Jeremy's Comments

I don't quite follow the line of argument in this post. How, exactly, is or was Al Gore "wrong"? What was he wrong about? I'm asking not as a Gore supporter (or dissenter) -- I just don't quite get it based on what's written here. What the post seems to be saying is that Gore was wrong to assume that people are rational actors who will do the right thing because it makes rational sense. OK. It seems obviously true that people are not completely rational most of the time, whether concerning energy or climate change or anything else (diet, finances, etc.)

But people's actions aren't dictated completely by irrational emotions. At least some people are capable of thinking and acting rationally some of the time. Case in point: many, many millions of people around the world have come to accept that climate change is a reality and support efforts to curtain carbon emissions. Americans have sadly been slow to get on board, but the story is different throughout Europe and in other places around the world.

So I don't think that appealing to humanity's capacity for rational thought and action makes Gore "wrong." It may pin him as an unrealistically optimistic about the ability of people to do the "right thing" most of the time.

As a fellow journalist, I take issue with the notion that counter-argument "need not have a grain of truth in it." Why not? There are certainly many examples of arguments and counter-arguments that play fast and loose with the facts. But as a rule, a counter argument should be just as solid as any argument.

Finally, I don't think it's the job of journalism to persuade people to do the right thing. An essayist or op/ed writer, yes. But the purpose of journalism is to report facts as accurately as possible and tell stories that inform and educate people. It's never possible to be completely objective, but the best journalists lay out the facts in a clear and compelling way, allowing me to make sense of the world.

Interesting analogy to Apple. Another important factor is that Apple markets its products as the "cool" option, especially compared to stodgier, more utilitarian PCs. (Remember those "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" commercials?). Why are people willing to pay more for a Macbook or iPhone when they could get a similar product for half the price? Partly because Apple makes quality phones and computers. But also largely because Apple's brand is synonymous with cool, innovation, design, etc.

I don't think the solar industry (or any other renewable energy sector) has developed a sales pitch able to convince ordinary people that investing in solar is cool, let alone useful. This is partly because the computer/software business is an entirely different animal than the energy business. Apple puts out a cool, game-changing new device every few years that millions of people can and want to afford without much fuss. The solar industry deals with still relatively expensive, uninspiring-looking panels that make the electricity needed to charge all those cool Apple gizmos. It is possible or even desirable for renewables to be marketed and packaged like computer hardware and software? I don't know.

Hmm ... how about both? First, human psychology. What do you think? And how would the answer be different from the perspective of engineering logic?

I feel exactly the same way. Which is why I'm writing a book about renewable energy, titled "reNEWable: A Reporter's Quest to Make Sense of the Coming Revolution in Alternative Energy." The point of the book is to get past the hype and the headlines to give readers some context and perspective on what renewable energy is and why it matters. I'm writing the book now, and if you're curious you can take a look at some chapter excerpts at renewablebook.com.

I really don't know why Obama hasn't covered the entire White House roof with cutting-edge solar panels and/or installed small-scale wind turbines there. Or made a point of being driven around in an electric car. These would all be symbolic gestures, of course, but what better way to set an example for all Americans when it comes to embracing renewable technologies?

Perhaps he's been too busy with saving the economy and managing two wars.

One interesting thing about concentrating solar power is that it's been around for more than a century. Stirling Energy's SunCatcher looks remarkably similar to solar machines built by French inventor Augustin Mouchot in the 1860s.

For more on this story, see:
http://featured.matternetwork.com/2010/7/catching-the-sun-again.cfm

Interesting. I'm reading the book "Gusher of Lies," by Robert Bryce, which includes a scathing chapter on ethanol. According to Bryce, a 2005 study by researchers at UC Berkeley shows that corn ethanol results in a net energy loss of 29% and that cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass results in a net energy loss of 50%. (I tried to find the study online, without luck). I imagine that Bryce might reply to the study you cite by saying that of course ethanol producers are going to claim a net energy gain, but that a survey of people who make their livings in ethanol is hardly the most objective measure of energy gains or losses.

What do you think?

Politics certainly plays a role in energy matter. It always does, always will. And certainly oil and coal and gas concerns have done everything in their power to encourage policies favorable to their industries. But politics is not the only factor. I think it's also important to recognize that all energy technologies and sources are not equal. Oil and coal have succeeded not only because of favorable policies and strong lobbying efforts. Those substances are energy dense and relatively cheap to produce compared to other energy sources. Ethanol is a good example. For years, beginning back in the early decades of the 20th century, alcohol fuel was at a big disadvantage vis a vis gasoline largely due to a federal tax on alcohol. Proponents predicted that removing the tax would vault alcohol ahead of gasoline as the preferred motor fuel. But once the tax was repealed, that didn't happen, largely because alcohol was still more expensive that gasoline. Since the late 1970s, corn ethanol has received a large federal subsidy, without which it would struggle to compete with gasoline. Even with the subsidy, the amount of ethanol produced and used in the US is dwarfed by how much gasoline we consume. There are many reasons for this, and no doubt politics plays a part. But it's also a matter of cost and capacity.

