> Surely better to start investing in solutions now …

To me, the phrase “investing in solutions” implies putting money into R&D so that viable solutions will be available in the future. If a firm announced they were investing in new manufacturing solutions, I wouldn’t infer from that that they were intending to destroy every one of their existing factories. To call Gore’s demand “investing in solutions” is to make it sound a hell of a lot more reasonable and less destructively revolutionary than it actually is.

I had not heard of your book, but now I have. I think I might buy a copy.

Three points,
1) The alternative to shovelling bota loads of cash at the banks was a much bigger crash, costing more than the bail out.
2) Most of the cash being spent will be got back (ok probably not in Northen Rock).
3) With the banks, the time frame was short. Even if clean energy were half the cost of fossil fuels, ten years is far to short. Currently, for example, there is a two year waiting list for wind turbines.

The energy problem is not so very different: sure we don’t know the timing, but we all know it’s coming. It’s no black swan. Surely better to start investing in solutions now rather than relying on DocBud’s rosy view of a future where fossil fuels are both plentiful and can be burned without consequence.

Virtually all of the climate change problems can be solved by making us better off. Look at it from the point of view of the IPCC’s SRES scenarios. as Tim has previously done. The A1FI scenario is basically the ‘no controls on emmisions’ scenario with the emphasis on growth. The B1 secenario is the same but driven by non carbon energies – made possible of course by artificially pumping up the cost of fossil fuels. The GDP per capita in 2100 of developing countries is,under A1FI $66,500 and under B1 is $40,500 (Goklany, 2008).

With these kinds of income levels, nevermind the increased stock of knowledge, your average climate change problem eg. droughts or coastal flooding goes out the window.

Leaving aside determinations of the ’social cost of carbon’, there should arguably be no controls at all on carbon emissions.

why? Okay, in the very long term we’ll run out of all fossil fuels, but that is a long ways off. So for now, cheapest is best. Why should the taxpayer fund renewable energy when fossil fuel energy can be supplied in terms of the market?

Well, as carbon-produced energy is cheaper & more reliable, renewables technology not really happening yet – can we do it later please?

Do people really, I mean really think we’ve only got a ten year window here? Heck, I’m a climate change “believer” but I’m playing the long game.

And why is it incredibly stupid? We’ve got to do it sooner or later. The sooner future growth becomes carbon-free the better. I know Lomborg says there are more pressing problems, but this one is at least achievable.

Tim adds: What’s stupid about it is that he’s not just suggesting that future increases in energy supply should be renewables. Rather, that all energy supply should be renewables in 10 years’ time. That’s simply insane, that we should tear down every coal and gas plant that we currently have. Even if I thought that climate change was an immediate and catastrophic problem (I don’t, I think it’s a long term and chronic one) I wouldn’t be recommending that we go out and destroy trillions upon trillions (of $) of our current infrastructure.

Nor, if anyone bothers to read the thing, does the IPCC report in the SRES.