Hurray USA - emmissions

Great Debates
41

Tuckerfan, I sympathize with you and appreciate your point to some extent that policies tend to get enacted in ways that cause less pain for the powerful than the powerless. Still, I can’t advocate doing nothing about global warming and other environmental problems like pollution because of this.

People (including some on this very board) have asked whether my belief that we need higher gasoline prices (presumably through taxation) conflicts with my general belief that the tax structure should be more progressive. And, indeed, looked at alone it does…I.e., there is little doubt that gas taxes, like any sort of sales tax on a basic commodity, would be regressive. However, I am not going to advocate the continued subsidization of wasteful and inefficient automobile transportation just to help the poor. There are better ways to do that. In my ideal world, any increasing in taxes on gasoline would be offset for the poor by decreases in some other types of tax. Will that happen in the real world? I don’t know. One can only try to make it happen.

42

By the way, I have no idea where this number you quote comes from…or even what it means. (2% increase in the number, the intensity, …) But, let me give you the lowdown on what is known about hurricanes…

Working Group I’s summary for policymakers in the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC notes that the evidence for increases in tropical cyclone intensity is one of the areas where the science is less certain. They rate both the possibility of “increase in tropical cyclone peak wind intensities” and the possibility of “increase in tropical cyclone mean and peak precipitation intensities” in the 21st Century as “likely over some areas”, where “likely” is defined as 66-90% chance. [They feel such changes have not yet been observed in the latter half of the 20th century, or that there is insufficient evidence to say whether or not they have been observed.] They also note that “past and future changes in tropical cyclone location and frequency are uncertain.”

I’m not sure how they define an “increase”, but I assume they mean an increase that is large enough to be measurable and significant (a 2% increase would not alas qualify IMHO).

Their uncertainty on this is in contrast to their opinion on other things such as higher maximum temps, higher minimum temps, and more intense precip events in some areas, which they all rate as “very likely” (90-99% chance) to occur in the next century.

43

Okay guys, this is going to be a bit rushed, but let me make a few things clear that I evidentaly didn’t explain well enough. I am NOT advocating the abadonment of a sound environmental policy simply because I’m too poor to repair my smog monster. If you’ll note in my original post, I stated that were the Feds smart they’d give tax write-offs for anyone who invested in a non-polluting source of energy (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal). The simple fact is that politics is a game of least resistance. The politicians will do that which is most likely to get them re-elected (hence the death of the Kyoto Accord). I’m not bashing them by saying that, as its a fact that its easier to simply “go with the flow” than it is to take a principled stand. If it were otherwise, people like Ghandi, FDR, Harry Truman and others would be the rule, and not the exception. I DO hope that a President will come along who will do something to reduce the threat of global warming (I do not dispute the FACT of global warming, I grew up in Ohio and as a child I can remember few winters without snow. Now, according to my mother who still lives there, snow in the winter is the exception, not the rule.), but if he/she does so, I hope that person will do so in a manner which is sensable. With the way the Kyoto Accords are written, many of the sources of pollution will simply move to Third World countries. That’s not a solution! Anybody here read Buckminster Fuller’s writings? While I don’t agree with everything he says (his attacks against owning private property, for example), he does lay out many solutions for the current environmental disaster which awaits us that DO NOT harm the poor of the US or any other country! In fact, they IMPROVE the standard of living for the poorest of nations without significantly damaging the environment. If the Kyoto Accords supported such a posisition, I’d be all for them. They don’t, and our politicians don’t have the courage to stand up and say that we, as the consumer of most of the world’s resources, need to find a way to not only reduce the environmental damage we’re causing, but help those less fortunate than us enjoy the benefits of modern technology as well. We will find a way out of this mess that we’ve found ourselves in, but until we accept that a solution which penalizes the poor is no solution, we’re as good as dead. Let’s be rational, here. We’re not doing the planet any good by moving the problems from one spot to another. We may, in fact, be doing more harm than good. At least with what we have now, corporations won’t be inclined to pack up and move. If the Kyoto Accords had passed, they may have done that. Then where would we be? The air in the US might have been cleaner, but the air in Third World countries might wind up being DIRTIER. That’s not much of a solution if you ask me.

