U.S. greenhouse gas emissions could grow more quickly in the next 50 years than in the previous half-century, and technological change may cause increased emissions rather than control them, according to a new study by an MIT economist and his colleague. ...
Eckaus acknowledged it has become counter-intuitive to question technology's potential to solve the energy problem. But U.S. steelmaking illustrates how fossil fuel consumption can increase along with technological change: Steelmakers' furnaces are now electrical, reducing coal use at the plant. But coal generates some of the electricity that powers the factory furnace, resulting in more CO2 emissions.
"The net savings in this case comes from the use of scrap steel instead of iron ore, not from new furnace technology," Eckaus said.
"There is no 'a priori' reason to think technology has the potential for reducing energy use while meeting the tests of economics. It's politically unappetizing in the U.S., but in Europe, gas costs six dollars a gallon. Make energy more expensive: People will use less of it," Eckaus said.
Yep. There's a *reason* Europeans are generally more conservative with energy, prioritize using it efficiently in public systems, and recycle more. It costs them if they don't. Or at least, it costs the businesses, which means it costs the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment