kay once pointed out, "the burden of caring for all humanity, present and future, isgreater than even the best-intentioned of us can bear."

It has certainly natural environment definition become greater than this humble teacher ofeconomics and finance can shoulder. As a result I would be more than happy if formulating tacticsand strategy that would be useful in the global-warming battle were taken out of my caring hands,and turned over to high ranking governmental officials - bypassing if possible mastodon conferenceswhere the majority of participants lack a relevant technical background, and many would beperplexed by freshman mathematics at Boston Public.

For instance, a majority of the delegatesattending the Kyoto talkathon (in l997) didnot have the slightest intention to do thekind of reading and thinking that isnecessary to comprehend the economicand political implications of globalwarming. I am certain of this, becauseserious people would have insisted uponimmediate action, and under no

circumstances would have welcomed the introduction of a measure as senseless as emissionstrading. What most of those ladies and gentlemen were primarily concerned with was obtaining aticket to the next global warming jamboree. Readers who want an important insight into this issueshould refer to the work of the Carbon Tax Center where the many shortcomings of emissionstrading are examined in some detail.

My side of the coin

My approach to global warming turns on some conclusions I absorbed when studying and teaching

theoretical welfare economics and game theory: the basic issue is rationality! It has to do withwhether voters and concerned politicians - or for that matter non-voters and political hacks - adoptor accept political and economic programs that are consistent with their ambitions in life, love, andthe pursuit of money or power. As I have found out over the past few years, this is asking for a greatdeal. Instead, regardless of beliefs about the authenticity of AWG, persons who enjoy thinking thatthey possess something valuable to contribute to this debate are similar in at least one respect: theyare vulnerable to systematic manipulation and self-delusion.

Too many AGW partisans want the main attack against climate problems to be carried out withrenewables. They inevitably proclaim that nuclear energy is dangerous or relatively expensive, andthey show an unreasonable tolerance toward half-baked schemes like emissions trading. I prefer tobelieve that crank convictions of this nature should be discouraged at the highest scientific andjournalistic levels, since in reality they have been accepted by many politicians and civil servantsonly because of their political currency. For instance, the resort to emissions trading hardly deservesto be called "foolish simplicity", which, as the Nobel Prize physicist Wolfgang Pauli added when hecoined the term," is beyond all help."

Similarly, almost all the climate commentators working the wrong side of the global warming streetare believers in the long run availability of oil and gas. Dr Bjrn Lomborg once stated publicly that oilwill last at least 100 years. Actually, if it were close to a thousand it would make little or nodifference, because the two basic issues here are the geographic distribution of reserves and thepeaking of the world oil output, and peaking could - could, not will - take place during the comingdecade. In other words, it makes sense to disregard the way that resource scarcity is generallytreated in most of the academic economics literature, where despite the algebra readers arepresented with a soap-opera rather than a scientific exposition. It should also be noted that inStipp's article the Pentagon plays the role of attentive observer to the climate warming drama,which suggests to me that any indication that oil production was peaking or about to peak wouldcause the lights to burn later than usual in that impressive structure. This is something we don'twant, because going to war for oil is not a healthy option.

The bottom line

In a recent letter to EnergyBiz Insider, a hard-core member of the denial lobby classified talk aboutAGW as an integral part of the international socialist conspiracy, following which he insinuated thatplacing limits on the emission of greenhouse gases would eventually lead to the placing of limits oneconomic growth. More surprising, some very intelligent alternative energy solutions technicians,engineers, businesspersons and commentators associated with the important forum EnergyPulsehave called AWG a hoax, scam, nonsense, foolishness, etc.

I accept AGW regardless of what it is called, or by whom, because working to suppress greenhousegases is perhaps the best approach to the installation of a new energy economy - which I regard asessential. I was also informed recently that 400 prominent "scientists" have put their names on adocument saying that global warming is hogwash. What we have here is a farce similar to that in theU.S. presidential election in 2004, when a posse of "Swift Boat Captains" was rounded up to questionthe bona fides of Senator John Kerry. The difference between President Bush's sailor supporters andthe above mentioned scientists is that the former were actually captains, though seriously confusedabout the role of Senator Kerry in the war, while a majority of the 'scientists' had as much right tothat designation as citizens who received bogus titles at the masquerade balls held in Paris the nightthe Bastille changed management.

