Mugging Little Old Ladies and Reasoning by Analogy
November 28th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
[Updated 21:52 28 Nov 06]
Stanford’s Ken Caldeira provides an interesting, and I think unhelpful, analogy for how we might think about climate policy in the 20 November 2006 issue of the New Yorker in an article by Elizabeth Kolbert on carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans:
The term “ocean acidification” was coined in 2003 by two climate scientists, Ken Caldeira and Michael Wickett, who were working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in Northern California. . .
Caldeira told me that he had chosen the term “ocean acidification” quite deliberately, for its shock value. . .[According to Calderia, Kolbert has misquoted him. See comments. RP]Caldeira said that he had recently gone to Washington to brief some members of Congress. “I was asked, ‘What is the appropriate stabilization target for atmospheric CO2?’ he recalled. “And I said, ‘Well, I think it’s inappropriate to think in terms of stabilization targets. I think we should think in terms of emissions targets.’ And they said, ‘O.K., what’s the appropriate emissions target?’ And I said, ‘Zero.’
“If you’re talking about mugging little old ladies, you don’t say, ‘What’s our target for the rate of mugging little old ladies?’ You say, ‘Mugging little old ladies is bad, and we’re going to try to eliminate it.’ You recognize you might not be a hundred per cent successful, but your goal is to eliminate the mugging of little old ladies. And I think we need to eventually come around to looking at carbon-dioxide emissions the same way.”
Analogies matter in policy debate. For instance, should we think of Iraq like the Vietnam War, the French in Algeria, or is the situation now a “civil war”? Public debate over contested policy issues often involves different interests seeking to define the policy problem in different ways – and hence limit the scope of acceptable alternatives in response. Analogical reasoning is central to battles over the framing of a policy problem.
For several reasons, Prof. Caldeira’s choice of analogies is less-than-helpful for the cause for which he is advocating. (And for the record, I support action on climate policy, as discussed in my summer, 2006 congressional testimony — PDF.) Most significantly from the standpoint of framing of the climate problem, mugging little old ladies is a criminal activity while emitting greenhouse gases is not a criminal activity. Juxtaposing the two only adds to the perception of extremism among advocates of action on energy policies.
As an example, of these dynamics, it was not long after the phrase “climate change denier” became in vogue (and also adopted by activist scientists) that we heard an analogy — which easily followed from the parallel construction to “Holocaust deniers” — suggesting trials and executions for the climate change deniers. Surely this sort of analogical reasoning did not advance the political cause of those advocating rapid reductions in emissions.
Prof. Caldeira also explains that he seeks to “shock” with his terminology of “ocean acidification.” Seeking to motivate particular policy actions with scientific results – or a dramatic presentation of scientific results – is rarely effective or good for science, as we discussed last week. As Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr have written,
The costs of stirring up fear are high. It sacrifices the otherwise so highly valued principle of sustainability. A scarce resource – public attention and trust in the reliability of science – is used up without being renewed by the practice of positive examples.
The truth is that the uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans is something that should capture our attention – whether we call it “ocean acidification” or not. But for the vast majority of people and policy makers there are far more immediate and compelling justifications to provide policy makers for beginning the decades-long challenge of reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Some of these reasons include saving money, increasing efficiency, reducing particulate air pollution, and reducing reliance on foreign sources of energy. Framing problems in terms of what actually matters to people is going to make action more likely that offering up scary science or misleading analogies.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Roger,
If the report in the New Yorker is accurate, I am astonished by the claim attributed to Mr. Caldeira that the appropriate emissions target for CO2/GHGs is zero. This necessarily implies zero benefits to society today from any activities that produce GHGs, whether it is fossil fuel combustion, land clearance, crop fertilization, or what have you.
If that were indeed the case, there would be no emissions in the first place.
Over time, as technology advances the statement attributed to Mr. Caldeira may turn out to be true, but we aren’t there yet. And it’s not clear that such advances would occur absent the wealth generated by an economy that is powered and fed (literally) for the most part by activities that generate GHGs.
This highlights one of the problems with the analogy. There is no good associated with mugging old ladies, but that’s not the case for GHG-generating activities.
No, even when it comes to GHG emissions and one is a fervent believer in GHG-induced warming, it’s not all black or white, but shades of gray.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I am shocked, _shocked_ to find that ….
Oh, wait, if I’d read for context I wouldn’t be surprised, for at least two reasons. But in political spinning, of course, nobody does that. For the record, for the science readers, it’s interesting to note:
He’s quoted as liking shocking examples (the New Yorker article gives several others, like cutting down all the forests to increase Earth’s albedo — well?).
And, he’s published this opinion long since:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5615/2052?siteid=sci&ijkey=Fs%2F9IOvS.AH0A&keytype=ref
Science 28 March 2003:
Vol. 299. no. 5615, pp. 2052 – 2054
DOI: 10.1126/science.1078938
Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO2 Emission
Ken Caldeira,1* Atul K. Jain,2 Martin I. Hoffert3
What? Cutting down all the trees? Clearly the man’s a maniac, not worthy of …. oh, wait.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
First: I did not use the term “ocean acidification” for “shock value”. I told the “Then New Yorker” fact checker that was incorrect and they printed it anyway.
