A Fracking Good Story by Bjørn Lomborg

Project Syndicate.

PRAGUE – Weather conditions around the world this summer have provided ample fodder for the global warming debate. Droughts and heat waves are a harbinger of our future, carbon cuts are needed now more than ever, and yet meaningful policies have not been enacted.

Illustration by Tim Brinton

CommentsBut, beyond this well-trodden battlefield, something amazing has happened: Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA) from the first five months of 2012, this year’s expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14%, from their peak in 2007.

CommentsThe cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45% less carbon per energy unit. The US used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20% from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: in April of this year, coal’s share in power generation plummeted to just 32%, on par with gas.

CommentsAmerica’s rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.

CommentsFor starters, fracking has caused gas prices to drop dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, gas has not been this cheap for the past 35 years, with the price this year 3-5 times lower than it was in the mid-2000’s. And, while a flagging economy may explain a small portion of the drop in US carbon emissions, the EIA emphasizes that the major explanation is natural gas.

CommentsThe reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the US population over the past two decades. Indeed, US carbon emissions have dropped some 20% per capita, and are now at their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower left the White House in 1961.

CommentsDavid Victor, an energy expert at the University of California, San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced US emissions by 400-500 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.

CommentsIt is tempting to believe that renewable energy sources are responsible for emissions reductions, but the numbers clearly say otherwise. Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO2 per year, America’s 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-tenth the amount that natural gas does. Biofuels reduce emissions by only ten Mt, and solar panels by a paltry three Mt.

This flies in the face of conventional thinking, which continues to claim that mandating carbon reductions – through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax – is the only way to combat climate change.

CommentsBut, based on Europe’s experience, such policies are precisely thewrong way to address global warming. Since 1990, the EU has heavily subsidized solar and wind energy at a cost of more than $20 billion annually. Yet its per capitaCO2 emissions have fallen by less than half of the reduction achieved in the US – even in percentage terms, the US is now doing better.

CommentsBecause of broad European skepticism about fracking, there is no gas miracle in the EU, while the abundance of heavily subsidized renewables has caused over-achievement of the CO2 target. Along with the closure of German nuclear power stations, this has led, ironically, to a resurgence of coal.

CommentsWell-meaning US politicians have likewise shown how not to tackle global warming with subsidies and tax breaks. The relatively small reduction in emissions achieved through wind power costs more than $3.3 billion annually, and far smaller reductions from ethanol (biofuels) and solar panels cost at least $8.5 and $3 billion annually.

CommentsEstimates suggest that using carbon taxes to achieve a further 330 Mt CO2 reduction in the EU would cost $250 billion per year. Meanwhile, the fracking bonanza in the US not only delivers a much greater reduction for free, but also creates long-term social benefits through lower energy costs.

CommentsThe amazing truth is that fracking has succeeded where Kyoto and carbon taxes have failed. As shown in a study by the Breakthrough Institute, fracking was built on substantial government investment in technological innovation for three decades.

CommentsClimate economists repeatedly have pointed out that such energy innovation is the most effective climate solution, because it is the surest way to drive the price of future green energy sources below that of fossil fuels. By contrast, subsidizing current, ineffective solar power or ethanol mostly wastes money while benefiting special interests.

CommentsFracking is not a panacea, but it really is by far this decade’s best green-energy option.

Green Domestic Product?

by Bjørn Lomborg.

SANTIAGO – One of the recurrent themes at the United Nations’ spectacularly unsuccessful Rio+20 summit in June was the need to change how we measure wealth. Many argue that we must abandon our “obsession” with Gross Domestic Product and develop a new “green” accounting standard to replace it. In fact, doing so could be a serious mistake.

Illustration by Paul Lachine

CommentsGDP is really just an account of the market value of all goods and services. This sounds like a good indicator of wealth, but, as is frequently pointed out, it includes things that do not make us richer and leaves out things that do.

CommentsFor example, if people are not compensated for the harm done by pollution, its adverse effects will not be included in GDP. If we pay to clean up pollution, this increases GDP, but no wealth has been created. Likewise, there is economic value produced when wastewater is naturally cleaned by wetlands, but no transaction has occurred, so it is not counted in GDP.

CommentsIt is worthwhile to consider these limitations of GDP as a measure of wealth. And it could make sense to produce a better GDP, which adds uncounted benefits, subtracts the costs of externalities, and excludes activities that generate no wealth. Unfortunately, many of the proposed “green” substitutions, however well intentioned, may not address these limitations adequately and could, in fact, produce worse outcomes.

