The Occupy movement shook things up for a few weeks when it stormed into New York City and a few other metropolises in 2011. Then it faded away.
There appears to be an Occupy-style uprising on climate change at the moment, with the largest march ever on the issue hitting Manhattan on the eve of a big United Nations confab on the topic and residual protesters continuing to demonstrate. But hope for a meaningful reduction in global carbon emissions is premature, because most of the world is thoroughly addicted to fossil fuels. It could take hundreds of marches over decades to change that.
Americans say they’re willing to pay more for energy if it will help cool a warming planet, according to a recent Bloomberg poll. They’re likely to get their wish. President Obama plans to enact new rules that would reduce carbon emissions from power plants — in the process, adding perhaps 10% to the average utility bill. That may be money well spent. New analysis by Standard & Poor’s argues the cost of doing nothing on climate change could be as high as 5% of GDP by 2100, as coastal cities become inundated by rising seas, agriculture must adapt to hotter temperatures and we grapple with many unknowns.
[ See related slideshow: Flood Wall Street Protesters Try to Shut Down NYSE ]
Even so, Obama’s carbon plan is mere dabbling compared with the apparent extent of the problem, and most non-carbon forms of energy are either very expensive or inconvenient or both. There may still be advantages to spending more on renewable energy, since it has environmental benefits. But cost alone gives fossil fuels a powerful advantage. Here’s how different sources of energy stack up, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency:
Conventional coal: Relatively cheap and abundant, but a main contributor to greenhouse gases associated with global warming. So-called clean coal can be very expensive because of the processes used to reduce carbon emissions.
Oil: Used mostly as a transport fuel, it’s abundant and convenient to use, since the world’s fueling infrastructure is built around gasoline and diesel. Prices can be volatile, but are low compared with building new infrastructure for other types of energy.
Natural gas: Typically cheaper and cleaner than coal, though still a fossil fuel that produces some carbon. The United States is lucky to have vast deposits of natural gas.
Nuclear: Nearly as cheap as coal and much cleaner, but with obvious concerns about safety.
Wind: Land-based wind power is slightly cheaper than coal, while wind power generated offshore is more expensive. Wind farms typically require large open spaces and are very loud, making them unlikely to spring up near population centers.
Solar: Considerably more expensive than coal and dependent on abundant sunshine.
Biomass: Slightly more expensive than coal, and some crop varieties contribute to environmental problems such as deforestation.
Hydropower: Cheaper than coal but only available in certain areas, plus the dams required to generate power can wreck the surrounding habitat.
Technology breakthroughs and broader adoption of some carbon alternatives could help bring prices down and improve the outlook for alternatives. But breakthroughs have been slow to materialize and the rapid gains we associate with the ever-falling costs of microprocessors don't necessarily apply to energy. Electric cars, for instance, are an exciting new segment of the industry, thanks in part to upstart Tesla (TSLA). Yet the technology remains far too expensive for most buyers, and there are other drawbacks, such as limited range. Electric cars still account for far less than 1% of the U.S. market, and some analysts doubt they’ll ever catch on.
Meanwhile, there’s another big barrier to lowering carbon emissions — China, India and other developing nations. China is an industrial powerhouse with a national policy of fostering rapid economic growth. India isn’t far behind. In both countries, cheap energy is a pillar of economic strategy, which is why demand for coal — the dirtiest of all fossil fuels — is surging in Asia. Energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie predicts that coal will surpass oil by 2020 as the world’s most abundant fuel source, largely because of demand in China and India. From a climate perspective, that’s regression, not progress. Neither country, incidentally, is sending a top-level official to this week’s U.N. climate talks, which is generally interpreted as a sign of indifference.
The story is better elsewhere. A few nations, such as Germany and Japan, have significantly raised the portion of energy generated by renewable sources. And some businesses are starting to decide it’s worth investing in renewable power, even if the upfront cost might be higher. Still, it’s a luxury of rich nations to choose costlier energy over cheaper forms, and much of the world isn’t rich yet. Maybe the climate marchers should plan their next event in Beijing.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
