The article by Palmer Owyoung, “How Much Would It Cost to Solve Climate Change? And How Would We Pay for It?”  (published 5/30/23 on Medium) is a useful roundup of the costs barriers issues for renewable energy transition, and while the piece cites helpful resources such as Marc Jacobson’s No Miracle Needed (and the various deep studies that author has undertaken in the past decade), the article strikes me as overly optimistic. Not wrong, mind you, but a bit pollyannish in terms of timetables for transition progress and the barriers to this progress.

I can’t help but wonder if the lack of self-critical assessments within the green community is likely to hinder essential political discourse by undermining the public’s perception of the solutions as over-promising, especially in terms of timetables and in relation to cost per capita.

Take this passage in the article as an example:

Since the price of wind and solar energy are cheaper and more stable than fossil fuels, Jacobson says that the average electric bill would fall 63%. A published study in 2020 by Rewiring America, an energy policy non-profit supports this and says that transitioning to 100% renewables would save the U.S. $321 billion in energy costs alone, or about $2500 per household per year.

I can’t argue against the fundamentals above, but there is no acknowledgement of real politics or even the way utilities operate, nor is there much discussion about the infrastructure nor supply chains that such massive renewable energy buildout requires.

The utilities will need to spend significant sums to improve the grid (I still like the terms “Smart Grid,” but then I may be old-fashioned). The regulated energy utilities won’t spend their own dime, but will, without doubt, ask for rate hikes to cover the capital costs. Yes, the transition to renewable energy will improve energy efficiency and the $2,500 annual household savings may indeed be realized, but we are years away from this aspect of the clean energy boom and between here and there costs will go up. The reality of the costs in replacing and expanding massive infrastructure of grids and developing the still-to-be built lion’s share of green energy production makes this cost rise obvious.

There are other circumstances that make for unavoidable expenses ahead  as we take on this necessary project of fixing the problems brought about by burning things.  There is the shortage in supply capacity, including in mining and refining core material, as the today’s mad rush for access to raw materials by nations and multinational corporations and the resulting market effects show. Labor, too, is in short supply, and especially the type required in the form of technically trained workers, and this is another factor that will increase costs for some time, even assuming that we have the policies and programs in place to support workforce development.

Owyoung does acknowledge the costs and proposes the solution of taxing the extreme wealth in our nation (and extends the projected revenues across all nations), and arguably the money is there.  I’m certainly in favor of taxing extreme wealth and I’m in the habit of reminding my fellow citizens that in the Eisenhower Administration the top income tax rate was 91%. Of course, wealth controls much of our government these days, so there is that challenge.

I’m certainly in favor of taxing extreme wealth and I’m in the habit of reminding my fellow citizens that in the Eisenhower Administration the top income tax rate was 91%.

What the green community needs to do is admit that ameliorating this existential threat will be costly, and point out that not spending on this is that much more expensive. We also need to use the costs as a lever to redress the inherent unfairness of income inequality and get the wealthy to pay their fair share of the costs of dealing with the climate crisis.

By not acknowledging the costs ahead for all of us we surrender the point to opposing forces on the Right, who already gain traction with the “climate change efforts are going to cost you” argument. It is obvious that addressing the climate crisis is going to cost us all. The green community’s argument has to be that we are all in a fight for our survival (if not as a species, perhaps, certainly as culture) and wars exact a cost. We also need to show—on a household level—what those costs are likely to be and how much more extreme is the cost—on a household level—of doing too little.

There have been numerous times when The United States has asked its citizens to take on new costs for future benefits—Social Security perhaps the prime example—and the climate crisis is a threat that can be articulated, as can be the benefits gained from taking effective action.

Don’t promise pennies from heaven, though, because the people we are trying to get involved in climate change will at some point figure out there is no such thing. As a society we are already too confused, so straight talk is an essential requirement for making progress against the climate crisis.