Catastrophic climate change is the primary preventable threat to the health and well-being of all Americans — as readers of this blog already understand and as pretty much everyone else will figure out in the coming years. Keeping total planetary warming as low as possible — ideally below 2°C, which it turn requires keeping atmospheric concentrations of CO2 below 450 ppm — will become the central organizing principle for all US energy, environmental, economic, and international policy over the next two decades, and will almost certainly remain so for the next two centuries.
While this is a long-term problem, “What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment,” as IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri warned last fall. Beating 450 ppm is certainly not politically possible now, as I have argued in a long ongoing series (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 2: The Solution” for all the links). Indeed, the recent climate debate in the Senate makes it painfully clear that conservatives are prepared to go down with the climate ship (see “Part 6: What the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner bill debate tells us“). The current oil drilling ‘debate’ only underscores how hopeless the climate situation is until progressives occupy the White House (see “Will the GOP’s cynical lies destroy the chance for serious energy and climate policy?”
That said, the next president is almost certainly going to pass some sort of climate legislation establishing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that kicks in around 2015. Again, it won’t be easy to pass a serious bill, but if we had a president who was capable of truly inspiring people and who actually believes in government-led clean energy policies, then I think it will happen.
But — and this is where Biden comes in — even if that legislation is strong enough to put this country on the path towards rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the entire U.S. effort will certainly fall apart if the next president is not able to negotiate a serious international treaty that encompasses all major emitters. Yet it has become increasingly clear in recent months that achieving a serious, binding international treaty is even more politically implausible a task than passing serious, binding domestic legislation. And that is because Russia has emerged as a country that is likely to be every bit as much an obstacle as China and the United States currently are.
The Chinese Challenge
I have written about China extensively already, and no one should underestimate the difficulty of getting them to embrace the necessary reductions in projected emissions and then in absolute emissions [see "The immorality of China's coal policy is breathtaking (literally)" and "China sells its soul for liquid coal" and "The U.S.-China Suicide Pact on Climate"]
But everyone I know who knows the country tells me that the Chinese leaders understand that global warming will be catastrophic for them — even if those leaders mistakenly believe they can “go back and solve climate change after they get rich,” which has been the standard procedure for how Western countries dealt with traditional environmental problems. Sadly, that approach won’t work with climate because the climate system almost certainly has tipping points (see, for instance, “Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return“).
Also, the Chinese are capitalists and are already poised to become the leading producer of both solar PV and wind turbines. And they could run their entire country on baseload solar, if they figure out fast enough that it is the renewable with the biggest potential as a primary power source (see “Concentrated solar thermal power — a core climate solution“) and if they return to their strong energy efficiency policies from decades past (see “China’s immoral energy policy — Part II: The efficient alternative“).
I cling to the view that Chinese could be brought around if their customers all applied enough pressure to them — assuming of course that those customers, including us, are all prepared to take the necessary measures themselves, which is far from obvious (see Hansen’s trip report finds “sobering degree of self-deception” in Germany, UK, Japan).
Russian Recalcitrance
But Russia may be even more problematic, and not just because they are more self-destructively nationalistic than China (or us). Russia does not have a good solar resource. But they do have a lot of coal and oil — and they very much want to stake a claim to the rich oil resources in the Arctic.
Moreover, they may (mistakenly) think global warming is good for them. Since it will create a navigable Arctic and open up “currently inaccessible energy resources,” no less an authority than The Economist has written, “warming is likely to make Russia richer rather than poorer.” Sad — but quite untrue, especially since we are on path to far overshoot any degree of warming that could possibly be beneficial to Russia (see “Is 450 ppm politically possible? Part 0: The alternative is humanity’s self-destruction“).
Perhaps the most important climatic tipping point is in Russia — the Siberian tundra. If that defrosts, then avoiding the equivalent of 1000 ppm atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will be all but impossible. After all the tundra contains more carbon than the atmosphere does, and much of it would likely be released as methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Indeed, we have some evidence that may have already started.
Russia does have a staggering amount of wind potential, but it tends to be in the sparsely populated areas. Russia will need to be convinced that some combination of nuclear, wind, and natural gas can provide all the power it needs — but the even harder task will be convincing them not to use all that oil and coal they have.