Second: It is commonplace when studying a problem to bound the problem by looking at extreme end members. Doing a simulation in which all trees are removed from the surface of the planet does not imply that such a condition is ever likely to attain. Nobody that I know of has ever suggested that anyone would or should cut down all trees to change Earth’s albedo. Attributing that proposal to me is irresponsible.
Third: Regarding trying to eliminate CO2 emissions. Clearly, no metaphor is perfect. I do believe that we in the industrialized world need order-of-magnitude reductions in per capita emissions if we expect future generations to live in a world with corals, etc. To acheive order-of-magnitude reductions in emissions, we would need to attempt to eliminate all emisssions, realizing that we are unlikely to be more that 90% successful in our goal. I disagree with the Stern Report in that I do not believe that the NPV of the costs of emission reduction will be less than the NPV of the monetizable costs associated with climate change (and ocean acidification). I think it is fundamentally an ethical question: Is it ethical for us to greatly reduce biodiversity and make other irreversible and unpredictable global-scale changes so that we can have a century’s delay in transitioning away from fossil fuels? My metaphor indicates that this is an ethical question, not simply an economic question.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Ken-
Thanks for your comments. A few reactions:
1. I’ve edited the original post to correct the misquote. Thanks for pointing this out.
2. I think that studies looking at extreme end members can be very useful.
3. I agree with you 100% that climate change is an ethical question. Of course, economics and ethics are not completely separate issues.
I hope you’ll keep searching for an effective policy analogy. Mugging little old ladies isn’t quite it.
Thanks again!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
Dr. Goklany:
I agree that there are many shades of gray, but you seem to be missing quite a few.
Allow me to respectfully disagree with you on the following points:
1. “I am astonished by the claim attributed to Mr. Caldeira that the appropriate emissions target for CO2/GHGs is zero. This necessarily implies zero benefits to society today from any activities that produce GHGs ….. If that were indeed the case, there would be no emissions in the first place.”
Surely you are aware of the large errors of overstatment and omission in your comment.
First, for Caldeira to say that the appropriate emissions target for CO2/GHGs is zero does NOT imply that society receives zero benefits today from activities that produce GHGs, but rather implies that the marginal costs of such emissions now exceed their benefits.
Second, you fail to note that the costs of GHG emissions are a pure externatility to the economic actors who produce them. As there are no property rights to the global atmosphere, in the absence of regulation using the atmosphere as a GHG dump is free, with costs shifted to all and to the future. Accordingly, for as long as this situation continues, even if the social costs of GHG emissions were to exceed by orders of magnitude the private gains from activities that emit GHGs, private use would continue. Emissions by private actors are based on the costs and benefits they individually face, not on social costs.
2. “There is no good associated with mugging old ladies, but that’s not the case for GHG-generating activities.”
There IS a good associated with mugging old ladies – the private gain to the mugger, who does not bear her costs (or associated social costs) unless society punishes him. This is analogous to a private economic actor shifting GHG emission costs to others, and differs only in that the benefit is received by exploiting a global commons, rather than an identifiable individual whom we have decided as a society to protect. To the extent society makes the decision to police the global commons, the difference almost completely collapses.
3. “it’s not clear that such [technology] advances would occur absent the wealth generated by an economy that is powered and fed (literally) for the most part by activities that generate GHGs.”
Absent a price on carbon emissions (or property rights to the atmosphere), there are no private incentives to develop technologies that are expressly targeted at reducing GHG emissions, as there are no private gains to be captured (or private costs to be avoided) through such technologies (or other changes in economic decisions).
Your suggestion has the perverse implication that it is always the best approach to the managment of open-access commons to encourage their unfettered destructive over-exploitation for the benerfit of private interests today, and let wealthier generations deal with the mess. Presumably future generations should also act similarly for the benefit of those who destroy public goods? Excuse me for thinking that encouraging and whitewashing the destruction of common resources is not the epitome of wisdom.
Perhaps you are aware that the great progress that man has made in improving his collective wealth has come about through the development of institutions that control the exploitation of common resource either through regulated common or private property rules. The basic question facing us today is whether the costs of creating a regime that prices GHG emission activities exceeds the costs of unfettered exploitation. See Yandle: http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/environmentalismorconservation/commons.shtml.
An ancillary question is whether the short-term agendas of national players in the global prisoners’ dilemma game will prevail over long-term interests. The short time horizons of politicans means incentives are skewed to procrastination and to short-term gains, rather than to building consensus and meaningful rules.
Another related question is that of rent-seeking in domestic policy positions (both toward international rules and towards domestic laws). While there are benefits to be captured by new rules, there are also clearly benefits to maintaining the status-quo free exploitation of open-access resources at the cost of all.
It seems to me that you are suggesting that we continue to party, costs be damned, and let future generations worry about making a decision to regulate the commons. Who benefits the most from such a position?
November 29th, 2006 at 1:01 am
The proper name for carbon dioxide is carbonic acid. If there is more CO2 in the ocean, the Ph falls, it becomes more acid. It is accurate and appropriate to call this acidification.
The proclaimed goal of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by basically all countries, is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations, including that of CO2. As the atmospheric life-time of part of the CO2 is very long — indeed, infinite in some of the simple carbon cycle models — it follows that the only way to stabilise CO2 concentrations is to have zero emissions.