We should just be aware, as Stephen noted, that the last time a president put solar panels on the roof--Carter in 1979--it did not exactly end well. Carter's move was mainly a publicity stunt meant to jump start his "solar bank" initiative--a proposed $100 million fund to encourage residential and business solar activity. Carter was responding to a substantial buildup of interest in solar energy during the 1970s, spurred by the energy crisis that began in 1973. But, alas, Carter's plans were largely scuttled by the Iran hostage crisis that helped sweep Reagan into office. When the solar panels were taken down in the mid 80s, they became something of a joke, a symbol of Carter's failure alongside his cardigans.

But this isn't to say that Obama shouldn't put solar panels back on the White House. Once again we're in a time of great interest in renewable technologies, and Obama would certainly be doing the solar industry a favor by showcasing the technology on arguably the world's most famous "house." But he's surely aware that there's a flip side to such a gesture, when and if his successor tears them down.

Hi Scott,
I just read your book--great stuff. I've pulled quite a few quotes and info from it for my book--all documented and footnoted, of course.
Jeremy

I'm writing a book about renewable energy for St. Martin's Press, to come out some time in the next 2-3 years. In many ways I'm doing exactly what Pamela call for--traveling around teh country, meeting the behind-the-scenes energy folks to learn who they are, what they do, and why it matters. I just spend a week and a half in Colorado--a renewable energy hotspot--meeting dozens of scientists and engineers and researchers working on all sorts of fascinating and important projects. The people I met and interviewed are not famous. They don't often make headlines or get interviewed on TV, and most of them never will. But they'll be in my book, and they'll help me tell the story of where renewable energy comes from, where it is, and where it's going. You can learn more about my project at renewable.wordpress.com.

I'm not sure I fully understand your comment that "entertainment and art are subjective reflections as complicated or simple as the eyes and ears making the perception." Are you saying that any one opinion is a good as the next, or that there's really no way to judge some movies to be better than others? And you also seem to be saying that it's silly to assign cultural or political significance to a movie like Avatar because it's made as "entertainment." Right?

To some extent I agree on both fronts. On some level, there's no way to prove that one movie (or book or painting or whatever) is better than another. It's largely a matter of opinion. And I'll also allow that it's easy to go overboard in analyzing a movie or making claims for its influence beyond the economic one of making lots of money for the studio that produced it and for movie technology.

But I don't agree that it's pointless to think about what a movie--any movie--is trying to say and being critical about the movie's assumptions and attitudes. First, because there are reasons why some movies last and become classics and other fade into obscurity over time. It's not a random accident that the Mona Lisa has for centuries been cherished as a masterpiece, or that we still marvel at the Sistine Chapel murals. There's something about these works that's timeless.

Anyhow, my point is simply that because Avatar is a movie that takes itself very seriously and purports to be saying something significant about the way we live, it's worth taking the film seriously and judging how successfully, or not, the movie does what it sets out to do. On some fronts, like creating amazing special affects and pushing 3D to new heights, it succeeds amazingly. On others, namely telling a compelling story with even a smidgen of nuance, it's not as successful. To some extent that's my opinion, but I'm basing it on certain criteria that over time people have agreed to use to judge movies and books and art and so on.

Hey Bill,

I did enjoy Avatar as an escapist fantasy. The 3D is cool, the animation is groundbreaking. No doubt. But the story is rote and predictable to the point silliness. The irony is that for all its innovative technical wizardly, "Avatar" is a shockingly unimaginative film in terms of storytelling. The dialogue is lame. The characters are flat and one dimensional.

My larger point is that escapist Hollywood blockbusters are influential not only in terms of how much money they make but also in shaping people's understanding of the world. "Avatar" is clearly a movie that takes itself very seriously. Yes, it's fantastical, but like all serious science fiction, its meant to say something big and important about modern life. So I'm not willing to so easily dismiss it as an innocent escape. James Cameron spent eight years making this movie, thinking through every detail and wrinkle. So I say it deserves careful scrutiny. And when I take a moment to think about what this movie is trying to say, what it's really about, I come to some troubling conclusions about how it reflects an overly simplistic view of environmental issues.

Interesting question. In general I'd agree with Stephen that as long as the work is sound, it shouldn't matter if the workers smoke.

But in the case of solar and other renewable energy industries, maybe there's a case to be made for discouraging smoking among installers, technicians, etc. If I'm right in saying that renewables are still in the process of gaining truly broad acceptance and support among the general public, then little things like solar installers smoking may in fact matter. A big part of selling a homeowner or business on investing in PV panels or a thermal system or whatever is the attraction of the green/clean image and philosophy, right? So even though it shouldn't matter, a salesperson reeking of smoke may be sending a subtle signal to the potential buyer, undermining the concept of solar as a "clean" technology.

Or maybe not. But it's a question worth considering.

Hi Stephen,
I have yet to visit a solar or wind farm, although both are on my travel agenda. And I'm sure I'll have a similar impression.

One thing I meant to say in my post is that there's a tendency among some renewable/clean energy advocates to demonize fossil fuels, especially coal, and characterize renewable energy and non-renewable energy as diametrically opposed. Renewables are good, fossil fuels are evil. Renewables will save the planet, fossil fuels are destroying it. The reality is, of course, more complex, and visiting a coal power plant helps bring that complexity to the foreground. I don't mean to undersell coal's environmental toxicity, but even as we recognize coal's detriments we have to accept the fact that coal is capable of producing energy in ways that wind and sunlight can't simply duplicate. At least not quite yet.

Anyhow, I encourage everyone concerned about energy to visit a coal power plant. It's an eye-opener.