Down to the wire : confronting climate collapse / David - Index of

28 S politics and governance
at no net cost (McKinsey & Company, 2007). A more aggressive
approach would lead to cuts perhaps as high as 50 percent, still at
no net cost. Sharply improved effi ciency and desubsidizing coal,
oil, natural gas, and nuclear would free revenues that could be put
to better use stabilizing the economy and capital markets while
building the foundation for a green economy ( Jones, 2008). In
addition, the auction of permits to release carbon as part of a cap
and trade system would generate ~$200+ billion each year, part of
which could be used to fi nance the transition to an effi cient solar
and wind-powered economy. In short, a major cause of the present
economic crisis is energy waste and ineffi ciency, but by the
same logic radically improving energy effi ciency and deploying
solar and wind technologies can be a major part of the solution
because these are the fastest and least costly solutions for multiple
problems. Said differently, adoption of a robust energy policy is
the fastest and cheapest way to improve the economy, environment,
health, and equity and increase security. It is the keystone
issue, not just another stone in the arch. 19
Standing in the way of that transition, however, is an army
of lobbyists hired by the coal, oil, and nuclear industries. Among
other things, they argue for a “balanced” energy policy, one that
“keeps all options on the table.” Doing so appears to be reasonable
because we have not developed a coherent way to make “apples
to apples” comparisons among various alternatives, including effi -
ciency, distributed solar energy, coal, nuclear power, and biofuels.
Were we to do so, we would insist that choices be made on the
full costs of various options, including:
• The energy required to capture, process, and transport energy
in its various forms,
• Opportunity costs measured as carbon removed per dollar
invested,
• All environmental impacts, including those of future climate
change,