Ken Caldeira’s call for zero emissions reflects official UN and US policy. The basic science has been known for decades; this ignorant economist has traced this back, without much effort, to 1987.
The fact that some people are surprised or shocked by this is probably because of the IPCC’s call for 60-80% emission reduction.
I think this was meant to be 60-80% by 2100 or so, but then the IPCC cannot give policy recommendations, so they left out the date and another myth was born.
So, stabilisation implies zero emissions, eventually.
None of this means anything. Emissions will go to zero anyway, as fossil fuels are finite. The question is zero emissions when, and stabilisation at what level: 2xC02, 4xCO2, 8xCO2, 16xCO2?
November 29th, 2006 at 1:29 am
“the marginal costs of such emissions now exceed their benefits.”
Absurd! Power generation, transport etc – the benefits far outweigh emissions.
Even in today’s warmer world – warmer that when it was cooler, cooler that when it was warmer – the UK has 25,000 to 45,000 ‘excess winter deaths’ – no doubt many if these are ‘old ladies.’
We’re swappimg ‘mugging old ladies’ for mugging everyone with ‘green taxes.’
Oceans are becoming slightly ‘less alkaline,’ but they remain alkaline nvertheless.
How much of the current, possibly temporary warming
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
is due to CO2?
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/04/27/what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-the-radiative-forcing-of-increased-atmospheric-concentrations-of-co2/
Show us a calculation. Show us how much warming a doubling of CO2 will cause, then show us how much we would have to reduce atmospheric concentrations CO2 to produce your desired temperature, and over what time scale. Bear in mind the longeveity of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The chances of reducing emissions to zero, are zero. Man controlling climate change/global warming with a single factor is pure fantasy. Having a influence on climate is a very long way from being able to control it, or atmospheric CO2 levels.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:30 am
Richard-
Excellent points. We discussed this as well here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000923the_dismal_prospects.html
For its part the IPCC does acknowledge that for stablized concentrations at any level emissions do have to go to (net) zero:
“In all cases, once CO2 concentration becomes constant, the implied anthropogenic emission declines steadily. This result was expected. It highlights the fact that to maintain a constant future CO2 concentration, anthropogenic CO2 emissions would ultimately have to be reduced to the level of persistent natural sinks.”
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/124.htm
November 29th, 2006 at 8:48 am
TokyoTom (TT): First, for Caldeira to say that the appropriate emissions target for CO2/GHGs is zero does NOT imply that society receives zero benefits today from activities that produce GHGs, but rather implies that the marginal costs of such emissions now exceed their benefits.
Response: If one says “zero” emissions that indicates that according to one the aggregate (not marginal) costs of GHG emissions exceed their aggregate benefits.
TT: Second, you fail to note that the costs of GHG emissions are a pure externatility to the economic actors who produce them. As there are no property rights to the global atmosphere, in the absence of regulation using the atmosphere as a GHG dump is free, with costs shifted to all and to the future. Accordingly, for as long as this situation continues, even if the social costs of GHG emissions were to exceed by orders of magnitude the private gains from activities that emit GHGs, private use would continue. Emissions by private actors are based on the costs and benefits they individually face, not on social costs.
Response: I would agree with your last sentence had you had said: “Emissions by private actors are based on the costs and benefits they individually face, not on social costs AND BENEFITS.” You are forgetting there are social benefits, as well as costs, associated with GHG emissions. These include, among other things, a population – as opposed to individuals — that doesn’t go hungry, doesn’t freeze, doesn’t fry, can go on the Internet to research what ails them or their loved ones, or can be driven (or medivacked) to hospital instead of being (hand) carried on a stretcher, and is consequently healthier and more productive. Or consider the benefit of a population that can evacuate Florida of its own volition rather than relying on governmental assistance (as in New Orleans), etc., [I could go on, but won’t.]
TT: “There is no good associated with mugging old ladies, but that’s not the case for GHG-generating activities.” …There IS a good associated with mugging old ladies – the private gain to the mugger, who does not bear her costs (or associated social costs) …
Response: I meant SOCIAL good – my error.
TT: Absent a price on carbon emissions (or property rights to the atmosphere), there are no private incentives to develop technologies that are expressly targeted at reducing GHG emissions, as there are no private gains to be captured (or private costs to be avoided) through such technologies (or other changes in economic decisions).
Response: This is in error. As long as there is a private cost associated with energy consumption, there will be an incentive to reduce its use. Why do you think all energy consuming activities became more efficient before there ever was a Kyoto Protocol? Nakicenovoic et al. (1998) found that the energy intensity of advanced economies declined by 1% per year from 1800 onward. In addition, energy consumption was decarbonized at the rate of 0.3% per year, which indicates that private parties themselves value clean and convenient energy sources. Moreover, land use has become more efficient so that today we use almost half as much cropland per capita than did our grandparents which, of course, reduces emissions from land conversion (although some of these gains might be offset by agricultural practices). See the paper “The Future of the Industrial System” at http://members.cox.net/igoklany/Future%20of%20the%20Industrial%20System%201999%20version.pdf. Having said that, I am not an advocate of ignoring NET social costs, but nor am I in favor of looking only at the costs side of that equation.
