At USA Today Kate S. Petersen does her best to explain why there’s good reason to believe that human action is causing global climate change:
More than a century of experimental and observational research by generations of scientists shows that modern global warming is driven by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity. Scientists know that natural CO2 emissions are not driving modern global warming because they are reabsorbed by natural “carbon sinks.” However, additional emissions by humans have resulted in excess greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere − driving global warming.
Sadly, I doubt she will convince anyone who is not already predisposed to agree with her. Rather than wasting time debating whether, to put it succinctly, “global warming is real”, let’s focus on what the right policies are to deal with it.
My view is that almost all of our present efforts are wasted motion. EVs. Wind and solar power. The whole magilla. Why? There are basically two reasons.
First, China and India are increasing their production of greenhouse gases faster than we can conceivably reduce ours. And, second, while the actions we’re presently taking provide plenty of opportunities for government spending and increasing the income of the wealthiest of our citizens even if successful they will make life harder and more expensive for ordinary people while influencing the actions of those wealthiest citizens hardly at all. That’s perverse because if we are to accomplish anything we must reduce the greenhouse gas productions of the wealthiest—they produce a lot more than ordinary people.
That’s why, for example, a carbon tax is such a lousy idea. It’s regressive—it falls hardest on those least able to pay it while the wealthiest can just shrug it off.
Also, there are lots of problems with wind and solar that can be summarized as that they cause environmental problems of their own while not having an energy density suitable for industry.
Consequently, my policy preferences are:
- More nuclear power
- Carbon capture and sequestration
- Reduce our imports
- Focus efforts on reducing the greenhouse gas production by the rich rather than by the poor. Examples of such measures are the banning of private ownership or lease of jet aircraft or substantial federal taxes on homes of 4,000 square feet or greater
I’m open to other suggestions and I’d like to hear yours.
India is now adding renewables at a faster rate than coal. They are still adding coal but given the rates, knowing that caot plants outdate, they will end up with mostly renewables like everyone else. There is value in our continuing as it helps commercialize the research and as we know the price of renewables has continually dropped. (I guess this is where you say we have no guarantee they will continue to drop, the same as you have said for the last 10-15 years, as they continued to drop during that time.)
“make life harder and more expensive for ordinary people ”
Wind and solar are still fairly new. Costs have continually dropped. Wind is now the cheapest option in many places and why you see so much of it in red states like Texas, Iowa and Oklahoma.
“Also, there are lots of problems with wind and solar that can be summarized as that they cause environmental problems of their own while not having an energy density suitable for industry.”
Everything has problems but the issues with wind and solar are small and exaggerated by certain people. Energy density may not be high for some industries but fine for others.
I think we should continue to expand renewables where feasible phasing out subsidies as is already happening. Continue to support research. More nukes is good, improve our grid.
Private jets? Total global aviations produces about 2.5% of our total CO2. Private jets account for as best I can tell maybe at most 10% of that. May make you feel better but wont do much. Besides, super yachts are much worse so if you want to feel good those should be your target. OK with taxing large homes but if they use renewables to power the homes then wouldn’t do it. TBH, I would also take away the mortgage deduction for larger homes.
https://time.com/6208632/celebrities-climate-impact-private-jets-yachts/
Steve
So, what’s your plan? Employ the entire working class in the hospitality sector?
I would support that but it’s already largely the case.
My objective is not to “feel better”. It is to have a meaningful impact without making life impossible for people in the lowest 10% of income earners. The top 10% of income earners in this country produce 40% of the emissions. The top 1% produce 15% of the emissions. That makes the direction of the reforms required pretty clear to me.
Encourage work from home.
Not using energy is greener than trying to switch the method of energy consumption.
Less commuting means less cars; and also less office space (and associated energy costs to construct and maintain).
Extend that to business travel and airplanes.
Agreed that’s a good policy.
“Employ the entire working class in the hospitality sector?”
Every industry requires high energy density output in every step of the process? My plan would be to use the source that works best for the given industry. As electricity with renewables and/or nukes becomes the cheapest source convert. AS I have always supported, we should end up with a mix of energy sources but heavily tilted towards renewables and nukes, especially is the small reactors every become commercially viable.
If you want to help the poor people then just support energy getting cheaper and cleaner. Air pollution is a significant factor in many illnesses, is worst in cities and affects the poor living there more than the better off. If you make energy costs lower for everyone the poor will benefit. If you want to target the high end users then do it in a meaningful way.
As noted, assuming my source was correct, global aviation produces 2.5% of our CO2. Cutting aviation in half cuts CO2 by 1%. That’s mostly just feel good stuff which if you are honest is driven by the right wing hit pieces because some celebrity they dont like flew on a private plane. Note that they dont go after the super yachts, much worse offenders, because billionaires have those and the right like the very, very rich people. Go after the other 99% or at worst go after airplanes AND the other 99%. Have electricity rates increase above an amount used that would be average for people in the lower 90%. Or have a surtax and use the tax to build out charging stations in poor areas. EVs would make sense for poor city dwellers if they had a way to charge them.
Steve
I hope it IS getting warmer and I’d support no policy to stand in it’s way.
Fundamentally the biggest issue right now is China, India and the rest of the developing world. Our emissions have started to go down, theirs are still skyrocketing. We could zero out our emissions and that would only buy a little bit of time.
Solutions are difficult because of the scale of the problem and the fact that it’s a global collective action problem and we humans are not very good at collective action on a global scale, especially when it comes to authoritarian countries.
Leaving aside all those difficulties, I think we are mostly on the right rack in the US except for nuclear. I think we tend to spend too much effort throwing money at things instead of changing regulatory and other incentives. I think what passes for the environmental movement needs to drop its luddite and degrowth tendencies and embrace abundance, especially energy abundance.
And we are always going to have carbon-based energy. The idea that we could or should “ban†it is foolish.
Do nothing.
The same clowns that brought us COVID hystria have been pushing AGW hysteria, and with both, the Day of Doom keeps changing.
Zeroing out our emissions (not going to happen) is interesting as the US accounts for about 12%-15% of global CO2 output. Dave was willing to address private airplane usage at 1% of global output, so maybe reducing ours isn’t so unimportant after all. Anyway, maybe the best part of the US reducing CO2 is in leading the way in making it practical and affordable. The cost of renewable electricity keeps dropping, batteries and their alternatives keep getting better.
Steve
That’s not what’s happening. What is actually happening is that the Chinese are leading the way, drawn by sales to the United States and European countries paying with borrowed money.
The Chinese are borrowing plenty, too. I honestly don’t know what’s going to happen and I doubt anyone else does, either. According to the IMF (PDF) global public debt has risen to unprecedented levels.
I would be much more comfortable if we were paying for the things we want in cash based on how much we want them rather than using borrowed money.