With the UN climate-change conference underway in Copenhagen, the swords are drawn on both sides. Despite the fact that I wrote a post on climate change quite recently, I realized while rereading it that recent events probably necessitate another post. I have heard some interesting viewpoints that have caused me to adjust my position on the issue somewhat, and that is always reason enough to write.
Basically, in my previous post I advocated a fairly aggressive cap and trade system, combined with significant investment in renewables and other efforts, including modification of the GST. I also pointed out, however, that the hysteria around climate change had reached a point where the predictions of doom were far removed from the actual science, and perhaps even more troubling, the issue was actually starting to detract from other worthy environmental endeavours.
I have since heard some viewpoints that have significantly reinforced those beliefs. I recently read Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, and subsequently watched the excellent Munk Debate on Climate Change, held in Toronto a couple weeks ago. Dr. Lomborg is 100% on board with the mainstream view of climate science, but he gives people like Al Gore fits with his views on what should be done (or not done) about climate change.
Dr. Lomborg spends much of his book arguing that although climate change will have negative consequences, they are far overblown by supporters of radical action, as well as by the media. Here I agree with him completely. He also makes a case that existing programs like Kyoto are expensive and don't even mitigate emissions by a significant amount, and action severe enough to make a big difference would be economically ruinous. He then goes on to show that the ROI (return on investment) is infinitesimal for dollars spent on fighting climate change, and that it would be far better to spend the money on fighting malaria & AIDS, or on supplying clean water to those that don't have it.
He therefore advocates a strategy of a small carbon tax, combined with a big expenditure on Green R&D and a huge increase in money spent on fighting disease and promoting development in poor countries.
His argument is persuasive, and I strongly agree that development is seriously underfunded; I also concur that in the long term, green technology (including fusion) is our way out of the problem. However, I do take issue with his argument about a small carbon tax. I've previously stated why I prefer cap and trade, and think that the scale can be bigger than Lomborg suggests only if the tax is revenue neutral. Much of Lomborg's argument centres on the huge cost (in terms of lost economic growth) that would result from a heavy carbon reduction program. However, this loss would be mitigated if the tax was truly revenue-neutral. A tax shift, like I have advocated, would make a larger carbon program much more feasible.
The common response to Lomborg is also something I feel like I should address. Many people say "we have to do both carbon reduction and development!" Lomborg rightly points out that with limited budgets, that may not be possible. I still think that there are many things that could be done on both fronts without spending too much money, the distribution of birth control and associated information would be very cheap, and effective. Eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed countries would save money and promote development in the 3rd world. Those are only a couple of the possibilities available to us.
Therefore, I think it reasonable to say that my recent readings have confirmed my views on many aspects of the issue, but perhaps make me a little more hesitant to prescribe a strong response to climate change, especially if it is not 100% revenue neutral. The existing proposals, whereby most permits would be given away instead of auctioned (making it impossible to use revenues to cut income taxes) are certainly not satisfactory from my point of view.
Dr. Lomborg was also one of the debaters at the aforementioned Munk debates, facing down George Monbiot and Elizabeth May on the resolution: "Be it resolved that climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response". I thought that the Con side clearly won the debate, showing that although global warming is a serious problem, it can hardly be mankind's defining crisis. It is one of many serious problems that we face. The response at Copenhagen must be rational and considered, and must not succumb to the hysteria.
However, out of all the recent furor on climate change came one other thing, something which has the potential to do far more damage than people think, in an entirely different way than people think. It is far more of a "phantom menace" than climate change itself (or Bjorn Lomborg's controversial views).
I am speaking of the incident regarding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. Unlike the conspiracy theorists and the climate change skeptics, who assert that the emails represent the final "nail in the coffin" of the global warming "hoax", my own reading of the content suggests that there is nothing to suggest any sort of global conspiracy or manipulation of climate data.
Nonetheless, what the emails do show is that the scientific process, as it exists today, is far less transparent than it should be. The emails do show some evidence of politics influencing the practice of science, and certainly show unethical behaviour when it comes to the transparent release of information, or the suppression of contrarian views that are so key to the advancement of science.
These problems allow attacks on science itself. Increasingly over the last few decades, beginning with the tobacco companies in the 1960's, political groups have begun to attack science itself, claiming bias, conspiracy and politicisation in order to "reposition" certain issues "as theory rather than fact".
This is a serious problem that has the potential to greatly damage future world progress unless it is dealt with immediately. As I said in my last post, I believe the greatest battle our species faces is the battle to pull ourselves up out of the darkness, to realize our own ignorance and commit ourselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Only if superstition, fundamentalism, dogma and irrationality are defeated can humanity realize its full potential.
In modern times, for the most part, science and reason have been winning that battle. Recently, though, on issue after issue, especially in the United States but also everywhere else, the fight has dramatically intensified. Support for evolution in the United States is actually declining, despite the incontrovertible evidence in its favour. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control has severely damaged efforts to prevent the spread of AIDS. In the Islamic world, in a culture that produced many of the world's foremost scientists in centuries past, the recent trend has been towards repression and closed-mindedness. Countless far-right pundits in the United States are making various claims that are completely unsupported by facts, and yet their shows attract thousands of followers.
It is time that we turn the tide of this battle. The CRU emails are a significant blow, but we must "examine all obstacles carefully, because with a little ingenuity they can often be turned into levers". We must seize this opportunity to make science more transparent and accountable. I understand that scientists are hesitant to release their data to the public because they want to make sure they are credited for their discoveries and hard work, but I think it would be reasonable to require all scientific data sets pertaining to peer-reviewed publications be made publicly available on the Internet once the journal has gone to print.
I also understand that scientists are frustrated by "junk science", which most of the work done by climate change skeptics would certainly qualify as. However, they would be better served to allow those people their right to their view, and then use ruthless analysis and incisive logic to expose that "junk science". That would help science far more in the long run that trying to suppress the publication of bad science in the first place.
I am not a scientist, and therefore the ideas I have presented may be impractical or ignorant. However, the point remains. Science is a key pillar of a brighter future, and we must maintain the integrity and transparency of the scientific method at all costs. Otherwise, fundamentalism will surely win more victories in the future.
P.S. I read an article today about an interesting carbon reduction program. The idea is to link the rate of carbon reduction to the actual change in temperature. That is, if the temperature rises a lot, countries would be obligated to cut emissions more drastically. There are some serious potential problems here, mainly with uncertainty and huge fluctuations, but a system like that might be worth considering. You could reduce the volatility by comparing a 10 year rolling average of global temperature to the baseline temperature measured over at least 50 years. You could then say that my 2% per year reduction (see previous post) in the amount of carbon permits issued could fluctuate between 0-4% based on relative temperatures. It's certainly an interesting idea, and I'm glad to see people thinking creatively about this issue.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Not A Convenient Falsehood (2 of 6)
Global warming is certainly the environmental issue of the decade. In fact, I believe that the debate over global warming has risen to a level where it actually begins to detract from other environmental causes. As I have previously noted, I believe that global warming is a real threat, and at least partially caused by human activity, but I also recognize that a cool Earth is no use if it is a cool wasteland. Global warming must be dealt with, but not at the expense of dealing with other problems.
The prognosis on global warming is as follows, according to Wikipedia:
"Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other likely effects include Arctic shrinkage and resulting Arctic methane release, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors."
Clearly, if some of these consequences can be mitigated, it is our responsibility to take action. In order to develop a pragmatic and effective apprach to global warming, the externalities associated with it must be identified.
Research suggests that of the atmospheric changes that can reasonably be attributed to human activity, about 75% is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels and most of the rest is due to land use change, such as deforestation. It follows (obviously in this case) that the action needed to mitigate global warming-related externalities must address both these issues.
I will discuss proposals for land-use reform in a future post, and will here discuss strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. About 86% of world energy needs are provided through the burning of fossil fuels. More specifically, about 37% come from oil, 25% from coal and 23% from natural gas. Coal is the largest contributor to GHG's, with most coal being used for electricity generation. Most natural gas is used for heating or fertilizer production, as well as growing amounts in transportation and electricity generation. Crude oil is overwhelmingly (84%) used for transportation, with the rest being used to make other products, including asphalt, sulfur and plastics.
Given those statistics, it is logical that any attempt to reduce GHG's from fossil fuels will focus on the primary uses of these items, those being transportation, electricity generation, heating and fertilizer production.
Electricity production is probably the area where the most potential for change exists (It produces more emissions than any other source). Proven alternatives exist like wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear fission, and other potential alternatives are in development, like tidal generation or nuclear fusion.
Transportation is the second biggest producer of emissions, and perhaps the largest sticking point, as few credible alternatives exist. Biofuels are (probably) only marginally better in terms of emissions, and require additional agricultural production (bad news..see later posts). Hydrogen and electric vehicles simply shift more emissions to electicity generation, so the success of those alternatives depend on the success of renewable generation.
The usage of natural gas for heating and cooking present a different problem. It turns out that using fossil fuels here is actually more environmentally friendly because so much energy is lost in electrical transmission and most electricity is produced using fossil fuels. It is unlikely that much can be done to reduce these emissions unless renewable generation becomes endemic.
Finally, the issue of producing fertilizer from natural gas via the Haber process must be addressed. Reductions here can be achieved mainly through agricultural innovation, which I will discuss in the later posts on land use change and agricultural conservation. It must be noted, however, that these reductions are also dependant on reliable supplies of renewable electricity.