CommentsOne prominent example reported in the run-up to Rio+20 and used to support “greening” GDP centered on the Nakivubo Swamp in Uganda’s capital, Kampala, where wastewater flows from the city toward Lake Victoria. Without the swamp’s purification services, a study showed, Kampala would need a sewage plant costing at least $2 million a year.

CommentsAccording to economist Pavan Sukhdev, the former head of the United Nations’ Green Economy Initiative, the point was simple: “It’s going to cost $2 million per year to do what the swamp was doing for free, and they don’t have that money.” Thus, swayed both by the uncounted benefits from wastewater treatment – estimated at up to $1.75 million a year – and the potential outlay to build a sewage plant, Kampala decided to protect the area. “Economic logic prevailed,” says Sukhdev.

CommentsThe Nakivubo Swamp is an excellent example of the need for careful valuation of the environment. Such information is crucial for making good decisions. For example, if the wetland were to be destroyed to make way for a new district, we know that its benefits would have to be at least $1.75 million higher than the costs.

CommentsBut there is also a significant risk of political misuse of such information. Kampala’s decision-makers decided to protect the area. In other words, they rejected ever considering alternative possibilities for the area.

CommentsGreen campaigners often seek such outcomes, but they are entirely unjustified. The swamp is close to the city center and its industrial center, and there is a land shortage in Kampala. In all likelihood, the net benefits of job creation and economic growth that could result from creating a new district (in place of the swamp) would be dramatically higher than the $1.75 million. There is a reason why few large, rich cities, if any, have undeveloped wetlands in their midst.

CommentsIf green measures are used to shortcut the political process, we can actually end up worse off, because countries will be deprived of jobs, wealth, and welfare, while relatively small environmental benefits will be achieved. The Nakivubo Swamp is not a case of economic logic prevailing, but exactly the opposite – a failure to consider all options and choose the best.

CommentsImagine if our ancestors had made a similar valuation in the past, deciding to protect swampland at all cost. Much of lower Manhattan would still be a swamp, rather than being turned into the powerhouse of New York City, at a huge cost to society.

CommentsIn general, green accounting may end up being more biased than conventional GDP measures. Green GDP does include uncounted losses, so it avoids the problem of overestimating our wealth, but it fails to account for the potentially much larger benefits of innovation.

CommentsFor example, the World Bank claims that in order to be green, we need to take into account that consuming fossil fuels will deprive future generations of those resources. In reality, burning fossil fuels over the past 150 years has enabled us to be free to create and innovate an amazingly richer world of antibiotics, telecommunications, and computers. These will further enrich the future, but are not counted.

CommentsMoreover, as we have burned fossil fuels, we have simultaneously found new resources and discovered new methods, such as horizontal fracturing, which has dramatically increased the availability of natural gas while driving down its cost. All of this leaves future societies amazingly richer – but would be missed in green GDP measures.

In practice, green accounting might easily have led our forefathers not to cut down forests, because this would entail losing a valuable resource. But converting forests to agriculture led to cities and civilization. Innovation and substitution followed, which ultimately produced many more calories and much more wealth.

Most policymakers still focus on GDP, because, while not perfect, it is strongly correlated with highly prized real-world outcomes. A country with higher GDP generally has lower child mortality rates, higher life expectancy, better education, more democracy, less corruption, greater life satisfaction, and often a cleaner environment.

CommentsSo, while green accounting certainly can play a role, we must not allow it to become a roadblock to development.

Wrongheaded in Rio

by Bjørn Lomborg.

COPENHAGEN – Tens of thousands of people will soon gather in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nations Earth Summit. The participants, ranging from weary politicians to enthusiastic campaigners, are supposed to reignite global concern for the environment. Unfortunately, the summit is likely to be a wasted opportunity.

Comments

The UN is showcasing the alluring promise of a “green economy,” focused on tackling global warming. In fact, the summit is striking at the wrong target, neglecting the much greater environmental concerns of the vast majority of the world.

CommentsGlobal warming is by no means our main environmental threat. Even if we assumed – unreasonably – that it caused all deaths from floods, droughts, heat waves, and storms, this total would amount to just 0.06% of all deaths in developing countries. In comparison, 13% of all Third World deaths result from water and air pollution.

CommentsSo, for each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels (such as dried animal dung) indoors, and from breathing polluted air outdoors.

CommentsBy focusing on measures to prevent global warming, the advanced countries might help to prevent many people from dying. That sounds good until you realize that it means that 210 times as many people in poorer countries might die needlessly as a result – because the resources that could have saved them were spent on windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and other rich-world fixations.