Indeed, the great challenge for the world in the next three decades is not so much aggressively deploying low carbon technology — although that would not be easy it would certainly be straightforward both technologically and economically. The great challenge for the world is political — convincing countries (and states) to leave a lot of the cheap fossil fuel resources they have, especially coal, in the ground, and to agree to import low-carbon electricity from other countries (or states).
That will require not merely strong domestic action by the world’s richest country, the one that has admitted by far the most cumulative amount of carbon dioxide. It will also require global leadership by us, the ability to negotiate one-on-one and collectively with every major country in the world. The Democratic team now has onboard someone who not only gets global warming, but who is certainly one of the most qualified people in the country to help lead that effort from the White House, which is where it must be lead from.
And that makes Biden a great Vice Presidential choice for Obama, the nation, and the world — that and the fact that picking him signals the Democrats might finally put up a strong fight in the face of the hailstorm of lies and disinformation they face every four years.
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I point to the advantages of torrified wood:
(1) Made just from forestry wastes alone, easily competes in the developed countries with coal at current prices;
(2) Low quality woody materials can be used; brush clearing projects in the Global South will provide even more material;
(3) Can be co-fired or fired alone in any existing coal reactor;
(4) Encourages planting forests, which need not be monoculture;
(5)Nearly carbon-neutral. Leave the coal in the ground!
This is an excellent point. Sometimes we get so focused on progress in America (or the lack thereof) that we forget they call it global warming for a reason. In the few months we’ve been running 350.org, we’ve gotten immense feedback from other parts of the world that really are looking for U.S. participation in the process.
Bill
2015 is leaving things far too late. To have a good chance at stabilizing around 450 ppm CO2-e or less, industrialised countries will have to reduce their emissions by 25-40% or more by 2020. This figure will be higher for high per-capita emitters like Australia, the United States, Canada, and Japan. Postponing reductions until 2015 will make these reductions unfeasible.
While determining a long-term framework for a cap and trade system will take a while, this does not mean that the US needs to wait until 2015 to introduce a carbon price. The next administration could pass a bill requiring emission reporting starting in the period 2009-2010, and then introduce a carbon price in 2010-2011. In the meantime the administration can work out a long term framework for emission reductions via cap-and-trade, a tax, or both (both would involve the tax providing a price floor, with minimal extra transaction costs, see here).
No country will undermine it economic interests in the name of a hypothetical threat. Even if a country signs onto an agreement you can bet they will pull out as soon as it becomes clear that the harms outweigh the benefits. The only thing that will change this political reality is *real* evidence (not computer models) that show that any warming is a *real* problem for the country in question. Countries that think nothing of invading their neighbor are not likely to care about the fate of people living in areas where problems actually do appear.
I also don’t believe the claim that the Chinese leadership really believes that CO2 is a threat. If you look at the recent climate change report by the government of India you will find they make this claim on p 15:
“No firm link between the documented changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established”
The changes listed include: surface temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, rise in sea level and impacts on Himalayan glaciers.
link: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf
I doubt the Chinese government’s real opinion is any different. And even if it was it will likely use negotiations a way to extort massive transfers of wealth from the rich countries before it would agree to anything.
For that reason, it is a waste of time to assume that an international agreement is possible and that any domestic action must take into account that the major other players will likely do nothing substantial. If this means the planet is going to warm beyond the point of no return then we better start planning for adaption now because mitigation within the time frames presented in this op-ed is not going to happen (although I realize the author of this blog has said as much himself).
@raven:
so you’re saying, the WMDs were real.
hapa Says:
“So you’re saying, the WMDs were real.”
No but the oil and the strategic location in the middle east were real. Russia has nothing to gain by limiting CO2 and the net short term effects will be invariably good for Russians. If the warmers might be right and the long term effects may end up being negative but it will be too late to do anything about them by the time the Russians figure this out.
Taking about nation states as the only political force to be reckoned with ignores the real forces at work in a world where our survival as a species is recognized as being in question. When enough people understand the peril that they and their loved ones are in, chaos will threatens those who work against the common good (however that comes to be understood). It is far too early to know how sweeping our actions will be when people really start to understand the situation we are in. As a species, are just waking up to this reality. If the bell curve is at work in this awakening, then there should be a tidal wave of support for truly green initiatives coming towards us. Shouldn’t there?