44

You’re confusing a number of topics here. Firstly, air pollution is not the same thing as tackling global warming. One can reduce air pollution without doing anything about global warming, depending on what kind of pollution we’re talking about. I could go on, but the essence is you’re mixing two different although partly related problems. Kyoto is warming, not pollution Second, in order for developing countries to achieve the ability to either make pollution clean-up or warming emmissions reducations, they actually have to develop some more, or in the alternative get massive subsidies. Now we call know that subsidies are just right out politically speaking, so one tries for increasing their wealth base/productive capacity so that they have a greater capacity to invest in improvments.

45

Wait, wait, wait. I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I’m not claiming that the Kyoto Accord were supposed to be some kind of enviromental cure-all. I understand that the goal of the Kyoto Accord was limited to global warming. My point was, that if the treaty was structured in such a manner that it allowed Third World nations to produce GREATER air pollution (for example) than the level the First World nations are allowed by the accord, then it wasn’t an improvement over what we have now. I am NOT saying we shouldn’t allow the Third World nations to rise technologically to our level, I am simply disagreeing with the MEANS by which that might be accomplished. One of the reasons why we’re the world’s largest consumer nations is because our hi-tech society DEMANDS those resources. There have been an innumberable amount of engineers, scientists, visionaries, and others who have laid out methods by which we can continue with the current pace of technological growth, if not INCREASE it, while REDUCING the amount of enviromental damage and INCREASING the standard of living for ALL nations. These methods, are for the most part, rather painless. For example: simply covering ONE square mile of the Arizona desert with solar panels would provide more than adequate power for the US, even taking into account the time the panels would spend in darkness or recieve less that 100% of the sun’s rays. This is painless for everybody involved as the power plant workers (for example) would still be needed to maintain the solar panels and other equipment (though many of them would need to be retrained), and its one whopping BIG reduction in the US emissions of air pollutants, including some greenhouse gases! As for improving the standards of living for people in all countries, check out Buckminster Fuller’s design for a house which costs less than $1/sq.ft., and DIDN’T need air conditioning to stay cool even in the desert! (links to relevant sites: http://www.bfi.org/ http://www.hfmgv.org/dymaxion/index.htm )

If the Kyoto Accord backed those sorts of ideas, I’d be ALL for it, but it DOESN’T. It is simply more of “make these cuts and we don’t care who gets hurt.” That, IMHO, is morally wrong and MORE harmful to the pro-enviromentalist movement, than anything else. Including doing nothing.

46

Hmm Tuckerfan, I sympathize with a lot of your concerns but I think some of your claims may be problematic. Frinstance:

My point was, that if the treaty was structured in such a manner that it allowed Third World nations to produce GREATER air pollution (for example) than the level the First World nations are allowed by the accord, then it wasn’t an improvement over what we have now.

First, I don’t think that Kyoto actually made such provisions, though I think it allows more delay for emissions reduction in developing nations. Second, I see your point that Total World Emissions (T) = Emissions from Developed Countries (A) + Emissions from Developing Countries (B), and reducing A by some amount X while increasing B by an amount greater than or equal to X won’t reduce T. However, you overlook the fact that A and B don’t exist in isolation from each other.

Significantly reducing A, i.e., getting the developed nations to a point where energy technologies are substantially cleaner, before B skyrockets as the Third World’s industrialization peaks, will not only bring down T in the short run. It’ll also give us a very strong position from which to assist (and pressure) the Third World in reducing B, and therefore lowering T in the long run too. Your scenario in which Kyoto restrictions will result in the developed countries busting their butts to reduce emissions while the developing countries smog away with perfect impunity is frequently employed by “climate skeptics”, but I don’t think it’s actually very realistic politically.

These methods, are for the most part, rather painless. For example: simply covering ONE square mile of the Arizona desert with solar panels would provide more than adequate power for the US, even taking into account the time the panels would spend in darkness or recieve less that 100% of the sun’s rays.

Whoa there, could we get a cite on the effectiveness and feasibility of such a plan? I personally would be thrilled if clean energy technologies did turn out to be mostly “painless”, but I have a feeling that if that were realistic, we wouldn’t have to struggle as we’re doing to get them adopted. Initial development and infrastructure changes are probably going to be “painful” enough that we will require some serious regulatory muscle and/or incentives in order to reform our current ways.

If the Kyoto Accord backed those sorts of ideas, I’d be ALL for it, but it DOESN’T. It is simply more of “make these cuts and we don’t care who gets hurt.” That, IMHO, is morally wrong and MORE harmful to the pro-enviromentalist movement, than anything else. Including doing nothing.

