Musings on Technology and Culture

I responded to various climate change posts over the last few days.

Before I mention them, let me mention Dave Robert’s astute political analysis. He pins the blame on the broken political processes in the Senate:

The U.S. Senate is already an unrepresentative institution: Wyoming’s two senators each represent 272,000 people; California’s two senators each represent 18,481,000 people. On top of this undemocratic structure is a series of rules that have been abused with increasing frequency.

The main one, of course, is the default supermajority requirement that’s been imposed by abuse of the filibuster. I’ll have much more to say on this soon, but suffice to say, the supermajority requirement has perverse, deleterious consequences that extend much farther than most progressives seem to understand.

For a complex, contentious, and regionally charged issue like climate change, the supermajority requirement presents a virtually insuperable barrier to action. I don’t think we would have the climate bill of our dreams if only 51 votes were required, but I’m fairly sure something along the lines of Waxman-Markey or stronger could have made it over the finish line.

The rest of the articles are about political realities and thus kind of boring. The key thing is that the US is not working towards any kind of consensus.. despite the increasing need to do so. I hate to get all partisan, but Republican obstructionism seems to be the primary cause of it. That leaves the EPA’s power  to regulate CO2 emissions. Obama and the EPA said they preferred a legislative (not an executive) solution, but do we have any other choice now?

Responding to a Douthat post about climate change and conservatism, Matt Yglesias made an outstanding post about climate change and the right:

if Republican members of congress looked at ACES and thought “nice try, but too many side deals” they were, of course, free at any time to introduce an alternative piece of legislation. They did not. And you can tell by the rhetoric of the broader conservative movement (”cap and tax,” “job-killing energy tax,” etc.) that there was no openness to this kind of effort to find more optimal ways of pursuing environmental goals. On the contrary, every move congressional Republicans have made—from adopting a House posture that made it necessary to forge costly side-deals with coal belt Democrats to adopting a Senate posture that ensures carbon regulation will be left primarily to the EPA—has tended to simultaneously undermine the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also making the economic impact of the regulations more costly.

I made this comment:

Sorry, guys, I hate to break the news.

China is number 1 in carbon emissions only because they manufacture a lot of products to import to Walmarts in the West. Taking that into account would absolutely make US the largest carbon emitter still.

Right now, the percent of carbon footprint for China which comes from manufacturing is huge. All western countries have done is to export their dirty carbon to factories in China.

Here in the US most of our carbon footprints come from transportation and our residences. It is totally different in China where manufacturing comprise the bulk of the carbon footprint. If I recall correctly, in US, it was something like 1/3 transportation, 1/3 home energy, 1/3 manufacturing. In China it was like 70-5% manufacturing, home energy 20% and transportation 5% (I don’t remember where I found these figures, but the relative ratios are right).

I don’t deny that over time China and India will be responsible for a larger percentage of carbon, but it is naive to point to China as the bad guys here. Ultimately the responsibility for these carbon emissions rests with the multinationals which feel no public accountability for their manufacturing methods. China’s proper response is to impose tougher environmental regulations. Let’s hope that there is enough political will in China to overrule the corporate influence of multinationals on policy.

Tyler Cowen responds to the same Douthat article, saying:

The bill seems to bureaucratize the energy sector, forgo most of the revenue opportunities, produce massive time consistency problems (postpone real adjustment and then give out more permits over time), and all without getting public buy-in to the idea of higher carbon prices (my emphasis).

I commented:

I don’t see how you can regard it as a libertarian rights violation issue, given the fact that the harms may not become apparent for a few decades after there is no time to reverse it(the same is true for tobacco, nitrates, etc). Sure, the transnational lawsuits may provide a kind of after-the-fact compensation for the (former) residents of Tuvalu and Bangladesh (see this Mother Jones article which states “the world’s 3,000 biggest public companies could be on the hook for $2.2 trillion—more than 30 percent of their profits—if they were made to pay for the fallout of their carbon emissions.” Even if compensation came, it would be too little, too late.

I have no love for cap and trade (although Stavins and Schmalensee seem to find it more palatable . But cap and trade was an attempt to deal with political realities (which have now collapsed).

What’s this about “might lead to a new green technology?” Innovation is happening all the time (even at BP and Exxon). Joe Romm has often said that existing green tech could go a long way towards our 2050 goal without having to gamble on carbon sequestration.

Who is saying that we ought to spend 1% of GDP? The estimates I’ve seen are a lot more modest (in the 100-200$ per year range, not including the social & economic benefits). Douthat/Manzi both present a false choice here.