I think Joe Romm very importantly signals the international imperative. And Peter Wood also talks about the urgency – and hits upon a critical distinction.
Negotiating details of a national, let alone a global, cap and trade framework are going to be time-consuming. The urgency of the need to act does not indicate we have much luxury of time.
A President Obama should use executive authority (he already has legislative authority) within days or months of taking office to order that GHG sources above 10000 tonnes report their emissions for 2009, and indicate that this is intended to be the baseline year for the trading system. And Biden should be deployed to Copenhagen and the U.N. to accelerate the timetable for all source nations, including China and India, to develop and implement mandatory reporting mechanisms.
These serious signals could have profound impacts in the urgent manner necessary.
@raven
so you’re saying, securing the oil and the location was a certain or likely outcome.
Hapa says:
“so you’re saying, securing the oil and the location was a certain or likely outcome.”
No. I am saying the people who authorized the Iraq invasion felt that was the likely outcome given the facts they choose to look at. If they did not believe that they would not have pushed for the invasion. Self interest rules and no amoung of scare mongering will change that.
@raven
so you’re saying, the american people thought the invasion of iraq was a war of choice primarily for national, rational economic gain. they fully understood the costs and benefits and supported the invasion on its financial merits.
hapa Says:
“so you’re saying, the american people thought the invasion of iraq was a war of choice primarily for national, rational economic gain.”
Not at all. The American people believed the WMDs excuse because their leaders led them to believe that the treat was real rather than hypothetical (remeber George “slam dunk” Tenet?). It does not make a difference whether the leaders were willfully blind or delibretely manipulative – the fact remains the strategic benefits that came with the invasion were sufficient to make them want to proceed with the war regardless.
Anyone who hopes to convince China or Russia to reduce emissions will need to convince them that it is their strategic interest to do so. Without that hook they will choose to the believe the problem is not that serious or can be delt with later. I don’t think it will happen because convincing them would require massive transfers of wealth from US and other countries to China and Russia – transfers which will be politically impossible to justify (how many politicians would get elected by promising to increase taxes to bribe the Chinese into reducing GHGs?)
Roger,
That’s a good comment about the reaction to saving humans on this planet realization should look like a bell curve. That is what’s needed. And we are moving slowing sometimes up that arc of the bell curve, but it’s ever so slow and steep.
@ Raven:
Sorry about piling on, but I do believe that China understands the problem. And let’s not also forget that one-third of China’s emissions are spent producing products that are consumed in the developed world.
With the climate negotiations, we also need trade talks. In a nutshell, we need a way to add carbon taxes and tariffs to goods produced in countries that aren’t taking global warming seriously. If we can add an economic imperative to the environmental and moral imperatives, then it wouldn’t take long for China and India to understand that they need to be part of the process.
And if they choose not to get serious, then the economic engine that drives both their countries will grind to a halt.
It may come to that. But I also think that India and China are waiting for developed nations to take the lead. To the extent that we in the west are rich, we can thank our modern production methods. To the extend that global warming has already occurred, we can thank our modern production methods. If Canada and the US finally join the party, I think that would send a strong signal that this time, the west is serious about supporting social and environmental justice throughout the world.
Up until now, all China and India have heard from North America is talk, talk, talk. When we change, they will know that they need to change.
roger said:
I hope that you are right. It may not be a bell curve though, it may be something more like a fat-tailed Student’s T.
Well said, Joe. One of your best posts.
What’s your take on the latest developments in Accra? I find myself very concerned about adoption of “policy commitments” in the developing world (eg, we will regulate this industry with that instrument or we we aim to have CCS on 70% of new coal power plants by 2030) as opposed to absolute targets. And, yet, people closer to the process tell me that is all that is politically feasible.
Richard Levangie Says:
“With the climate negotiations, we also need trade talks. In a nutshell, we need a way to add carbon taxes and tariffs to goods produced in countries that aren’t taking global warming seriously.”