TT: Perhaps you are aware that the great progress that man has made in improving his collective wealth has come about through the development of institutions that control the exploitation of common resource either through regulated common or private property rules.
Response: No argument here. Nice to know we can agree on something!
November 29th, 2006 at 9:11 am
Ken,
Yes, I agree it is an ethical question, but human beings and their welfare now and in the future also have to be considered in developing ethical solution(s). We, of course, also have to consider the uncertainties surrounding our knowledge of the impacts of GHG-induced climatic changes as well as the impacts of policies designed to address them.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Tom and Indur – I think you’re both right (say what?)
If at the current level of emissions the marginal damages of emissions exceeds the marginal costs of abatement, then there is a case for reducing emissions, but not to zero in the near term. (assumingthe the two curves cross at some positive level of abatement).
Emissions should be reduced now to the point where MD=MC. In the longer term, if technology shifts the MC curve further downward, then we would reach a point where emissions should be zero. I think this is the “zero by when” question Dr. Tol is referring to.
As always, if I’m talking foolish – let me know.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:04 am
From today’s Daily Camera (Boulder), a good example why the “mugging little old ladies” analogy doesn’t work:
“Carbon dioxide’s status as pollutant is tricky to define, said Pieter Tans, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder.
“Carbon dioxide is a good thing, but too much of it is not,” he said. “That’s true for a lot of medicines, too.”"
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2006/nov/29/boulder-eyes-warxming-case-before-high-court/?printer=1/
November 29th, 2006 at 10:55 am
“As the atmospheric life-time of part of the CO2 is very long — indeed, infinite in some of the simple carbon cycle models –it follows that the only way to stabilise CO2 concentrations is to have zero emissions.”
No, CO2 concentrations can also be stabilized by raising the “sink”. The various sinks on earth already absorb ~200 GtC every year. If they can be raised by about ~4 GtC every year (to match the ~7 GtC emitted by humans, minus the ~3GtC emitted by humans that are already absorbed), the CO2 concentration would be stable.
As Roger notes, the emissions need to go to *NET* zero (i.e., sources minus sinks have to be zero). It’s not necessary for sources to go to zero.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:02 am
“Emissions will go to zero anyway, as fossil fuels are finite.”
This is not true (at least in a practical sense), if one considers the natural gas in methane hydrates to be “fossil fuel.”
The estimates for the amount of natural gas in methane hydrates worldwide range as high as 400 million trillion cubic feet. Currently, the energy to power all humankind’s activities are equivalent to approximately 400 trillion cubic feet of natural gas every year.
Therefore, the estimates of natural gas in methane hydrates are as high as sufficient to power ALL humankind’s present energy needs for one *million* years.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:27 am
As Roger quotes above:
“Carbon dioxide’s status as pollutant is tricky to define, said Pieter Tans, senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder.
“Carbon dioxide is a good thing, but too much of it is not,” he said.”, highlighting the Ludditic-Anthropocentric fallacy – what exactly is too much? Should we ask commercial greenhouse keepers?
Who says we have the right currently to limit the base of the food chain (CO2 for the narrow minded), since we yet have no functional knowledge of feedback effects, and so many are starving throughout the world??? Limiting food is certainly not to the benefit of the commons.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Surely it makes sense to get ourselves an insurance policy against climate change? There is a likely risk, although the level of risk is uncertain, that climate change will have significant economic and social effects over the next century. So, we should take measures to reduce our carbon emissions without crippling the economy. It is obvious that the world’s population is better of today than ever before. Inexpensive energy has been the engine behind this.
Econmic growth and health is important because environmental concerns are a rich man’s concerns. People in general first take care of the basic needs and only then start thinking about environmental issues, etc.
Just because burning coal and oil was the right way to get us out of our mud huts, does not mean it is the right way forward from today…
November 29th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Yes, NET emissions should go to zero. As the sink capacity is finite, GROSS emissions should go to zero too, albeit later.
Methane hydrates are finite too.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Zerp CO2 emissions, huh? Does that mean I have to stop breathing, or at least exhaling?
November 29th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Roger:
Yes, at least some IPCC authors understand the carbon cycle. Your cite is correct but not very clear.
I often meet politicians, civil servants, journalists and even academics who think that 60-80% emission reduction is enough for stabilization, and cite the IPCC on that.
The 80% myth may have stuck because 80% seems doable, and 100% impossible.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
To Richard Tol,
The proper name for carbon dioxide is carbon dioxide or, perhaps, carbonic acid anydride. Carbonic acid would be the reaction product of one molecule of CO2 with one molecule of H20 (or any multiple thereof). As the pH of the ocean is currently >7, ocean neutralization is more accurately descriptive than ocean acidification.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Richard-
I agree. Many people in the same categories you mention that I talk to share similar perceptions.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Roger-
I fear that in the process of decrying hyperbole you have committed hyperbole yourself. Whatever context holocaust denial was brought up in in connection with the climate change debate, I don’t believe it would suggest that climate-change deniers be executed, as you assert. Those who committed atrocities in connection with the holocaust were, in some cases, subject to execution for their crimes. Holocaust deniers are not.
best,
Steve
November 29th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Steve- Thanks for your comment. I wish it were the case as you describe. The facts are that a commentator at the Gristmill blog (http://gristmill.grist.org/) did indeed make such a reference withr espect to “climate change deniers” which was picked up by the national media. The commentator at Grist withdrew his comment as over the top. Nonetheless it illustrates how analogies shape our thinking and discussion. For all of the sordid details you can find them at the Gristmill blog. Thanks.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
“As the sink capacity is finite, GROSS emissions should go to zero too, albeit later.”
