Carbon Bubble: Pop vs. Deflate, Doom vs. Hope
Pete Sinclair has a good roundup of some articles about the general topic of a “carbon bubble”, which I highly recommend: Carbon Bubble anyone? “The Scientific Trajectory is Clearly in Conflict”
Just to make sure we’re all on the same virtual page, I asked Google to define bubble:
1. a thin sphere of liquid enclosing air or another gas.
2. used to refer to a good or fortunate situation that is isolated from reality or unlikely to last.
When talking about a carbon bubble in the context of definition 2, that second “or” should definitely be inclusive: Our situation is both isolated from reality and unlikely (to put it mildly) to last. The question is: How long will it last and how quickly will modern civilization divest from carbon. In more basic terms, will the bubble deflate or pop?
Before the climate change activists start forming an angry/celebratory mob, complete with pitchforks, torches, and posters featuring the Koch brothers Photoshopped to look like demons, I want to point out that we’re in a very precarious position regarding divestment. While climate activists might want to fantasize about a neck-snappingly swift divestment that leaves the Kochs and their fellow fossil fuelers bankrupt, that would be a very bad thing for the economy and therefore the welfare of many millions, perhaps billions, of people. The problem, of course, is that the big coal, oil, and natural gas companies are so big, and their stock is so pervasive in investment portfolios, from individuals to pension funds and various other institutional holdings, that a swift divestment would trigger chaos in the economy. A deep recession, by which I mean one much worse than the one caused by the housing bubble bursting, or even a depression, doesn’t help anyone.
Yet, I have to ask: If we de-carbonize at anywhere near the rate that science says we must to avoid Climate Armageddon, then doesn’t that amount to exactly the same kind of too-swift-for-our-own-good economic transition? I can’t see how it could be avoided. Once investors saw that we were (finally!) serious about kicking our carbon habit, we’d be in the mother of all economic tipping points, the modern day equivalent of a bank run. Except the impacts of this one would not be confined to those with deposits in a particular bank; it would cut across the entire economy in the form of lost investments by individuals (including a lot of 401K money), university endowments, pension funds, etc.
So perhaps we should just sit back, stop all this divestment chatter, and let the “free market” do its thing, right? Well, no. People who worship the “free market” (for which, read: econo-unicorn) don’t realize that in the case of climate change and its long time lags, waiting to do something until the market forces our (visible) hand is the absolute worst possible approach. It results in higher costs and more human pain simply because so much of the impact of climate change will happen even after the long-sought-after and fantasized-about day when we finally get serious about reducing our global carbon emissions. Far better would be to look at the situation intelligently and respond (dare I say it) proactively and prevent the worst of those impacts and their human suffering and monetary expense from ever happening.
So where does that leave us? Am I saying that we have no choice but to intentionally pop the carbon bubble, even at the price of causing economic chaos, simply because that would still be a significantly lesser risk to humanity than waiting for the climate impacts to become so painful that we finally start to decarbonize with appropriate zeal? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. And it’s such a serious situation that I support the rapid decarbonization of both our energy supply (mitigation) and our investments (divestment).
I’m convinced that the people at the highest levels of various governments and institutions are looking at exactly this tradeoff, and it scares them more than they’ll ever admit. None of them want to be known in the history books for triggering a worldwide depression, even though they know it’s the best alternative.
It really is this simple: The mess we’ve created is deeply and truly awful. The sooner we act like responsible adults and address reality and ignore the comfortable fantasies we prefer to tell ourselves, the better it will be for us and our kids and everyone to follow.
Related recent articles:
- Putting Stock in Sustainability
- Insurance for Floods May Force Relocations
- Sandy A Warning Rising Seas Threaten Nuclear Plants
- Wal-Mart Now Draws More Solar Power Than 38 U.S. States
- UK universities urged to pull cash from fossil fuel giants
- The National Review’s worst nightmare: Climate activists might win
- Al Gore and David Blood: The Coming Carbon Asset Bubble
 Once more, a medical analogy, this time from personal experience: Some years back I developed a bad infection in one of my fingers. It was spreading and traveling up the afflicted digit and was about to venture forth into my hand. Since over-the-counter medications weren’t doing the trick, I went to a doctor who told me that this was a serious situation and that he had to “squeeze out” the infection and then put me on antibiotics. He said the squeezing part would hurt quite a bit, and while I believed him, I was sure he was overplaying it a bit just so I couldn’t accuse him afterward of not giving me a fair warning. I said do it. He turned his back to me, held my arm tightly under his, and squeezed the infection. I saw stars, had conversations with dead relatives, and generally swore to never, ever doubt a doctor when he or she told me in such serious tones that “something would hurt.” Of course, squeezing out the infection was the right thing to do, and in a week or so it plus the meds had fixed my problem. But during the squeezing process, which I estimate took 7 or 8 months, based on the unpleasantness of the experience, the good doctor was not exactly my favorite human being on the planet. In the case of climate change and decarbonization, no politician wants to be the doctor who causes necessary pain, only to have the benefits accrue to someone else years down the road. So they let the infection continue to spread and make token efforts to slow it with topical ointments that do nothing except give us false hope and waste our ever-so-precious time.
Photo Credit: Carbon Bubble/shutterstock
Other Posts by Lou Grinzo
The Energy Collective
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman