For carbon-target junkies only
Have you been scratching your head about the basis for the widespread claim — “to have a 50% chance to stabilize at 2ºC (global average temperature above pre-industrial) industrialized countries need to reduce their emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020″?
You can find a good explanation here.
Of course this country isn’t going to cut emissions that far that fast, making clear just what a tragic mistake it was for us not to embrace the Kyoto Protocol, which history will certainly view as the best chance humanity had to start down a plausible path to sustainability. At this point, just returning to 1990 levels by 2020 would be an astonishing achievement for America, especially given our current politics.
As I discuss in my book, this doesn’t mean 2ºC is unattainable — we could still embrace a World War II type strategy starting around 2020, though conservatives would almost certainly block such an effort. Let us hope that 2.5ºC is not fatal to the planet, and that we get started soon enough to achieve it.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
I would say conservatives oppose burdensome, complex tax and regulatory regimes aimed at CO2 and support the reduction of greenhouse gases.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
How do you get GHG reductions without tax or regulations? Prayer? [Please don’t say “Investing in new technology.”]
January 29th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I do not oppose tax or regulation per se. Carbon fuel production and its use has been taxed and regulated from the beginning. No matter what great manipulations of carrot and stick persuasions are devised, the root cause of GHG remains the burning of fossil fuels. The fastest and truly only way to reduce GHG is to reduce fossil fuel. The best way to reduce fossil fuel use is to replace it.
[I will not say “Investing in new technology” although your definition of new technology seems to be anything advocated by somebody other than you.]
January 30th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I’m all for “investing in new technology” since that IS a necessary part of the mix. But to suggest that this approach is the sole answer is equivalent to belief in magic.
What if those new technologies (and my definition includes those that are not yet commercially viable, those that are in the pilot phase and those that are not yet contemplated) take too long to develop or do not come to fruition at all? Will we have the luxury of looking back in 2050 or 2100 and saying, “Oops! That didn’t work out. Oh well, what shall we try now?”
Truly addressing Climate Change requires a change in our lifestyle. It will not be easy, and no amount of new technology will make it so. And this change in lifestyle requires a complete overhaul in our tax system so that we can move the tax burden from those things we want to maximize (jobs, investment, profits) to those we want to minimize (resources, pollution, waste).
My argument with conservatives who oppose a carbon tax is that they are viewing it as one more incremental tax added to the rest of the tax burden that will not be high enough to reall affect behaviours. Whereas most of us who promote the use of carbon tax want it to be high, want it to be passed on to the end user, and want to simultaneously reduce other taxes. When business and individuals see their major (or entire) tax burden placed on their energy and resource use, there will be no stopping the efforts to minimize this tax burden, and thus accomplishing our goals.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
There are sufficient current and near pipeline technologies to tackle the problem. The question is how best to advance their application. Glenn Hubbers’ proposed tax overhaul is inviting but perhaps no less wishful of magic. The idea to move the tax burden from those things we want to maximize to those we want to minimize is very good. The devil, of course, is in the details. Are there any detailed plans out there that could form the basis of discussion and legislation?
My point is that tax and regulatory schemes, however benevolent, are aimed raising the cost of carbon high enough to induce the marketplace to move to alternatives. This is burdensome on the consumer and particularly on families below median income. I am looking for a more direct approach that focuses on true affordability and root causes.