Trade is a two way street and many American and European interests would be hurt by such tariffs. More importantly, we have enough trouble ensuring the products from China actually meet the basic health standards that are already in place (i.e. lead in toys). So enforcing a system of carbon tariffs based on the alleged carbon output of products will be impossible.
When it comes to Russia trade tariffs would be completely ineffective because they sell commodities into a global market. These commodities could be taxed at the border but it would force Americans and Europeans to pay the price – not the Russians.
I also think it is very naive to assume that China or India would ‘follow our lead’. They use that as a convenient excuse now but they would come up with other excuses if that excuse went away because they have billions of people living in poverty that cannot afford expensive CO2 free technology. In fact, I think it would outright immoral for the Chinese and Indian governments to sign onto a emissions reduction scheme that increased poverty and suffering among their people.
The only way to reduce emissions in these countries is to have rich countries pay for it and I don’t believe there would be any sustained political support for such a massive wealth transfer out of the country for nothing in return – especially when large chunks of the money would be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats and system manipulators.
@raven: you make valid points inside a crappy overall assessment of risk and completely wrong interpretations of current events.
this is a typical logical leap. the problem with product quality of chinese imports is almost 100% an ideological choice by the current american administration to reduce inspections of imported and domestic goods, alike. not only does your example not prove that enforcing carbon tariffs is hard, in fact it shows that such standards can be turned on and off like faucets.
i can’t decide to argue against your bleak BAU-only mindset in general or your specific claim that climate change is not a proven and current global event with devastating international security implications for all parties.
here you’re casually throwing away all the arguments ever made by free trade advocates — dominant economic paradigm of our day, right — about the negative effect of local tariffs on foreign business development — the tight bond between price and market opportunity.
talk, though, if you feel like it.
Hapa says:
“problem with product quality of chinese imports is almost 100% an ideological choice by the current american administration to reduce inspections of imported and domestic goods”
The problem is the long Chinese supply chains and the lack of any kind of regulatory enforcement within China. After the fact inspections of products are simply band-aids that can prevent harm without actually solving the problem. More importantly, when it comes to lead in products it is at least possible to test for the amount of lead in the end product but we have no such recourse when it comes to CO2 emissions. This means any carbon tariff regime would require that we trust that the Chinese manufacturers have not only invested in the equipment required to reduce CO2 emissions but that they are actually using and maintaining it as required. People I know in the industry tell me that Chinese are notorious for ignoring routine operation and maintenace guidelines even when they have the equipment paid for. No amount of pressure from outside will change this because it is a cultural thing as much as an economic thing.
“your specific claim that climate change is not a proven and current global event”
Well, you are missing the point. The question is not whether you have chosen to beleive that the evidence is conclusive but whether others can look at the same evidence and reasonably decide that it is inconclusive. I already gave you a like to a report by the government of India which explicitly stated that the link between emissions and the observed climate changes has not been proven. They would never have written that if there really was conclusive evidence supporting the claims. I realize that many alarmists like to dismiss such claims as the rantings of flat-earthers being funded by Exxon but such arguments do not alter the reality that climate science is not like other experimentally verifiable sciences which means there will always be a great deal of uncertainty whether you want to admit it or not.
“about the negative effect of local tariffs on foreign business development”
You are mixing two issues. When it comes to China which exports manufactured goods tariffs would be effective if China had a government that could be trusted to enforce the terms of whatever deal was signed. My argument is we cannot trust the Chinese government therefore any tariff regime would be ineffective and do nothing about the problem.
When it comes to Russia they sell commodities that are in demand everywhere in world. Taxing Russian oil simply means the Russians will sell it to someone else for the same price so the net effect on the Russians is zero. In fact, you will see those dynamics that even in places like Canada where Americans have threatened to ban imports from the oil sands. If the US was stupid enough to do that the Canadians would build pipeline to the coast funded with Chinese money and sell the oil to the Chinese.
You may see my view as bleak but I see it a realist. My biggest fear right now is politicians that are desperate to be seen to do “something” will promote plans that cost a huge amount but actually accomplish nothing. This wasted money and political capital would make it much more difficult to adjust to the climate changes if they actually turn out to be as a bad as claimed.
