(1) Made just from forestry wastes alone, easily competes in the developed countries with coal at current prices;

(2) Low quality woody materials can be used; brush clearing projects in the Global South will provide even more material;

(3) Can be co-fired or fired alone in any existing coal reactor;

(4) Encourages planting forests, which need not be monoculture;

(5)Nearly carbon-neutral. Leave the coal in the ground!

Bill

That said, the next president is almost certainly going to pass some sort of climate legislation establishing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that kicks in around 2015.

2015 is leaving things far too late. To have a good chance at stabilizing around 450 ppm CO2-e or less, industrialised countries will have to reduce their emissions by 25-40% or more by 2020. This figure will be higher for high per-capita emitters like Australia, the United States, Canada, and Japan. Postponing reductions until 2015 will make these reductions unfeasible.

While determining a long-term framework for a cap and trade system will take a while, this does not mean that the US needs to wait until 2015 to introduce a carbon price. The next administration could pass a bill requiring emission reporting starting in the period 2009-2010, and then introduce a carbon price in 2010-2011. In the meantime the administration can work out a long term framework for emission reductions via cap-and-trade, a tax, or both (both would involve the tax providing a price floor, with minimal extra transaction costs, see here).

I also don’t believe the claim that the Chinese leadership really believes that CO2 is a threat. If you look at the recent climate change report by the government of India you will find they make this claim on p 15:

“No firm link between the documented changes described below and warming due to anthropogenic climate change has yet been established”

The changes listed include: surface temperature, rainfall, extreme weather events, rise in sea level and impacts on Himalayan glaciers.

link: http://pmindia.nic.in/Pg01-52.pdf

I doubt the Chinese government’s real opinion is any different. And even if it was it will likely use negotiations a way to extort massive transfers of wealth from the rich countries before it would agree to anything.

For that reason, it is a waste of time to assume that an international agreement is possible and that any domestic action must take into account that the major other players will likely do nothing substantial. If this means the planet is going to warm beyond the point of no return then we better start planning for adaption now because mitigation within the time frames presented in this op-ed is not going to happen (although I realize the author of this blog has said as much himself).

No country will undermine it economic interests in the name of a hypothetical threat.

so you’re saying, the WMDs were real.

Negotiating details of a national, let alone a global, cap and trade framework are going to be time-consuming. The urgency of the need to act does not indicate we have much luxury of time.

A President Obama should use executive authority (he already has legislative authority) within days or months of taking office to order that GHG sources above 10000 tonnes report their emissions for 2009, and indicate that this is intended to be the baseline year for the trading system. And Biden should be deployed to Copenhagen and the U.N. to accelerate the timetable for all source nations, including China and India, to develop and implement mandatory reporting mechanisms.

These serious signals could have profound impacts in the urgent manner necessary.

No but the oil and the strategic location in the middle east were real.

so you’re saying, securing the oil and the location was a certain or likely outcome.

Self interest rules and no amount of scare mongering will change that.

so you’re saying, the american people thought the invasion of iraq was a war of choice primarily for national, rational economic gain. they fully understood the costs and benefits and supported the invasion on its financial merits.

Anyone who hopes to convince China or Russia to reduce emissions will need to convince them that it is their strategic interest to do so. Without that hook they will choose to the believe the problem is not that serious or can be delt with later. I don’t think it will happen because convincing them would require massive transfers of wealth from US and other countries to China and Russia - transfers which will be politically impossible to justify (how many politicians would get elected by promising to increase taxes to bribe the Chinese into reducing GHGs?)

Sorry about piling on, but I do believe that China understands the problem. And let’s not also forget that one-third of China’s emissions are spent producing products that are consumed in the developed world.

With the climate negotiations, we also need trade talks. In a nutshell, we need a way to add carbon taxes and tariffs to goods produced in countries that aren’t taking global warming seriously. If we can add an economic imperative to the environmental and moral imperatives, then it wouldn’t take long for China and India to understand that they need to be part of the process.

And if they choose not to get serious, then the economic engine that drives both their countries will grind to a halt.

It may come to that. But I also think that India and China are waiting for developed nations to take the lead. To the extent that we in the west are rich, we can thank our modern production methods. To the extend that global warming has already occurred, we can thank our modern production methods. If Canada and the US finally join the party, I think that would send a strong signal that this time, the west is serious about supporting social and environmental justice throughout the world.

Up until now, all China and India have heard from North America is talk, talk, talk. When we change, they will know that they need to change.

As a species, are just waking up to this reality. If the bell curve is at work in this awakening, then there should be a tidal wave of support for truly green initiatives coming towards us.

