Media & news

This month I offer a paper prepared by Jesse Ausubel for the American Electric Power Board in 2019. Jesse is the Director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University in New York City. Jesse and I have been friends since we served together on the EPRI Board in the early 2000s. You are not the smartest person in any room he is in. I have revised Jesse’s paper to fit the space.  

I speak now because in 1977 I was among the first researchers to make a living from the question of how human activities change the climate. Work to which I contributed in the early 1980s was recognized with the 2018 Nobel prize in economics to William Nordhaus. In the past couple of decades my own work has concentrated on adjacent challenges such as how to measure ocean life and the quantities and origins of hydrocarbons. While I have not participated in the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or other campaigns in the climate wars, I have remained informed about them. I offer perspective and proportion, not the latest gossip or squabbles.

These are my ten statements that summarize my understanding on power and climate.

* No one knows what will happen to emissions, how the climate will change, or the consequences.

* The question is risk aversion.

* Biases of stakeholders, whether business executives, environmental activists, or university professors, predictably color risk and environmental assessments.

That said, I can offer my view.

*Density of consumption, rising watts per square meter, drives the energy system.

* Methane and uranium are the way through decarbonization to a hydrogen – electric economy.

* Public policies to lift efficiency have not much affected long-term trends.

* Public policies do strongly affect adaptation to hazards, or “Trailer parks causes tornadoes.”

* Societies are moving indoors and climate-proofing.

* Nevertheless, seek to monitor environmental variability and change, objectively.

* Form a club of China, India, Russia, and the US if you aim to determine the global energy future.

Let me begin with the difference between the known, the unknown and the unknowable. A crucial factor is the level of detail; broad averages may be knowable, but rarely particular outcomes. A similar factor is that the rough hillsides of real life contrast with the smooth surfaces of mathematical models, and a small detail, unknowable, may change the behavior of a system. Moreover, as we complicate our models, they themselves may become unknowable. Researchers and analysts, whether on Wall Street or in natural sciences, tend to blur the distinction and over long periods of time things that were unknowable may become known. But the world and environment of 2050, much less 2080 or 2100, are largely unknowable. Hard limits impede predictability, so let’s be modest.

Many try to improve foresight, but anyone who confidently describes 2050 should also be required to put much of her or his personal wealth on the bet. Reports including the IPCC are prepared by people who risk nothing. Corporate directors take risks that the report writers cleverly avoid.

Future greenhouse gas emissions, the fraction of emissions that will remain in the atmosphere, how climate responds to changes in chemical composition of the atmosphere and other factors, how ice sheets respond, and how Ohio or Texas or Venezuela will adapt, each of these questions offers a range of possibilities that jointly broaden into a spectrum from negligible to catastrophic.

After 40 years of ever more head-scratching about climate, we are left with the broad truth that “Something terrible could happen.” We do not know, and probably cannot know, whether Earth’s climate system operates gradually like a dial or abruptly like a switch. We do not know whether among the very numerous feedbacks the positive or negative will prevail. The alarmists could be right, but so could the skeptics. In assessing the assessments, we come back to what

anthropologists call the cultural bias of the forecaster.

That said, I offer my own view. Over the long run, the spatial density of energy consumption at the level of the end user drives the evolution of the energy system. Think of Earth at night and the most brightly illuminated spots, those with the highest demand or usage in watts per square meter. These spots, basically modern cities, or one might say, data centers, proliferating in China and India, drive the overall system. As the spatial density of energy consumption rises, only electricity and gases satisfy demands for precision, power, cleanliness, reliability, and other attributes. In turn, for generation, the sources that can achieve economies of scale win over the long run, and the firms that can capitalize and manage them. The compact and thus scalable sources of power generation are methane and nuclear.

Finally, what about a firm making and distributing electricity? First, one need not take a side in the falsely polarized climate issue. Maintain some humility about times as distant as 2080; the integrated circuit and the word software were invented only in 1958, 61 years ago. Much we would like to know will stay unknowable.

We do need to assess our own risk aversion and make some investments accordingly. The investments should foster decarbonization via methane and nuclear, and efficiency and reliability. Consider carefully whether to promote pictures of wind turbines and solar roofs as images of the future. Keep climate-proofing and reducing threats from related hazards, many of which people induce or amplify. Give away 5G smart phones and digital assistants if you want to promote electrification. Support and share in the costs of global environmental monitoring systems. Forego the big multilateral blah-blah and support careful

relationships among China, India, Russia, and the US to understand and shape the evolution of the global energy system and our climate. And stay profitable. Red ink is not green.

I hope you have a good month.