No, the natural world has been absorbing approximately 200 GtC every year for the last…several thousand years, anyway.
I know of no reason to expect that it would be impossible to boost that value by another ~3-10+ GtC every year (such as with ocean iron fertilization), for several thousand years.
And there’s always Roger’s favorite (
)…ambient CO2 scrubbing. Scrub the CO2 out of the atmosphere, then dispose of it somewhere. There’s no reason that could not continue for many hundreds of years.
November 29th, 2006 at 9:43 pm
>Who says we have the right currently to limit the base of the food chain …
No one does.
CO2 excess is predicted to limit the base of the food chain within the current century — primary productivity _is_ the base of the food chain, right? Not greenhouse gardening — ocean plankton.
Would you argue anyone has the right to change ocean chemistry to the point that calcite and aragonite become soluble in the northern and southern oceans, the base of the food chain?
November 29th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Richard Tol and Roger,
You’ve identified a problem with how people perceive and use the term “stabilization.” I think people sometimes forget or fail to specify that that sinks can reduce part of the emissions from GHG generating activities.
Sure, stabilization means that at some point there will be no net change in GHGs in the atmosphere, but this does not necessarily mean zero GHG generating activities in the future. That depends on how and whether sinks (and GHG stocks) on land and oceans are or can be managed. And there is no reason, in principle, why “natural” sink capacity could not be increased through technological breakthroughs so that one could have (non-zero) GHG-generating activities even as GHG levels are more or less stable in the atmosphere.
Regarding the finiteness of sink capacity, so is the stock of carbon in unused fossil fuel. In fact, according to one estimate, about 85.3% of carbon is already in the oceans; 1.7% is in the atmosphere; 7.8% is in fossil fuels; and the reminder (~5%) is in vegetation, soils and detritus (Sarmiento and Gruber 2001 or 2002). It seems to me the ocean and land could, in theory, accommodate much of the carbon that is currently in unused fossil fuels. The trick, of course, is how (and in what form) to move the carbon into the ocean and keep it there, and to figure out the economic and environmnetal consequences of that.
BTW, the same study cited above estimates that there were 3,480 billion metric tons (BMT) of unused carbon in fossil fuels (this was based on circa 1989 numbers, I believe). In any case, that means less than 500 years worth of fossil fuels are left at current (2003) emission rates (~7.3 BMT).
November 29th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Correction to the above. Last sentence of penultimate para should read:
“The trick, of course, is how (and in what form) to move the carbon into the ocean AND/OR LAND and keep it there…”
November 30th, 2006 at 5:44 am
Obviously the point out zero emissions being needed for stabilization should be understood shorthand for “net” emissions, thus allowing for possible sink management and sequestration etc. Stabilization could theoretically be achieved by other interventions in the climate system.
This of course ignores the issue at what level stabilization is targeted. To reach some levels, stabilization will first require net negative emissions, or net removals of GHGs from the atmosphere.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:07 am
Dr. Goklany:
Thanks for your response.
1. Externalities: I take it that by throwing in supposed positive externalities (none of which is tired by an iron law to the level of GHG emissions) to the use of fossil fuels you are agreeing with my larger point that “the costs of GHG emissions are a pure externatility to the economic actors who produce them. As there are no property rights to the global atmosphere, in the absence of regulation using the atmosphere as a GHG dump is free, with costs shifted to all and to the future. Accordingly, for as long as this situation continues, even if the social costs of GHG emissions were to exceed by orders of magnitude the private gains from activities that emit GHGs, private use would continue.”
This is a crucial point.
2. Old ladies. You know muddle the analogy by referring to social goods, when the point was really about comparing private gain v. social costs. Well, okay – do muggers share their spoils?
3. Decarbonization: I agree completely that “As long as there is a private cost associated with energy consumption, there will be an incentive to reduce its use” – but I think it’s rather clear that I was making a different point. Decarbonization is occuring because FUELS have prices, but that decarbonization presently has NO LINKS to the net SOCIAL costs created by GHG (CO2, black carbon etc.) emissions. Consequently, my point stands: as there are no private gains to be captured in reducing external costs, there are no private incentives to develop technologies that are expressly targeted at reducing GHG emissions (as opposed to economizing on fuels generally).
This is an important point.
4. Privatizing the commons: I’m happy that you agree that we improve our collective wealth through the development of institutions that control the exploitation of common resources, either through regulated common or private property rules. That’s what this exercise is all about.
November 30th, 2006 at 6:30 am
Shoes:
Indeed. Carbonic acid is carbon dioxide dissolved in water. The point was about “acid” rather than about chemistry.
Indur:
Only the deep ocean is big enough to store all the carbon dioxide that we could release by combustion — and there are issues with permanence in the deep ocean too. Deep ocean storage is pricey, and it may well be cheaper to have zero gross emissions.
November 30th, 2006 at 10:11 am
How’d you like this analogy?
