New Options for Climate Policy?
March 28th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
At times we have complained about the lack of a formal mechanism to introduce new and innovative policy options into the climate debate resulting in a Manichean battle over Kyoto. In a short essay for Foreign Policy in Focus, William D. Nordhaus, of Yale University and one of the leading authorities on the economics of climate change, would seem to agree with this perspective in the context of mitigation. Here is an excerpt:
After more than a decade of negotiations and planning under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), the first binding international agreement to control the emissions of greenhouse gases has come into effect in the Kyoto Protocol. The first budget period of 2008-2012 is at hand. Moreover, the scientific evidence on greenhouse warming strengthens steadily as observational evidence of warming accumulates. The institutional framework of the Protocol has taken hold solidly in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which covers almost half of Europe’s CO2 emissions.
Notwithstanding this apparent success, the Kyoto Protocol is widely seen as somewhere between troubled and terminal. Early troubles came with the failure to include the major developing countries along with lack of an agreed-upon mechanism to include new countries and extend the agreement to new periods. The major blow came when the United States withdrew from the Treaty in 2001. By 2002, the Protocol covered only 30% of global emissions, while the hard enforcement mechanism in the ETS accounts for about 8% of global emissions. Even if the current Protocol is extended, models indicate that it will have little impact on global temperature change. Unless there is a dramatic breakthrough or a new design, the Protocol threatens to be seen as a monument to institutional overreach.
Nations are now beginning to consider the structure of climate-change policies for the period after 2008-2012. Some countries, states, cities, companies, and even universities are adopting their own climate-change policies. Are there in fact alternatives to the scheme of tradable emissions permit embodied in the Protocol? The fact is that alterative approaches have not had a serious hearing among natural scientists or among policymakers.[emphases added]
What, according to Nordhaus, is wrong with Kyoto?
The fundamental defect of the Kyoto Protocol lies in its objective of reducing emissions relative to a baseline of 1990 emissions for high-income countries. This policy lacks any connection to ultimate economic or environmental policy objectives. The approach of freezing emissions at a given historical level for a group of countries is not related to any identifiable goal for concentrations, temperature, costs, damages, or “dangerous interferences.” It is not inevitable that quantity-type arrangements are inefficient. The target might be set to ensure that global temperature increase does not exceed 2 or 3 degrees C or for some other well-defined and well-designed economic and environmental objectives.
I discussed practical problems of implementation associated with the notion of “dangerous interference” in this paper (PDF). And Richard Tol took issue with the justification behind the 2 degree stabilization target of the EU in a post for us here. The key point in Nordhaus’ comment seems to be the need for “well-defined and well-designed economic and environmental objectives.”
Nordhaus points our attention away from Kyoto and toward internationally harmonized carbon taxes. Whether or not such policies represent a practical, realistic, or worthwhile alternative to Kyoto (and Nordhaus makes a strong case that they do), Nordhaus correctly points our attention to the critically important need for options to the current gridlock to be presented and evaluated. To be most effective as input to the policy process, discussion of such options should take place not only among individual scholars but also more formally through authoritative institutions of climate science and policy. The alternative, as Norhaus warns, is that we are left with a “monment to institutional overreach.”
March 28th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Good link Roger, thanks.
D
March 28th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
Thanks Roger, I’d agree and would add [quoting myself from last year http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/07/copenhagen-collapse#comment-60279
… Anyway, my estimate is that the implementation of a 2% carbon tax from day 1, tomorrow, indexed to increase at 2%pa for a decade, would have an overall effect on consolidated world GDP that would be lost in the noise, except for the following opportunity. People being as people are, responding as well as humanity has over our history to stresses and shocks to our systems – my faith is that the stimulus provided us by the small-start carbon tax, and the distribution of its proceeds to fossil fuel replacement ends, might well be of far greater moment than its simple dollar rate would suggest. A small carbon tax, redistributed to R&D and intelligent market interventions, isn’t a cost to world GDP but a transfer from one sector to another at worst. Also, its market distortion should be contained by ensuring the reinvestment of the tax revenue within the energy sector itself. So I agree with those misrepresented “Copenhagen” economists that a low start, indexed carbon tax is the thing to have on the policy table for discussion right now, today. If it will take until tomorrow to see implementation of the tax then let’s sign Kyoto today anyway, because it’d focus our minds a little better for a while, by which time new research and new diplomacy will have arrived anyway to save the day for Vested Interests. As for the “2% of GDP!” campaign designed to instil fear and loathing of human progress into the consuming masses, there must be several questions but the best response is simply, I think, that it’s a meaningless number. Kyoto will be overtaken by events whatever happens, so fanciful extrapolations of it into the far future are of a whole lot less interest to me than would be serious consideration of the costs and benefits of a carbon tax.
