Newsweek’s Robert Samuelson writes about global warming:
Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient truth,'' as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much about it. This has long been obvious. Let me explain.
From 2003 to 2050, world population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
. . . a new report from the International Energy Agency in Paris . . . assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent -- and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. . . Nuclear energy increases. So do "renewables'' (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
Some of these changes seem heroic. . .Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, . . . the IEA report indicates we're now powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the villians; they presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent increase may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences. . .
No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something.'' The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. . .
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.
2 comments:
Dad, Samuelson has obviously not seen the movie. I would encourage him and you (his endorser, via this blog entry), and anyone else who has any doubts about (1) The reality of global warming; or (2) The importance of beginning a global effort to combat climate change; or (3) The feasibility of making real, substantive impacts on climate change starting now, today, with current technology; to simply see the movie. Al Gore addresses each of these points directly, with hard facts, and without ducking the various counterarguments.
As an aside, I must point out the "interesting" rhetorical evolution of climate change skepticism, which has progressed now from (1) It's not happening; to (2) Okay, it's happening, but it's not human-induced; to the present (3) Okay, it's happening and it's human-induced, but there is nothing we can do about it. Huh?!? Well, the skeptics (really no more than paid advocates, most of them) were wrong the first two times, and here they are, wrong again.
In fact, Samuelson has it exactly backwards. It is because climate change is human-induced and is an extreme threat to life on Earth (including the world economy) that we are as a civilization both capable of and responsible for reversing it, to whatever extent and as soon as possible. Certainly, great engineering breakthroughs will be helpful in this quest; perhaps they are even necessary. But Samuelson acts as if great engineering breakthroughs arrive as bequests of the gods, rather than occuring as the direct result of sustained scientific and engineering research and development.
So here's a counterproposal. The US was once ranked the top nation in terms of nondefense R&D spending as a fraction of GDP. Why don't we shoot for that title again, as Thomas Friedman has suggested, and target green technologies and the end of the oil economy as our first big targets - our next "Moon shot", if you will.
Personally, I believe that slowing and, ultimately, reversing climate change is just a matter of time. If we are lucky and smart, that time could be measured in decades; if we are unlucky, stupid, or both, it could take centuries. Unfortunately for Samuelson and his argument, that is a difference that matters. The sooner we get CO2 emissions under control, the less extreme will be the consequences - for the Earth, its various species, and for humanity itself.
To adopt Samuelson's approach is to "kick the can" of this problem - probably the most severe ever faced by humanity - down the line to future generations. The alternative Gore-Friedman approach would give us our best shot at minimizing the costs. And even if it does take longer than we think, in this scenario, at least we will be able to tell our grandchildren that we gave it our best shot.
Samuelson can defend himself. I most liked his attack on grandstanding politicians, which Kyoto featured (it wasn't real, but rather a show-off event). I agree with Samuelson that the problem is an engineering/science one, with money needed to solve it. Really serious problems tend to move beyond politics, and require us all working together on the solutions. Certainly the Manhattan Project, the Marshall Plan, and the race to the moon all had bi-partisan support. Bush ("We are addicted to oil") and the Republicans are coming around. Gore deserves credit for taking the lead.
Samuelson is right to suggest that China and India are much less likely to be helpful. And get this: measured by Purchasing Power Parity,the Gross Domestic Products of China and India together now match the GDP of the U.S.! Amazing, and very much a problem for efforts to control global warming.
Galen
Post a Comment