No obituary for Earth: Scientists fight climate doom talk. Doomism has become far more of a threat than denialism.

By SETH BORENSTEIN, Associated Press, April 4, 2022 -  Scientists say climate change is bad, getting worse, but it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. “It’s not that they’re saying you are condemned to a future of destruction and increasing misery,” said Figueres, the former U.N. climate secretary who helped forge the 2015 Paris climate agreement and now runs an organization called Global Optimism. 

It’s not the end of the world. It only seems that way.

Climate change is going to get worse, but as gloomy as the latest scientific reports are, including today’s from the United Nations, scientist after scientist stresses that curbing global warming is not hopeless. The science says it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. ... climate researchers say they have a new fight on their hands: doomism. It’s the feeling that nothing can be done, so why bother. 

... “We are not through a threshold or past the threshold. There’s no such thing as pass-fail when it comes to the climate crisis.”

“It’s really, really, really hard to walk people back from that ledge,” Gill said.

“Everybody knows it’s going to get worse,” said Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist Jennifer Francis. “We can do a lot to make it less bad than the worst case scenario.”

.... “We don’t fall over the cliff at 1.5 degrees,” Skea said, “Even if we were to go beyond 1.5 it doesn’t mean we throw up our hands in despair.” ...  Mann said doomism has become far more of a threat than denialism. (read it all)

Top Stories

Republican leaders get real about climate change. “We’re not doing any left-wing stuff.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis

By Arian Campo-Flores, Wall Street Journal, Miami, Jan. 23, 2022 - Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis visited the coastal city of Oldsmar recently to unveil projects including sea walls and drainage systems intended to address flooding. The state is seeing rising sea levels, and Florida’s environmental and economic successes are intertwined, Mr. DeSantis and other speakers said.

“What I’ve found is people, when they start talking about things like global warming, they typically use that as a pretext to do a bunch of left-wing things,” said Mr. DeSantis at the event. “We’re not doing any left-wing stuff.”

Governors and lawmakers in several Republican-led states, including Idaho, South Carolina and Texas, are taking a similar approach as concern about climate change increases. ... A December analysis of five surveys by Florida Atlantic University researchers concluded that the share of self-identified Florida Republicans who say they believe in climate change rose 5 percentage points to 88% over roughly two years beginning in October 2019, ... Mr. DeSantis outlined a proposal to dedicate more than $270 million to 76 projects aimed at bolstering defenses against rising sea levels and flooding. (link)

Rod's Comment: It is heartening to see Republicans take climate change seriously and it is also heartening to see some Democrats get real about climate change.  Up until this point, most climate policies have been driven by climate warrior romantics who have supported feel-good measures that have been ineffective and in many cases made climate change worse.  At the same time, the Republican response has most often been denial that climate change is even real, and those who know better and should be leaders have been intimidated by the Republican base. 

I think we are starting to see fewer spiritualist tree-huggers at the table sitting climate policy and more engineers, economists, and other realists. At least I hope so.  As the world continues to warm, it is time for a new approach.  We need to abandon the Paris Accords, which have been an abject failure.  We need a price on carbon with carbon border adjustments and we need to embrace nuclear energy.  Those are the most important things that need to happen and there are more.  I would like to see Republicans take the lead and endorse realistic climate policies. 

We must admit however that those policies that could slow and then halt global warming may never be adopted or they may only slowly be adopted. It may still be a while before most of the world accepts that the climate change policies we have followed for the last fifty years have been a failure. We can not put all of our hope on the world adopting wise policies any time soon. Climate realism calls for policies that slow climate change but also policies that acknowledge that the world is warming and deals with it, such as geoengineering, technological innovation, mitigation, and adaptation. 

For more of my post on climate change, follow this link. 

Top Stories

Former Senator Bill Frist warns of the dangers of climate change but wimps out on the solutions.

Bill Frist

by Rod Williams, Jan. 19, 2021 - Former U.S. Tennessee Senator and medical doctor, Bill Frist wrote an editorial appearing in The Hill today titled, Your health (and you thought climate change was not about you). 

On the one hand, I am pleased.  For way too long sensible Republicans who actually knew better allowed themselves to be silenced and intimidated by the Republican base and loud-mouthed radio pundits leading that base who poo-pooed the idea of climate change. Vocal climate change skeptics kept Republicans from taking a seat at the table trying to solve the problem of climate change and the only advocates of climate action were liberals who wasted untold buildings of dollars on programs that were ineffective or only made a marginal impact, and advanced programs that actually made climate change worse. So, I am pleased to see any Republican step forward and say climate change is real and needs to be taken seriously.

Frist says we are seeing the effects of climate change on peoples’ health already, from increased cases of asthma in children to more heat-related illnesses like heat stroke and vector-borne diseases like malaria. He says if you’re not seeing these repercussions in your community now, chances are you will soon.  

Frist says that viewing climate change through the prism of health, there are five facts to consider and he discusses each. The factors he addresses or these:

1. Extreme temperature events will be more common. 
2. Water systems will be contaminated. 
3. There will be a decrease in the available food supply. 
4. Certain deadly diseases will become more common. 
5. Mental and emotional health will be impacted. 

This is all good. I applaud him.  Then however he wimps out.  This is what he says we need to do:

For 2022, consider becoming more active in your community’s environmental organizations, weigh in with your elected officials, reduce purchases of single use plastics and buy more sustainably sourced products. Consider focusing personal investments only in companies that are environmentally minded or make net-zero emissions commitments and make small changes at home like reducing energy consumption or reducing red meat in your diet.

That is more feel-good nonsense. We are not going to solve climate change by switching from plastic straws to soggy paper straws. Plastic is way down the list of things contributing to climate change. It may make you feel good to invest in green companies, but enough people will not do it to make a difference. Anyway, a lot of those "green" companies are simply greenwashing.  We cannot win the war on climate change by hugging a tree and imploring people to do the right thing.

The world continues to warm.  We need a new approach.  We need to abandon the Paris Accords which have been an abject failure.  We need a price on carbon with carbon border adjustments and we need to embrace nuclear energy.  Those are the most important things that need to happen and there are more.  Frist offers no serious proposals.

After addressing the issue, I wish Bill Frist would have advocated bold, meaningful solutions. 

For more of my post on climate change follow this link. 

Top Stories

A move toward Climate realism: The EU admits nuclear and natural gas are part of the energy solution.

By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal, Jan. 3, 2022 - Could this winter’s energy crisis be shocking Europe into climate realism? Believe it or not, the European Union is set to include nuclear and natural gas on the list of industries eligible for “green” investments. Someone please pass the smelling salts to the Sierra Club.

.... Wonder of wonders, nuclear and natural gas make the cut. The draft taxonomy released late on New Year’s Eve deems investment in nuclear power sustainable as long as the investment is made before 2045 and a plan is in place to dispose of the waste. The draft also includes natural-gas power plants built by 2030, subject to emissions limits and as long as they replace heavier-emitting plants.