I hope that you are right. It may not be a bell curve though, it may be something more like a fat-tailed Student’s T.

What’s your take on the latest developments in Accra? I find myself very concerned about adoption of “policy commitments” in the developing world (eg, we will regulate this industry with that instrument or we we aim to have CCS on 70% of new coal power plants by 2030) as opposed to absolute targets. And, yet, people closer to the process tell me that is all that is politically feasible.

Trade is a two way street and many American and European interests would be hurt by such tariffs. More importantly, we have enough trouble ensuring the products from China actually meet the basic health standards that are already in place (i.e. lead in toys). So enforcing a system of carbon tariffs based on the alleged carbon output of products will be impossible.

When it comes to Russia trade tariffs would be completely ineffective because they sell commodities into a global market. These commodities could be taxed at the border but it would force Americans and Europeans to pay the price - not the Russians.

I also think it is very naive to assume that China or India would ‘follow our lead’. They use that as a convenient excuse now but they would come up with other excuses if that excuse went away because they have billions of people living in poverty that cannot afford expensive CO2 free technology. In fact, I think it would outright immoral for the Chinese and Indian governments to sign onto a emissions reduction scheme that increased poverty and suffering among their people.

The only way to reduce emissions in these countries is to have rich countries pay for it and I don’t believe there would be any sustained political support for such a massive wealth transfer out of the country for nothing in return - especially when large chunks of the money would be siphoned off by corrupt bureaucrats and system manipulators.

More importantly, we have enough trouble ensuring the products from China actually meet the basic health standards that are already in place (i.e. lead in toys). So enforcing a system of carbon tariffs based on the alleged carbon output of products will be impossible.

this is a typical logical leap. the problem with product quality of chinese imports is almost 100% an ideological choice by the current american administration to reduce inspections of imported and domestic goods, alike. not only does your example not prove that enforcing carbon tariffs is hard, in fact it shows that such standards can be turned on and off like faucets.

i can’t decide to argue against your bleak BAU-only mindset in general or your specific claim that climate change is not a proven and current global event with devastating international security implications for all parties.

When it comes to Russia trade tariffs would be completely ineffective because they sell commodities into a global market. These commodities could be taxed at the border but it would force Americans and Europeans to pay the price — not the Russians.

here you’re casually throwing away all the arguments ever made by free trade advocates — dominant economic paradigm of our day, right — about the negative effect of local tariffs on foreign business development — the tight bond between price and market opportunity.

talk, though, if you feel like it.

“your specific claim that climate change is not a proven and current global event”
Well, you are missing the point. The question is not whether you have chosen to beleive that the evidence is conclusive but whether others can look at the same evidence and reasonably decide that it is inconclusive. I already gave you a like to a report by the government of India which explicitly stated that the link between emissions and the observed climate changes has not been proven. They would never have written that if there really was conclusive evidence supporting the claims. I realize that many alarmists like to dismiss such claims as the rantings of flat-earthers being funded by Exxon but such arguments do not alter the reality that climate science is not like other experimentally verifiable sciences which means there will always be a great deal of uncertainty whether you want to admit it or not.

“about the negative effect of local tariffs on foreign business development”
You are mixing two issues. When it comes to China which exports manufactured goods tariffs would be effective if China had a government that could be trusted to enforce the terms of whatever deal was signed. My argument is we cannot trust the Chinese government therefore any tariff regime would be ineffective and do nothing about the problem.

When it comes to Russia they sell commodities that are in demand everywhere in world. Taxing Russian oil simply means the Russians will sell it to someone else for the same price so the net effect on the Russians is zero. In fact, you will see those dynamics that even in places like Canada where Americans have threatened to ban imports from the oil sands. If the US was stupid enough to do that the Canadians would build pipeline to the coast funded with Chinese money and sell the oil to the Chinese.

You may see my view as bleak but I see it a realist. My biggest fear right now is politicians that are desperate to be seen to do “something” will promote plans that cost a huge amount but actually accomplish nothing. This wasted money and political capital would make it much more difficult to adjust to the climate changes if they actually turn out to be as a bad as claimed.

When it comes to Russia trade tariffs would be completely ineffective because they sell commodities into a global market. These commodities could be taxed at the border but it would force Americans and Europeans to pay the price - not the Russians.

You’ll note that I didn’t mention Russia. I agree that Russia is a sticky problem, and I’m not sure what approach would work best. But Russia is at least talking about a global climate accord under the new guy, and suggesting that it is looking for ways to cut its own GHG emissions. (See Reuters, June 4, 2008). Is it just talk? Time will tell.