Raven wrote:
You’ll note that I didn’t mention Russia. I agree that Russia is a sticky problem, and I’m not sure what approach would work best. But Russia is at least talking about a global climate accord under the new guy, and suggesting that it is looking for ways to cut its own GHG emissions. (See Reuters, June 4, 2008). Is it just talk? Time will tell.
But I currently worry more about the lack of American progress in curtailing emissions than I do about Russia.
Believe me, I agree. I know that I am being naive, but in other ways, I’m being far more realistic than you are. I recognize that any solution we follow is going to cause pain, and it’s going to mean sacrifice. We’re going to have to give many things up, and cheap Chinese goods might be one of them.
But my argument is that we have no choice; I’m one of those who believe that the effects of climate change have been undersold. We are going to have to be very generous with our money and our technology if we’re to slow the climate crisis. The cost right now is huge, but we can just afford it if we’re prepared to make sacrifices. If we don’t, we’re condemning our grandchildren will be living a third-world existence. Darfur is just the beginning.
I know if you doubt my underlying general premise, then we’ll never agree. But I’m reminded of the old car ad -for Fram filters, if memory serves.
You can pay me now. Or you can pay me later.
The cost right now is outrageous. The cost down the road will bankrupt us.
Richard Levangie Says:
“But my argument is that we have no choice; I’m one of those who believe that the effects of climate change have been undersold. We are going to have to be very generous with our money and our technology if we’re to slow the climate crisis.”
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I have spent a fair amount of time investigating the issue and I have come to the conclusion that the risks are being greatly exaggerated and I know there are many other rational people who come to the same conclusion when they look at the evidence. In fact, I believe people will naturally become skeptics as soon as the cost of action exceeds the threshold of what they are willing to pay. This mechanism operates at the national level as well as the individual level which is why I think China, India and Russia will do nothing for the foreseeable future.
This does not mean we do nothing but I believe our efforts should be focused on things that are likely to produce results such as investments in alternative energy R&D or stricter energy efficiency requirements. I think measures like carbon caps or carbon taxes only increase the cost of energy but deliver little real benefit even if the worst case scenarios are true. The money would be better spent on dikes, dams and other projects that would allow us to adapt to the changes.
“You can pay me now. Or you can pay me later.”
You forget that paying more later is sometimes the better strategy if you invest the money in something else that will make you wealthier in the future.
I spend my days editing a small environmental newsletter for business leaders (just returned to the working world after a long illness), so I read hundreds of articles on the environment and green tech every week.
And you couldn’t be more wrong about carbon taxes. They do work, and they are working. It’s not as smooth and as seamless as I would wish, but they’ve proven very effective in many countries, especially in countries that added the taxes early, in the 1990s.
Look at Denmark. In the 1990s, they implemented a stiff carbon tax amid a great of fretting from their business community. At the time, they relied on coal to produce most of their electricity.
But the government took the smart decision to invest money from the carbon tax back into the industries which paid it, to help them find solutions. The result? Denmark will have 20 percent renewable energy by 2011 (and they’re aiming for 40 percent by 2020, I believe), they’ve cut emissions by 15 percent over 1990 levels, and their economy continues to grow even as their need for energy diminishes. Their wind turbine industry has a 3-year waiting list for new turbines, they’re building a grid of recharging stations for EVs (operational in 2010, if memory serves), and they have a standard of living that most countries would kill for.
Since James Hansen tells us we must go for 350 ppm for co2 that is what I go by…Anyone else?? If not I AM REALLY DEPRESSED…
Jean — 350 ppm is a fine interim goal. But in the long run CO2e needs to be brought down to around 290 ppm.
Richard Levangie Says:
“The result? Denmark will have 20 percent renewable energy by 2011 (and they’re aiming for 40 percent by 2020, I believe), they’ve cut emissions by 15 percent over 1990 levels, and their economy continues to grow even as their need for energy diminishes.”
