Views of Two Nobel Laureates on the Mitigation of Anthropogenic Global Warming. (September 25, 2009)

Today Princeton University Economist, New York Times Columnist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, and US Secretary of Energy, Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Chu have a few things to say about "It's Easy Being Green" and "Carbon Capture and Sequestration" respectively. Perhaps David Letterman might invite them to do a double act sometime in the near future.

First, Professor Krugman:

The House [of Representatives] has already passed a fairly strong cap-and-trade climate bill, the Waxman-Markey act, which if it becomes law would eventually lead to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions... [but] the sticking point will be the Senate.

Some of them still claim that there’s no such thing as global warming, or at least that the evidence isn’t yet conclusive. [He then notes that] Pacific Gas and Electric canceled its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in protest over the chamber’s “disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality” of climate change.

He then proceeds to his main point:

As the blog Climate Progress puts it, opponents of climate change legislation “keep raising their estimated cost of the clean energy and global warming pollution reduction programs like some out of control auctioneer".

It’s important, then, to understand that claims of immense economic damage from climate legislation are as bogus, in their own way, as climate-change denial.

First, the evidence suggests that we’re wasting a lot of energy right now. That is, we’re burning large amounts of coal, oil and gas in ways that don’t actually enhance our standard of living — a phenomenon known in the research literature as the “energy-efficiency gap.” The existence of this gap suggests that policies promoting energy conservation could, up to a point, actually make consumers richer.

Second, the best available economic analyses suggest that even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would impose only modest costs on the average family... the effects of Waxman-Markey [bill] in 2020 would cost the average family only $160 a year, or 0.2 percent of income.

By 2050, when the emissions limit would be much tighter, the burden would rise to 1.2 percent of income. But the budget office also predicts that real G.D.P. will be about two-and-a-half times larger in 2050 than it is today, so that G.D.P. per person will rise by about 80 percent. The cost of climate protection would barely make a dent in that growth. And all of this, of course, ignores the benefits of limiting global warming... the campaign against saving the planet rests mainly on lies.

So here’s the bottom line: The claim that climate legislation will kill the economy deserves the same disdain as the claim that global warming is a hoax. The truth about the economics of climate change is that it’s relatively easy being green.

Now for Dr Chu:

Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels have caused the climate to change, and a dramatic reduction of these emissions is essential to reduce the risk of future devastating effects... Coal accounts for roughly 25% of the world energy supply and 40% of the carbon emissions... [therefore] the capture and storage of CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel power plants must be aggressively pursued.

The scale of CCS [carbon capture and sequestration] needed to make a significant dent in worldwide carbon emissions is staggering. Roughly 6 billion metric tons of coal are used each year, producing 18 billion tons of CO₂. In contrast, we now sequester a few million metric tons of CO₂ per year. At geological storage densities of CO₂ (~0.6 kg/m³), underground sequestration will require a storage volume of 30,000 km³/year [i.e. a cube of 31 kilometre edges]. This may be sufficient storage capacity, but more testing is required to demonstrate such capacity and integrity.

We should pursue a range of options for new coal-fired power plants... [and while] Estimates of CCS costs vary considerably, experience with other pollution control technologies such as the scrubbing of SO₂ and NO_x show that costs can be considerably lower than initial estimates.

Public support of CCS R&D is essential, and for this reason, $3.4 billion of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being invested by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in CCS R&D.

The DOE is also supporting the testing of CO₂ sequestration in seven different U.S. geologic formations. To accelerate global dissemination of CCS technology and expertise, international collaborations are essential. The G-8 leaders called for at least 20 CCS projects by 2010.

There are many hurdles to making CCS a reality, but none appear insurmountable... the climate problem compels us to act with fierce urgency.