March 29th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Roger
There is, of course, another alternative to the failed command-and-control climate policies a la Kyoto and carbon taxes: The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6). Not surprisingly, its key members and advocates are also the world’s current and future superpowers as well as the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitters (USA, China and India).
After Britain’s political fiasco has now become all too apparent (due to the failure to achieve its own emission targets,
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article354231.ece), Tony Blair has announced that he too is warming to a technological and free-market approach to climate policy.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SYD317580.htm
As today’s London Times reports:
“The Prime Minister will call today for a new international goal of stabilising temperatures and carbon emissions at present levels when the Kyoto agreement expires in 2012, to be achieved primarily by investment in cleaner energy technologies…. Mr Blair’s proposal … is intended to break the international stalemate over the Kyoto Protocol, which sets targets for emissions reductions by rich countries but is repudiated by the US. A source close to the Prime Minister said it was now clear that Kyoto was a “dead-end street”, as it has developed into a religion that countries stand implacably for or against.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2109052,00.html
It would appear that slowly but surely, a rather prudent and carefully costed climate policies adopted by the last few US administrations are finally catching on.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Op-Ed-Blair%20deserts%20Kyoto.htm
March 30th, 2006 at 3:41 am
ROFL! – Benny Peiser you crack me up
“… It would appear that slowly but surely, a rather prudent and carefully costed climate policies adopted by the last few US administrations are finally catching on”
“… obstructive tenets of a command ecology …”
“… apocalyptic radicalization of environmental campaign groups …”
“… habitually alarmist predictions by climate scientists …”
“… restore economics to their proper role as the principal driver of political decision-making …”
“The basic question is simple …”
…
- oh indeed, of course! Why didn’t anyone else think of all that?!
March 30th, 2006 at 6:32 am
“Why didn’t anyone else think of all that?!”
Who says nobody did? I was just paraphrasing the new thinking of Britain’s Prime Minister.
Like it or not, but Tony Blair has certainly realised that Kyoto isn’t working and that global command-and-control policies (e.g. global carbon taxes) are politically unrealistic and largely unenforceable.
http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-153785-16&type=News&Ref=RSS
What I have found most intriguing to observe in recent month is the growing disconnect between the frenzied climate alarms manufactured by a relatively small number of researchers and the eco-media, and the explicit or implicit exodus by a growing number of governments from the Kyoto process.
I wouldn’t be surprised if further attempts to generate public panic will sooner or later be ragarded as a real political predicament for *any* government as policy-makers are beginning to realise that economically sustainable climate policies can only be accomplished in the long term.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Benny, just to clarify, Mr frankis is laughing at your hapless, clumsy and liberal use of FUD phrases; he’s not laughing with you. Your reply doesn’t help that comic view any.
Best,
D
March 30th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Well, I am very pleased to see that some readers haven’t lost their sense of humour in view of harsh political realities. For the humorists among us, here are some more hilarious examples of Kyoto-style climate policies:
“Japan’s environment Ministry has a new rule aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissions: lights out at 8 p.m. The new policy will be implemented at ministry headquarters beginning April 3. Those staying late will have to work together in a single conference room, said ministry official Masanori Shishido. …
But the overall emissions caused by government offices increased 4.6 percent in fiscal 2004 ending in March 2005 from the 2001 level, and the Environment Ministry’s own emissions increased 10.4 percent.
Shishido said that the measure is also intended to encourage the ministry’s 700 workers to leave the office as soon as they finish their work. Often in Kasumigaseki, Japan’s government center, lights are on until very late at night.
“There will be some confusion at the start, but I think we will change the way we work as we are used to the idea of staying in the office until 10, 11, 12 p.m. or 1 a.m,” Shishido said. “The most important thing is to cut back on CO2 emissions.”
Shishido said there will be exceptions. Officials, for instance, would be allowed to keep lights on late when Japan’s Parliament is in session, when the workload of the ministry officials increases.
Since February, the ministry’s heating has been turned off as part of its efforts to cut down on CO2 gasses.
The ministry introduced a “Warm Biz” campaign in fall urging Japan’s bureaucracy and businesses to bundle up with sweaters and scarves to cut down on office heater use.