The usual suspects are furious for the usual reasons. (If you are a WSJ subscriber, read it all.)

Rod's Comment: It may not be possible to significantly slow global warming, but if we

climate-warrior-romantic-environmentalists,
warming the planet for 47 years.

continue doing what we have been doing for the last 55 years, it is certain we will not slow it.  The world is producing more greenhouse gases; not less. The world is still warming.

Unfortunately, climate-warrior-romantic-environmentalists have been setting climate change policy and have set the US and the world on a course of more global warming. Dirty coal-burning power plants could be replaced by cleaner natural gas-powered power plants if not for "environmentalist" blocking of fracking. 

Nuclear is the most promising means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but "environmentalists" oppose nuclear and stop the building of nuclear plants that could replace coal-fired power plants.  What so-called environmentalists do that is not counterproductive is simply symbolic and ineffective and does nothing to slow greenhouse gas emissions, an example being stopping the keystone pipeline.  It is time that realist set policies that will actually slow global warming instead of leaving global warming policy to climate warrior enthusiast and romantics.

For more of my views on climate change follow this link. 

Top Stories

Nuclear energy is the best solution for climate change

The Tennessean, Your Turn, Natalia M. Best, Guest columnist, Sunday, Jan. 2, 2022-  ...  I’m

very proud of my home state’s contributions to clean energy. Tennessee is the home of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory ... outstanding institutions of higher education ... leading the way to create sustainable, zero emission ...

... Climate Change Conference, COP26, in Glasgow. The U.N. Secretary-General admitted that nuclear power will be a part of the solution. The White House and State Department delivered other announcements that strongly support nuclear energy’s value in fighting climate change.

If nations and states do not increasingly commit to resilient, zero emissions energy alternatives like nuclear fission, extreme weather events like these could become more frequent, more severe or both.

While California and New York close and dismantle their nuclear power plants and increasingly turn to fragile, less reliable and less sustainable forms of clean energy like solar and wind, Tennessee’s two nuclear plants contributed 47% of the state’s electricity in 2020. This enabled the state to increasingly phase out other forms of energy with high carbon emissions

... when compared with all the existing clean energy alternatives, nuclear is the best, the most reliable and the safest large-scale clean energy solution we have for now. ... Given nuclear energy’s overdue recognition coming out of COP26, I’m hopeful more states will follow Tennessee’s lead by prioritizing and incorporating nuclear energy into their electric grids. (read it all if you have a subscription)

Rod's Comment: It may not be possible to significantly slow global warming, but if we continue doing what we have been doing for the last 55 years, it is certain we will not slow it.  The world is producing more greenhouse gases; not less. The world is still warming.

Unfortunately, climate-warrior-romantic-environmentalists have been setting climate change policy and have set the US and the world on a course of more global warming. Dirty coal-burning power plants could be replaced by cleaner natural gas-powered power plants if not for "environmentalist" blocking of fracking. 

Nuclear is the most promising means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but "environmentalists" oppose nuclear and stop the building of nuclear plants that could replace coal-fired power plants.  What so-called environmentalists do that is not counterproductive is simply symbolic and ineffective and does nothing to slow greenhouse gas emissions, an example being stopping the keystone pipeline.  It is time that realist set policies that will actually slow global warming instead of leaving global warming policy to climate warrior enthusiast and romantics.

For more of my views on climate change follow this link. 

Top Stories

Get real about Climate Change. Part 6: There must be a price for Carbon.

by Rod Williams, Dec. 5, 2021- The COP26 summit concluded recently and everyone, except the most pollyannish, would classify it a failure. Based on what countries have done and the projections of what countries have pledged to do, the world will continue to warm and we will miss the goal of limiting the world's temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That is the limit above which most peer-reviewed scientific analysis says there will be serious, maybe disastrous, consequences to climate change. 

I am not at all surprised that the Paris Accords is failing to achieve its goal.  The Paris approach to addressing climate change had no hope of ever achieving its goal.  It is easy to make promises to do something at some point in the future when you will no longer be around.  And, that is the approach of Paris.  Counties pledge to reach net-zero emissions or a certain reduction in admissions at some point in the future.  In democracies, there will be different leaders when that day arrives and in dictatorships, there are no consequences to failure.  Also, under Paris, even when a pledge is made, it is not the country making the pledge.  It is the ruling regime at that time.  Paris is not even a treaty. No nation commits to doing anything that is enforceable under Paris. 

Another reason that we are making almost no progress on climate change is that the leading advocates for doing something are left-wing social justice warriors, romantics, and alarmists. They may know about climate change feedback loops, but they don't know about markets, supply and demand, and cost-benefit analysis.  Much of what environmentalist policymakers have achieved has actually made climate change worst, such as banning nuclear energy and banning fracking to obtain natural gas. Much else has been costly but ineffective.  Realists have not been at the table.

So, what is needed to address climate change? There are several policies that would be positive developments, but in my estimation, the one thing we need more than any other is a price on carbon.  That is, we need a revenue-neutral carbon tax with border adjustments.   The following primer on a carbon tax is reposted from the republicEn.org, a project of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

What is a carbon tax?

A carbon tax is a fee imposed on carbon pollution, usually increasing at a predictable rate over time. The tax is paid upstream by the producers of fossil fuels (i.e. at the mine, pipeline, or refinery). The goal of a carbon tax is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions using the power of price signals and free enterprise.

Why is a carbon tax needed?

Today’s energy market is broken. Due to subsidies, fossil fuels are artificially cheap, obstructing the market and preventing a level playing field. Industries pollute our skies for free, a massive hidden subsidy in addition to the breaks they received back in the day when the U.S. was trying to promote oil and gas development. Climate damages stemming from carbon dioxide emissions cost the U.S. billions each year and the American public is left to foot the bill. A carbon tax would internalize negative externalities by adding some health and climate damages to the price of fossil fuels. This accountability would shatter the illusion that energy from fossil fuels is cheap. Given the correct price signals, consumers and producers would be incentivized to switch, quickly, to cleaner energy alternatives.

Aren’t taxes bad?

It depends. Just like with any policy, a poorly designed carbon tax can be harmful to the economy. But a well-designed carbon tax will reduce our use of dirty fuels while spurring innovation and economic growth. If something is bad for society, it makes sense to tax it so we have less of it. In contrast to convoluted, big-government regulations, a well-designed carbon tax is a simple, effective, small-government way to address climate change. At republicEn, we favor a carbon tax that is both revenue neutral and border adjustable.

What does “revenue neutral” mean?

With a revenue-neutral carbon tax, the government does not keep the money raised from the tax, which means the government does not grow. Instead, 100% of the tax revenue goes back to the American people. This may be done by offsetting taxes elsewhere (e.g. cutting payroll or income tax) or by sending dividend payments to households.

