“Arguments have no chance against petrified training; they wear it as little as the waves wear a cliff.”
— A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court
Last month, The Economist magazine conducted a two-week Oxford style online debate over the proposition “that subsidizing renewable energy is a good way to wean the world off fossil fuels.”
“Renewable” in the case is really politically correct renewables: basically wind power, with some solar and a bit of of biofuel/geothermal thrown in.
Matthias Fripp, a research fellow for the Environmental Change Institute and Oxford’s Exeter College, defended the motion, while Robert L. Bradley Jr., founder and CEO of the Institute for Energy Research, argued against. Three comments by Jeremy Carl , Travis Bradford , and Ben Goldsmith each played to the premise that government energy policy had to displace fossil fuels.
The Economist’s James Astill, the magazine’s energy and environmental editor, and a decided climate alarmist/energy transformationist, moderated the discussion.
On November 18, Astill (reluctantly) announced the winner: the opposition (Bradley) with 52% of the vote. Turnout was high, with the total votes more than doubling the pre-debate estimate of 6,000.
An Upset Victory
Readers can follow the to-ing and fro-ing of the debate, while perusing the various comments from people around the world and drawing their own conclusions about the merits of the argument. However, the wording of Astill’s brief announcement, barnacled with non-sequiturs and the audacity of hope, barely disguised his disappointment over the outcome.
The Economist, indeed, has been promoting renewables for many years. The magazine cheered Enron’s ecopork, particularly when this company became a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council.
The Economist has been handwringing over global warming even as the sloganeering shifted to Climate Change. Moderator Astill distilled the magazine’s supercilious editorial stance that a surfeit of CO2 from fossil-fuel dependence is turning the world into a too-hellish place.
It is a tribute to Bradley and discerning voters, and not to mention many perceptive comments (of the 450 in all), that the opposition prevailed if the face of the home bias.
The upset occurred despite:
It was business-as-usual at The Economist, in other words, except that the voters and from-the-floor comments rebelled at both the problem and the solution.
Why the upset? One reason is the growing realization that green energy is really form over substance. Bjørn Lomborg, for example, who has proposed a $250 billion renewable-energy aid program, recently argued:
Many politicians are drawn to photo opportunities and lofty rhetoric about “building a green economy.” Unfortunately, the green-energy policies currently being pursued are not helping the environment or the economy. More likely, they will lead to greater emissions in China, more outsourcing to India, and lower growth rates for the well-intentioned “green” countries.
Although he acknowledged that renewables subsidies themselves represent waste, moderator Astill nonetheless hedged: the waste, he wrote, may stem, “perhaps,” from the subsidies’ inadequacy, implying that higher subsidies—more dollars from the federal treasury—might carry the day.
He reinforced this notion by intoning, in the usual moderator wishy-washy, that renewables “may have a role in a multi-pronged policy”—the same position that Fripp, Rick Perry, the unquenchable Newt Gingrich, and President Obama argue.
This has also been the American Wind Energy Association’s fallback when successfully challenged on wind’s inability to do much about CO2 abatement or to serve as a replacement for fossil fuels. The gist is that “every little bit,” including renewables, “helps.”
This fallacy will be exposed in Part II of this post tomorrow.