Behind this statement is a feeling of hopelessness; Many people involved in climate change succumb at times to it; But it is not a valid excuse for inaction; we are still at the stage where we can make concrete changes and still have options. Saying that the burden of ecologists is to show a return on investment for energy technology misses the point; We are talking risk mitigation, not profit maximization; if anything fossil fuel industries should have the burden to demonstrate why their industry won’t contribute to further climate change.

The American political system is in denial about many things: the cost of war, the burden of fossil fuels, the cost of federal programs, American exceptionalism. One thing you mentioned was the need to get Americans to buy in to a solution. That is interesting; if it cannot happen post-oil spill under Obama and a congress controlled by Democrats, it’s hard to imagine it ever happening.

Speaking as an ecologist and not as an economist, I don’t care how carbon is reduced, just that it gets done and is effectively monitored and controlled. If the EPA announces that all coal plans are to be closed in 6 months, I would be fine with that (even though I recognize its disruptive effects on our political system). We are focused on outcomes, not process. We can’t understand why you policymaking and economics wonks/nitwits have such a hard time settling on a workable and politically viable solution.

I personally would be fine with an end to oil subsidies, tougher renewable energy portfolio standards, tougher CAFE standards and funds for infrastructure improvements to our grid.. but only if the plan provided reasonable certainty that carbon reduction targets could be met and continue to be met. Also, I’d like to see better disclosure about the carbon footprint of our manufacturing sector. A large percentage of Chinese’s carbon emissions are to produce the junk that ends up in US Walmart stores.

I can’t say where the political pressure to enact carbon reductions will come from. Up until now, it hasn’t come from our scientists.

To this post about  defending cap and trade, I responded:

As much as I like the idea of “market-based solutions,” there were a lot of concessions made to coal power plants and a lot of things put off the table (like agriculture) and probably other loopholes we never found out about.

I don’t deny the general point being made in the article, but cap-and-trade doesn’t seem intuitively appealing the way that across the board taxes or cap and dividend does. At least people understand what a tax is. (Mencken’s maxim that for every problem there is a solution that is neat, plausible and wrong may apply here, but he didn’t have to worry about getting things passed in the Senate).

I for one wish the rallying cry could be remove subsidies for the oil industry. I was shocked to hear on a podcast last week that the Senate opposition to a measure to remove oil subsidies was in the 2 to 1 range.  The fact that oil subsidies seem here to stay just amazes me.

I see good old-fashioned anti-corporatism playing a role here. Why can’t we fashion boycotts against the most egregious carbon emitters or put political pressure on university endowment funds to divest from dirty carbon companies? In Houston, one issue is charities and arts organizations accepting oil philanthropy money. We need to stop it because it gives us a stake in protecting our friends the Chevrons/Exxons/Halliburtons.

On the other hand, the fossil fuels are a very tough industry to beat; maybe some visible victories in smaller industries might establish a string of victories. Why aren’t we boycotting hamburger restaurants? Why aren’t we boycotting bottled water? Right now, there is no sense that the environmental movement is a force to be reckoned with. Right now there is no people power…just a bunch of lone crazies shouting and complaining. That needs to change.

{ 0 comments }

I am still recovering from the Senate’s decision to put off climate change legislation. What a missed opportunity! Here’s a  must read piece is by Dave Roberts:

Big Coal will be back begging for cap-and-trade. No, really. Right now there are EPA rules in the pipeline that are going to shut down a third or more of the existing coal fleet. No new coal plants are going to get built — they’re not cost-competitive with natural gas or wind, and every one runs into a buzzsaw of grassroots opposition. In other words, carbon caps or no carbon caps, Big Coal is in trouble. Sooner or later, the industry will realize that the funding it can get from cap-and-trade, to support carbon capture and sequestration, is its only path to survival. Robert Byrd tried to tell the industry the truth before he died. Byron Dorgan tried to tell it the truth just the other day. By 2012, certainly by 2015 when many of the rules kick in, the industry will be forced to acknowledge this basic truth. And they’ll come begging Congress for cap-and-trade.

(For more hand-writing, see Climate Progress and Tom Dickinson at Rolling Stone).

I am no expert on legislative strategy, but what’s wrong with offering a climate change bill anyway for a vote  and then letting Republicans do a straight party vote against it?  The assumption here is that presidents who stink of legislative defeats are disgraced and ineffectual. Oh, really?  You need to define your opponent; frankly, having an opponent who mouths talking points and seems to advocate values that involve destroying the planet in the process don’t win elections generally. Lose the battle, win the war, that’s my strategy.