What does “border adjustable” mean?

A border-adjustable carbon tax imposes a fee on imports from countries that don’t have a comparable price on carbon pollution. That way, American firms are not disadvantaged against countries without a carbon tax or tempted to outsource to these countries. This border adjustment helps keep the U.S. competitive in the global market, as well as entices our trading partners to enact their own carbon tax policy.

How is a carbon tax fiscally conservative?

At its core, a carbon tax is a market-driven solution. Solving climate change requires the innovation, speed, and creativity that only comes from free-enterprise capitalism, and a carbon tax accelerates this process. A carbon tax is transparent and predictable, allowing industry to pivot and plan for the future instead of getting bogged down by ineffective subsidies and regulations. It internalizes negative externalities, and also opens the door to repealing burdensome environmental regulations rendered unnecessary by the pollution fee. A carbon tax is the most conservative solution to climate change: simple, effective, and sensible.

Would a carbon tax actually work?

Yes. In a transparent, accountable energy market, consumers – not regulators, mandates, or fickle tax incentives – would drive demand for clean energy. Entrepreneurs would race to supply that demand, and we’d quickly shift to power our lives with the fuels of the future. Studies show that a carbon tax can reduce U.S. carbon emissions faster and more effectively than regulations.

Source: American Action Forum

 

 

 

 

Would a carbon tax increase energy prices?

Since a carbon tax would raise costs for fossil fuel producers, it would likely lead to higher energy prices for consumers (at least at first, until our economy transitions to clean energy sources). Researchers predict that a $25/ton carbon tax would cause the price of gasoline to go up about $0.21/gallon and the price of electricity to go up about $11/month for the average American household. This price increase is why it’s important for a carbon tax to be revenue neutral, returning the money to households. With money back in their pockets, Americans will be cushioned from the inevitable increase in energy prices.

Who supports carbon tax policy?

There is widespread agreement among economists that a carbon tax is the most cost-effective solution to address climate change. Many large energy companies, such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, have also endorsed a carbon tax. A growing number of U.S. politicians on both the sides of the aisle have pushed for carbon pricing legislation.

Notable conservative-led carbon tax proposals in the United States:

Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act (2009): Introduced in the House by Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) and co-sponsored by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Dan Lipinski (D-IL). Would have implemented a revenue-neutral carbon tax in exchange for equivalent cuts in payroll taxes. (Reintroduced by Rep. Lipinski in 2019.)

MARKET CHOICE Act (2018): Introduced in the House by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Francis Rooney (R-FL). Would implement a carbon tax paired with a repeal of the gasoline tax and with revenue designated mainly for infrastructure projects. (Reintroduced by Rep. Fitzpatrick in 2019 and 2021.)

Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act (2019): Introduced in the House by Reps. Francis Rooney (R-FL), Ted Deutch (D-FL), and five more Democratic members. Would implement a revenue-neutral carbon tax with all revenue returned to Americans in the form of dividend checks.

Stemming Warming and Augmenting Pay Act (2019): Introduced by Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL). Would implement a $30 tax per metric ton of carbon with revenues paid out to individuals through payroll taxes.

Climate Leadership Council Carbon Dividends Plan: Proposed by a coalition of respected conservatives including James Baker and George Shultz. Calls for a revenue-neutral carbon tax with all revenue returned to Americans in the form of dividend checks.

Green Flat Tax: Proposed by economists Art Laffer and Stephen Moore. Calls for a carbon tax in exchange for a flat income tax of 18%.

More carbon tax resources:

What You Need to Know About a Federal Carbon Tax in the United States (Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy)

Carbon Taxes: The Most Efficient Way to Reduce Emissions (Hoover Institution)

Where Carbon is Taxed (Carbon Tax Center)

Climate Leadership Council

Citizens’ Climate Lobby

For more essays in this series see the following:

Get real about Climate Change. Part 1: Climate change is an established fact and time is running out to do anything about it.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 2: So far what we are doing about climate change is ineffective, anemic, symbolic, or counterproductive.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 3: Why are efforts to combat climate change such a failure?

Get real about Climate Change. Part 4: Admit that the Paris Accords has failed, ditch it, and establish an international mechanism to foster greenhouse reductions. 

Get real about Climate Change. Part 5: It's Time for America to Embrace Carbon Border Adjustments

Top Stories

How much would it cost to reduce Global Warming? $131Trillion is one answer. Last year the world's GDP was $85 Trillion.

Money is a sticking point in climate-change negotiations around the world. As economists warn that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius will cost many more trillions than anticipated, WSJ looks at how the funds could be spent, and who would pay. Illustration: Preston Jessee/WSJ

Top Stories

We'll Always Have Paris

 

by Rod Williams, Nov. 15, 2021- The Glasgow version of the Conference of Parties (COP) came to an end on Sunday, and it is hard to call it anything other than a failure. As the Wall Street Journal said, "Glasgow produced little of consequence. How could it have done otherwise? The conferees who warn that the Apocalypse is nigh absent draconian energy policies are disconnected from political and economic reality."

If you don't want to take my word or the Wall Street Journal's word for it, Children's Crusade leader Greta Thunberg said it. “It is not a secret that COP26 is a failure. It should be obvious that we cannot solve the crisis with the same methods that got us into it in the first place,” Thunberg said. “The COP has turned into a PR event, where leaders are giving beautiful speeches and announcing fancy commitments and targets, while behind the curtains governments of the Global North countries are still refusing to take any drastic climate action.” (link)

Not that I expect this child to have any insight as to how to fix it, but she is right in calling it a failure. Not that Glasgow was a total absolute failure. Progress was made on a carbon-trading agreement which may lead someday to a standardized trading carbon credit system. The way carbon credits work is that if a government can’t meet the emissions plans it submitted to the U.N. it could buy credits to make up the difference. This could produce good results.  If you recall when acid rain was an issue, it was successfully reduced by a system that relied on "cap and trade," which created a market for acid rain emission reduction credits.

The problem with carbon credits is that there is no standardization and little regulation of the market. Often, carbon credits are nothing but a scam and greenwashing. Any effort that moves toward a legitimate carbon credit market is a positive development. However, there is a long way to go before anything like a real trustworthy market for carbon credits is created. A global carbon market won’t happen overnight. There is a long way to go and time is running out. Unfortunately, this minor move toward someday having a standardized global carbon credit trading system is about the only positive thing to come out of Glasgow. 

The development that got the most attention was that instead of waiting five years for countries to submit their next round of carbon reduction pledges, the Glasgow Climate Pact calls for countries to gather again next year with revised pledges.