CommentsBut of course, poor countries’ tangible pollution problems are not trendy, and they do not engage outspoken campaigners, media, and governments the way that global warming can.

CommentsNowhere are the failed priorities better illustrated than in the UN’s official, colorful “Rio+20” leaflet. Here, the UN helpfully provides a layman’s explanation of the summit, along with examples of its envisioned “green economy” in action. We see scary pictures of dry riverbeds (the result of global warming), along with plenty of pretty solutions like wind turbines and solar panels.

CommentsThe problem is that green energy mostly is still much more expensive, less effective, and more intermittent than the alternatives. Yet, the summit literature claims that it will boost economic growth and eradicate poverty. But seriously, why do well-meaning First Worlders think that the Third World should have energy technologies that are more expensive, feebler, and less reliable than their own?

CommentsWithout a hint of irony, the leaflet is called “The Future We Want.” But, in a world where a billion people go to bed hungry, and where six million die each year from air and water pollution, most of those in the developing world likely have a very different set of priorities for their future.

CommentsThe leaflet cheerfully claims that China’s shift “to a low-carbon growth strategy based on the development of renewable energy sources [has] created jobs, income, and revenue.” In fact, over the past 25 years, China has quadrupled its CO2 emissions. While China does produce about half of the world’s solar panels, 98% are exported to reap generous subsidies from rich-world markets. Only 0.005% of China’s energy comes from solar panels. China’s decades-long economic expansion has lifted 600 million people out of poverty, but the enormous pollution that this has entailed does not fit into Rio+20’s green narrative.

CommentsLikewise, the brochure explains that some farmers in Uganda have embraced organic farming. Unfortunately, Africa is almost entirely organic now – leading to low yields, hunger, and deforestation. Africa needs to boost its yields, and that means enabling farmers to use modern crops, fertilizers, and pesticides. Producing less with more effort might appeal to well-fed First Worlders, but it is literally starving the poor.

CommentsReading further, the leaflet gushes that France has created 90,000 jobs in the green economy. But the stark reality remains hidden: the average cost of each green job is more than $200,000 per year, which French taxpayers patently cannot afford. And economic models show that France has lost as many or more jobs because of the extra costs of the subsidies.

Adding insult to injury, a beautiful photograph shows electric cars finishing the “Zero Emissions Race” in Geneva. Omitted is the fact that most electricity still comes from burning fossil fuels, so the cars are anything but “zero” emissions. And, more importantly, most of our planet’s inhabitants still dream of owning some form of mechanized transport – which is unlikely to be an electric vehicle with a price tag of $50,000 or more.

CommentsIn a world plagued by serious problems caused by air and water pollution, this breezy focus on trendy topics and unrealistic solutions is deeply disturbing. A disconnected global elite is flying to Rio to tell the world’s poor to have a solar panel.

CommentsRather than pandering to advanced countries’ obsessions, Rio+20 could do more good for humanity – and the planet – by focusing on the top environmental problems and their simple solutions.

Gone With the Wind

Bjørn Lomborg.

COPENHAGEN – Efforts to stem global warming have nurtured a strong urge worldwide to deploy renewable energy. As a result, the use of wind turbines has increased ten-fold over the past decade, with wind power often touted as the most cost-effective green opportunity. According to Connie Hedegaard, the European Union’s commissioner for climate action, “People should believe that [wind power] is very, very cheap.”

Illustration by Newsart

In fact, this is a highly problematic claim. While wind energy is cheaper than other, more ineffective renewables, such as solar, tidal, and ethanol, it is nowhere near competitive. If it were, we wouldn’t have to keep spending significant sums to subsidize it.

In the United Kingdom, for example, wind remains significantly more costly than other energy sources. Using the UK Electricity Generation Costs 2010 update and measuring in cost per produced kilowatt-hour, wind is still 20-200% more expensive than the cheapest fossil-fuel options. And even this is a significant underestimate.

As the UK and other developed countries have rushed to build more wind turbines, they have naturally started with the windiest places, leaving poorer sites for later. At the same time, people increasingly protest against the wind farms in their backyards. Local opposition has tripled over the past three years, and local approval rates for new wind farms have sunk to an all-time low.

Most people believe that a few wind turbines can be attractive, but it is an entirely different matter when turbines are scattered across the countryside, or when massive, industrial wind farms extend for miles. Complaints have also increased about enormous new wind turbines’ low-frequency noise.

Given souring public sentiment, most of the future increase in wind turbines is expected to take place offshore, where there is less opposition, but where costs are much higher.

With its “20-20-20” policy, the EU has promised that, by 2020, it will cut its carbon emissions by 20% below 1990 levels, and increase its reliance on renewables by 20%. For the UK, this requires a dramatic increase in wind power, especially offshore.