That campaign followed the summer’s highly publicized “Cool Biz,” which promoted cutting down on air conditioning use by urging businessmen and officials to wear open-collar short sleeve shirts.
Japan lags far behind its Kyoto Protocol pledge to cut output of gases believed to be warming Earth’s atmosphere to 6 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. In 2004, the last year for which statistics are available, output was up 7.4 percent from 1990. (AP)
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/business/news/20060330p2g00m0bu024000c.html
March 30th, 2006 at 10:46 am
“Anyway, my estimate is that the implementation of a 2% carbon tax from day 1,…”
“2% carbon tax”…does that mean “increase the price of products containing carbon by 2%”? For example, if gasoline is $2.50 per gallon, raise the price by 5 cents?
“…indexed to increase at 2%pa for a decade, would have an overall effect on consolidated world GDP that would be lost in the noise,…”
What do you think it would do to CO2 emissions? Can you say what worldwide industrial CO2 emissions would be in 2010, 2020, 2030 and 2040 without your plan, and with your plan?
FYI: CO2 emissions are currently approximately 24-25 billion metric tons…see:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html
March 30th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Is there no interest in schemes other than carbon-dioxide reduction? Since preventing CO2 emissions is patently a very expensive approach to take, would it not be worth investigating alternatives?
For example, is there a way to reduce water vapor content in the atmosphere? Could we paint all of our roof tops white? Can carbon dioxide be retroactively removed from the atmosphere in some way, perhaps via microbe-based air cleaning plants?
The main difficulty of the Kyoto approach is the raw cost in moving away from cheap energy. With this kind of money involved, shouldn’t someone be looking a little further afield for alternatives? And if there is no good alternative for prevention, shouldn’t we at least consider the option of putting the same money into response instead of prevention?
(And, gee, shouldn’t that be our first focus, anyway, given that natural disasters are nothing new?)
March 30th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Daublin
Yes, I agree that more effective and less costly solutions are called for. However, in order for many countries to progress on this alternative route, two deep-seated and highly unaccommodating myths need to be overcome:
1. That mandatory emission reduction plans (a la Kyoto) can be sucessfully forced upon economies that are growing relentlessly
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4861800.stm
and
2. that we only have a couple of decades or so before a runaway greenhouse effect, the dreaded “tipping point” (or a climate Armageddon), will trigger inescapable global disaster, as prophets of doom like NASA’s Jim Hansen claim.
Now, it would appear that the comprehensive Kyoto-fiasco is bringing about a gradual volte-face among many governments, in particular among those that have quite simply been unable to deliver on their promises and are facing the risk of paying an extremely high price for their failure.
Yet, for these governments to advance alternative climate policies, it will become indispensable to look to long-term, technological approaches that are incompatible with the near-hysterical demands by green campaigners and climate alarmists. And that is why I am confident that governments whose political realism (and political survival) hinges on long-term climate policies will have no option but to encourage anti-alarmist pragmatist accentuated by anti-apocalyptic scepticism. Mark my words.
March 30th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Benben FUD phrases used in above comment (11.39 am):
1. highly unaccommodating myths
2. sucessfully forced upon economies
3. the dreaded “tipping point”
4. climate Armageddon
5. inescapable global disaster
6. prophets of doom
7. the comprehensive Kyoto-fiasco
8. near-hysterical demands
9. green campaigners
10. climate alarmists
11. anti-alarmist pragmatist[s]
12. anti-apocalyptic scepticism
Benben post words: 208
words/FUD phrase: 17.33
Best,
D
March 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Oh good grief! I thought Benny Peiser had to be joking but now it seems you expect that stuff to be taken seriously? Please.
If you or Mark are genuinely interested in carbon tax questions – ah, no Benny they are not “failed command-and-control climate policy” for crying out loud and falling off my chair laughing – then I recommend to you both in the first instance the thoughts of a few Nobel laureate economists such as those Copenhagen Consensus fellows who said (in summary):
“The panel recognised that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive. The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in later years. Such a proposal however was not examined in detail in the presentations put to the panel, and so was not ranked. The panel urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies.”
http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC14898.htm
March 31st, 2006 at 5:57 am
John
Nice to see that Bjorn Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus is gaining in respect and popularity. It certainly is a very useful document of informed policy advice.