Everything I have read tells me that Denmark’s “success” is largely an illusion created by outsourcing CO2 producing industries to other jurisdictions. Even the wind power benefits are overrated because most of that power comes in bursts and is exported at a discount to their neighbors. Only 6% of the power actually consumed in Denmark actually comes from the wind mills – the rest comes from coal or nukes in neighboring countries. See: http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/danish-wind-too-good-to-be-true/
Carbon taxes only work to reduce total CO2 emissions if outsourcing CO2 production is not an option which can only happen if all players in the trade game agree to common rules. But as I noted above, the chances of getting all players to agree to something that actually accomplishes the stated objective is pretty small.
> In fact, I believe people will naturally become skeptics as soon as the cost of action exceeds the threshold of what they are willing to pay.
While this may be true, it just means that ideology is trumping rationality. Unfortunately, climate change is not dependent on what people believe, only on what they do re: greenhouse gas emissions.
Raven, you assert Denmark’s wind power is misleading. The US DOE/EIA profile of Denmark shows that coal imports went from 12.3 million short tons in 1997 to 6.5 in 2005. CO2 went from 74.1 million tonnes in 1997 to 51.0 in 2005. Meanwhile, electricity consumption went up from 32.3 TWh in 1997 to 34.0 in 2005. Where is it getting its electricity if not wind or coal? NG consumption went up, but the increase only covers 1.2 TWh of the 13.1 TWh coal decrease. In 1997 DK was exported 9.4 TWh of electricity, but this fell to 0.2 TWh in 2005. It looks like they stopped exporting coal power, and now are generating basically as much as they consume Even adjusting for the NG and the decline in coal exports, it looks like coal electricity fell.
As far as the specific claims of wind-watch.org, which makes a big deal about DK exporting its wind energy, consider the following analysis by the world nuclear association (not a pro-wind source): “In 2005 total installed capacity within Denmark was 12.71 GWe, 9.57 GWe of which was fossil fuel-fired and 3.13 GWe wind turbines, the majority on or offshore West Denmark. The wind turbines depend heavily for their effective utilisation on 27 GWe of hydro capacity in Norway, over 1 GWe of which can be despatched when wind power is unavailable in West Denmark. With good winds, power can be exported back to Norway and there conserve hydro potential.” I.e. the exports are part of a specific strategy to use hydro or wind as appropriate. The same strategy is appropriate anywhere wind is proximate to hydro.
You pooh-poohed Richard’s statement about Denmark renewable energy citing wind, but wind is only part of their renewable energy generation. They have significant biomass/biogas/biowaste power generation (about 3 TWh in 2004). Wind was another 7 TWh in 2004.
John Hollenberg Says:
“While this may be true, it just means that ideology is trumping rationality”
Actually, it has nothing to do with ideology and is a completely rational reaction to uncertain information about the future. For example, any rational person would pay $1000/year for an insurance policy to protect their home but if that bill rose to $20000/year they would likely pass on the insurance even if though they might end up bankrupt if the worst happened.
The same kind of calculation affects an individual’s assement of the risks of climate change. What makes this issue difficult is each person has a different level of risk tolerance and a different way of assessing the evidence. This means it is possible for different people to come to opposite conclusions when looking at exactly the same evidence. That is why the courts instruct juries to convict only if the evidence proves guilt ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. The caveat ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ tells people how to assess the evidence. When it comes to personal issues such as one’s opinion on climate change there is no court that tells people what standard of evidence to use – they choose their own and will likely increase that standard as the cost of doing something about climate change goes up.
Earl Killian Says:
“You pooh-poohed Richard’s statement about Denmark renewable energy citing wind, but wind is only part of their renewable energy generation.”
My primary point was that Denmark cannot claim to have reduced its CO2 production unless it can show that the CO2 production has not been shifted to other jurisdictions.
That said I did some more research:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25prasad.html?ex=1364097600&en=c3e433da59dc2ffa&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
“Denmark avoids the temptation to maximize the tax revenue by giving the proceeds back to industry, earmarking much of it to subsidize environmental innovation. Danish firms are pushed away from carbon and pulled into environmental innovation, and the country’s economy isn’t put at a competitive disadvantage. So this is lesson No. 1 from Denmark.”
I did not realize this detail because I am used to tax grab form of carbon taxes which have shown up in various North American jurisdictions. This form of a carbon tax fits into my view of a constructive policy that could actually produce results.
