The Apr. 29 conference's focus was better than average: Consider economic, social, and security consequences if governments were to follow some environmentalists' advice, and not produce their countries' energy resources because the climate consequences would be too dire.
Then the moderator for the first panel announced the US Association for Energy Economics' National Capital Area Chapter's rules for covering the event, and matters turned difficult. Speakers' points could be paraphrased, but not for attribution without their permission, he said.
That seemed wholly unacceptable. As time passed, however, it began to look possible that NCAC's different approach might offer a fresh way to report the conference at Johns Hopkins University's School for Advanced International Studies. Doing so in this column would require discipline because of its 440-word limit.
It seemed worth a try. Here are the results:
Energy from fossil fuels provides undeniable benefits. Standards of living and national economies can improve with proper management and reliable deliveries. Developing nations with potential supplies see them as a way to industrialize. History shows there's also great potential for corruption and mismanagement.
Technology is helping reduce environmental impacts as it improves fossil fuel production. It also keeps reducing the price of solar collectors and lithium iron batters.
But it can't solve the problem by itself. The latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change analysis found under its business-as-usual scenario that carbon accumulations continue to grow. Droughts and rising sea levels pose the biggest problems.
Economists will need to calculate the costs and consequences by asking two basic questions: What are the current generation's obligations to its descendants? What are the prices of irreversible climate and environmental change?
Governments will need to take more aggressive steps. Policymakers will need to take the broadest possible view if they expect to succeed.
More voices than usual
They won't if they simply listen to groups that talk loudest. More than environmental organizations and the national business community matter. Others should be recognized because they have different requirements that are equally important.
The US military services, for example, have a unique bottom line. It emphasizes response capability. Forces must have immediate access to fuels so they can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies and enemy actions. They also must consider possible impacts on naval fleets in ports as sea levels rise.
Potential biophysical and socioeconomic consequences also matter. Some parts of the world will feel warming impacts more than others. Existing stresses could be amplified. Droughts in countries near the Equator caused by higher temperatures could offset benefits of longer growing seasons farther north and south.
No technology is absolutely essential. Many will need to be deployed.