Air pollution is like child pornography.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:32 am
TT: Externalities: I take it that by throwing in supposed positive externalities (none of which is tired by an iron law to the level of GHG emissions) to the use of fossil fuels you are agreeing with my larger point that “the costs of GHG emissions are a pure externatility to the economic actors who produce them. As there are no property rights to the global atmosphere, in the absence of regulation using the atmosphere as a GHG dump is free, with costs shifted to all and to the future. Accordingly, for as long as this situation continues, even if the social costs of GHG emissions were to exceed by orders of magnitude the private gains from activities that emit GHGs, private use would continue.”
Response: Regarding the first part, I would agree if you had said “net social costs” rather than just “costs”. So I suspect our differnces on this point are semantical. Regarding the second part, I wouldn’t agree. First, whether private use would continue would be strictly a function of costs, convenience, and technological change. And while one could argue that it’s unlikely that fossil fuels will be displaced, there is no law that says it can’t be over the long term. Consider that in the US, despite coal being the “cheapest” heating source, almost no one uses coal in households or commercial establishments although, as far as I know, there are no explicit laws forbidding that. [Perhaps there are laws to that effect somewhere but no one knows that they exist because it’s not the way people would choose to heat their homes in any case. These are the best laws, since they result in 100% compliance, which lawmakers and administrative agencies can then take full credit for.] Second, if the social costs are indeed high and perceived to be as such, then people, communities, nations etc, will band together to ensure that their use is reduced. In fact we see this dynamic in operation at present. The Kyoto Protocol is a pathetic testament to this dynamic, as is the California initiative, etc. [Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people banding together to defeat a common foe.]
TT: Decarbonization: I agree completely that “As long as there is a private cost associated with energy consumption, there will be an incentive to reduce its use” – but I think it’s rather clear that I was making a different point. Decarbonization is occuring because FUELS have prices, but that decarbonization presently has NO LINKS to the net SOCIAL costs created by GHG (CO2, black carbon etc.) emissions. Consequently, my point stands: as there are no private gains to be captured in reducing external costs, there are no private incentives to develop technologies that are expressly targeted at reducing GHG emissions (as opposed to economizing on fuels generally).
Response: I have a slightly different take on decarbonization. First we should look at decarbonization as separate from reductions in energy intensity. Decarbonization has been driven mainly by convenience and serendipitous cleanliness of low carbon fuels and, more recently, the costs imposed by air pollution regulation. Historically, households and commercial establishments in the US phased out coal because it was dirty, required moving coal and ash back and forth, etc. On the other hand, industry (including power plants) moved to natural gas because they don’t have to worry aboutthe costs and incoveniences associated with pollution controls (and for similar reasons they wanted to avoid nuclear as well). However, reductions in energy intensity have been driven by the non-zero cost of fuels (which contributes to technological change in a competitive society), structural changes in the economy from an industrial to a post-industrial service and knowledge based economy, and greater knowledge about the social cost of air pollution (among other things). I have a book on air pollution that touches on these. However, on your broader point I have nothing against taking net social costs into consideration provided the social cost estimates are robust and arrived at through a thorough and systematic review of all effects and their consequences — positive or negative. In my opinion, there is a large tendency to cherry pick impacts (and estimates) when such calculations are done. The Stern Review is an obvious example.
November 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Richard,
Given today’s technology, you are probably right on all counts. But 15-20 years hence — who knows?
Hank,
Good analogy. Both deal with smut.
November 30th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Mark Bahner,
Methane clathrates are at the moment like embryonic stem cells or nuclear fusion, lots of potential but no (well, actually a very little, the Messoyakha field in North Central Siberia) practical application, as far as I know. Considering that the major oil companies have known about this potential source of natural gas since 1970, I’m not holding my breath. As for estimates as to how much total methane is bound in clathrates (and we’re not talking about how much of that is actually recoverable, which will certainly be less) the USGS estimates total recoverable petroleum in the ground at 3 trillion barrels, 50% more than calculated using Hubbert’s method. I don’t believe that either.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
“In any case, that means less than 500 years worth of fossil fuels are left at current (2003) emission rates (~7.3 BMT).”
As I pointed out, this does not include natural gas in methane hydrates. The natural gas in methane hydrates has been estimated at as much as 400 million trillion cubic feet…or 1 MILLION years at present worldwide annual energy consumption.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Ken Caldiera writes, “I do believe that we in the industrialized world need order-of-magnitude reductions in per capita emissions if we expect future generations to live in a world with corals,…”
It’s now been ~20 years since my last course in Water Chemistry…and it was probably my worst subject, to boot. (What does an air pollution engineer need with such things, anyway?
).
So to do the actual calculations to verify this would take longer than I care to spend…and I’d probably get it wrong anyway. But let’s spitball some really gross numbers and possibilities:
1) Let’s say the earth contains 20,000 linear kilometers of ocean reefs. (My guess is that might be high…)
2) Let’s say that for every linear kilometer of ocean reef, humans dumped 1000 metric tons (1 Gg) of crushed limestone on the seaward side. That’s 1 metric ton per linear meter…or a pile about 0.7 meters high, by 1 meter wide. Thus, when the tide came in, it would go over the pile of limestone and then onto the reef.