This will be surprisingly costly. The UK Carbon Trust estimates that the cost of expanding wind turbines to 40 gigawatts, in order to provide 31% of electricity by 2020, could run as high as £75 billion ($120 billion). And the benefits, in terms of tackling global warming, would be measly: a reduction of just 86 megatons of CO2 per year for two decades. In terms of averted rise in temperature, this would be completely insignificant. Using a standard climate model, by 2100, the UK’s huge outlay will have postponed global warming by just over ten days.

Moreover, this estimate is undoubtedly too optimistic. Wind frequently does not blow when we need it. For example, as the BBC reported, the cold weather on December 21, 2010, was typical of a prolonged cold front, with high-pressure areas and little wind. Whereas wind power, on average, supplies 5% of the UK’s electricity, its share fell to just 0.04% that day. With demand understandably peaking, other sources, such as coal and gas, had to fill the gap.

Making up for a 5% shortfall in supply is manageable, but the situation will change dramatically as the UK increases its reliance on wind power to reach the 31% target by 2020. Wind power becomes much more expensive when we factor in the large supplies of power that must be created for backup whenever the wind dies down.

The cheapest backup power by far is provided by open-cycle gas plants, which imply more CO2 emissions. Thus, wind power will ultimately be both costlier and reduce emissions less than officially estimated. (This is also why simple calculations based on costs per kWh are often grossly misleading, helping to make wind and other intermittent renewables appear to be cheaper than they are.)

This has been shown in recent reports by KPMG/Mercados and Civitas, an independent think tank. A new report by University of Edinburgh professor Gordon Hughes for the Global Warming Policy Foundation estimates that 36 GW of new wind power would cost £120 billion for just 23 megatons of CO2 reduction per year. In other words, temperature rises would be postponed by a mere 66 hours by the end of the century.

Contrary to what many think, the cost of both onshore and offshore wind power has not been coming down. On the contrary, it has been going up over the past decade. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged this in its most recent renewable-energy report. Likewise, the UK Energy Research Center laments that wind-power costs have “risen significantly since the mid-2000’s.”

Like the EU, the UK has become enamored with the idea of reducing CO2 through wind technology. But most academic models show that the cheapest way to reduce CO2 by 20% in 2020 would be to switch from coal to cleaner natural gas. The average of the major energy models indicates that, downscaled for the UK, achieving the 20% target would imply a total cost of roughly £95 billion over the coming decade, and £18 billion every year after that. Of course, these figures include reductions in areas other than electricity, as well as higher energy prices’ total cost to the economy.

Nonetheless, the lesson is clear: if the goal is not just to cut CO2 emissions, but also to use renewables to do it, the models show that the cost balloons to £188 billion for this decade and £36 billion every year after 2020. In effect, insisting on wind power means using energy that is far from competitive, does not help to avert climate change, and costs an extra £92 billion for the UK alone.

For any country, this seems like a very poor choice.

Germany’s Sunshine Daydream

Bjørn Lomborg.

2012-02-16

COPENHAGEN – One of the world’s biggest green-energy public-policy experiments is coming to a bitter end in Germany, with important lessons for policymakers elsewhere.

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies – totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University – to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned, and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

There is a fundamental problem with subsidizing inefficient green technology: it is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic (PV) capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”

Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles), about 2.6% of the Sahara Desert.

Unfortunately, Germany – like most of the world – is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.

In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic. When the sun failed to shine last winter, one emergency back-up plan powered up an Austrian oil-fired plant to fill the supply gap.

Indeed, despite the massive investment, solar power accounts for only about 0.3% of Germany’s total energy. This is one of the key reasons why Germans now pay the second-highest price for electricity in the developed world (exceeded only by Denmark, which aims to be the “world wind-energy champion”). Germans pay three times more than their American counterparts.

Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO2 emissions by roughly eight million metric tons – or about 1% – for the next 20 years. When the effects are calculated in a standard climate model, the result is a reduction in average temperature of 0.00005oC (one twenty-thousandth of a degree Celsius, or one ten-thousandth of a degree Fahrenheit). To put it another way: by the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.

Using solar, Germany is paying about $1,000 per ton of CO2 reduced. The current CO2 price in Europe is $8. Germany could have cut 131 times as much CO2 for the same price. Instead, the Germans are wasting more than 99 cents of every euro that they plow into solar panels.

