USA fail
Why the failure of the US Senate to pass a climate bill is worse than the failure at Copenhagen
The Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change was largely a failure, but this was not particularly surprising given the huge range of factors working against an fair, ambitious and binding deal.
However, the recent death of any chance of the US Senate passing (or even voting on) a much watered down climate bill anytime soon was a genuine and more significant failure. This is not only because the passage of a US bill would be the single greatest factor increasing the likelihood of a global deal, but mainly because the opportunity was so much more achievable. Think about the constellation of factors making it possible: a president who had included it as a major part of his campaign, Democrat majorities in both houses, an ever more convincing scientific body of evidence, a catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico highlighting the dangers of addiction to ever more difficult to obtain fossil fuels, a bill that had largely been crafted by a bipartisan team, a core strategy invented by conservatives (i.e. using trading schemes for managing environmental issues), in the middle of what has been so far the hottest year on record at the end of the hottest decade on record, after having repeatedly set the highest twelve month running average on record, with the greatest sea ice volume anomaly on record (plus a range of other climate related records) and a US population who want a price on carbon. Somehow, with all that going for them, they still managed to drop the ball.
If we want to stay below 450 ppm of CO2 (giving only a little better than a 50/50 chance of staying below 2ºC, and so only heavy damage), then each year of delay increases the price of achieving such a risky target by a staggering US$500,000,000,000. Yes, five hundred billion US dollars for each year of delay, because each year we wait, more infrastructure is built that will last for about forty or fifty years. Once another coal-fired power plant is built, it becomes a sunk cost, meaning that those costs are unrecoverable and will most likely continue to be used to the end of its life unless the price of carbon becomes astronomical.
So why did the bill fail? Brian Merchant argues there were seven things that killed the climate bill (in ascending order of importance):
7. Woeful media coverage.The bill in question was far from perfect, and I've voiced my concerns with aspects of cap and trade before, but in this case, something probably would have been better than nothing, especially since it would have introduced a mechanism that could have been ramped up as more people get it. As it is, it looks like China might have to take the lead.
6. Shortsighted action by the US Chamber of Commerce.
5. Archaic fillibuster rules in the Senate (a supermajority is not a constitutional requirement).
4. Barack Obama didn't get it and didn't get into it.
3. Fossil Fuel interests spreading misinformation.
2. Centrist and Coal State Democrats.
1. The Party of No: Republicans deciding that they would rather be opposed to anything from the other side than be willing to seek good solutions together.
Obama was never going to be the messiah, but when the history of his presidency is written in decades to come, I wonder whether his other achievements will be overshadowed by this episode.
So what should the church be doing? Same thing as always, but more so.
Posts
16 comments:
Guardian: Where next for the wrecked US climate bill? Eric Pooley attributes blame a little differently, putting the deniers 1st, then republicans, then democrats, then the green group (for aiming too high, which is crazy, since if just one of the other groups had shifted, it could have happened), then the power barons and then the president.
Guardian: Geoffrey Sachs says Obama must take a lead on climate change - and soon. He points out four factors making the situation difficult: the complexity of the economics, the complexity of the science, the misinformation campaign and the failure of nerve from US politicians.
Climate Progress: How the status quo media failed on climate change (and why did Eric Pooley leave the media out of his list?)
No leader can act without a mandate (=support) from the people, particularly on an issue as big as this one. Julia Gillard has made this clear, rightly so in my opinion.
Two more points.
The costs of action for the West to do something useful in stopping the rise in CO2 levels, let alone reducing CO2 levels (I'm just thinking of 20% reduction by 2020, forget 2050), is simply enormous given the rate at which the developing world is ramping up fossil fuel use.
America in particular over the next few years, like Britain is faced with very unpleasant decisions on funding its expanding debt problem. Check this out.
The key to action is to develop alternative technology that doesn't require vast amounts of subsidy - this is a long term task. If a carbon tax was established to fund research into alternative technology I would back it. Cap and trade is too open to pretense, protecting the largest polluters, fiddles, if not corruption
CSM: Obama's environmental failures.
No leader can act without a mandate (=support) from the people, particularly on an issue as big as this one. Julia Gillard has made this clear, rightly so in my opinion.
Support in the US for reducing carbon pollution, even if it involves rising energy costs was at 76% in June. There have been poll after poll showing similar levels of support for some time.