However, I’m not entirely sure that you fully understood the results and main message of the whole exercise. Of all the world’s key problems, climate change and proposals to deal with it (including carbon tax proposals) rank at the very bottom. Evidently, there are many more important problems that governments need to address today than climate change.
Anyway, I very much doubt that global carbon taxes will ever fly. Now that the Kyoto-fiasco is playing out in front of our eyes,
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/latest/200603310548/292c1925
more and more governments are becoming extremely reluctant to listen to the very people and researchers who landed them in this economic and political debacle in the first place.
Some governments (see Germany or Canada) might even lose power once the electorate feel that their jobs and standard of living are put at risk or surrendered as a result of botched Kyoto policies that have achieved nothing than huge damage to their economies.
If you want to know what I regard to be the most likely – and the most encouraging – development on climate change policies in the next couple of decades, here is how I think it’s going to work out:
companies and businesses, incentivized by effective government policies, will invent and develop low-carbon technologies – then sell them around the world and make a fortune. That’s what is beginning to happen in the USA and Europe – and that’s what could make a real difference in the long run. All we need is patience, persistence and human ingenuity http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35847/story.htm
March 31st, 2006 at 11:14 am
And here is another great policy option: create a global $100 million annual prize for the most cost-effective, new low-carbon energy technology. That’s a time-honoured methods of how Britain’s technological advance has been stimulated since since the reign of Charles II.
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/index.php/blog/individual/prize_fund_to_save_the_planet_anyone1/
March 31st, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Benny-
A prize fund makes very good sense in my view, see:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/environment/000658get_ready_for_air_ca.html
and
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000073update_on_prizes_in_.html
March 31st, 2006 at 5:56 pm
“However, I’m not entirely sure that you fully understood the results and main message of the whole exercise.” – I’ll just take the liberty of repeating for you then what the Nobel laureate economists said (it only takes a moment): “The panel recognised that global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive. The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in later years. Such a proposal however was not examined in detail in the presentations put to the panel, and so was not ranked. The panel urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies.”
http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC14898.htm
Bjorn Lomborg, by contrast, evinces no ability or interest in scientific issues and his misbehaviour in abusing the work of the people on his Copenhagen Consensus panel (such as these very same economists, above) I find transparent and shameful. See also http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/environment/000518pope_vs_lomborg.html and http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/07/copenhagen-collapse
In short then my low opinion of Lomborg differs from yours and Roger’s, Benny.
On the other hand I agree with you that human ingenuity is capable of solving almost as many of our problems as it creates for us (little joke there for you) and I expect like you that great strides toward lower carbon emissions will be made by the brightest among us. But your “patience, persistence and human ingenuity” will definitely not be able to address the climate change we face unless our policies and our economic incentives allow them to. Those economic factors are things like carbon taxes by the way, whether or not you choose to refer them as “command-and-control climate policies a la Kyoto and carbon taxes”, to be forced on your unwilling head by the “near-hysterical demands” of “green campaigners” and “climate alarmists”.
You shouldn’t believe that those good things you forsee will arrive in your lifetime without our implementing the economic policies that would produce them. Without something like a carbon tax, or at least some way of reflecting in the price to consumers of fossil fuels a cost associated with their presently uncosted negative externalities (such as their effect via CO2 emissions on climate, air pollution, acidification of waters), they’ll remain simply too cheap for a long, long time. (I’m sure we should all be grown up enough on this blog to understand that “cheap” doesn’t mean “good” or “great value”).
March 31st, 2006 at 10:38 pm
John Frankis writes, “If you or Mark are genuinely interested in carbon tax questions…”
Let’s see…I’m a practicing environmental engineer, specializing in air pollution issues related to energy production. So yes, you could say I’m “genuinely interested.”
He continues, “…then I recommend to you both in the first instance the thoughts of a few Nobel laureate economists such as those Copenhagen Consensus fellows who said (in summary):…”
“The panel recognised that global warming must be addressed,…”
With all due respect to the economists involved in the Copenhagen Consensus, I don’t feel any need to take their opinions as Gospel (so to speak). I think I am every bit as qualified as any of the economists involved in the Copenhagen Consensus to judge whether “global warming must be addressed.”
He continues quoting the economists of the “Copenhagen Consensus”: “…but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive. The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in later years. Such a proposal however was not examined in detail in the presentations put to the panel, and so was not ranked. The panel urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies.”
Yes, I’ve read the sections on global warming in “Global Crises, Global Solutions.” (I’m curious whether you have?)