The goal of the Paris Accords is to keep the rise in earth's temperature from exceeding 1.5°C rise above preindustrial levels.  We are not on target to make that happen. So delegates agreed to go back and redo their homework and come up with better pledges for reductions. To avoid the 1.5°C rises, the world needs to eliminate a lot of carbon emissions and reach net carbon neutrality by 2030. That is not that far away and we are moving further from the target, not closer.

I am not hopeful. There is nothing to indicate next year will be any better than this year. In fact, with an expected cold European winter, European countries are looking at increasing the use of coal. With inflation rising in the US and many other nations, now is not an opportune time to adopt policies that will increase utility prices. There is no reason to be optimistic that Paris will achieve anything. The Paris Accords is not a treaty.  One, country can not require another country to act. It doesn’t require nations to do anything but merely urges or requests them to do so. Also, it creates no system of incentives or disincentives for achieving a target. To say the least, it is difficult to get 197 countries to agree on anything and then follow up. Some of the 197 countries may not even exist next year. Many that do will have different dictators.

Paris is a romantic idealistic dream of the world getting together holding hands singing kumbaya, and solving a common problem. The world doesn't work that way. The Paris Accords are a joke. We need to ditch the Paris Accords.

The seven wealthy democracies of the world need to focus on a solution. The solution needs to recognize that there needs to be a price for carbon and embrace carbon border adjustments. The G-7 has enough economic clout that the rest of the world will fall in line.

For more on Glasgow COP-26, see the below links:

COP26 Climate Deal Shows Fragility of New Emissions-Cutting Pledge - WSJ

Glasgow’s Climate of Unreality - WSJ

Was COP26 in Glasgow a success? | The Economist

COP26: A Failure For The Planet And The World’s Poor

Top Stories

Get real about Climate Change. Part 5: It's Time for America to Embrace Carbon Border Adjustments

By Bob Inglis & John Sweeney, reposted from Real Clean Energy, October 21, 2021 - In just a few weeks, the countries of the world will convene upon Glasgow, Scotland for the 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-26). This gathering—where international agreements on climate change are debated, negotiated, and sometimes, scuttled—presents an opportunity for the U.S. to reassert its role in shaping global climate policy. And if America is truly interested in fostering more international cooperation on climate action, carbon border adjustments should take center stage.   

Ever since the Rio climate conference in 1992 that kicked off the UN Framework on Climate Change (thanks to President George H. W. Bush’s leadership), most global climate summits have ended in disappointment. The 1998 Kyoto Protocol negotiated by the Clinton Administration never went to the U.S. Senate for ratification. The much-lauded Paris Climate Agreement championed by the Obama Administration fell short of treaty status and was quickly abandoned by the Trump Administration. Congressional Democrats' current logjam over President Biden's climate agenda is yet another case in point for why durable, bipartisan climate policy is desperately needed. 

  

The carbon border adjustment (CBA) offers the U.S. a real opportunity to embrace a policy mechanism that will not only reduce carbon emissions, but also position some key U.S. industries (like steel) to benefit. CBAs have been promoted by pro-market environmentalists for years, and finally seem to be catching on. In July, the European Union introduced a border adjustable carbon tax, and a CBA has been in and out of the constantly evolving package of infrastructure and climate proposals working their way through the U.S. Congress. Policymakers who genuinely care about climate change should strongly consider supporting a CBA—or advocating for one at COP-26.  

  

The mechanism works like this: a country imposes tariffs on carbon-intensive imports but exempts from the tariff goods that come from countries that have imposed a tax or other fee on carbon dioxide emissions. A CBA would prevent countries with carbon pricing mechanisms from being unfairly penalized for their climate efforts, while also establishing a clear financial incentive for businesses to minimize carbon emissions. Eventually, these carbon tariffs put pressure on trading partners to follow suit and introduce their own carbon pricing regimes. The competitive advantage for countries that implement carbon pricing is two-fold: not only do their exports remain competitive, but they also generate extra tax revenue at home rather than sending it abroad. 

The disadvantages to countries that fail to price carbon are similarly magnified, and exponentially so as more countries join the carbon pricing club. We believe a CBA would directly benefit U.S. industry by rewarding the cleanliness of our products compared to imports from emissions-heavy countries like China and India. For instance, a May 2021 study by the Climate Leadership Council found that the U.S. steel industry has a major carbon advantage over foreign competitors, which on average emit 50-100% more CO2 per ton than their U.S. counterparts. A CBA could therefore make US steel more economically competitive, potentially increasing sales by 7-9%. 

The U.S. could lead on global CBA adoption in a few ways. One path forward (albeit a political long ball) is to quickly pass a border adjustable carbon tax through Congress. Such a move would not only keep our exports competitive, but also secure our position as a global clean energy leader. The other option is to put the CBA on the table at COP-26. This would be a baby step, but progress nonetheless. 

Winston Churchill once quipped, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else.” American politicians and business leaders have been debating climate policy for decades without concrete results. We now face an opportunity to lead on the world stage. A cleaner, healthier century beckons; bold action now on carbon pricing will ensure it remains an American century. 

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC4 1993-1999; 2005-2011) leads republicEn.org, a growing group of conservatives focused on free enterprise solutions to climate change. John Sweeney is a national spokesperson for RepublicEn.org who works in the financial services industry.

For more essays in this series see the following:

Get real about Climate Change. Part 1: Climate change is an established fact and time is running out to do anything about it.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 2: So far what we are doing about climate change is ineffective, anemic, symbolic, or counterproductive.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 3: Why are efforts to combat climate change such a failure?

Get real about Climate Change. Part 4: Admit that the Paris Accords has failed, ditch it, and establish an international mechanism to foster greenhouse reductions.

Top Stories

How To Turn The GOP Green, an essay by Andrew Sullivan

by Rod Williams - Andrew Sullivan is sometimes described as a "neocon."  That term once actually meant something before it became a pejorative to denounce George Bush. Sullivan is a British-American author, editor, and blogger and the former editor of The New Republic, and the author or editor of a bunch of books.  He describes his political philosophy as "liberal conservatism."  He has insights and while I am more socially conservative than he, I think Sullivan is a smart guy with astute insights. 

Recently Sullivan wrote an essay,  How to Turn the Republican Party Green, in which he says we need both parties engaged to prevent environmental catastrophe. The way we do it says Sullivan is, "framing things with the following triad: “nuclear power, economic nationalism, and owning the libs.” 

Sullivan wants to “give Republicans cultural permission to save the world. Which means, in part, not saying we are going to ‘save the world,’ and keeping Al Gore and Prince Charles out of it.” 

Sullivan says that as the Climateers move further to the left and take apocalyptic, irrational, cult-like, policy positions, it has given an opening for those who take a more sensible approach.  "Nuclear is the key," he says.  Below are excerpts:

Nuclear is the key. Lefties hate it. They really do. And it is completely irrational to both hate nuclear power and believe that climate change is an urgent, existential threat.