The costs of action for the West to do something useful in stopping the rise in CO2 levels, let alone reducing CO2 levels (I'm just thinking of 20% reduction by 2020, forget 2050), is simply enormous given the rate at which the developing world is ramping up fossil fuel use.
Not true. Every tonne of CO2 kept out of the atmosphere is quite useful, and a great deal can be achieved for negative cost or very low cost. Furthermore, for good moral reasons, the developed world bears primary responsibility for taking the lead on this and bringing the rest of the world with us. Though it should be noted that the Chinese government is actually doing far more to reduce its emissions than the US and may even introduce an ETS before the US. Whether we can meet the targets or not (and I doubt we will), taking action is still highly relevant because the each tonne of carbon kept out of the atmosphere means slower and less warming, more time to adapt and lower chance of passing tipping points. It actually doesn't matter (from a climatological perspective) where the reductions come from.
I've been reading and writing more about debt recently and even included it as the third reason why I don't think the GWP will be higher 20 years from now. BTW, your link to the Oz article is broken.
Support in the US for reducing carbon pollution, even if it involves rising energy costs was at 76% in June. There have been poll after poll showing similar levels of support for some time.
If you check back through Roger Pielke Jr's blog to 11th June, you will find some useful discussion on US public opinion.
The issue is not support for reducing carbon missions but rather what are you prepared to do about it. Pielke's take is the public is willing to pay some price but "that willingness is severely limited. The price must not be high".
I believe he is correct. The fact that this is the case is down to a variety of things: the current hiatus in upward Temp trends, climategate, Copenhagen, rising electricity prices, the impact of so called sceptics, Governments not entirely stupid about costs of remedial action.
The last US opinion data I've seen is that done by Gallup in March which with respect supports my contention.
Re broken link, try this.
Another article worth reading.
I note you do not accept my argument that the costs of undertaking action are enormous.
In response let me say I think your arguments are entirely spurious.
Your statement that “every tonne kept out of the atmosphere” doesn’t amount to anything. A 20% reduction by 2020 amounts to a good deal more than “every tonne kept out of the atmosphere”.
I don’t wish to argue about the West’s responsibility, but I suggest the claim that the Chinese government is actually doing far more to reduce its emissions than the US is simply untrue and you have no right to make it.
China is the world’s biggest energy producer and is the largest producer and consumer of coal in the world. Coal makes up 70% of China’s primary energy consumption. I can give references if you want to challenge. On current estimates China is likely to consume 11% more electricity this year than in 2009.
On the basis of your thinking the West must not only reduce their own contribution but go beyond that to compensate for the developing world's increasing CO2 emissions.
If you don't think that is an enormous task then there is not much point in continuing the discussion (which would be a shame)
In life we can have our dreams, but actually to change something and something as big and wicked as possible CO2 induced climate change, then you do have to touch base with reality. My primary discipline is engineering, I do not speak from ignorance.
The Niall Ferguson article is indeed interesting. Thanks for the link. I have been blogging about the possibility of collapse for some time. Have you read Jared Diamond's book called Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed? I think you might really like it. I have recently finished Joseph Tainter's important (but more academic) work The Collapse of Complex Societies and plan to post some quotes or something of a review at some stage.
And greenwash is indeed an endemic problem once the realisation that we can't trash the place forever becomes mainstream. It will always be in corporate interests to fake as much of an appearance of social responsibility as they can get away with.
That is why the problem is much deeper than merely ecology, but extends to politics, media and the structure of for profit companies. Of course, the problem runs deeper still into the human heart and the groaning creation subject to futility.
As for a mandate, both Obama and many of the current crop of Congress were elected on a platform that included action. They had a strong mandate. A poll on 24th June asking, "Do you support or oppose an energy proposal designed to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of alternative and renewable energy sources, even if it means an increase in the cost of energy?" found it was supported 63% and opposed by 31%. And there are more polls with similar results here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. All are within the last twelve months. The Gallup poll you cited did not ask about policy, only about trust in the science. You might find a poll saying that many people mistrust evidence-based medicine, but that doesn't mean the government should stop funding it. The fact that many people believe demonstrably false things is no argument for inaction. When asked about policy, there is still strong support.
