core sector communique

So What Will Work and What Will Not? Point 3

 

(Geo-engineering - Vital; Cap and Trade - a Farce; Protectionism - Horrible) (1160)

 

This is the fifth of six exchanges in a series of e-mail debates between two climate change specialists. Commenting is Steve Hayward, research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

 

Summary: Geo-engineering is an effective interim solution but requires international cooperation, Hayward says. Many mainstream publications and researchers have acknowledged its necessity. To reach the current U.S. emissions level, China would have to close every one of its coal-fired power plants. The success of cap and trade with sulfur dioxide cannot be duplicated with carbon dioxide. Border protection is a euphemism for protectionism, which cannot not be enforced. - Editors

 

Dear Gernot,

 

I can't understand why you are "perplexed" that I should mention geo-engineering.  I did so precisely because environmentalists always react to the mere mention of the idea like a vampire to garlic. And you did not disappoint!  I thought my point was fairly clear: Emissions reductions on the short-time scale proposed by climate orthodoxy (worldwide 80 percent cut by 2050) are not going to happen. Our scientific, political and diplomatic leaders, accordingly, should begin formally considering geo-engineering as a bridge, lest a developing country like China simply decides to do it on its own at some point.

 

THE CASE FOR GEO-ENGINEERING

 

You dodge my suggestion that the topic be included on the Copenhagen agenda and in the IPCC's working group on mitigation strategies.  It's a binary question: Yes or no? You mention with seeming disdain "as-of-yet untested geo-engineering techniques." The main reason the technologies remain untested is environmentalist refusal even to consider the idea.

 

I'm astonished that you would attribute the most public airing of the idea to an economist. What about serious outlets such as Scientific American (October 20, 2008, issue), Nature, or the spring 2007 Wilson Quarterly ? Even Rolling Stone  magazine did a major feature on the idea - four years ago, not to mention a September 2006 Environmental Protection Agency report, and the phone-book sized report just out from the Royal Academy of Sciences that I'll bet is being ignored at Environmental Defense.

 

More to the point: Forget the cost-benefit argument. Instead, consider the views of Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, about as "mainstream" as you can get in climate science (lead IPCC author, etc. - see his Science magazine article on the subject). Wigley advocates geo-engineering projects because he recognizes that the transition to a low- or non-carbon global energy system will take a lot longer than the 40 years climate orthodoxy requires (he thinks, as I do, that it will be closer to 100 years), and that geo-engineering offers the necessary bridge to make it work.

 

CHINA'S RECORD ISN'T BETTER

 

You say China has the largest renewable energy industry.  But China either has or will have the largest of everything before much longer - high carbon-emission facilities included. China is building the world's largest coal-to-liquid fuel plant - the first of many - and Chinese buyers are by far the leading purchasers of long-term oil and gas leases in Africa. Also, your statement that in China "the trend is clearly moving toward cleaner, more efficient technology" is flat wrong when considered on an aggregate basis. What proportion of China's total energy use will its renewable sector supply in 2020?  Much less than ours, I am guessing.

 

ECONOMIC GROWTH WILL OUTSTRIP IMPROVED EMISSIONS INTENSITY REDUCTIONS

 

Given anticipated Chinese economic growth, reducing emissions intensity - how much carbon dioxide is emitted to produce a measure of economic output - only will slow the pace at which the problem worsens. The 40 percent to 45 percent emissions intensity reduction China proposes to achieve by 2020 is far less than it seems. A reduction of more than 200 percent is needed just to reach the current U.S. level. Factor in China's likely continued rapid economic growth, and the necessary reduction is far higher.

 

This means that China will have to close every single one of its coal-fired power plants, just for starters. If you envision this happening, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

 

CAP AND TRADE WON'T WORK AS THERE IS NO LOW CARBON COAL

 

Nor is cap and trade the answer. While it successfully reduced sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by nearly 66 percent since 1980 even as we doubled the amount of coal burned in the U.S., the comparison to carbon dioxide is similarly superficial and simplistic. Just because both compounds end in "dioxide" does not mean the same policy would operate the same way. Because power plants could switch to low-sulfur coal, SO2 trading involved no constraint on fossil fuel combustion. But there is no such thing as low-carbon coal. We can reduce CO2 emissions from coal only by burning less coal. The SO2-CO2 comparison is apples and oranges. Also, the CO2 equivalent to SO2 scrubbers is carbon sequestration - the Brooklyn Bridge, if I may again employ an earlier analogy, of climate policy make-believe.

 

Congress's inability to craft a simple CO2 cap-and-trade bill reflects the great difference between SO2 and CO2. In stark contrast to the short SO2 emissions trading title of the 1990 Clean Air Act, the Waxman-Markey bill mandating CO2 cap and trade would require 1,500 pages and the direct involvement of more than a dozen federal administrative agencies, versus just three for SO2 trading.

 

BORDER ADJUSTMENTS = TRADE PROTECTIONISM

 

"Border adjustments" are a nice euphemism for trade protectionism, a horrible idea I had thought was discredited for good. Even if the "border adjustment" mechanisms were to survive a World Trade Organization challenge, our trading partners among developing nations won't accept it. Will we impose border adjustments uniformly on every product from every nation that does not submit to our dictates on their energy policies?  What about the Chinese-, Indian- and Brazilian-made components of our windmills and solar panels? (Our current trade deficit in wind power  alone is more than $20 billion.)  If there will be exceptions, will we then hire still more trade bureaucrats to make them, and won't this create more opportunities for multinational corporations to game the system?

 

There are so many other points of dispute, Gernot, but I have reached my assigned quota of time and pixels. I do look forward to reading your final reply, and to engaging our audience on the discussion boards.