When you hear that humans just need to find a reliable, plentiful energy source that doesn’t blacken our lungs and burn the planet to a crisp, remember that we have already found one.

 In America, in the mid-20th century — and just in time! Once again, our American technological ingenuity saved our asses. Nuclear power provides energy as effectively as fossil fuels but does not add anything to carbon emissions. It provides consistent energy in a very compact space, especially compared with wind and solar. It is not dependent on the weather. But for some reason, in the early-21st century, we decided to back away from nuclear.

Worse: leaders like Angela Merkel actually vowed to completely close down nuclear power — massively increasing Germany’s energy costs, giving Putin huge leverage, and now helping to cause a huge spike in electricity across the continent.

Compare Germany’s energy plight with France’s, whose energy supplies are more than 70 percent nuclear. France spends about half of what Germany does on electricity — and produces just one tenth of the carbon emissions. That’s why Macron is busy re-booting nuclear power; why Boris’ Tories are rushing to entrench the UK’s relatively low-carbon economy with more nuclear plants; and why several EU states are now petitioning the EU to designate nuclear a sustainable source of energy. For good measure, the new Japanese prime minister just announced, “It’s crucial that we re-start nuclear power plants.”

And yet the United States, the country that invented this technology, is racing in the opposite direction. In one projection from late 2016, “the Center for Energy Economics at the University of Texas has estimated that up to 40 percent of all U.S. nuclear capacity could be closed over the next decade or so.” New York shuttered a major plant this year — and fossil fuel emissions immediately jumped. California is following the path of Germany toward abolition with just one plant left. Only two new reactors have been activated nationwide in the past quarter-century. Biden’s BBB plan has half a trillion in it for moving away from carbon. But try to find any funding for new nuclear. That’s a policy that will make climate change much much worse. It’s a policy that is already causing an uptick in carbon emissions. But the environmental movement and the Green New Dealers back it.

 It doesn’t have to be that way. Imagine if the Democrats had unveiled a big new building program for nuclear plants alongside investing in renewables. It would have immediately transformed the debate. There’s already GOP support. Money quote from Ohio Governor Mike DeWine: “If we are worried about carbon emissions, as we should be, you cannot get any type of attainment without using nuclear energy. You take away nuclear energy in the state of Ohio, we’re never going to reach any ability to have clean air.” Nuclear counts for 52 percent of our non-carbon energy. And we want to reverse it? Are we nuts?

It is time that adults step up and do what needs to be done to combat climate change.  It is clear to me that we will never make progress on combating climate change as long as the climateers are the ones making policy.  It is time for rational people to take the issue away from the quasi-religious romantics who now dominate the climate debate.  I cannot help but feel climateers are more interested in owning the issue rather than solving the issue, and that their policies actually make the problem worse. The only hope for actually doing something about climate change is if Republicans engage. 

Top Stories

The Climate Summit to Nowhere

By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal,  Oct. 29, 2021 - World leaders converge on Glasgow for a climate summit this weekend, and don’t laugh. This may be the worst-timed summit in history, but the delegates can still do substantial damage to the global economy, though none of it will matter to the climate.

It’s incongruous bordering on the bizarre to organize a summit like this while Europe is battening down for a winter fuel crisis, President Biden is begging OPEC to produce more oil, China is firing up its coal-fueled power plants amid an electricity shortage, and climate-change plans wilt as soon as they’re exposed to the sunlight of democratic politics. 

...rather than adjust to this political reality, the delegates will make even more unrealistic promises. ... Mr. Biden will claim the U.S. is also committed to net zero. ... commitments of developing countries are even flimsier and depend on bribes from the rich. ... 

The summit underscores the disconnect between the rhetoric over climate and what the world’s publics are willing to do about it. Climateers adopt the rhetoric of the Apocalypse even as they consume fossil fuels as before because they know modern society and development require it. (read it in full)

Top Stories

Get real about Climate Change. Part 4: Admit that the Paris Accords has failed, ditch it, and establish an international mechanism to foster greenhouse reductions.

by Rod Williams - I am convinced that climate change is real and we are running out of time to address it and that thus far our efforts to do so have been anemic, ineffective, symbolic, and even counterproductive. I have opined on why our efforts to combat climate change have been such a failure.  Since what we have been doing is not working, what should we do differently? 

The above charts are from 2019. Since then the trends
have continued and accelerated.

A major thing we need to do is to admit the Paris Accords is a failure, ditch it and establish a global order that incentivizes greenhouse gas reductions. People and countries respond better to incentives and disincentives than exhortations to do the right thing. 

Any one country cannot solve the problem of climate change. No matter how certain we are that climate change is real, we will not be able to solve the problem alone and without some mechanism to foster greenhouse reductions by other countries. If the US and the developed world reduce their emissions while China and other countries build new coal-fired power plants and dirty steel mills, we are losing economically while also losing the battle to curtail global warming. China can increase its production of greenhouse gases faster than we can reduce ours.

Currently, the international approach to address climate change is the Paris Climate Accords. The goal of this agreement is to keep the rise in global temperature to less than 2 °C of pre-industrial levels. To do this, there would have to be a substantial reduction in greenhouse emissions so that by about the year 2050 we have reached net-zero emissions.  Net-zero emissions means any carbon emissions that do occur are offset by processes that remove carbon or offset by other changes that result in reductions of greenhouse gases. So, if we increase the world's forest that could offset some emissions elsewhere, but if more people switch to battery-powered cars or give up their cars, that would offset some emissions elsewhere also.  The level of total emissions is to be reduced until there is net-zero emissions. 

Under the Paris Agreement, each country that is a party to the agreement must establish a plan and state a goal for how much reduction they will achieve and then regularly report on the progress they are making in meeting their plan. Every five years each country comes up with a new plan.  There is no mechanism that forces a country to set specific emissions targets, but the agreement calls for each target to show progress in greenhouse emission reduction over the previous targets. 

There are other provisions of the agreement that call for wealthy countries to give aid to developing countries for abatement and adaptation and other provisions, but the greenhouse reduction portion of the agreement is the most important part. It should be pointed out that not only is the Paris Agreement not binding on any nation beyond the requirements stated above but what is sometimes called a "treaty," is not even really a treaty.  It has never been ratified by Congress. The US is a party to the agreement by executive order.

So how is the Paris Accord doing in achieving its goal? The title of this WSJ article sums it up: World Off Track to Meet Paris Climate Targets, U.N. Says. Below are some excerpts.  The highlighting is mine.

The Paris Agreement called for governments to limit the rise in global temperatures to close to 1.5 degrees Celsius and required them to update their environmental plans repeatedly to hit the target. Friday’s report is expected to serve as a starting point for negotiations in Glasgow over how much the world needs to cut emissions and which countries need to do more. 