3) The total mass worldwide would be 1000 metric tons per kilometer, times 20,000 kilometers, or 20 million metric tons.
4) Let’s further say that humans did this every year, for 50 years straight. That would leave 50 metric tons of crushed limestone per linear meter…minus the amount that dissolved each year. Assuming the pile ended up 10 meters wide, it would be about 5 meters high. (That’s a lot of limestone!)
5) The total limestone usage would be 20 million metric tons per year, times 50 years, or 1 billion metric tons of crushed limestone.
6) The current price of crushed limestone is about $50 per cubic meter:
http://www.soilbuildingsystems.com/RockData.php#
7) Let’s say it costs $300 per cubic meter to deliver the limestone to the reefs. Using a density of 1500 kg/cubic meter, that means that a metric ton (1000 kg) of limestone delivered to a reef would cost about $200 per metric ton.
So the total cost for a billion metric tons would be $200 billion…over 50 years, that’s $4 billion per year. That’s a trivial amount even to the U.S. now…let alone the world in 50+ years.
9) When people like Ken Caldeira write things like “…if we expect future generations to live in a world with corals…” I wonder if they have ever even bothered to do a straightforward analysis like this?
Or am I missing something? (Like I wrote, Water Chemistry was probably my worst subject…)
November 30th, 2006 at 11:11 pm
Dr. Goklany:
Thanks again for your response. Allow me to sum up:
It sounds like we agree that:
1. The net social costs of GHG emissions are a pure externality to the economic actors who produce them. As there are no property rights to the global atmosphere, in the absence of regulation using the atmosphere as a GHG dump is free, with social costs shifted to all and to the future.
2. For as long as net social costs of GHG emissions are a pure externality to the economic actors who produce them, even if the social costs of GHG emissions were to exceed by orders of magnitude the private gains from activities that emit GHGs, private use would continue – although private use would continue to be affected by costs, convenience, and technological change.
3. If the social costs are indeed high and perceived to be as such, then people, communities, nations etc, will band together to ensure that their use is reduced. We see this dynamic in operation at present, but with rather pathetic results. I view the pathetic results as a testament to the difficulties inherent in the prisoners’ dilemma confronted by a multitude of nations with differing intersts (facing a welter of economic actors) and the Westphalian problems presented by the lack of an institutional framework relating to an open-access commons. You, on the other hand, prefer to ignore the difficulties with coordination and to focus on whether the social cost estimates are robust and arrived at through a thorough and systematic review.
4. As there are no private gains to be captured in reducing external costs, there are no private incentives to develop technologies that are expressly targeted at reducing GHG emissions – though decarbonization continues for other reasons, such as convenience, serendipitous cleanliness of low carbon fuels, the costs imposed by air pollution regulations and economizing on fuels generally.
5. Given 1 and 2, it seems that you acknowledge that setting an emissions target for CO2/GHGs at zero does not necessarily imply zero benefits to society today from any activities that produce GHGs.
6. Mugging old ladies and emitting GHGs might both, on net, be a bad thing – even as one involves a pure theft while the other a private economic activity that has some externalities.
Your tweaks appreciated.
December 1st, 2006 at 8:34 am
“I view the pathetic results as a testament to the difficulties inherent in the prisoners’ dilemma confronted by a multitude of nations with differing intersts (facing a welter of economic actors) and the Westphalian problems presented by the lack of an institutional framework relating to an open-access commons.”
I view the “pathetic results” as not merely due to the problems you list. In fact, I don’t even view the “pathetic results” as due chiefly to the problems you list.
The main reason for the “pathetic results” is that the social costs are simply not that high. In fact, a case could easily be made that the benefits of CO2 emissions (fertilization of plants, and a warmer average world temperature…with the warming occurring mainly in the coldest areas of the globe) *exceed* the social costs up to this time. That is, the world at 380 ppm CO2 and ~15 degrees Celsius on average is BETTER than the world of 280 ppm and 14 degrees Celsius that existed prior to 1900.
Further I maintain that this situation will likely continue to exist for decades to come.
P.S. If not *forever.* I maintain that there is a greater than 50/50 chance that the warming will never exceed 2 degrees Celsius higher than in 1990. This will occur because natural technological evolution will cause CO2 emissions to peak before mid-century, and decline to a point where emissions are balanced by natural sinks before the century ends.
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Mark, so you acknowledge that the atmosphere is a commons and that the prisoners`s dilemma is at work, but you think that the results are pathetic now because no one`s really been serious about it yet, because the changes so far experienced have not been that bad? Perhaps, but on your terms perhaps we also have a tautology: proof that things are bad enough will lie in the decision of nations to be serious.
I think that it is clear that we are not acting effectively internationally because of free rider issues that adversely affect the willingness of all to incur costs, and that the domestic decision has been held up by rent seeking. This is true not erely for mitigation. but also for adaptation, third world development and other problems such as fisheries.
The kind of experiment we are now conducting with our lifeboat is hardly responsible. Shall we all just cross out fingers?
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Roger-
thanks for your response to my comment above (posted at November 29, 2006 06:11 PM).
It is always a dicey business to comment without full knowledge of the facts of the case, which I did in that post.
I had heard of the “holocaust denier” analogy but not of the Nuremberg reference.