Instead, here is what is going to happen: the EPA is going to issue strict regulations (either before the elections or after, but probably after) which will control coal-based utility companies; they will hurt too.  What will be the political result? Conservatives will label the measure as the next wave of Stalinism and job-killer combined, and they would be right (from their twisted point of view). But if we had an earnest attempt to bring climate change to the Senate floor, a  prominent defeat and gloating statements by the Republican leadership, there would no longer be any ambiguity when the EPA introduced its rules. The EPA had to do this because the Republicans forced their hands. In fact, that describes what is happening now, but from the point of  view of the half-interested public, there hasn’t even been a fight; only  capitulation.

Progressives have criticized Obama for not stumping for climate change as strongly as he should have done. I understand that legislation often depends on timing,  but the BP spill threw him a golden opportunity into his lap. Why didn’t he use it? Yes, there is a danger of overplaying the opportunity,  but Obama really only made one prime time speech where he really didn’t talk about cap and trade or carbon. That’s not leadership.

Realclimate.org pointed out that:

“The rate that people are releasing carbon to the atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation today is equal to 5000 Gulf Oil Spills per day. Think of it — 5000 spills like in the Gulf of Mexico, all going at once, each releasing 40,000 barrels a day, every day for decades and centuries on end.”

And yet the big issue today is: will the cap on the BP oil well hold? Shouldn’t we punish BP or punish Obama for not punishing BP soon enough? (It would be laughable if it were not so futile).

Climate change is and will continue to be the most pressing political issue of our time. I compare it to the panic about nuclear proliferation that lasted from the 1950s and lasted for three decades. Despite all the fatalism, humanity prevailed (and be thankful for it). Climate change is like the problem of  nuclear proliferation except:

• Instead of worrying about sudden conflagration, we worry about a gradual and inevitable destruction.
• With nuclear war, we never had political people go on  TV  to say that nuclear proliferation was inherently a good or neutral thing. Nowadays, though, there are denialists appearing regularly on TV and writing newspapers columns (and make no mistake: their rhetoric is a force to be reckoned with).
• With nuclear weapons, we never had commercials on TV talking about the good feeling that comes with nuclear proliferation. Nowadays though we are presented with commercial messages every single day reminding us of the positive impact of fossil fuels.
• With nuclear weapons, no one would ever use the economic benefits of it as a reason to support it. (That would be ridiculous). With climate change, the alleged economic benefits are cited all the time – even though of course that is utter poppycock.
• Unlike nuclear proliferation (which helped certain defense communities but little other than that), the fossil fuel sector is depended upon by the car industry, electric utilities and airlines.  The cost of goods depends to some extent on its fuel price. The key point here is not that this dependency exists, but these sectors have not made serious efforts to explore alternatives.
• Unlike nuclear weapons (where you depended on the State Department and defense experts to devise sound and rational strategies), the responsibility for taking effective action on climate change rests with individuals and  private companies. There’s a lot I as an individual can do to reduce my carbon footprint or persuade others to do. We are not helpless creatures (even though our elected leaders seem to be). We can vote with our pocketbooks. But are we doing this?
• Unlike nuclear weapons (which basically required defense spending), climate change legislation does not  require public funding. Yes, we need to invest more in infrastructure and yes, it would be nice to turn the fossil fuel subsidies upside down so that they would push people towards renewables, but these are not required. Climate change doesn’t require a massive expenditure of federal funds and can even save money (one estimate showed that it will reduce the federal deficit in the long run).
• Unlike nuclear proliferation (where the Ruskies were the undisputed bad guys), with climate change the morality of the major players is  more ambiguous. Historically the U.S. has been responsible for the lion’s share of emissions, and in fact, many fossil fuel  companies have a strong presence in the U.S.  If we criticize the fossil fuel industries, we are criticizing the very people  lauded as stars by our own society.
• Unlike the nuclear weapon industry, the fossil fuel industries have contributed a lot to elected leaders and given lots of money to nonprofit organizations. Here in Houston, you have symphonies, charities and arts organization dependent on the generosity of oil companies.  It would be as though the main backers of the Houston Symphony were Stalin and Khrushchev.
• Unlike the Cold War, there is a very real probability that humanity will suffer tremendously from it. Even if the A1F1 scenario doesn’t materialize, there are going to be a lot of residual harms.

With the Cold War/nuclear proliferation crisis, we could at least cling to the hope that we will be lucky and the world will  not end in mutually assured destruction (And indeed, we did get very lucky). But with the climate crisis, there is not a lot of hope to cling to. It is as though someone in a time machine came from the future to tell us that many harms are certain to occur, many harms will probably occur, and we can only try to avoid the harms that might occur.

{ 2 comments }