 Economies around the world have been rapidly adopting solar panels, wind turbines and other low-emission technologies, but scientists say the shift from fossil fuels hasn’t been happening nearly fast enough to stop rising sea levels, more frequent and powerful storms and other impacts of climate change. 

China, the world’s biggest emitter, and India, the second-most populous nation, have yet to submit updated emission reduction plans to the U.N., so Friday’s report doesn’t include plans they have announced but not formally submitted. Chinese President Xi Jinping said in December that China was aiming to get 25% of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources by 2030 and become carbon neutral before 2060. The world stands little chance of hitting the Paris climate target without China updating the last climate plan it submitted to the U.N., which dates from 2016, according to the U.N. report. Global greenhouse gas emissions are expected to have risen by 16% by 2030 compared with 2010, based on the climate plans submitted by the end of July, the U.N. said. 

 “The 16% increase is a huge cause of concern," said Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of U.N. Climate Change. “It is in sharp contrast with the calls by science for rapid, sustained and large-scale emission reductions to prevent the most severe climate consequences and suffering, especially of the most vulnerable, throughout the world."  

China and India are expected to see greenhouse gases grow strongly in the coming years, given surging economic growth. The Biden administration and the European Union have called for China to begin cutting emissions sooner. The U.N. report also notes that many of the emissions plans submitted by developing countries are contingent on receiving financing that the developed world pledged to them under the Paris accord.

This is alarming. We are increasing greenhouse gases instead of decreasing them and the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases has not even presented its required plan. Countries won't even present rosy scenario pie-in-the-sky optimistic projections.  They have stopped even pretending we will slow climate change.  Can we admit that the Paris Agreement has been a failure?

If we admit it is a failure, we need to replace it with something that works.  Replace it with what?  I, of course, do not know exactly with what, but here are some elements that I think would be essential to any plan that works.

The U. S. must take the lead.  We are the essential country.  Not much good occurs in the world when we are on the sidelines.  We are the wealthiest, one of the world's largest trading partners, the greatest military power, the most innovative, and the top provider of foreign aid to the world.  Also, we are the world's worst emitter of greenhouse gases on a per capita basis.  However, our numbers are going down, while many other country's numbers, especially China's, are going up.  We should exert our influence, lead by example, and throw our weight around.

We need to focus on a plan that involves only the important countries of the world, instead of trying to get all of the nations of the world to come together and each do their part.  Forget the United Nations, for now. We need to focus on addressing the issue where the action is.  We need an intense focus on the G-7 or maybe the G-20. The G-7 accounts for 60% of global wealth and we share common values.  If the seven wealthiest democracies can agree on an approach, we can exert a lot of influence and apply a lot of pressure on the rest of the world.  

Use international commerce to influence behavior.  I am a "free-trader."  I believe in the theory of comparative advantage and I do not want to ignite a trade war. However, "free trade" is a relative term.  It has never meant that anyone could import anything they wanted.  We do not import cars without catalytic converters. Gibson Guitar cannot import exotic woods except in limited quality with proof of origin.  We do not legally import fentanyl or cocaine. We monitor fishing and ban the import of products harvested by overfishing.  We ban the import of ivory, except in rare circumstances. A lot of trade is restricted to meet health, safety, human rights, and environmental objectives.  Certain products produced using dirty methods could be banned outright, such as Chinese steel produced using the old process of blast furnaces, for example.

In addition to an outright ban in trade in certain products, a mechanism could be established that favored countries that were reducing their overall greenhouse emissions.  We could use the current most favored nation regime and the World Trade Organization or establish a new regime using that model. 

I know this would not be easy to achieve but the approach of Paris is a failed approach.  We can't fix it. We need something stronger.

For more essays in this series see the following:

Get real about Climate Change. Part 1: Climate change is an established fact and time is running out to do anything about it.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 2: So far what we are doing about climate change is ineffective, anemic, symbolic, or counterproductive.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 3: Why are efforts to combat climate change such a failure?

 

Get real about Climate Change. Part 4: Admit that the Paris Accords has failed, ditch it, and establish an international mechanism to foster greenhouse reductions.

Top Stories

The journalist of The Economist discuss COP-26 and the decisive decade for climate change

by Rod Williams, Oct. 1, 2021 - The Economist is one of the journals that I read on a regular basis.  I  find they are a reliable source for just the facts. Their reporting is fact-based and their analysis is data-driven. The Economist believes in economics. They are never dogmatic nor sensationalist. In the below video the Economist journalist discuss COP-26 and the climate challenges facing the world. For anyone interested in the issue of climate change, this is suggested viewing.

Here is my summary of what they say:

The evidence shows that increasing extreme weather events are the result of climate change. Climate change is a complex problem to resolve. Humans knowing things does not mean they can adequately act as a group.  There is a huge gap between how much carbon reduction the Paris Accords promise to achieve and what is needed to meet the target of holding the earth temperature to below 2 °C. Individual actions are a drop in the bucket and might make one feel better but are fairly insignificant. Telsa is a good example of what the private sector can do that has a positive impact. Progress can come from private sector innovation. There needs to be a price placed on carbon emissions. Planting trees can help but cannot solve the problem. Wind and solar can help but not enough.  We need a technological breakthrough that would really pull carbon from the atmosphere. Climate change of a 2 ° C warming will not have a huge death toll in developing countries but will hurt and kill mostly people in poor countries.  Global warming of 2 ° is not going to destroy the planet; it is going to hurt humans.  Alarmist disinformation is a problem; we have moved beyond the problem of climate skeptics' disinformation.  A 3 °C warming above preindustrial levels would be catastrophic.

Top Stories

Get real about Climate Change. Part 3: Why are efforts to combat climate change such a failure?

 by Rod Williams, Sept. 21, 2021 - I am convinced that climate change is real and we are running out of time to address it and that thus far our efforts to do so have been anemic, ineffective, symbolic, and even counterproductive.  Why is that the case?

In a family email exchange recently on the topic of climate change, a close relative who is passionate about the issue of climate change said we were destroying the planet and she blamed, "Republicans and Fox News."  A am sure there are many of her persuasion who would agree with that simplistic explanation.  After all, President Donald Trump said he believed that climate change is a hoax invented by the Chinese to deter American economic growth.  Donald Trump however is the exception.  Most significant Republicans accept the reality of climate change and few Republican skeptics have been as blunt as Trump. Most Republicans have been silent or have opposed bad policies that needed to be opposed.

Republicans have been in opposition to many liberal climate change proposals and with good reason. Many of those efforts would wreck the economy and some were simply symbolic and would accomplish little while costing much.  It does nothing to combat climate change for America to forgo energy independence, as an example. We simply replace the oil not produced in America with oil from authoritarian mid-Eastern regimes.   Some liberal environmentalist positions, such as opposition to nuclear energy and fracking, actually increase the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

Beyond the legitimate practical policy reasons for opposing ill-conceived liberal responses to the challenge of climate change, however, those who blame Republicans for lack of progress on climate change have a point.  In America, most climate change skeptics have been and still are Republicans. So, as long as liberals can blame "Republicans and Fox News," for the failure to respond to the challenge of climate change they do not have to look very hard at why the response to the challenge of climate change has been such a failure.  As long as they can blame Republicans they can excuse themselves for failure to put forth real solutions to the ongoing challenge.