But I currently worry more about the lack of American progress in curtailing emissions than I do about Russia.

I also think it is very naive to assume that China or India would ‘follow our lead’. They use that as a convenient excuse now but they would come up with other excuses if that excuse went away because they have billions of people living in poverty that cannot afford expensive CO2 free technology. In fact, I think it would outright immoral for the Chinese and Indian governments to sign onto a emissions reduction scheme that increased poverty and suffering among their people.

Believe me, I agree. I know that I am being naive, but in other ways, I’m being far more realistic than you are. I recognize that any solution we follow is going to cause pain, and it’s going to mean sacrifice. We’re going to have to give many things up, and cheap Chinese goods might be one of them.

But my argument is that we have no choice; I’m one of those who believe that the effects of climate change have been undersold. We are going to have to be very generous with our money and our technology if we’re to slow the climate crisis. The cost right now is huge, but we can just afford it if we’re prepared to make sacrifices. If we don’t, we’re condemning our grandchildren will be living a third-world existence. Darfur is just the beginning.

I know if you doubt my underlying general premise, then we’ll never agree. But I’m reminded of the old car ad -for Fram filters, if memory serves.

You can pay me now. Or you can pay me later.

The cost right now is outrageous. The cost down the road will bankrupt us.

Well we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I have spent a fair amount of time investigating the issue and I have come to the conclusion that the risks are being greatly exaggerated and I know there are many other rational people who come to the same conclusion when they look at the evidence. In fact, I believe people will naturally become skeptics as soon as the cost of action exceeds the threshold of what they are willing to pay. This mechanism operates at the national level as well as the individual level which is why I think China, India and Russia will do nothing for the foreseeable future.

This does not mean we do nothing but I believe our efforts should be focused on things that are likely to produce results such as investments in alternative energy R&D or stricter energy efficiency requirements. I think measures like carbon caps or carbon taxes only increase the cost of energy but deliver little real benefit even if the worst case scenarios are true. The money would be better spent on dikes, dams and other projects that would allow us to adapt to the changes.

“You can pay me now. Or you can pay me later.”

You forget that paying more later is sometimes the better strategy if you invest the money in something else that will make you wealthier in the future.

I think measures like carbon caps or carbon taxes only increase the cost of energy but deliver little real benefit even if the worst case scenarios are true.

I spend my days editing a small environmental newsletter for business leaders (just returned to the working world after a long illness), so I read hundreds of articles on the environment and green tech every week.

And you couldn’t be more wrong about carbon taxes. They do work, and they are working. It’s not as smooth and as seamless as I would wish, but they’ve proven very effective in many countries, especially in countries that added the taxes early, in the 1990s.

Look at Denmark. In the 1990s, they implemented a stiff carbon tax amid a great of fretting from their business community. At the time, they relied on coal to produce most of their electricity.

But the government took the smart decision to invest money from the carbon tax back into the industries which paid it, to help them find solutions. The result? Denmark will have 20 percent renewable energy by 2011 (and they’re aiming for 40 percent by 2020, I believe), they’ve cut emissions by 15 percent over 1990 levels, and their economy continues to grow even as their need for energy diminishes. Their wind turbine industry has a 3-year waiting list for new turbines, they’re building a grid of recharging stations for EVs (operational in 2010, if memory serves), and they have a standard of living that most countries would kill for.

Everything I have read tells me that Denmark’s “success” is largely an illusion created by outsourcing CO2 producing industries to other jurisdictions. Even the wind power benefits are overrated because most of that power comes in bursts and is exported at a discount to their neighbors. Only 6% of the power actually consumed in Denmark actually comes from the wind mills - the rest comes from coal or nukes in neighboring countries. See: http://www.wind-watch.org/ documents/ danish-wind-too-good-to-be-true/

Carbon taxes only work to reduce total CO2 emissions if outsourcing CO2 production is not an option which can only happen if all players in the trade game agree to common rules. But as I noted above, the chances of getting all players to agree to something that actually accomplishes the stated objective is pretty small.

While this may be true, it just means that ideology is trumping rationality. Unfortunately, climate change is not dependent on what people believe, only on what they do re: greenhouse gas emissions.