Do you know what the carbon tax Robert Mendelsohn proposed?—>ANSWER: He proposed a tax of $2 per ton of carbon in 2010, rising to $10 per ton in 2050, and $20 per ton in 2100.
And do you know what those taxes translate to, per gallon of gasoline?—->ANSWER:
Let’s see…gasoline is essentially C8H8…
C8H8 + 10O2—>8CO2 + 4H20
MW of C8H8 is 104, so 104 lbs of gasoline produces 96 lbs of carbon in CO2.
The weight of gasoline is 6.25 pounds per gallon. So 1 gallon of gasoline produces 6.25 * (96/104) = 5.77 lbs of carbon in CO2. So it takes 347 gallons of gasoline to produce a ton of carbon in CO2. He’s proposing $2/ton in 2010…so he’s proposing 2/347 = about 0.6 cents per gallon in 2010, rising to 3 cents per gallon in 2050, and 6 cents per gallon in 2100.
Does that sound pretty good to you?
(Let me take a wild guess…this isn’t what you had in mind!)
Two more questions…since you didn’t answer me the first time:
1) Your “2% carbon tax”…does that mean a 2 percent increase in the price of fuels containing carbon…e.g., a 2 percent increase in the price of gasoline? And your 2%pa increase for a decade would mean approximately a 20% increase in the cost of carbon-containing fuels in a decade?
2) What do you think your proposed carbon tax will do to emissions of CO2? What worldwide emissions of CO2 do you expect for 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040 with and without your proposed tax?
April 1st, 2006 at 12:01 am
“Does that sound pretty good to you?”
Nice analysis Mark, certainly finer than necessary for government business. And no, the answer is that that level of carbon tax is far too low to achieve anything significant in emissions reductions. You were right in your earlier post that I’d propose something more like $.05 per gallon from tomorrow and rising to $.50 (or 20% of the price say) in a decade.
So does it matter that Mendelsohn and I may differ by an order of magnitude in our preferred starting level for a carbon tax? I’d take his offer with alacrity and implement the tax at his level tomorrow. Then in say two years time you, he and I would take a little look at the trends in climate change and the energy economy’s performance – and recommend to the regulators the new rate for the following two years.
I wouldn’t waste the mental energy, today, attempting to predict what the global carbon budget might look like in even 25 years time as a result of our little tax. This would be partly because I subscribe to that quip that econometric modelling makes environmental modelling seem an exact science, and partly because – you’ll have seen this coming – once we have the tax then, just as for every other tax, its rate can be tweaked.
People are seemingly separable into (at least) two subcategories over this kind of C02 emissions thing. If your attitude is “no matter how much we poo in our backyard no wurries man we’ll just adapt and mitigate!” then you’ll take your fossil fuels as cheap and plentiful as you can get ‘em, for as long as you last. If your attitude is different in any respect from that, though, and perhaps you hope with Benny that somehow we’ll manage to reduce our carbon emissions, then I cannot think of a better or more responsive and market friendly mechanism to achieve that than via a carbon tax. Emissions trading might suit marketeers and “players” better because it would be clumsier and more amenable to rorting and subversion (I think) … and I’d settle for it as a second best option.
April 1st, 2006 at 7:02 am
John
I’m afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The European experience with carbon taxes has shown that they don’t – and will never – work as long as continuously rising energy consumption as a result of economic growth far outstrips any tax-driven emission reductions. As Mark Bahner has pointed out, conservative estimates project that world energy consumption will increase by more than 50% in the next 20 years alone.
Anyway, here is another reality check: In the UK, petrol currently costs about 86 pence per litre. That makes UK petrol around $6 a gallon (one US gallon equals ~3.8 litres). About 73% of the price of petrol is down to tax. In other words, for every £50 you spend at the pumps, you only get $14 of petrol. Now try running the US elections on the prospect of European rates of fuel taxes, growing poverty and economic decline and people will call the new Machiavelli.
Britons have also been subjected to an additional, proper carbon tax. Still CO2 emissions have been rising year on year. In fact, CO2 emissions in the UK are now 2% higher than they were when Tony Blair came to power in 1997.