It gets worse: because Germany is part of the European Union Emissions Trading System, the actual effect of extra solar panels in Germany leads to noCO2 reductions, because total emissions are already capped. Instead, the Germans simply allow other parts of the EU to emit more CO2. Germany’s solar panels have only made it cheaper for Portugal or Greece to use coal.

Defenders of Germany’s solar subsidies also claim that they have helped to create “green jobs”. But each job created by green-energy policies costs an average of $175,000 – considerably more than job creation elsewhere in the economy, such as infrastructure or health care. And many “green jobs” are being exported to China, meaning that Europeans subsidize Chinese jobs, with no CO2 reductions.

Germany’s experiment with subsidizing inefficient solar technology has failed. What governments should do instead is to focus first on increasing research and development to make green-energy technology cheaper and more competitive. Production should be ramped up later.

In the meantime, Germans have paid about $130 billion for a climate-change policy that has no impact on global warming. They have subsidized Chinese jobs and other European countries’ reliance on dirty energy sources. And they have needlessly burdened their economy. As even many German officials would probably attest, governments elsewhere cannot afford to repeat the same mistake.

Bjørn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.

Ecologismo de apariencia. Bjørn Lomborg

Habrá quien diga que es necesario implementar un acuerdo amplio de reducción de emisiones a escala internacional, al estilo del protocolo de Kioto. Pero, como quedó al descubierto tras la farsa de reunión cumbre sobre el cambio climático celebrada en Copenhague en 2009, eso es imposible. Nadie espera que de la cumbre del próximo mes en Durban (Sudáfrica) salga algún acuerdo, y hay buenos motivos para este escepticismo: los Estados Unidos no pudieron poner en práctica un protocolo sobre cambio climático ni siquiera con el Partido Demócrata ocupando la Casa Blanca y con el control del Congreso, y las economías emergentes, con China e India a la cabeza, no están dispuestas a implementar medidas que obstaculicen su crecimiento.

Los políticos daneses (lo mismo que en otros países) aseguran que lograr una economía ecológica no costará nada, y que incluso puede ser un motor de mayor crecimiento. Lamentablemente, no es así. A escala global, existe una clara correlación positiva entre los índices de crecimiento y las emisiones de CO2. Además, casi todas las fuentes de energía limpia son todavía más caras que los combustibles fósiles, incluso cuando en el cálculo se incluyen los costos de la contaminación. No quemamos combustibles fósiles por mero afán de molestar a los ambientalistas, sino porque los combustibles fósiles posibilitaron prácticamente todos los avances materiales logrados por la civilización en los últimos siglos.

En Dinamarca, y en otros países, los políticos hablan como si ahora la realidad fuera otra: según ellos, la transición a una economía ecológica creará millones de nuevos “trabajos ecológicos”. Pero aunque los subsidios a las energías limpias creen más puestos de trabajo en los sectores beneficiados, también desplazarán una cantidad similar de empleos en otros sectores. Es lógico: alguien (los clientes o los contribuyentes) tiene que financiar los subsidios. El precio de la electricidad aumentará, y eso pondrá un freno a la creación de empleo en el sector privado. Si lo que se busca es crear puestos de trabajo, se lograría un crecimiento del empleo más rápido y sostenido aumentando la inversión pública en otras áreas (por ejemplo, en atención de la salud).


Leer completo.

Una luz tenue sobre el calentamiento global. Bjørn Lomborg

Vía Francisco Capella.

Extracto:

Seamos claros: efectivamente necesitamos hacer algo para enfrentar el cambio climático. Pero esto no significa que debamos simplemente recortar todas las emisiones. Quemar combustibles fósiles también tiene beneficios importantes, y deberíamos sopesar esos beneficios en relación con los costos.

Las reducciones reales de las emisiones de carbono recién se producirán cuando exista una tecnología mejor que justifique que individuos y empresas cambien su comportamiento. Las lámparas de bajo consumo y otros progresos nos pueden hacer avanzar algo, pero existen enormes obstáculos tecnológicos que superar antes de que los combustibles fósiles, en general, se vuelvan menos atractivos que las alternativas más verdes.

Aquí es donde muchos responsables de las políticas se equivocan. Los gobiernos hablan demasiado sobre establecer un impuesto a las emisiones de carbono relativamente alto, mientras que le prestan escasa atención a asegurar un incremento significativo en investigación y desarrollo para generar los avances necesarios.

Limitar el acceso a las bombillas “equivocadas” o a los calentadores para exteriores, en definitiva, no es el camino correcto. Sólo solucionaremos el calentamiento global si aseguramos que las tecnologías alternativas son mejores que nuestras opciones actuales. Entonces, la gente de todo el mundo elegirá usarlas.

Leer completo.