Because the strategies for reducing GHG's from fertilizer production, heating/cooking and to some extent, transportation rely on the development of clean electricity, I believe that that must be a primary goal. The other primary goal that I can see is emphasizing efficiency over elimination, because that will allow progress to be made on all fronts without waiting for renewable generation to be the norm.
The most difficult part of policy fomulation in this case is taking the theoretical conclusions and objectives and tying them to effective and pragmatic strategies. In this case, a few strategies could be employed.
The biggest incentive to companies (especially power generation companies) to reduce their emissions is to price in the cost of the externality. For GHG's, this is much less difficult than for other externalities because they are easily measured. Two proposals have emerged, that of an emissions trading framework or that of a carbon tax. I tend to favour the trading approach for three reasons:
1. Carbon Taxes do not neccessarily result in emissions reductions. It would be extremely difficult to balance the tax so that it achieved substantial GHG reduction while still allowing businesses to be competitive.
2. Carbon Trading reflects the fact that in some industries it would be easy and cheap to reduce emissions, while in others it would be very expensive and difficult. A uniform Carbon Tax would be much less efficient at allocating emissions reductions to the sectors where they would do the least economic harm.
3. In Canada, a carbon tax is essentially a method of equalization. Most of the tax revenue would come from the wealthier, industrial areas like Alberta and Ontario, and the offsetting tax reductions would likely be spread evenly across the country. A Carbon Trading scheme could be built to avoid this problem.
The type of Carbon Trading scheme I would build would be one where absolute emissions would be capped at current levels and decrease by ~2-3% per year for 50 years. Emissions credits would be distributed at the beginning of each year. Initially, I would propose that credits be allocated based 75% on current emission levels and 25% based on an auction format, and that the percentage of credits auctioned off increase by 2% each year until it reaches 100% . However, to prevent regional wealth transfer, the auction revenues would be divided based on provincial emissions percentage and returned to the provinces for use in funding the other measures I describe below.
Carbon Trading is useful in reducing overall emissions and increasing efficiency, but it is not a comprehensive solution. It does not go far enough in incentivising the development of renewable power generation, a key goal. Also, it only achieves emissions reduction from businesses, and not individuals.I would therefore propose the following additional measures.
1. Usage of the auction proceeds from above, on a provincial basis, for funding provincially-appropriate measures to encourage renewable energy development.
2. Creation of a series of research grants and prizes for the development of certain technologies key to long-term renewable energy supplies as well as nuclear fusion.
3. Canada should immediately rejoin the ITER project, which it left in 2003.
4. A moritorium on new coal-fired powerplants that do not have carbon capture technology should be considered, and implemented if the economic cost would be reasonable.
5. Modification of the GST should be considered, towards a revenue-neutral system where items have three classifications: Harmful (A), Neutral (B) and Benefit (C), based on their environmental impact. Category A items should be subject to 10% GST, 5% for B items, and C items should be GST-free. Companies should be able to obtain a refund on the extra GST in Category A, because they already participate in emissions trading. These changes would be subject to a review of the administrative costs, which could be high, but I believe they are neccessary to encourage emissions reduction among private citizens.
These measures, I believe, would start Canada on the road to substantial emissions reductions. The emissions trading scheme alone would reduce emissions by around 50% by 2050, and with the other measures it could be even more substantial. I also believe that these proposals are sensible and pragmatic, and would not result in excessive economic harm or the substantial enlargement of government.
The prognosis on global warming is as follows, according to Wikipedia:
"Increasing global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely including an expanse of the subtropical desert regions. Other likely effects include Arctic shrinkage and resulting Arctic methane release, increases in the intensity of extreme weather events, changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, species extinctions and changes in the ranges of disease vectors."
Clearly, if some of these consequences can be mitigated, it is our responsibility to take action. In order to develop a pragmatic and effective apprach to global warming, the externalities associated with it must be identified.
Research suggests that of the atmospheric changes that can reasonably be attributed to human activity, about 75% is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels and most of the rest is due to land use change, such as deforestation. It follows (obviously in this case) that the action needed to mitigate global warming-related externalities must address both these issues.
I will discuss proposals for land-use reform in a future post, and will here discuss strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. About 86% of world energy needs are provided through the burning of fossil fuels. More specifically, about 37% come from oil, 25% from coal and 23% from natural gas. Coal is the largest contributor to GHG's, with most coal being used for electricity generation. Most natural gas is used for heating or fertilizer production, as well as growing amounts in transportation and electricity generation. Crude oil is overwhelmingly (84%) used for transportation, with the rest being used to make other products, including asphalt, sulfur and plastics.
