wild places | wild happenings | wild news
make a difference for our wild places

home | links | search the site
  all articles latest | past | articles by topics | search wildnews
wild news on wildsingapore
  Business Times Singapore 9 Feb 07
Face up to harsh truths about global warming
By Robert Samuelson

YOU could be excused for thinking that we'll soon do something serious about global warming.

Last Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - an international group of scientists - concluded, to a 90 per cent probability, that human activity is warming the Earth.

Earlier, Democratic congressional leaders made global warming legislation a top priority, and 10 big US companies (including General Electric and DuPont) endorsed federal regulation.

Strong action seems at hand. Don't be fooled.

The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution.

About 80 per cent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which - in all modern societies - buttresses political and social stability.

Until we can replace fossil fuels, or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to 'do something' with scepticism, disbelief or contempt.

These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming when they're not. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations.

Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions.

In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totalled 26 billion tonnes. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, they'll grow to 40 billion tonnes by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris.

About three-quarters of the increase comes from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. By 2009, the IEA expects China to surpass the United States as the largest source of CO2.

Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth - lowering poverty, fostering political stability - to placate the rich world's global warming fears.

Why should they? On a per person basis, their CO2 emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 per cent of the population even has electricity.

Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IEA did an 'alternative scenario' that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use; for example, fuel economy for new US vehicles was assumed to increase 30 per cent by 2030.

The result: by 2030, annual CO2 emissions would rise 31 per cent instead of 55 per cent. Since 1850, global temperatures have increased almost one degree Celsius. Sea level has risen about seven inches.

So far, global warming has been a change, not a calamity. The IPCC projects wide ranges for the next century: temperature increases anywhere from 1.1 degrees Celsius to 6.4 degrees; sea level rises anywhere from seven inches to almost two feet.

People might easily adapt; or there might be costly disruptions (say, flooding of coastal cities resulting from melting polar ice caps).

I do not say we should do nothing; but we should not delude ourselves. In the United States, the favoured remedy is 'cap and trade'. It's environmental grandstanding - politicians pretending they're doing something.

But in practice, no plausible 'cap and trade' program would significantly curb global warming. To do that, quotas would have to be set so low as to shut down the economy. Or the cost of scarce quotas would skyrocket - and be passed along to consumers through much higher energy prices.

Neither outcome seems likely. The programme would be a regulatory burden with little benefit. It would be a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers, as industries and localities besieged Washington for exceptions and special treatment.

What we really need is a more urgent programme of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of CO2.

Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports; but it would also check CO2 emissions.

It's a debate we ought to have - but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular.

That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit.

The Washington Post Writers Group
links
Related articles on Global issues: climate change
about the site | email ria
  News articles are reproduced for non-profit educational purposes.
 

website©ria tan 2003 www.wildsingapore.com