Colleagues:
The global summit on Climate Change that just wrapped up in Copenhagen produced a vague agreement that fell far short of the hopes and expectations of many participants. At the same time, many doubters of the apocalyptic projections of the impact of global warming, and particularly of the role man-made emissions play in these scenarios, breathed a sigh of relief. They were content with the failure to produce a binding document that would have committed the United States to extensive reductions in carbon emissions by 2030.
President Obama’s personal intervention at the 11th hour, particularly in forcing very disappointed “developing” nations to accept a modest accord, led to a climate deal that provides for “monitoring” emission cuts by each country, but set no targets for cutting greenhouse gases—and no deadline for reaching a comprehensive international climate treaty.
The inability to negotiate a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen was a disappointment to Obama, who dearly wanted a global agreement that would commit the 143 participating nations to reducing greenhouse emissions in half by 2050. However, the developing countries, led by China and India, were reluctant to sign on themselves to this goal, given the impact such restrictions would have on their rapidly expanding economies.
For the “developing” nations–who believe (correctly) that the U.S. and Europe built their prosperity on the utilization of fossil fuels, particularly coal and wood, and who now contribute most of the carbon emissions into the atmosphere–it was important that the “rich countries” commit to drastically reduce their emissions. They also, understandably, wanted to be free to pursue a similar course of development and not themselves be constrained by such targets—until, at least, they reached a level of greenhouse gas output similar to the developed world.
The wide gulf between American and Chinese goals and demands almost led to a total breakdown of the conference at many points. In the end, Chinese opposition to intrusive monitoring and verification carried the day, and the Summit produced only a promise by all nations “to list their existing pledges” and “provide information on their progress”. Not much of an agreement.
For the President, that is not a bad outcome. He can be viewed by the environmental community of having made bold gestures to commit the United States to serious emissions cuts by 2050, and for intervening forcefully with the recalcitrant Chinese. While I don’t doubt Obama’s personal commitment to climate change, I suspect many officials within his Administration are breathing a sigh of relief that the U.S.will not have to sacrifice economic growth to offset increasingly controversial goals to combat global warming.
In the first part of this decade the adherents of climate change, and of the severe impacts global warming would have, pretty well carried the day. Recently, however, the “doubters” on climate change have secured the initiative, to the point that the science underlying warming has been, while not discredited, subject to a lack of intellectual certitude.
The “realists” were handed an unbelievable boost recently when the lead academic center on global warming, the UK University of East Anglia, posted emails to fellow climate change adherents that seemingly acknowledged some uncomfortable facts. First, that in the past decade (unlike the 1990’s), the earth seemed to be experiencing a period of cooling—not warming. Secondly, when the data seemed to call basic assumptions into question, the East Anglicans actually suggested ignoring or altering that data. One email noted that “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of global warming at the movement….and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
As many of you know I am somewhere in the middle of all this. First, I do subscribe to the basic tenets of the climate change adherents, led by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). I think the science leads to the conclusion that global warming is occurring and that much of that is due to man-made contributions—principally emissions of carbon dioxide.
At the same time I follow the conclusions of the Danish environmentalist, Bjorn Lomborg, who argues that rather than mandating economic growth killing carbon taxes and other measures, that we try to mitigate the worst aspects of warming and learn to adjust to the rest. I keep in mind that a member of the IPPC itself concedes that the CO2 tax required to bring emissions down to the levels demanded by the IPCC would reduce global GNP by $40 trillion!
Cheap, carbon-based energy has been the foundation of our economic growth and reversing that process quickly would have a serious deleterious impact on our economies. Given that there is lingering doubt as to whether changes occurring in the climate are from natural origins or man-caused, and that the supposition that if we do nothing catastrophic change will ensue is also unproven, let’s be modest in what we commit to do.
I was reviewing several articles and analyses on Copenhagen and climate change in general. I commend to you a piece in the Washington Post on December 9 by—don’t laugh—GOV Sarah Palin! She points out that “good environmental policy-making is about weighing real-world costs and benefits—not pursuing a political agenda”. She says that this is not to deny the reality of some changes in climate—“far from it”, she writes, citing coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, and retreating sea ice that she dealt with in Alaska. She concludes that “while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather change.”
Well, I think we can, but her final point is one to consider: she argues that “We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs”. Thus we must be assured that any cap and tax/trade scheme does not result in severe job losses, much higher energy costs, and economic collapse. That is close to the arguments Longborg makes.
In sum, before we embark on any massive program to cut emissions, let’s be certain that:
(1) There is significant and verifiable climate change occurring;
(2) The primary cause of the global warming is our carbon-based emissions;
(3) Steps taken to decrease emissions do not result in economic growth prevention;
(4) The U.S. expands the production of electrical energy generated by (environmentally friendly) nuclear power plants;
(5) Efforts continue to develop real “clean-coal” technologies (while “clean coal” may not be feasible, since we have 250 years of coal in reserve, let’s do what we can to mitigate the harmful impact of coal plants);
(6) We subsidize the shift to geothermal, wind and solar, but keep in mind that these sources are unlikely in the near term to produce power economically or reliably.
Thanks! Ty
Tyrus W. Cobb
December 20, 2009
Click here for the entire Sarah Palin piece in the Post
Click here: Sarah Palin – Sarah Palin on the politicization of the Copenhagen climate conference