Given those statistics, it is logical that any attempt to reduce GHG's from fossil fuels will focus on the primary uses of these items, those being transportation, electricity generation, heating and fertilizer production.
Electricity production is probably the area where the most potential for change exists (It produces more emissions than any other source). Proven alternatives exist like wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and nuclear fission, and other potential alternatives are in development, like tidal generation or nuclear fusion.
Transportation is the second biggest producer of emissions, and perhaps the largest sticking point, as few credible alternatives exist. Biofuels are (probably) only marginally better in terms of emissions, and require additional agricultural production (bad news..see later posts). Hydrogen and electric vehicles simply shift more emissions to electicity generation, so the success of those alternatives depend on the success of renewable generation.
The usage of natural gas for heating and cooking present a different problem. It turns out that using fossil fuels here is actually more environmentally friendly because so much energy is lost in electrical transmission and most electricity is produced using fossil fuels. It is unlikely that much can be done to reduce these emissions unless renewable generation becomes endemic.
Finally, the issue of producing fertilizer from natural gas via the Haber process must be addressed. Reductions here can be achieved mainly through agricultural innovation, which I will discuss in the later posts on land use change and agricultural conservation. It must be noted, however, that these reductions are also dependant on reliable supplies of renewable electricity.
Because the strategies for reducing GHG's from fertilizer production, heating/cooking and to some extent, transportation rely on the development of clean electricity, I believe that that must be a primary goal. The other primary goal that I can see is emphasizing efficiency over elimination, because that will allow progress to be made on all fronts without waiting for renewable generation to be the norm.
The most difficult part of policy fomulation in this case is taking the theoretical conclusions and objectives and tying them to effective and pragmatic strategies. In this case, a few strategies could be employed.
The biggest incentive to companies (especially power generation companies) to reduce their emissions is to price in the cost of the externality. For GHG's, this is much less difficult than for other externalities because they are easily measured. Two proposals have emerged, that of an emissions trading framework or that of a carbon tax. I tend to favour the trading approach for three reasons:
1. Carbon Taxes do not neccessarily result in emissions reductions. It would be extremely difficult to balance the tax so that it achieved substantial GHG reduction while still allowing businesses to be competitive.
2. Carbon Trading reflects the fact that in some industries it would be easy and cheap to reduce emissions, while in others it would be very expensive and difficult. A uniform Carbon Tax would be much less efficient at allocating emissions reductions to the sectors where they would do the least economic harm.
3. In Canada, a carbon tax is essentially a method of equalization. Most of the tax revenue would come from the wealthier, industrial areas like Alberta and Ontario, and the offsetting tax reductions would likely be spread evenly across the country. A Carbon Trading scheme could be built to avoid this problem.
The type of Carbon Trading scheme I would build would be one where absolute emissions would be capped at current levels and decrease by ~2-3% per year for 50 years. Emissions credits would be distributed at the beginning of each year. Initially, I would propose that credits be allocated based 75% on current emission levels and 25% based on an auction format, and that the percentage of credits auctioned off increase by 2% each year until it reaches 100% . However, to prevent regional wealth transfer, the auction revenues would be divided based on provincial emissions percentage and returned to the provinces for use in funding the other measures I describe below.
Carbon Trading is useful in reducing overall emissions and increasing efficiency, but it is not a comprehensive solution. It does not go far enough in incentivising the development of renewable power generation, a key goal. Also, it only achieves emissions reduction from businesses, and not individuals.I would therefore propose the following additional measures.
1. Usage of the auction proceeds from above, on a provincial basis, for funding provincially-appropriate measures to encourage renewable energy development.
2. Creation of a series of research grants and prizes for the development of certain technologies key to long-term renewable energy supplies as well as nuclear fusion.
3. Canada should immediately rejoin the ITER project, which it left in 2003.
4. A moritorium on new coal-fired powerplants that do not have carbon capture technology should be considered, and implemented if the economic cost would be reasonable.
5. Modification of the GST should be considered, towards a revenue-neutral system where items have three classifications: Harmful (A), Neutral (B) and Benefit (C), based on their environmental impact. Category A items should be subject to 10% GST, 5% for B items, and C items should be GST-free. Companies should be able to obtain a refund on the extra GST in Category A, because they already participate in emissions trading. These changes would be subject to a review of the administrative costs, which could be high, but I believe they are neccessary to encourage emissions reduction among private citizens.
These measures, I believe, would start Canada on the road to substantial emissions reductions. The emissions trading scheme alone would reduce emissions by around 50% by 2050, and with the other measures it could be even more substantial. I also believe that these proposals are sensible and pragmatic, and would not result in excessive economic harm or the substantial enlargement of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)