Nonetheless, as I now understand it, the reference was to trials somewhat akin to the Nuremberg trials. As best as I have been able to establish, the only explicit reference to execution is yours. If this is not the case I would be happy to stand corrected.
Given that the original comment was indeed over the top, I believe it is your responsibility not to up the ante, and I would regard your translation of Nuremberg (where many were acquitted or sentenced to prison) to “suggesting…executions” as just such an upping.
A picky point on my part? Perhaps. But if you can’t make your point with the actual language you intend to criticize then I would suggest that you try again.
best regards,
Steve
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
Mark, yes, your technical analysis about corals IS missing something, and a rather important something at that – an institutional framework. Who is going to pay for what you suggest? Will a Kyoto-lite. just for reefs, be required?
December 3rd, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Hi Tom,
You write, “Mark, yes, your technical analysis about corals IS missing something, and a rather important something at that – an institutional framework. Who is going to pay for what you suggest? Will a Kyoto-lite. just for reefs, be required?”
No, if my techical analysis about corals is missing something, it’s not that. Like virtually everyone else in the world, Tom, you simply don’t have any concept of the mind-boggling growth in wealth that will almost certainly happen in the 21st century.
My analysis calculated the cost of protecting all the reefs of the world with calcium carbonate to be $200 billion. Let’s figure out how easy/difficult it would be for the Forbes 400 Richest Americans to handle that. It turns out Forbes has been publishing the Forbes 400 since 1982. See this site for the history:
http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/rich400land.html
I’ve taken the wealth of the entire list for 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2006, and converted them into year 2002 dollars, per the consumer price index. Here are the wealth values (in year 2002 dollars):
1982 = $321 billion
1992 = $482 billion
2002 = $885 billion
2006 = $1.14 trillion
The respective annual growth rates are 4.1% (1982 to 1992), 6.2% (1992 to 2002) and 6.6% (2002 to 2006).
I’ve done what I (perhaps immodestly
) consider will be seen as exceptionally accurate predictions of the rate of world economic growth in the 21st century. According to my analysis, it will accelerate dramatically:
http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2004/10/3rd_thoughts_on.html
But let’s ignore that, and simply assume that the wealth of the Forbes 400 will continue to grow by 6.2 percent per year (the value from 1992 to 2002). If so, the values (in year 2002 dollars) will be:
2010 = $ 1.43 trillion
2020 = $ 2.61 trillion
2030 = $ 4.75 trillion
2040 = $ 8.65 trillion
2050 = $ 15.7 trillion
2060 = $ 28.6 trillion
2070 = $ 52.1 trillion
…should I go on, or are you getting the picture?
In 2006, with the Forbes 400 at $1.14 trillion, Richard Branson committed to giving $3 billion to alternative energy. In 2050, the Forbes 400 will be *at least* 15 times as large (probably more like 100 times as large, but that’s another story).
In 2050 *a single person* of wealth comparable to Richard Branson could give the $200 billion necessary to provide complete protection for all the coral reefs in the world from acid attack…***if*** that is even a problem.
Mark
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Mark:
Thanks for your comments. It looks like a couple of mine have been caught in filter.
You say: “The main reason for the “pathetic results” is that the social costs are simply not that high.” I would say that this rather tautological and has little explanatory power. You are saying that the world won’t act effectively unless the costs of inaction are significantly high – this begs the question of why a high threshold of costs is needed.
My point is that the common-property, open-access nature of the atmosphere and the susceptibility of individual nations to rent-seeking by domestic constituencies means that it can be exceptionally difficult to reach meaningful agreements. The proclity of the Bush administration to act as free rider/spoiler instead of working to build mutual trust has pushed the threshold for action even higher.
Coordination/prisoners dilemma problems are rife in open-access resources. That’s why global fish stock are crashing, and why all nations can’t agree together to put an end to destructive bottom-trawling. The same is true for controlling AGW.
December 3rd, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Rats. My comments got filtered out. Could someone recover them?
Thanks,
Mark
December 4th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Trying to recreate my previous comments (that got dumped in the span bin)…
Tom, you quoted me: “The main reason for the “pathetic results” is that the social costs are simply not that high.”
…and replied, “I would say that this rather tautological and has little explanatory power.”
No, it’s not tautological, and it does have explanatory power.
The “social costs” (damages) from global warming are simply not that high. In fact, a very good case could be made that the costs have been in net NEGATIVE from 1880 to 2006. That is, the benefits resulting from CO2 fertilization of plants, milder winters, and longer growing seasons have actually outweighed the harms from CO2-induced global warming to date.
People simply aren’t going to put a lot of money and effort into stopping something that causes little harm…in fact, may even be beneficial (at least so far).
You continue, “My point is that the common-property, open-access nature of the atmosphere and the susceptibility of individual nations to rent-seeking by domestic constituencies means that it can be exceptionally difficult to reach meaningful agreements.”
Yes, that is a problem, in addition to the “problem” that the “problem” is small…and may not even exist (at least so far).
“Coordination/prisoners dilemma problems are rife in open-access resources. That’s why global fish stock are crashing, and why all nations can’t agree together to put an end to destructive bottom-trawling. The same is true for controlling AGW.”
No, those problems are orders of magnitude greater for AGW than for crashing fish stocks.