But we can trade polls all day and frankly I think they are all somewhat irrelevant because governments ought not simply do what people want, but they ought to make good decisions on the best information whether they are popular or not. Polls are not a mandate and poll-driven political decision making is a bane of contemporary life.
The climate bill under discussion was very modest and had received multiple independent cost assessments that found it was either more or less cost neutral or would actually save money. So it passes your concern to not scare the horses. Every year delayed raises the costs of meeting modest targets by US$500 billion. This decision was a failure of the US political system and will have significant implications worldwide.
PS Public support often follows policy. All kinds of things that are now seen as political no-brainers with broad public support began life as partisan and controversial ideas. Public opinion can change rapidly, as can be seen looking at polls about the popularity of off-shore drilling in the US before and after the BP catastrophe.
So implementing a modest system with scope to be ramped up once the public support consolidates is an important short term goal.
If we only reach 5% reduction, that is better than nothing. Even if we just level off, that is better than nothing. It is a cumulative problem, so the less CO2 (and CH4 and so on) that reaches the atmosphere, the better. I agree that the kind of reductions required to reach levels where the damage will only be severe are very, very difficult (at least politically, though the technology all exists to do it). To imply that because a goal might not be straightforward they are not worth pursuing would rule out most things that are worthwhile. And in this case, a partially-met goal is still something.
I didn't say that China was doing more than the US. I said that the Chinese government is doing more than the US [government]. It may have been hyperbole in my frustration at this USA fail, but given that the US government just decided to sit on its hands, the Chinese government doesn't need to do much to top it.
But they are doing things. They put through a piece of legislation that means that utilities have to buy any renewable energy put onto the grid, and it has lead to investment in China in renewables surpassing the combined investment in renewables in the US and Europe combined. Almost twice as much was spent in China in 2009 on renewable investment as in the US. You might like to read this discussion of China's green tech policy. As I also said above, it is possible that China might have an ETS before the US does. I am no fan of the Chinese regime for all kinds of reasons; I'm simply pointing out that this recent decision is a huge USA fail.
On the basis of your thinking the West must not only reduce their own contribution but go beyond that to compensate for the developing world's increasing CO2 emissions.
Where have you been? That has been one of the assumptions behind the entire international negotiation process so far and it makes good sense. If that were not the case, you'd start accusing me of wanting poor people to die in the dark again. But at the same time, the developing nations need to pursue ways of getting people out of absolute poverty that are not as reliant on dirty energy and which preserve forests and so on.
If you don't think that is an enormous task then there is not much point in continuing the discussion (which would be a shame)
Did I ever say otherwise? No, instead, I have said time and time and time again in both posts and in comments when you have made that accusation that I think this task is most likely too big for us, but that is no reason to not try to minimise the car crash (particularly when there are some low hanging-fruit!).
I don't expect you to remember everything I say (hey, I certainly don't!), but it would be nice to think that you were talking to me, not to a stereotype in your head. The daunting, even insuperable, scope of ecological and resource threats are at the centre of my research project and I've been banging on about it on my blog for years (and certainly for all the months since you started reading).
PS One more highly relevant post from last week.
PPS Most Australians also want a stronger ETS than the one Rudd was proposing.
"The two-year emissions trading scheme study found the majority of the 7000 randomly selected people wanted to see carbon trading operating before 2012, even though it would be likely to lift some of the costs of living. [...]
"The Centre for the Study of Choice survey interviewed people in four phases from August 2008 about their preferred ETS model. Rather than offering "yes/no" questions, researchers presented them with a sliding series of possibilities that forced people to make realistic trade-offs between deeper emissions cuts, later starting dates for a scheme, and costs.
"The consistent themes since 2008, including a final round of questions this month, were a strong preference for starting emissions trading straight away and exempting transport from the early years of a scheme."
G. P. Wayne: Why most of the post-mortem analyses miss the point.
Thanks Byron,
Your a hard man to keep up with.
I do agree with this statement of yours
So implementing a modest system with scope to be ramped up once the public support consolidates is an important short term goal.
with two provisos that 1) a system of checks and balance are in place that demonstrates the action is cost effective and 2) I would delete the words "short term", but I am picky.
Cheers
David
Grist: Another account of the failure. This one argues that environmentalism needs to make corporate allies or it won't succeed.
Post a Comment