Not only have the almost prohibitive fuel and carbon taxes failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; they have – as economic realists have been warning – plunged millions of British homes into fuel poverty. So much for the social impact of the green lobby. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/198744/1/.html
The shambles of British climate policies and the failed carbon taxes are such that green campaigners are beginning to lose their nerves in desperation. Even influential parliamentarians have begun to resort to the ultimate weapon in their armoury:
What the red-green campaigners are openly advocating is nothing less than the elimination of free market economies, or what they call “the abandoning of the ‘business as usual’ pursuit of economic growth, which has been the basis of Western economic policy for two hundred years.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article354055.ece
It almost looks as if some worry warts are becoming so desperate that even the prospect of economic suicide and social depravation is regarded as a legitimate policy option. Looking at France and given Europe’s general decline, I wouldn’t rule out that this policy might catch on in some political circles. Somehow I doubt, however, that calling for economic self-demolition is a great vote winner.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:23 am
Benny Peiser writes, “As Mark Bahner has pointed out, conservative estimates project that world energy consumption will increase by more than 50% in the next 20 years alone.”
Whoa! Let’s be very careful here!
I don’t believe I’ve ever made a prediction about world *energy use* in the coming decades.
Where I *have* made predictions is in worldwide industrial CO2 emissions. Specifically, based on a 1990 starting point of 6.0 gigatons as carbon (different sources have slightly different values for 1990), I’ve predicted (in January 2005) the following “50 percent probability” values for the next 50 years:
2010: 7.4 Gt
2020: 8.6 Gt
2030: 8.8 Gt
2040: 8.7 Gt
2050: 8.3 Gt
2060: 7.8 Gt
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/01/prujections_ipc.html
(Note: I just realized that the IPCC probably reports everything as billions of *metric* tons…so all those values are actually “gigatonnes”…where tonne is refers to a “metric ton” or 1000 kg.) (Note: What a mess. It doesn’t say much for the U.S. that we appear incapable of joining the rest of the world in the *metric* 21st century.)
ANYWAY…my point–if I have one, as Dave Barry would say–is that I think virtually everyone is dramatically OVERestimating worldwide industrial CO2 emissions in the 21st century. Specifically, I think CO2 emissions will peak circa 2030, simply as a result of natural technological and demographic evolution. Worldwide CO2 emissions per capita have been almost PERFECTLY flat for the last 30 years. There’s no reason to expect per-capita emissions to rise substantially in the next 30 years…which means that emissions will rise by about 1.2 percent per year for the next 30 years (that’s approximately the rate of world population growth). After that, it’s likely that the world will increasing shift to a natural gas economy (possibly powered by methane hydrates?).
Alternatively, it’s even possible that the world will jump straight to a fusion economy within the next 50 years:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/alternatives_to.html
I hope to have more time to write about this later.
P.S. Roger, if you’re looking for the policy paper of a lifetime, I think there’s one in this. I’m thinking of you (or “y’all”…depending on your chosen co-authors) proposing that the federal government set up a reward system for non-tokamak fusion reactors. For example, you could propose (this is totally off-the-cuff spitballing):
1) $20 million each to the first 5 non-tokamak fusion systems that generated at least 1 kW of thermal power, within a factor of 100 of breakeven, for a period of 1 hour.
2) $100 million each to the first 5 non-tokamak fusion systems that generated at least 1 kW of thermal power, within a factor of 10 of breakeven, for a period of 1 hour.
3) $1 billion each to the first 3 non-tokamak fusion systems that generated at least 1 kW of electrical power, at or above breakeven, for a period of 1 day. (With power in any particular hour not being less than 0.5 kW.)
The total reward if ALL those prizes were claimed would be $500 million + $500 million + $3 billion…or $4 billion dollars. It would probably be BY FAR the most cost-effective spending on energy technology in the history of the U.S. (or any other) government.
P.S. The policy research would be in assessing the benefits to the U.S. government of commercial fusion technology, and assessing the proper technical hurdles and the proper resulting monetary prizes.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:31 am
Oops. I see my cost calculation was wrong (posting in haste will do that…I need to get outta here).
The actual cost to the federal government would be $100 million + $500 million + $3 billion…or $3.6 billion, not $4 billion.
But on thinking some more, I’d probably bump the initial prize to $20 million to the first 10 (not 5) groups that generated at least 1 kW within a factor of 100 of breakeven. That would encourage more groups to get involved.
In any case, it would probably be the best ~$4 billion that the U.S. federal government has ever spent on energy technology. (And if no one claimed any of prizes, it would be completely free to the U.S. government…that’s the superiority of prizes over straight funded research.)