It is worth noting the same article:
“But a carbon tax isn’t a new idea. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had carbon taxes in place since the 1990s, but the tax has not led to large declines in emissions in most of these countries — in the case of Norway, emissions have actually increased by 43 percent per capita.”
Bottom line: not all carbon taxes are created equal.
> Actually, it has nothing to do with ideology and is a completely rational reaction to uncertain information about the future.
I would say it is an irrational reaction when the cost is not personal bankruptcy but potentially catastrophic climate change affecting the entire world, and the scientific evidence is very solid:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
As Joe has pointed out previously, those of certain political persuasions let ideology trump rationality on the issue of global warming:
http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/
@raven
of course you do. your whole thing here is you don’t want to change. therefore, difficulties standing in the way of change look — shock! — insurmountable, and reasons to change look — shock! — unsupported.
what you’re missing is that the environmental situation — including “too much insulation in the attic” but going well beyond to include water supply, ocean health, soil health, and food — requires action that is in many ways compatible with carbon emissions cuts.
ditto for the oil supply issue: peak oil means fuel switching and fuel switching in the short term means building up clean energy options, because they’re effective and can be built quickly.
ditto for the bleak world economic picture: fuel switching is preferable to war, as an industrial project, don’t you think?
i’m sticking with bleak. i don’t care if you run yourself ragged with worry but i do care that you’re blocking good community investment options based on your desire to stay. the. same.
John Hollenberg Says:
“I would say it is an irrational reaction when the cost is not personal bankruptcy but potentially catastrophic climate change affecting the entire world, and the scientific evidence is very solid”
The science only tells us that CO2 is most likely causing some warming. It does not provide any certainty when it comes to the amount of warming that is likely to occur nor does it really tell us whether the net effects of the warming are bad. Trying to claim that the latter automatically follows from the former is, in my opinion, a gross misrepresentation of the science.
I realize that you disagree but that is because your standards of proof are lower than mine. You are willing to take leaps of faith and presume certainty where I see nothing but unanswered questions and unsupported assertions. To put it another way: when it comes to justifying the kinds of investments being demanded I require “proof beyond reasonable doubt” whereas you are happy with “proof on the balance of probabilities”.
However, the real difference between you an me is I can understand the rational logic behind your position even though I disagree with it. You, on the other, cannot seem to comprehend that rational people looking at the same evidence can come to rational conclusion that death by CO2 is not a given.
You also talk about the relationship between “ideology” and the level of proof that people require. I agree that there is a correlation but that is because people will automatically require higher standards of proof before violating the moral principles that they hold dear. For example, if we were really faced with a 100% chance of annihilation due to CO2 then we should be talking about aggressive population control – i.e. China’s one child policy imposed as global level complete with forced abortions and sterilizations. However, you (or I) would likely never agree to such tactics even if the evidence was truly overwhelming because because such tactics would violate your own moral principals. For many people, the idea of forcing millions of people into poverty by denying them access to readily available energy sources is morally repugnant given our current state of knowledge and that is why they demand a higher standard of proof than you.
So the next time you dismiss someone else’s opinion on GW as something driven by ideology why don’t to take the time to ask how much of your own opinions are driven by your own ideologies. It is no coincidence that the marxists/anti-capitalist/wannabe communist types have fully bought into the GW hype because the solutions being imposed are solutions that they would want to see imposed no matter what and GW is a convenient excuse.
@raven
but this is where you fall down. you’re so attached to the “readily available energy” — meaning, currently widely sold — that you reject future readily available energy and make up incredible paranoid fantasies about your opponents wanting to murder everybody through an equipment change.
i said this before to someone else, here, i think:
if this risk isn’t something people are willing to take, you have to stop yelling that the risk doesn’t exist, and actually work on solving the problems you see with the new equipment. otherwise, you’re just another dork yelling their head off in an election year.
> It is no coincidence that the marxists/anti-capitalist/wannabe communist types have fully bought into the GW hype because the solutions being imposed are solutions that they would want to see imposed no matter what and GW is a convenient excuse.
