A Second Shot on Global Warming
I’m still helping to take care of my pop, but hope to be back in something like regular business on Monday or Tuesday. In the meantime, another Scientist of My Acquaintance has taken note of the global warming discussion here and wished to contribute a few words. All yours, Another Scientist:
For some, there is always an excuse not to take action, even when the house is burning down. Comments regarding the economics of climate change have appeared on this blog and, of course, elsewhere. In particular, hysterical opponents of attempts at mitigation claim that carbon emissions taxes and/or other approaches to reducing carbon dioxide emissions will destroy our economy, lead to another Great Depression, something that we cannot afford at this time. Yet these arguments miss the forest for the dying trees: you can be damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Sure, the restrictions on industry might hurt, but not as much as the consequences of unchecked CO2 emissions, say widespread water shortages in the Southwest (already happening) or more frequent, intense hurricanes on the East Coast just for starters.
Restricting emissions would slow the growth of the economy, but not by a whole lot. The Congressional Budget Office has stated that Waxman-Markey (the current proposed set of regulatory laws in Congress right now), “would reduce the projected average annual rate of growth of gross domestic product between 2010 and 2050 by 0.03 to 0.09 percentage points.”
In Paul Krugman’s essay in last week’s NY Times Magazine, he looked at the cap-and-trade program that was set up for acid rain and comparing it to the proposed cap-and-trade program for CO2. The cost of the acid rain program came in well below initial predictions. When the private sector is faced with an economic situation in which it will lose money if it does nothing, it will come up with ways to limit emissions that will result in economic payoffs that projections do not foresee. Ironically, this is one of the arguments used against peak-oil theorists, that even as oil becomes more difficult and costly to retrieve, the march of technology, hand in hand with the relentless drive for profit, will find ways to get at the black gold. Somehow this same argument does not apply to CO2 emissions, and yet the acid rain experience suggests that we should not discount what an industry looking to maintain profits can achieve. And industry knows that it applies. As energy companies are fighting the current battle against curbing CO2 emissions, they also accept the inevitability of CO2 regulations and are preparing for their implementation. In the meantime, they are simply seeking to influence the system as much as possible while they still can.
No one approach will save the world from the effects of global warming. It will take a combination of actions. Not only will we need to curtail emissions, generation of energy will need to be transitioned from fossil fuel sources to solar, wind, nuclear, and other non-CO2 emitting methods. And we will need to lower our consumption of energy by being more efficient. Fortunately, all of these actions require the development of Green Technology–that unforeseen source of economic benefit. Of course, there may be some problems with reaching that payoff if we keep sticking our heads in the sand rather than getting to work: while China currently produces more CO2 than any other country in the world, it’s also poised to be the next leader in green technology, spending $440 billion on it just last year. Wind turbines are being built to replace its coal-powered plants. It’s already home to one-third of the world’s solar-energy manufacturing capacity and that may reach two-thirds by the end of this year. And most importantly for us here, American companies that were previously at the forefront of technological innovations here in the US are now moving their operations to China due to China’s readiness to spend money to develop Green Tech. American companies aren’t going to be able to reap the benefits of better energy technology if they are going to have pay China to use them. And you don’t have to be a believer in global warming to see the problem with that.
April 25th, 2010 at 11:04 am
Sounds like your Dad is improving, Steven. Glad to hear it.
This post is a beautiful essay. However, I disagree with some of your points. I will focus on two, because they involve basic principles.
1. Confusing the government with the country. You write, “American companies that were previously at the forefront of technological innovations here in the US are now moving their operations to China due to China’s readiness to spend money to develop Green Tech.” First of all, I doubt that the government of China spends more money on green technology than the government of the US. But, set that aside.
America’s industrial leadership does not come from the American government. We dominated the auto industry for 75 years because of Ford and other private companies. We dominated the semiconductor industry for decades because of companies started in garages here in Silicon Valley. There is an enormous amount of private money looking for places to be invested. I’ve met with some of these firms. That money will go to companies in the US or in China or wherever the investors see a good business opportunity.
Why is the US is less attractive to green technology than it was to modern electronics?i It’s becaus our business climate has gotten worse. Higher taxes and more regulations drive business elsewhere. Health Reform, Cap ‘n Trade are bad for business. They discourage green technology from being developed in the US.
An uncertain economy also discourages business. Obama’s plan for ongoing trillion dollar deficits threatens some kind of economic disaster. That threat discourages businesses, including green technology, from expanding or starting up in this country.
2. Reversing the cause of a problem isn’t necessarily the best way to deal with it. E.g., near-sightedness is caused by problems within the eye, but we deal with near-sightedness by wearing glasses. Even if global warming is primarily caused by man-made CO2, chances are it will be more practical to cool the globe by some other means.