Those with any history on PC know I that while I agree that anthropogenic CO2 can contribute to climate change, I question how significant the effect is relative to other factors and question whether CO2 reduction schemes such as Kyoto will have a meaningful impact on future climate. That said, I am in favor of any CO2 reduction option that can be implemented at low to negative cost. McKinsey has just released a report evaluating the costs of a wide range of CO2 reduction options that I thought might be of interest. See link for full more... http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/mckinsey-study.html Interestingly - and somewhat surprisingly, "car hybridization" occurs at far right of the chart (i.e., most expensive). Although they do say: "This is because hybridization becomes less “carbon cost effective” if the reference (per-hybrid) vehicle is already highly carbon efficient. Greater penetration of biofuels and fuel efficient vehicles reduces the carbon intensity of the fleet. As a result, hybridization would deliver less incremental carbon abatement, and therefore becomes less cost effective as an abatement option."
Thanks Tim! It confirmed my suspicions and it's interesting to see an actual number attached to the low hanging fruit model. While he's made some assumptions and these are projections this is very encouraging. Hell, we could out do the projections fairly easily. I would think that hybrids will have better than 24% market share in 2030. If not, I would have to think that total miles driven is way down or we've switched to EVs for most driving needs. I do think that Kyoto style argreements are the wrong way to go as they lead to cartel game theory situations where the cheaters win. Look at Canada. Their GHG emissions are going through the roof, so Kyoto has failed for them. When at all possible it's better to get industry to see the light (like this article or Armory Lovin's work) because then they're off and running. However, there are situations where relying on the market is not sufficient and gov't policy must provide a framework for making decisions. I think we need both where energy is concerned for many reasons.
I agree - I like Amory and I don't think that there is no role for government. Unfortunately, most such policies seem to implemented on the basis of political considerations, not on the basis of sound economic, environmental, or security reasons. It is a bit depressing.
Would you agree with his fiscal policies? I don't know where AL stands on that sort of thing. Of course, you're a proper conservative so perhaps AL is too. I used to be one of those, but I've moved a little left of center (though I still consider myself a centrist). AL is defo spot on about efficiency and I'm glad that he has the ear of some big players.
I don't know - actually I don't know that much about the guy, but anyone who advocates for efficient use of resources is OK by me. After all, true conservatism should be about "conserving" -- i.e., doing things efficiently (environmentally and economically). I would argue that many present day "conservatives" have largely forgotten that and many "liberals" may have never known it.
Unfortunately that effectively means that you're not in favor of any significant CO2 reduction. The low-cost items in the McKinsey results do not yield much CO2 reduction. The items which give large reductions either cost a lot or are impossible (that is, CCS). Ending global warming is not going to be cheap; the only thing more expensive would be not ending it.
