The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which -- in all modern societies -- buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.
Samuelson says it's not that we should do nothing about global warming; in fact, he offers some practical measures that we ought to focuse on. He's saying only that anything that's feasible is not going to make much difference, and anything that would make a big difference would be so massively disruptive it's unlikely to be tried. Even though India and China are going to surpass the US as the world's biggest carbon emitters, how do you tell them, "Sorry, you can't have the wealth and stability the US has, because you're heating up the globe"? You don't. I mean, you can, but don't expect them to do anything but smile and you and keep on keeping on.
If Samuelson is right, and I'd guess that he is, we should keep researching scientific solutions, but should also start adapting to the inevitable. How, though, do you labor with seriousness of purpose at fighting the onset of a condition that you see as inevitable? Hmm. Well, that's the human condition, isn't it?
Well, that's my cheerful bit for the day. Now, on to finding jokes about the diaper-wearing astro-nut...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
paagle Good post and good points all around. However, the theory could be sound and you could also have highly politicized scientists at the same time. Look at the public discourse. The latest IPCC report came out a week or so ago. There was lots of breathless huffing about impending catastrophe by scientists. I even heard one interviewed in one report who said we were a decade away from a tipping point that would destroy us. (Anyone remember the Ted Danson ads in the 80's saying within 10 years the oceans would die?). But if you read the actual IPCC summary report, it's really not so scary. It's all well within what we can manage with current technology. You wouldn't know that by the scientists interviewed on TV though.
Rich: A great number of mostly right-wing economists and publications (such as Greg Mankiw, a former advisor to the current president) have already endorsed the idea of a carbon or gas tax, which does not require government investment. Not to mention Duke Energy, GE, BP, and many other corporations, which have on their own already invested billions in ways to produce energy without emitting carbon. To say the economy will crash because we move to restrict carbon emissions is comparable to saying (as car makers did at the time) that the car industry will crash, because we call for pollution control.
It's not true, and it ignores the bigger question: the cost of doing nothing, which could be huge.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/09/rogoff-joins-pigou-club.html
Kit A carbon tax seems pretty innocuous to me. I certainly never said the economy will crash. In essense what I said was that expensive energy hurts poor people, especially those in marginal economies. The good thing about a carbon tax is that you can make adjustments and offer incentives if it does cause any economic problems, such as rebates for poor people or higher rates on industrial and luxury carbon-use. A carbon tax doesn't touch developing countries who need cheap energy - another plus. And a carbon tax is certainly preferable to massive ethanol subsidies. I'm for consumption taxes in general. But back to your question. What is the cost of doing nothing? Would you mind quantifying that? Over a century it may be much less than you think. Once again, you should read the IPCC summary. It is written by various U.N, government, NGO, and business representatives and is as pointed and scary as possible. They represent the worst case view. Read it. See what they say about sea level rise. See what they say about Atlantic circulation. (Here's a hint - there's no ice age hiding around the corner). They do agree with Al Gore that Manhattan could end up underwater - if, that is, surface temperatures rise by 4.6 C and stay there for 1000 years. Funny how he left that part out on Oprah. They do note some bad potential problems, but it's not the end of the world. That's not what you hear in the media (or even here). It's all ice ages, super droughts, and drownings. Don't believe me, read it for yourself. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf If you really want to help people most harmed by climate change, then spend a lot of money developing better batteries and desalinization. If you really want to lower atmospheric carbon, then spend lots of money on reforestation and developing carbon capture for vehicles. If you want to help Pacific Islanders, spend it on sea walls and better coastal structures. Use the carbon tax to pay for all these things. Subsidize solar and wind while we're at it. (A couple hundred new nuclear plants would make a huge difference too).
Rich, I'm glad to hear you're not opposed to a carbon tax. Just today the Wall Street Journal published a survey of economists calling for just such a measure.
Regarding the Fourth Assessment: I agree that what is popularly known as the Gulf Stream does not appear to be on the verge of collapse. I have been reporting on this issue for several years now, and I am familiar with past IPCC assessments, especially the US version for California. The 4th IPCC has not yet been fully released. But I can tell you that it is not a worst case review; in fact, a WSJ story last weekend pointed out two serious gaps in the report that suggest the truth is much more "dire" than the report suggests.
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2007/02/global_warming__1.html I could add James Hansen's complaint about the report, which he and many highly regarded scientists consider useful but a bit behind the times; after all, he was warning of the dangers of anthropogenic climate change to the Congress in l988. I could also add a well-established economic fact, which is that it's much easier to prevent a problem than to clean it up. But it's late, and I'm tired. Take care.
Yes, it's cheaper to prevent a problem than to clean it up, but most people aren't willing to believe there is a problem out there in need of prevention until it hits them over the head and needs cleaning up. The span of time between "too early to worry about it" and "too late to do anything about it" is often measured in split-seconds.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.