Some AWG sceptics are often cited in the journal Energy and Environment. A few of those ladies and

gentlemen possess impressive academic credentials, although most of them belong in the samecategory as the foot-loose 'boffins' summoned to Dr Lomborg's 'Copenhagen Consensus', and who -before proceeding to the marvellous Tivoli to drink beer - were provided with a bizarre opportunityto challenge the research of important physical scientists. As good luck would have it though, thegradual discrediting of Lomborg and a gallery of know-nothings and wannabees in other parts of theworld means that even if real scientists are wrong about AGW, we could still end up with the energysystem we deserve. The matter of who knows what where this topic is concerned has been examinedby Barry Naughten of the AustralianNational University (2007).

It seems clear that to satisfy future energy requirements and to deal with (actual or hypothetical)AWG, a comprehensive portfolio of 'green' energy sources should be acquired as soon as possible:e.g. solar, wind, optimal amounts of biofuels, and perhaps hydrogen. In addition, according to JimBeyer (2007), a more sophisticated access to and utilization of large amounts of methane isdesirable. My focus though is on nuclear, because as far as I am concerned the solution to thedistasteful energy dilemma that might be just over the horizon, as well as a partial solution to apossible climate calamity, is as follows: a base of reliable and comparatively inexpensive nuclear, ontop of which is a large and variegated slice of renewables. Unfortunately, there would also have tobe another non-nuclear bundle consisting of gas and clean coal, but its size and composition willhave to be discussed by somebody else.

An example might be useful. In the Swedish city of Vxj, greenhouse gas emissions have beenreduced by 30 by 2010. Careful attention to best practices technology and management, to include alarge increase in biofuel consumption, is supposedly the key element in this program. But I suspectthat another pivotal element is the large amount of energy produced in Sweden with e.g. nuclear,even if Vxj may not be a major producer or consumer of this energy source. As suggested above,Nuclear energy (and hydro) provide the base on which other constituents can display a maximumutility! In fact, if the Swedish government were friendlier to the friendly atom, a comparable successmight be possible for the entire country, without stresses on industrial output and employment thatcould burden everybody. The point is that nuclear energy in Sweden has paid its own way! Theflexibility inherent in very large amounts of electricity has meant higher employment, lower costs forenergy intensive industries, less greenhouse gas, etc, and consequently larger tax returns to financethings like health care and education.

Let me emphasize that what we should avoid is an offbeat foundation of biofuels, wind, sun, 'small'hydro, etc, in phase with a nuclear retreat, which is the goofy formula that hypocrites and deadbeatsin Brussels (and elsewhere) obviously favour, and as far as I can tell could mean a drastic fall in thestandard of living for many of us. As former Prime Minister Tony Blair indicated, evenenvironmentalists should logically prefer nuclear to a decline in their disposable incomes. This mightbe one of the reasons why we now hear so much these days about a renewed interest in nuclear-based electricity, and this interest is conspicuous in virtually every corner of the industrial world.

According to Robert Frank (2006) in his important textbook, "if a single agency had the power toenact globally binding environmental legislation, it would be a straightforward, albeit costly matterto reduce the build-up of greenhouse gases. But in our world of sovereign nations, this power doesnot exist."

This conclusion can be adjusted. If a miracle had taken place, and the Kyoto delegates had specifiedthat climate issues should be exclusively dealt with by heads of governments and senior civilservants from the major greenhouse gas emitting countries, meeting several times a year, we mightalready be in possession of optimal environmental legislation, instead of the sub-optimal trivia thatwas eventually cranked out. Moreover, the cost mentioned by Professor Frank might have been quite

tolerable. As a bonus, observers like myself might have the satisfaction of knowing that the self-important climate vigilantes yawning and waffling at assorted talk-shops were denied the luxury offlaunting their tiresome amateurishness in international forums.

An adviser of President Putin once said that emissions trading was about making money, and notsuppressing greenhouse gases. This should never be forgotten, because when that statement wasmade, the efficacy of emission trading was in doubt. This is no longer the case. It is a scam that willbe perpetuated by, among others, the Nordic Electricity Exchange, whose ulterior purpose is tomake fools of the lethargic voters and politicians who have come to believe that countering thingslike peak oil and climate warming with what amounts to a lottery can make their lives sweet andprosperous.

Velimir Lackovic

http://www.energetika.co.yu