The Republican opposition to action on climate change is not all because of disagreement about how to approach the issue, however.  There is genuine climate change skepticism, what the liberal mainstream call climate change "denial."  While I was convinced a long time ago of the validity of the climate change theory, many have not been convinced.  If one is not convinced, then one sees no reason for any action at all.  

Many have been unconvinced because of the voice of influencers like the late Rush Limbaugh who ridiculed and lambasted the theory and was entertaining while doing so.  Rush was the original personality who gave voice to and influenced the thinking of the conservative masses, and in his wake came many others, such as Nashville's own, the late, Phil Valentine. Those who came on the scene behind Rush continued to promote climate change skepticism.  

Following the popularization of climate change skepticism pushed by Limbaugh and then a whole host of other conservative commentators and influencers who followed, it seems to me that conservative voices that could have entered the debate were simply silent. I don't think most Republican leaders were ever as staunchly skeptical as the Rush Limbaughs of the world, however.  

In fact, there have been leading Republican voices who recognized climate change as a serious problem and who took meaningful action to combat it. President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of State George Shults negotiated the Montreal Protocol, which phased out the use of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting chemicals. Those chemicals also are potent greenhouse gases, so the agreement also makes him the negotiator of one of the most effective global climate treaties ever.  Following George Shultz was James Baker as Secretary of State who advocated strong action on climate change.  Other prominent Republicans followed. 

You may recall the 2008 commercial that featured Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gringish sitting close together on a loveseat and the two political foes say concern about climate change is the one thing they have in common. “We do agree,” Gingrich says. “Our country must take action to address climate change.”

Up until the election of Donald Trump climate change skepticism was not a prominent position among establishment Republicans. That changed with Trump.  Trump did not only not hide his skepticism or keep quiet he used it to rally his populist base who had been raised on Rush Limbaugh. Trump was not the only Republican pushing skepticism, however.  Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, and Congressman Steve Scalise, Republican Of Louisiana were among the most vocal of Republican skeptics. 

In an environment where climate change skepticism was the norm among much of the Republican base and where there were popular Republican politicians advocating skepticism, if you were a Republican politician who actually accepted the theory of climate change as valid, then there was nothing to be gained by saying so.  And, the liberal response to the challenge of climate change was so misguided that one could oppose liberal climate change positions on legitimate grounds of opposing bad policy and never have to advocate skepticism nor have to offer alternative proposals of one's own. Liberals made it easy for conservatives to oppose liberal environmental policies. To stay in good graces with the Republican base, all a Republican had to do was oppose liberal lunacy.

Since Republicans were mostly absent from the debate, why didn't Democrats and passionate environmentalists come up with policies that would actually accomplish something? Why have responses to the challenge been so feeble or why have policies even been advanced that made global warming worse?

I contend it is because liberals have inherent blind spots and beliefs that make it difficult for them to offer real solutions. Here is some of what I see as to why liberals have failed to advance policies that address the issue. 

Liberals are at heart romantics.  They exhibit strong emotions, have awe of nature, reject modernity,  and they rebel at rationalization.  They see the battle to stop climate change in almost spiritual terms.  If we all simply loved mother earth enough and would renounce the modern world the problem would be solved. 

Many liberal environmentalists can not separate their general left-wing policies from their desire to do something about climate change. There is a term "watermelon" used to describes certain environmentalists as green on the outside and red on the inside.  That may be too strong of a term, and it certainly does not help to further dialogue to actually refer to an environmentalist with that term but it is, I think, useful to keep in mind.  Failure to separate their other liberal believes from a desire to deal with climate change is, I think, one of the reasons why we have not made real progress on combating climate change.  

The proposed $93 trillion (yes "trillion") Green New Deal is an example. It would massively expand the scope of the Federal government and have an army of bureaucrats dictate details of how the economy functions.  It relies heavily on central planning.  From Cuba to Venezuela to the old Soviet Union central planning has been a failure.  China, while still engaging in central planning, does not do so nearly to the extent it did in the era of Mao. China has let prices, for the most part, allegate resources. 

In addition to central planning of the economy, the GND also calls for things like single-payer health care and guaranteed national income.  These are proposals that go way beyond saving the planet. Often environmentalists talk about environmental justice and social justice and equity.  Failure to stay focused on just climate change makes their proposals unacceptable for reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. 

Liberal environmentalists are  "economics deniers."  If climate change skeptics qualify for the pejorative term "climate change deniers," liberal environmentalists certainly qualify for the term "economics deniers."  They either do not believe in economics or are ignorant of economics.  One has to look no further than the proposed $90 trillion Green New Deal to see this.  Consider that the current GDP of the United States is about $22 trillion.  The current public debt of the United States is $28.5 trillion and growing and equals about 108% of GDP.  The Green New Deal proposal is like a household making $22,000 a year, already in debt $28,000, and proposing they buy a $90,000 boat.  How can anyone take environmentalists seriously when this is their proposal?

Beyond the fact that the math doesn't work, environmentalists do not recognize the superiority of the role of markets in allocating resources over command and control and central planning. People resist command and control and central planning usually fails.  Not only that but command and control economies with central planning have a worst environmental record.  Also, it seems liberal environmentalists never submit their proposals to cost-benefit analysis.  It appears to me that most liberal environmentalists are incapable of thinking in economic terms and weighing alternatives.  Their enthusiasm, or evangelical zeal, or certainty of the righteousness of their cause, makes them see concern over how one will pay for it or how a proposal will work in practice, look vulgar and mundane. 

The more rational liberals fear their base and the zealous enthusiast are in the driver's seat.  Just as on the right, the more rational voices are being drowned out by the loud populists and politicians fear to disagree with the base, I think the same is happening on the left. Liberals who might see the folly of the GND or recognized that to surrender American energy independence does nothing to solve the problem of climate change are simply too intimidated to disagree with the enthusiast. 

With these limitations, liberals are never going to put forth proposals that would make a difference.  What is needed are people who are realists sitting at the table discussing the issues.  We need people who are not starry-eyed utopians and romantics. We need people who are focused on the issue at hand and not using environmentalism to push a socialist or social-justice agenda.  And, we need people who understand economics and can think rationally.  We need realists to join the debate. 

Fortunately, there are some rational voices advancing solutions to the climate change challenge. Unfortunately, those voices are faint.  In a future essay, I will explore what a realist climate change policy would entail and we will hear from some of the advocates of climate change realism. 