April 1st, 2006 at 8:34 am
My apologies, Mark
I should have said: “As the EIA (see Mark Bahner’s link) points out, conservative estimates project that world energy consumption will increase by more than 50% in the next 20 years alone.”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html
April 1st, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I’d suggest that the most appropriate tax with which to raise the money to pay for prizes for fusion reactor progresss would have to be a carbon tax, would you agree Mark?
Benny you’ll need to choose which category you’re in because clicking your heels and wishing the greenhouse effect away isn’t going to work. That’s what’s most clearly proven by your evidence of rising emissions from the UK and Europe, above.
On taxation policy generally a good rule is to tax bad things that we’re addicted to while lightening taxation on good (or less bad) things that we’d prefer, relatively speaking, to encourage more of. At the moment and simply speaking we’d be wise to increase taxation of fossil fuels but reduce (for instance) income taxation.
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 am
John
Let me try again: The experience with carbon taxes shows that they cannot bring down CO2 emission while economies continue to grow unabatedly. That is the case even in Europe were growth rates are extremely sluggish. All they have done is to damage our economy and international competitiveness and plunge more and more people into poverty and unemployment.
After years of denial, governments around the world are slowly waking up to the reality of economic dynamics.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1745068,00.html
Others have begun to embrace the US American approach to climate change by prioritising job security and economic growth over emission cuts.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article355170.ece
As to the future of climate change policies, it is becoming pretty evident now that there are no quick fixes. It is also patently obvious that Britain’s new climate policy has beceom the new international mantra: “No-one is going to damage their economy in trying to tackle this problem of the environment. There are ways that we can tackle climate change fully consistent with growing our economies.”
Let’s be frank: after almost 2 decades of the hype, hysteria and failing climate policies, policy-makers are finally beginning to look at climate change as a long-term issue. I see no reason why technological advances and social adaptation during the next 100 years or so shouldn’t be able to address any potential problems effectively – and cost-effectively. After all, that’s the only realistic and economically viable option left – short of Soviet-style, global carbon rationing.
April 2nd, 2006 at 7:43 am
Well OK then Benny, you’re proudly in the “we’ll just adapt to all the poo in the backyard like we always have!” category and that’s just that.
Thought experiment for you: suppose we’d actually run out of coal two decades ago and been forced to substitute nuclear power and whatever else we could get to work – how would the ol’ global economy be looking today do you reckon?
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:48 am
John
What exactly is wrong with the view that “we’ll just adapt to all the poo in the backyard like we always have?” Our species has been adapting for the last 5 million years to whatever nature has thrown at us (asteroid impacts, ice ages, climate change, pandemics – you name it). Isn’t the fact that we have been very good at adapting valid reason for hope?
With regards to your hypothetical question, the world’s coal resource is estimated at over 7 trillion tonnes (or 200,000 EJ). If coal consumption were to continued at the present rate of 100 EJ p.a., the world would run out of coal in about 2000 years. Long, long before that time, however, most likely in the next few generations, we will develop much cheaper, much more powerful and much cleaner energy sources. In the meantime, as I pointed out further above, clean-coal technologies are been developed and are set to become technically and economically feasible in the next few years. In short, there is absolutely no reason for despair.
April 2nd, 2006 at 4:09 pm
The fact that we’ve always been very good at adapting is indeed fair reason to hope. The ability of homo sapiens to adapt depends upon our mastery and application of reasoning you’d agree – not on our teeth, claws or good fortune – which we’ve always had to set against hysteria, alarmism, and the spreading of fear, uncertainty and doubt by those of lesser reasoning capabilities. You’ll agree too that far from being 5m years old what we consider to be civilisation today is certainly less than 10k years old, but for your and my idea of “civilisation” better considered to be less than 3k years old. Perhaps only a few hundred years of modern civilisation – you tell me.
The we’ve dominated the planet in macroecological terms for perhaps a couple of hundred years only, so we’re actually in hitherto unseen territory today in terms of the consequences of our own impacts on our own backyard, globally speaking. There’ve been no civilisation threatening asteroids, volcanos, tsunamis or climate changes in the history of our civilisation either, you’ll perhaps agree.
I’ll try to restate the thought experiment this way: had the world run out of (cheap) coal twenty years back and nuclear power be generating today the bulk of the world’s electrical power – can you tell us whether you would expect that the world as a consequence would be an economic ruin even as we speak, maybe even something of a Stalinist hell-hole, or do you think we might have adapted OK in economic terms (as well as having far lower CO2 emissions I suppose)? And, who do you think is going to pay tomorrow for your clean coal technologies when their perhaps commie competitors are undercutting them all day long in the marketplace; isn’t this mere wishful thinking on your part?
