Prioritize solutions, rather than problems

I recently listened to a provocative talk given by Economist Bjorn Lomborg at the TED conference (Technology, Entertainment and Design) in Monterey, California. I listened, of course on-line. If you go to their website, www.ted.com, you can listen to a whole host of interesting and mind-bending talks. When it comes to thinking about problems, says Lomborg, we have two problems: one is that we should be thinking about solutions, and the other is that we should be employing economic tools to prioritize the solutions.

Solutions to some of the pressing world problems include big ideas like providing clean drinking water, putting a tax on carbon use, eliminating communicable diseases, and so on. After looking at the top ten world problems and their potential solutions, Lomborg said the best possible solution we should be working on is providing needed micronutrients such as vitamin A, iodine and iron to malnourished children and adults. This could be done on a cost-effective basis, according to the World Bank, and it would have a big impact.

Lomborg, an economist at the Copenhagen Business School, is not popular with a lot of environmentalists. His book, the Skeptical Environmentalist (which I have not read), unleashed a firestorm of controversy. Questions were raised about the statistics used in his analysis, his more optimistic view of environmental progress, and his rejection of the carbon tax and a number of other environmental solutions. I can't weigh in on any of these matters. What I resonate with is the practicality of evaluating the cost-effectiveness of solutions. He does not deny the reality of global warming.

My focus tends to be on world problems with the context of local solutions. Global warming is a world problem that could affect several billion people, and it is a problem in which local and even individual solutions are relevant. All of the potential solutions that might be examined have social, economic and health effects. While renewable energies such as solar and wind (especially in Minnesota) need to be supported and expanded, they are expensive solutions that usually lack local applications. The biggest impact for the smallest expenditure will come from energy conservation. An article in today's Washington Post (subscription required), documents the effectiveness of California's long-term efforts to conserve energy, through regulatory changes, building efficiency standards, more efficient refrigerators, and changing the color of a home's roof.

According to the article: "Today, as an energy consumer, California is more like thrifty Denmark than the rest of the energy-guzzling United States. While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000 -- and that's counting renewable energy sources."

There are plenty of lessons in this story for us in Minnesota. In contrast to California, Minnesota gets a much higher percentage of its energy from cheap coal. Our electric rates are 7.2 cents per killowat hour, compared to 13 cents in California. "Cost drives conservation," according to Chris Cooper of the Network for New Energy Choices. Electric rates are supposed to be much, much higher in Europe, but I have been unable to find any sources documenting this. With our reliance on cheap coal, we have poor incentives for electric energy conservation in Minnesota.

What is the moral of the story I am trying to weave? It is that if you want to be part of the solution to global warming, energy conservation is the most practical, cost-effective thing you can do. Plant trees on the south side of your house, to provide passive cooling in the summer. Carpool, to save transportation costs by as much as 50%. Turn down the thermostat. Buy energy-efficient appliances. Check my other website for 101 other sustainable solutions you can explore.