For other essays in this series, see the following:

Get real about Climate Change. Part 1: Climate change is an established fact and time is running out to do anything about it.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 2: So far what we are doing about climate change is ineffective, anemic, symbolic, and counterproductive.

Top Stories

Get real about Climate Change. Part 1: Climate change is an established fact and time is running out to do anything about it.

by Rod Williams, Sept. 5, 2021 - I have never been a climate change "denier."  I don't know any climate change "deniers;" I know some climate change "skeptics." I think the term "denier" is used in order to put climate change skeptics in the same category as Holocaust deniers.  I am not a climate change "denier," nor a "skeptic," however.  I accept the theory of climate change.

I was a skeptic early on but that was a long long time ago when I did not know much about the topic.  Since about 2007 or so I have accepted the dominant scientific consensus that the earth is warming. I also accept the theory that human activity is a contributing factor.  I have posted on the topic many times.  If one cares to read what I have written over the years, follow this link.  

If I were to meter my acceptance of the theory that the earth is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor, my acceptance meter since about 2007 would range somewhere between about 65% to 95%.  The only exception to this range of acceptance was that it dropped below 50% briefly during the Climategate scandal of 2009 in which hacked documents from Britain’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia showed that a who’s who of climate scientists destroyed evidence, used tricks to modify data that shows the earth is cooling, corrupted the peer review process, withheld data that did not support their findings and conspired to pressure and punish skeptical scientist. You may remember the term "hide the decline" from this period. 

Following that scandal, my acceptance meter rebounded when I concluded that Climategate was not the final word and that the preponderance of evidence still supported the global warming theory. So while I accept the theory of climate change with a great degree of certainty, I do not think skeptics are evil people with no basis for skepticism. I find it difficult however to be generous to those skeptics who do not think the earth is even warming.  I can be more generous to those who think it is warming but question the degree to which human activity is a contributing factor.

Last month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report on the status of climate change. This is the most alarming report ever. It tells us time is running out to do anything about global warming.  This was a preliminary report on the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) and a draft version. The final AR6 report will be released in September 2022.  It calls climate change clearly human-caused and “an established fact.” This body makes more precise forecasts of a greater rate of warming for the future than it did last time it was issued in 2013. It warns we will reach the calamitous level of 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels sometime in the decade of the 2030's.

The report says that the estimates of global emissions even if we meet the ambitions goals of the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels.  The only way we can avoid the calamity of warming above this level is if there is a decline in CO2 emissions well before the year 2030. (link)

The path we are on does not indicate that will happen.  Given the path we are on, I see no reason for optimism.  I see all of those companies and nations with pledges of being carbon-neutral by 2030 as engaging in either rosy scenario thinking or lying. It is much like Congress promising that a certain new program will only cost so much when it always costs much more.  Some of those CEO's or national leaders know that they will not be around when the date by which they promised to be carbon-neutral arrives. It is easy to promise improvements in the future and then kick the can down the road. I think that is what is going on. 

Even those who really believe their own propaganda can't account for public resistance to the policies necessary to achieve their goals. People profess concern for climate change, and I don't doubt that they are sincere, but when it comes time to radically increase the price of energy or make changes to their lifestyle, they balk.  Just look at the yellow vest protest in France last year. When the government imposed a modest increase in the fuel tax, part of that tax being a carbon tax on diesel and gas as part of a plan to decrease consumption, mass protest erupted.  The protest was not organized by a political party or ideological movement.  It was primarily fueled by social media and protestors came from across the political spectrum.  We have picked the low-hanging fruit of carbon reduction. Future efforts to impose restraints on consumer choice and increase consumer costs will be met with resistance.

Another reason to be pessimistic is that there are not good accounting standards to measure a company nor a nation's carbon footprint. I suspect that a lot of claims of greenhouse gas reduction are due to fuzzy math instead of real reductions.  

 In 2017 Microsoft Corp. said it was responsible for 22 million metric tons of carbon.  In 2020 it said it was responsible for only 11 million tons.  What changed?  Not much except the way Microsoft calculates its carbon emissions.   Should carbon calculations be a production calculation or a consumption calculation?  How are subcontractors' and suppliers' carbon emissions to be calculated? I suspect that many companies to show they are producing less carbon are simply changing the way they calculate the amount of carbon they are producing.  I also suspect that carbon off-sets are overstated and inflated. Until rigorous standards, equal to financial accounting standards,  are adopted with uniform means of measuring carbon production and carbon offsets then claims of such should be taken with a grain of salt.

Also, don't pop a Champaign cork when some company or politician issues a press report about how they have made drastic improvements that will reduce their carbon footprint. Cities or companies or nations often pat themselves on the back and brag about their carbon reduction when all they have really done is replace an obsolete factory or vehicle fleet with a newer model. When Nashville passed mandatory routine updates of the city building codes last year, Mayor Cooper issued a press release making it look like it was a big deal. It was not.  One should be skeptical of claims of improvement and of the tendency to engage in "greenwashing." It is often smoke and mirrors. 

Another reason to be pessimistic is that while the advanced economies of the world are making some significant reduction in critical greenhouse cases, our advances are being negated by developing countries, primarily China and to a lesser extent, India.  Other undeveloped countries, in order to improve their standard of living, are also likely to industrialize and increase their production of greenhouse gases. A recent WSJ article illustrates this. 

Steel production accounts for 7% of the world's production of Carbon Dioxide, more than any other industrial sector.  Seventy percent of the world's steel is produced by the more-than-a-century-old blast furnace process, in which coal is burned at high temperatures to reduce the oxygen in iron ore, turning it into steel.  American and European steel producers have cleaned up their act. Some steel mills now rely on recycling steel rather than making steel from scratch, which produces much less CO2.  The blast furnace process is being replaced by electric arc furnaces and we are beginning to see steal mills that use hydrogen rather than coal. Real strides are being made in making clean steel.  Meanwhile, China produces about 57% of the world’s steel, and of that, about 90% is made using blast furnaces. And, China’s furnaces are also relatively new, with an average age of 12 years. China will not be updating its steel mills for years to come and they can produce steel at much cheaper prices than can America and Europe.  

It is clear that efforts so far to address climate change have failed and that the path we are on is the path of destruction.  Efforts have been insufficient in many cases, phony in some cases, and even sometimes counterproductive. 

Please look for my next essay on this topic where I share my thoughts on how we are to move forward and get serious about addressing the issue. 

Get real about Climate Change. Part 2: So far what we are doing about climate change is ineffective, anemic, symbolic, or counterproductive.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 3: Why are efforts to combat climate change such a failure?

Get real about Climate Change. Part 4: Admit that the Paris Accords has failed, ditch it, and establish an international mechanism to foster greenhouse reductions.

Get real about Climate Change. Part 5: It's Time for America to Embrace Carbon Border Adjustments

Top Stories