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:09 pm
It may be worth reminding Benny that in many cases, the way we have “adapted” to threats is by controlling or even banning what gives rise to the problem. When the benefits accrue to some and the costs to others, then some form of collective decision-making is pretty much the only option.
April 2nd, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Just to add to the “dogpile on Benny”, I am a little horrified that he characterises things like 75% death rate from bubonic plague and the 50 millions dying in the pandemic at the turn of the 20th century as “adapting”
But if that is the benchmark he is aiming for, I agree we will meet it.
April 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 pm
What do you think the population would be right now on Earth if the average number of children would have been 2.1 per couple over the last 1,000,000 years?
Figure it out. If you think cataclysm has not shaped Homo sapiens with mankind emerging stronger every time, you are very naive.
But, that goes without saying if you believe in simplistic CO2 models.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:57 am
John
If we were beginning to run out of coal, its cost would gradually rise accordingly, up to such a level that investment in alternative energy would become significantly more economical. The historical lessons of this relationship between energy sources, consumption and technological progress was well summarised by the late Julian Simon http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/TCHAR11.txt
Prohibition sounds nice on paper, James. But let’s not forget the warning from history.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,605556,00.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel010401.shtml
A heavy dose of reservation is warranted about any authoritarian command-and-control solutions. Just consider the human and societal self-destruction wrought by the prohibition of private property. It is not that long ago that tens of thousands of scientists around the world were convinced that capitalism was the biggest problem and that societies devoid of private enterprise would turn Socialism into economic powerhouses and a workers paradise.
As the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No question, political decisions have to be taken, but they need to be carefully costed and carefully tested. Most importantly, they need to show that they are effective and cost-effective. Otherwise, the economic and social demolition caused will, as so often, offset any envisaged gains.
April 3rd, 2006 at 9:43 am
Ooooh! Enacting Kyoto is like Marxism or Commanism or something. Good one Benny.
And thanks for referring to Julian Simon. Makes it easy for some if they missed your Socialism Scare FUD before.
Best,
D
April 3rd, 2006 at 2:23 pm
I wasn’t linking the Kyoto Protocol to Marxism or Soviet-Communist 10-year plans. I freely admit, however, that such a comparison does appear rather alluring.
Regardless, I was refering to the law of unintended consequences, the notorious little spoil-sport of top-down politics that has wrecked countless plans concocted by big governments, small dictators and overweight bureaucracies.
Some astute observers, nevertheless, have noticed a semblence between the “nightmare science” of Marxist activists and that of climate science activists. Here are some very sharp observations that got to the heart of the role of science in today’s climate of political science advocay.
http://www.greenbiz.com/news/columns_third.cfm?NewsID=30446
April 3rd, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Benny, some may admire your willingness to cite newspaper articles but I think that to debate with the scientists who I suppose you should assume may be reading Roger Pielke Jr’s blog, you could consider making a few more citations to the specialist literature or at least to recognised reference works to support your many claims and assertions. I confess that I for one am not willing to go read a newspaper story simply because you cite it, unless you can make a brief case in your own words for why it should be instructive.
I think it’s probably also clear to most readers bothered enough to be following this thread that your response above: “If we were beginning to run out of coal, its cost would gradually rise accordingly, up to such a level that investment in alternative energy would become significantly more economical” is non sequitur to anything other than your own comments, sounding (I’m sorry) like evasion – but possibly just misunderstanding – of the issues under discussion. You’ll recall that Roger posted “… Nordhaus points our attention away from Kyoto and toward internationally harmonized carbon taxes … discussion of such options should take place not only among individual scholars but also more formally through authoritative institutions of climate science and policy …”. It was interest in Roger’s thoughts that attracted me (at least) to comment here.
And Benny, as for your reliance upon a command and control nanny state to protect your supposedly “private property” from my aspiration to take it from you – good luck pal ‘cos me and my libertarian, take-no-prisoner buddies are coming to relieve you of it unless you’re good enough, by yourself and without hiding behind the skirts of your do-gooder nanny government and nanny laws, to stop us.
April 3rd, 2006 at 6:08 pm
If property is theft, what are intellectual property policies:)
April 4th, 2006 at 9:45 am
I like how Benny has to link to someone performing a thought exercise rather than someone reporting evidence to make “his”…er…point.
Best,
D