As far as the specific claims of wind-watch.org, which makes a big deal about DK exporting its wind energy, consider the following analysis by the world nuclear association (not a pro-wind source): “In 2005 total installed capacity within Denmark was 12.71 GWe, 9.57 GWe of which was fossil fuel-fired and 3.13 GWe wind turbines, the majority on or offshore West Denmark. The wind turbines depend heavily for their effective utilisation on 27 GWe of hydro capacity in Norway, over 1 GWe of which can be despatched when wind power is unavailable in West Denmark. With good winds, power can be exported back to Norway and there conserve hydro potential.” I.e. the exports are part of a specific strategy to use hydro or wind as appropriate. The same strategy is appropriate anywhere wind is proximate to hydro.

You pooh-poohed Richard’s statement about Denmark renewable energy citing wind, but wind is only part of their renewable energy generation. They have significant biomass/biogas/biowaste power generation (about 3 TWh in 2004). Wind was another 7 TWh in 2004.

Actually, it has nothing to do with ideology and is a completely rational reaction to uncertain information about the future. For example, any rational person would pay $1000/year for an insurance policy to protect their home but if that bill rose to $20000/year they would likely pass on the insurance even if though they might end up bankrupt if the worst happened.

The same kind of calculation affects an individual’s assement of the risks of climate change. What makes this issue difficult is each person has a different level of risk tolerance and a different way of assessing the evidence. This means it is possible for different people to come to opposite conclusions when looking at exactly the same evidence. That is why the courts instruct juries to convict only if the evidence proves guilt ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’. The caveat ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ tells people how to assess the evidence. When it comes to personal issues such as one’s opinion on climate change there is no court that tells people what standard of evidence to use - they choose their own and will likely increase that standard as the cost of doing something about climate change goes up.

That said I did some more research:
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2008/ 03/ 25/ opinion/ 25prasad.html?ex=1364097600&en=c3e433da59dc2ffa&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

“Denmark avoids the temptation to maximize the tax revenue by giving the proceeds back to industry, earmarking much of it to subsidize environmental innovation. Danish firms are pushed away from carbon and pulled into environmental innovation, and the country’s economy isn’t put at a competitive disadvantage. So this is lesson No. 1 from Denmark.”

I did not realize this detail because I am used to tax grab form of carbon taxes which have shown up in various North American jurisdictions. This form of a carbon tax fits into my view of a constructive policy that could actually produce results.

It is worth noting the same article:

“But a carbon tax isn’t a new idea. Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden have had carbon taxes in place since the 1990s, but the tax has not led to large declines in emissions in most of these countries — in the case of Norway, emissions have actually increased by 43 percent per capita.”

Bottom line: not all carbon taxes are created equal.

I would say it is an irrational reaction when the cost is not personal bankruptcy but potentially catastrophic climate change affecting the entire world, and the scientific evidence is very solid:

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

http://www.ipcc.ch/ pdf/ assessment-report/ ar4/ syr/ ar4_syr_spm.pdf

As Joe has pointed out previously, those of certain political persuasions let ideology trump rationality on the issue of global warming:

http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 05/ 09/ the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/

You may see my view as bleak but I see it as realist.

of course you do. your whole thing here is you don’t want to change. therefore, difficulties standing in the way of change look — shock! — insurmountable, and reasons to change look — shock! — unsupported.

what you’re missing is that the environmental situation — including “too much insulation in the attic” but going well beyond to include water supply, ocean health, soil health, and food — requires action that is in many ways compatible with carbon emissions cuts.

ditto for the oil supply issue: peak oil means fuel switching and fuel switching in the short term means building up clean energy options, because they’re effective and can be built quickly.

ditto for the bleak world economic picture: fuel switching is preferable to war, as an industrial project, don’t you think?

i’m sticking with bleak. i don’t care if you run yourself ragged with worry but i do care that you’re blocking good community investment options based on your desire to stay. the. same.

The science only tells us that CO2 is most likely causing some warming. It does not provide any certainty when it comes to the amount of warming that is likely to occur nor does it really tell us whether the net effects of the warming are bad. Trying to claim that the latter automatically follows from the former is, in my opinion, a gross misrepresentation of the science.

I realize that you disagree but that is because your standards of proof are lower than mine. You are willing to take leaps of faith and presume certainty where I see nothing but unanswered questions and unsupported assertions. To put it another way: when it comes to justifying the kinds of investments being demanded I require “proof beyond reasonable doubt” whereas you are happy with “proof on the balance of probabilities”.

However, the real difference between you an me is I can understand the rational logic behind your position even though I disagree with it. You, on the other, cannot seem to comprehend that rational people looking at the same evidence can come to rational conclusion that death by CO2 is not a given.