I see that you believe global warming is a worldwide conspiracy by malevolent forces out to destroy your way of life. As I said, this appears to be your ideology trumping rationality. That’s why my focus is on the scientific basis of our understanding of global warming, one that has been researched for 20+ years and has a very solid foundation. Probably I should have asked if you accept the IPCC 4th report. If not, I would assume that science is not a significant factor in forming your opinion. Perhaps you believe the scientists are involved in the conspiracy too…
John Hollenberg Says:
“That’s why my focus is on the scientific basis of our understanding of global warming, one that has been researched for 20+ years and has a very solid foundation.”
So what don’t you understand about the concept of standards of evidence and how no discussion of evidence can take place unless one agrees on the standard of evidence to use? In my opinion, despite 20+ years of research, science still has so many unknowns and inconsistencies that it can only meet the “balance of probabilities” test. This is enough to justify some actions on CO2 but not others.
In the end, we will have to agree to disagree and that it will be the real data from the real climate that will show who was right. I can only hope we don’t waste too many resources solving an imaginary problem.
Incidentally, your “conspiracy” talking point is quite silly. I have already explained how different rational people can come to different conclusions looking at the same evidence because they have different standards of evidence. More importantly, if the science was really conclusive there would be no debate and no need to try and argue that science can be settled by a vote among scientists.
ladies and gentlemen, i give you the one of the silliest things ever said about scientific process.
straight from stalin’s russia, the authoritarian understanding of… understanding.
> if the science was really conclusive there would be no debate and no need to try and argue that science can be settled by a vote among scientists.
I have seen no evidence of a serious debate among climate scientists about the reality of AGW. The only skeptics I know about (Spencer, et al.) got their data wrong and finally had to agree once the errors were corrected that their data supported global warming. Perhaps you can point me to major papers in the peer-reviewed literature that undermine global warming? Of course, there are a few scientists (and non-scientitsts) in other fields who take money from the oil companies to try to convince people that their product isn’t causing serious harm to the planet. Interestingly, at least one not only uses the same methods the tobacco companies used for years to try to convince people their product didn’t cause cancer, emphysema, etc.–he actually worked for the tobacco companies before he got into global warming denial business:
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478
> In my opinion, despite 20+ years of research, science still has so many unknowns and inconsistencies that it can only meet the “balance of probabilities” test.
Are you saying that you agree there is at least a 51% probability that AGW is real and significant, but you still wouldn’t do much about it?
For those interested in a detailed description of the tactics used by Exxon Mobil, here is a link to a paper by the Union of Concerned Scientists titled “Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science”:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
joe biden just used his convention speech to spit in putin’s face. that’s definitely gonna help with the climate negotiations.
> joe biden just used his convention speech to spit in putin’s face. that’s definitely gonna help with the climate negotiations.
It will only help if it means that Obama/Biden get elected, so there is someone who actually wants to negotiate about the climate. Based on McCain’s voting record, I don’t see any evidence that he is actually interested in pursuing any steps to limit GHG. Whatever his stated position, his actions don’t suggest he would be interested in any negotiations on climate.
NATO in the FSU will be on the table when putin et al agree to sit and talk about energy. gorbachev got his assurances it would never happen and it took about… oh… a few months before we politely forgot our pledge.
if talking tough to the russkies is what makes you electable, then that’s what people will do. putin’s not a child, he can take it, and he knows what cards he’s holding.
but if obama and biden get to antagonize anyone they want because “the other guy’s worse” — particularly, encouraging powerful countries to hoard fossil energy in preparation for near-war isolation — that sort of undercuts the message of ending our oil habit, doesn’t it? because it’s not like georgia is “just some country near russia.”
I agree it isn’t good to be antagonizing other countries, but my overriding concern at this point is to get Obama elected. Otherwise, we’re screwed re: climate change, energy policy, etc. Unfortunately it seems the politicians have to walk a narrow line, giving all kinds of contradictory messages, in order to get elected. While we need a much stronger stance re: our energy policy and the steps needed to avoid the worst of the climate change problems, if the stance is as strong as I believe it should be, the candidate probably won’t get elected. Glad I am not a politician!
yeah, i’m probably tired. since the debates started — a year and a half ago! — every damn thing has blown up in our faces — and the press is handling it all with characteristic a-dumb.
i was pleased the senator included food and water in his list of global challenges.
not much else to do but wait.