Managed
Warming
Dan Rauch
With Al Gore’s academy award, Congress’
declaration that man is “unequivocally responsible” for global warming and
Richard Branson’s offer of a cash prize for sequestering carbon dioxide it would
seem that this is the year of climate change awareness. Today people are
increasingly becoming aware that the world is getting warmer, that this change
is caused by human actions and that it will have potentially dramatic
consequences. Awesome. Without action, however, awareness is nothing. So the
question then, is how to stop global warming? The answer; we can’t.
Hold on, you may say; surely if enough people use solar panels, turn down their
thermostats and buy Priuses (Priusi?), we can roll back climate change. Right?
The unfortunate, truth, however, is that several factors preclude us from
stopping the rising temperature of the earth. First off, even if emissions were
capped today and held level worldwide, we would still be in for a significant
worldwide temperature increase.
Additionally, the West and the rich world has found it difficult to make
dramatic commitments to climate change. In the US, for example, emissions have
increased even as awareness has risen, while even Europe may not be as green as
they believe themselves to be. Yet the Rich world may, through dramatic and
innovative policies, be able to keep their emissions relatively stable. Good
candidates for this would be a binding carbon exchange system that capped
emissions and then allowed parties to trade their ability to pollute. Such a
system was able to reduce sulfur dioxide pollution in the US by 90%, and could
perhaps someday be applied on a broader scale throughout the developed world.
That said, even if the rich world were never to pollute again, a far larger
problem is looming, one that no policy, however clever, will be able to
completely address.
I’m always amused by the ire the United States draws from not being a signator
to the Kyoto protocol on carbon emissions. Not because I disagree with the
treaty; on the contrary, I think its important that the developed nations of the
worlds send a message that they are united in their concern about global climate
change. Yet ultimately Kyoto and initiatives like it are just that; messages. To
view the substantive future of global warming, one must consider not the West
and Japan but instead China, India, and the developing world.
Having re-integrated into the global economy after decades of isolation, China
et. al. are lifting millions of their people out of poverty each year. Although
this phenomenon is rightly hailed as a humanitarian triumph of globalization, it
is one that comes at a high environmental price. As more and more in the
developing world have the resources to consume like their counterparts in the
rich world, carbon emissions have soared. Each year millions more enter the
global middle class, and with their new status demand the production of millions
of cars, appliances, and consumer goods. Indeed, a 2004 AEI study estimated that
one year of emissions growth in China exceeded by a wide margin the emissions
that would be saved if Kyoto were followed to the letter for its entire 20 year
commitment. The report concludes by observing that by 2040, 4/5 of all emitions
will come from the developing world. As a result, even if the West were to
somehow end all carbon emissions, CO2 output will triple in the next 40 years.
Needless to say, this creates a particularly thorny political dynamic. Asking
the developing world to stay poor for the sake of climate change is clearly not
an option. Cap and trade is fine if a society is to remain relatively stable,
but it is largely untenable when a population of 3 billion literally needs to
enter the modern era. Normatively speaking asking the citizens of other nations
to remain destitute for the sake of a problem caused by the rich world is
untenable. Yet even if the US and others were to pressure China and India to
comply with emissions restrictions, there is zero chance that such
recommendations would be obeyed. Although the leaders of such nations fear
climate change they fear the wrath of an immiserated populace even more. Given
the choice between stability and the environment, China will choose stability
every time. What’s more, the trend is just getting started; it is estimated that
China and India combined have well over a billion rural peasants who could one
day consume resources as we do. Against this wave of humanity squabbles over
Kyoto and such seem utterly laughable.
Of course, that’s not to say we shouldn’t try: through technology transfers of
energy efficient designs to China and other nations the rich world could greatly
mitigate the impact of this growth. Furthermore, it is possible that such
transfers will occur organically due to free market forces; China is currently
among the largest markets in the world for Green technology, and thus the very
notion of a billion new polluters may be draw enough for significant investment
and innovation. That said, the current situation is such that I believe we must
begin to look beyond attempting to reverse global warming and toward attempting
to move toward a new era: the age of managed warming.
Managed Warming is defined by awareness that a. some degree of warming is
inevitable barring a geopolitical meltdown and b. the effects of warming must be
weighed against the costs of not warming at all times. While the first precept
has been outlined above the second provides the larger philosophical framework
within which such policies would operate. Although the environment is a good, it
is not an absolute good. When we make policies that restrict worldwide economic
growth, we often create more misery through poverty than we prevent through a
more stable earth. Furthermore, global warming’s impacts are often paradoxically
positive (e.g. longer growing seasons in Canada). While I’m positive these
beneficial effects are outweighed by the broader costs of global climate change,
they should surely be taken into account if society is to determine how far they
want to go in preventing warming.
Having established the frame in which Managed Warming operates, one may now
consider what its policies would look like.
For the Rich World: Use of practical, market based solutions like carbon
exchanges to reduce emissions as much as possible. Incentives in the form of tax
breaks should be offered for "good behaviors" such as buying energy efficient
cars or using clean energy.In addition, significant investments and subsidies in
both practical and theoretical research toward creating technological solutions.
Finally, a long term and comprehensive policy to move away from fossil fuels and
toward solar, wind, nuclear, and other clean power sources. Finally, develop
technologies like better, cheaper sea walls or new crop strains to deal with the
gradual warming of the earth. In my mind, the market will solve for most of this
For the developing world: Technological transfers combined with an attempt to
integrate such nations into Kyoto II or other subsequent treaties as their
affluence permits. In my mind, common sense will solve for most of this.
Yet perhaps the most crucial feature of this policy comes within the nations
that have not yet been discussed:
The Poor World: For the poorest nations of the world, the ones thus far bypassed
by globalization, global warming is a cloud without a silver lining (see the
work of Bjorn Lomborg). As such nations are particularly dependent on
agriculture and subsistence farming they will be the ones most radically
affected by changes in the worldwide climate. After all, while a 3 degree
temperature rise may anger a cubicle worker in London, it may well lead a farmer
in the Ivory Coast to ruin and starvation. Additionally, such climate change
will in all likelihood accelerate the process of desertification that has left
much of the poor world barely habitable. The result will be an era of mass
starvation, disease, and ceaseless environmental warfare. The effects of this
instability will not be localized, but instead will result in radicalism and
terrorism that could spread worldwide along with millions upon millions of
refugees. Unless we set up the framework now, nothing will solve for this.
As such, managed warming will hinge upon the creation of an unprecedented
international aid effort. Although protecting the poor world from the effects of
climate change will take a sustained and tremendous commitment, it is the only
normatively and pragmatically viable option that the rich world has. As a
result, if we are to successfully ride out the storm of climate change, we have
no choice but to ensure that we protect the poor world from the harms caused by
the rich.
Ultimately, managed warming may seem to be a cop out of sorts. I know many of
you were hoping for some magical solution or policy that would be enacted if not
for “political will”. Yet for better or worse global climate change is here to
stay, and the challenge of our generation will be ensuring that we find policy
balance in a somewhat warmer world.
Dan Rauch is a freshman.
Republished
from the Whig Party Blog.