You also talk about the relationship between “ideology” and the level of proof that people require. I agree that there is a correlation but that is because people will automatically require higher standards of proof before violating the moral principles that they hold dear. For example, if we were really faced with a 100% chance of annihilation due to CO2 then we should be talking about aggressive population control - i.e. China’s one child policy imposed as global level complete with forced abortions and sterilizations. However, you (or I) would likely never agree to such tactics even if the evidence was truly overwhelming because because such tactics would violate your own moral principals. For many people, the idea of forcing millions of people into poverty by denying them access to readily available energy sources is morally repugnant given our current state of knowledge and that is why they demand a higher standard of proof than you.

So the next time you dismiss someone else’s opinion on GW as something driven by ideology why don’t to take the time to ask how much of your own opinions are driven by your own ideologies. It is no coincidence that the marxists/anti-capitalist/wannabe communist types have fully bought into the GW hype because the solutions being imposed are solutions that they would want to see imposed no matter what and GW is a convenient excuse.

For many people, the idea of forcing millions of people into poverty by denying them access to readily available energy sources is morally repugnant given our current state of knowledge and that is why they demand a higher standard of proof than you.

but this is where you fall down. you’re so attached to the “readily available energy” — meaning, currently widely sold — that you reject future readily available energy and make up incredible paranoid fantasies about your opponents wanting to murder everybody through an equipment change.

i said this before to someone else, here, i think:

if this risk isn’t something people are willing to take, you have to stop yelling that the risk doesn’t exist, and actually work on solving the problems you see with the new equipment. otherwise, you’re just another dork yelling their head off in an election year.

I see that you believe global warming is a worldwide conspiracy by malevolent forces out to destroy your way of life. As I said, this appears to be your ideology trumping rationality. That’s why my focus is on the scientific basis of our understanding of global warming, one that has been researched for 20+ years and has a very solid foundation. Probably I should have asked if you accept the IPCC 4th report. If not, I would assume that science is not a significant factor in forming your opinion. Perhaps you believe the scientists are involved in the conspiracy too…

So what don’t you understand about the concept of standards of evidence and how no discussion of evidence can take place unless one agrees on the standard of evidence to use? In my opinion, despite 20+ years of research, science still has so many unknowns and inconsistencies that it can only meet the “balance of probabilities” test. This is enough to justify some actions on CO2 but not others.

In the end, we will have to agree to disagree and that it will be the real data from the real climate that will show who was right. I can only hope we don’t waste too many resources solving an imaginary problem.

Incidentally, your “conspiracy” talking point is quite silly. I have already explained how different rational people can come to different conclusions looking at the same evidence because they have different standards of evidence. More importantly, if the science was really conclusive there would be no debate and no need to try and argue that science can be settled by a vote among scientists.

More importantly, if the science was really conclusive there would be no debate….

straight from stalin’s russia, the authoritarian understanding of… understanding.

I have seen no evidence of a serious debate among climate scientists about the reality of AGW. The only skeptics I know about (Spencer, et al.) got their data wrong and finally had to agree once the errors were corrected that their data supported global warming. Perhaps you can point me to major papers in the peer-reviewed literature that undermine global warming? Of course, there are a few scientists (and non-scientitsts) in other fields who take money from the oil companies to try to convince people that their product isn’t causing serious harm to the planet. Interestingly, at least one not only uses the same methods the tobacco companies used for years to try to convince people their product didn’t cause cancer, emphysema, etc.–he actually worked for the tobacco companies before he got into global warming denial business:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478

> In my opinion, despite 20+ years of research, science still has so many unknowns and inconsistencies that it can only meet the “balance of probabilities” test.

Are you saying that you agree there is at least a 51% probability that AGW is real and significant, but you still wouldn’t do much about it?

http://www.ucsusa.org/ assets/ documents/ global_warming/ exxon_report.pdf

It will only help if it means that Obama/Biden get elected, so there is someone who actually wants to negotiate about the climate. Based on McCain’s voting record, I don’t see any evidence that he is actually interested in pursuing any steps to limit GHG. Whatever his stated position, his actions don’t suggest he would be interested in any negotiations on climate.

if talking tough to the russkies is what makes you electable, then that’s what people will do. putin’s not a child, he can take it, and he knows what cards he’s holding.

but if obama and biden get to antagonize anyone they want because “the other guy’s worse” — particularly, encouraging powerful countries to hoard fossil energy in preparation for near-war isolation — that sort of undercuts the message of ending our oil habit, doesn’t it? because it’s not like georgia is “just some country near russia.”

i was pleased the senator included food and water in his list of global challenges.

not much else to do but wait.