Can’t agree that the Kyoto protocols would be improved by tying their requirements to specific technologies. It may seem harsh just to issue “make the cuts by hook or by crook” mandates, but that is the only way to make the requirements flexible enough to take advantage of subsequent technology innovations. How would we feel if we all signed a treaty committing us to huge photovoltaic installations and then discovered sometime later that a new technology would be better and cheaper? I agree that morality requires individual governments to ensure that their citizens aren’t socked too hard by the treaty requirements, and that the economic burden is distributed fairly within their society. But I can’t agree that such provisions belong in the international treaty: that’s economic micro-management.

47

Where are you getting this from, out of curiosity?

48

Okay, I had read this a number of years ago and mistakenly remembered the amount of area required for solar power. It is, in fact, 100 square miles. The same size area used for the nuke test site in Nevada. NPR aired a program which discusses this the other day. One can check it out at:
http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=4%2F12%2F2001&PrgID=3

In case that link doesn’t work for some reason, simply go to npr.org select “Morning Edition” then “archives” and then the date for “April 12 2001”. The segment is entitled “Solar Power Research.” You can then listen to the segment using RealPlayer from Real.com

The program states that one of the reasons that the US hasn’t converted a section of the desert over was that up until recently it wasn’t cost effective to do so, as solar generated electricity went for 20 cents a kilowatt VS 3 to 4 cents for coal generated electricity. There has also been a rumor that someone had planned to do this, but the idea was shot down on the grounds that it would damage the environment in Arizona. I cannot confirm this, but merely pass it along for speculative purposes.

My concerns about Third World nations are valid, I think, for the following reasons:

  1. There is not the organized infrastructure in Third World nations to enable systemitized enforcement of any environmental laws. To build such a structure would take considerable time and money, which the Third World nations do not have. And while it might be theortically possible that the First World nations could loan or grant those nations the money, there is STRONG evidence (witness the failures of the IMF and WorldBank) that this money would NOT be put to the purpose intended. In any case, until the Third World countries develop the infrastructure to ensure that the environmental laws are properly enforced, there will, no doubt, be gross violations of those laws.

  2. These nations DO NOT have the long history of pro-active environmental protectionism that the US and other countries have. Getting them to understand the value of the environment will be difficult, and must be undertaken, but it will not happen overnight.

  3. Many Third World nations have more pressing issues (such as AIDS and other diseases, civil war, etc.) and wouldn’t be willing or able to focus their energies on an issue which many will see as being a long term problem, when the short term problems seem to be overwhelming.

  4. Modern industrialization is what has brought on this mess we’ve now found ourselves in. By shifting the industrialized base (or even just a portion of it) of the world to less developed countries in order that they might enjoy the benefits brought on by industrialization means that we’re shifting the polluting sources from an ALREADY contaminated area to an UNCONTAMINATED area. While we can and do clean up the contaminated areas in our part of the world, this is rarely done without a lot of foot dragging, and often the areas sit for years without anything being done about it. So, in theory, we could be increasing the total area of environmental damage, even with a reduction in total emissions of global warming substances worldwide. That sounds like a no-win situation to me. What good is clean air, if there’s no clean water and viseversa? Not to mention the increase in both plant and animal extinctions that will surely come about if the Third World develops in a manner similar to that taken by the First World.

Also, I wasn’t calling for the Kyoto Accords to be hooked to specific technologies, only that it be hooked to FINDING ways to reduce the damage we humans wreak on the environment that DO NOT penalize people simply because they are poor. The technologies I mentioned were merely examples of the types of things that I feel should be researched. This isn’t micro-economics if its done properly. One could simply model the development structure the US used for weapons research during the Second World War. We didn’t just spend all of our money on building the atomic bomb. When we entered the war, much of our equipment was inferior to that of the Axis powers in areas of technology, quality, and quantity, but because our methods of granting government money for research and development were superior to those of the Axis nations, we were able to rapidly catch up and then pass the opposing sides. Were the US government ALONE to invest the same amount of time, money (with the necessary adjustments for inflation), and effort as it did on fighting our enemies of World War II to the issues of global warming and protecting the environment, then the positive impact of this research would probably make things like the Kyoto Accord unnecessary. After all, we are fighting for our survival, aren’t we? Its just that this time the enemy is ourselves and not someone overseas.