One of the things we’re trying to get people to see at the Breakthrough Institute is that Kyoto isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. In fact, it is probably ecologically irrelevant. Despite self-congratulatory claims otherwise, most nations in the EU have seen their emissions rise, not fall, under the protocols. We think it’s misguided, convoluted, and a regulatory nightmare — so we were, at first, pleased to see an opinion piece from Dieter Helm in the Wall Street Journal yesterday pointing out these failings.
He argues that any effort to reduce emissions must take into consideration consumption just as much — if not more than — production. Otherwise, we’ll wind up like the U.K., for whom, if you factor in carbon outsourcing to developing countries like China and India, emissions actually rose by 19 percent, rather than falling by 15 percent. Helm is absolutely right; it’s a mistake to put too much faith in the regulation-centered approach of cap-and-trade. It is so full of holes like these that it’s almost certain to descend into ecological oblivion, even as ratifying nations pat themselves on the back for reducing their carbon footprint.
What’s more, he points out, our technology isn’t up to scale, and any attempt to address the climate problem will need to focus heavily and getting it there, and fast. Helm sets himself apart from those environmentalists like Al Gore who would argue that we have all the technology we need to deal with climate change, and a regulation-centered approach is the way to go.
But even as Helm rails against the Gore-esque blind faith in taking the regulation route, he ends up shoulder to shoulder with Gore when it comes to the sacrifice it will take to deal with the climate challenge. Despite Joe Romm’s claims to the contrary, Al Gore is quite clear when it comes to what the “inconvenient truth” is:
“The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives.”
You can be sure he doesn’t mean change our lives for the better. No, this doomsday message is that we must lower our standards of living or suffer the consequences.
Just when I was expecting Helm to further break with Gore by proclaiming that by massive investment in technology R&D, we can improve the lives of everyone from China to Brazil, he hits me with a dose of Gore-style melodrama:
The U.S. and Europe refuse to acknowledge that halting the relentless rise in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will take a significant slice out of economic growth. It will probably mean living standards will have to be cut if our consumption is going to be environmentally sustainable. We are simply living beyond our — and the planet’s — means. This is not a welcome message for politicians to give their voters. But it happens to be what is required to tackle this global crisis.
And that was all. No inspiring call to action, no leading us out of the darkness, just doom and gloom to the very end. Spelling out the fatal flaws of Kyoto, he had set himself up perfectly to unveil sparkling new recommendations for what we ought to be doing. But instead, he chose to remind people that they’re probably not sad enough, given how much global warming is going to hurt humanity. Maybe we have a chance of beating it, he implies, but only if we give up the comforts of development, and keep our fingers crossed that the Chinese and Indians don’t want it too badly either.
Helm does a great job of what a visionary alive during the birth of this unfortunate environmentalist rhetoric so aptly pointed out:
“You say you’ve got a real solution? We’d all love to see the plan.”
- John Lennon
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Perhaps it’d be better to frame it not as “lower[ing] our standards of living” but as re-evaluating what a good life is. I think that’s key. I’ve asked this before: But do we need cell phones, ipods, computers, and electricity to live happy, full lives? Most of human beings who’ve lived on this planet lived fantastic lives without these things and with more real, full-bodied relationships.
Well, we need electricity for minor conveniences like clean water, hospitals, food preservation (i.e., refrigeration).
Seriously, we can be more efficient, but the world as a whole needs more electricity not less (though you can use less in the US with efficiency improvements). We have low carbon technologies that can be used to buy time until either energy storage is perfected for renewables or until other advanced technologies are available (fusion?). We have options.
Great post, Morgan!
As a part of the gang over at Step It Up who started pushing for 80×50, I’m thrilled to see that more radical targets are becoming mainstream. If “climate positive” becomes a major message, all the better.
But let’s remember how that process works . . . less than a year ago, 80×50 was just a radical idea that no one but enviros were talking about. Because the amazing work of organizers around the country and the thousands of students at Power Shift, it went mainstream: Nancy Pelosi lead a chant of “80×50″ at Power Shift infront of 6,000 students, 80×50 is the leading platform on Hillary and Barack’s climate plans, and 80×50 has been passed into legislation in states around the country. We’ve gone from fringe to legislation in a year.
That’s a major accomplishment - together, we’ve completely shifted the debate. This couldn’t have happened if we just said “Stop Global Warming” or “Step It Up.” Because we got specific, we defined the debate in the media and in congress. We made it unacceptable for politicians to talk about any other target. Perhaps most importantly, we gave people a clear way to judge existing policy - does Warner-Lieberman meet 80×50? No. Well, then it isn’t acceptable.
Is it everything we need? Of course not. But let’s not throw out the idea of targets completely. Motivational language is great, positive visions essential, but in the end, we’re also dealing with politics and chemistry. Those sometimes require specifics. If we can pair the two together - as we tried with our mantra (I like that) “Step It Up, Congress: Cut Carbon 80% by 2050!” sometimes we can get amazing things done.
Ha - wrong post to comment on! Sorry, although the case for specifics kind of jives with Lindsay’s ideas too. This is a great post as well.
Jamie, even though you meant to comment on a different post, I have a response for you that relates to the ideas in my posting. It’s great that the environmental movement has been able to force the debate into talking about specific goals like 80X50. But it strikes me as naive to assume that just because a cap and trade bill with a goal of 80% emissions reductions gets passed, that it will actually occur. Given the example of Kyoto in Europe, the real problem seems to be that the framework of cap and trade is fatally flawed, and developing a more workable solution is where the environmental movement should be focusing its energy.
R Margolis,
Clean water, health care, and food preservation are not products of the electrical age. We can do that without electricity. We can look at indigenous practices for thousand+ year old case studies to this effect.
Evan
Indigenous peoples, on average, did not live into their 70s and 80s. Cleaner water, less spoiled food, and technological medicine have all done their part in allowing regular folks (and lots of them) to live to such ages. China and India want longer life spans and better economic opportunities too. Certainly you cannot continue this for the world’s large population without increased use of electricity. An indigenous lifestyle practiced by 6.5 billion is physically not possible. We need to find advanced methods to generate electricity rather than trying to replicate a lifestyle based on much lower population densities.
R Margolis,
It seems this is our point of departure. I’m not interested in what people want, I’m interested in a living planet and a just society and what that requires. We can fantasize all day about what we want, but that doesn’t mean that fantasy is realistic (or just). An unsustainable mode of society will eventually fail by definition. An indigenous lifestyle practiced by 6.5 billion people may not be physically possible, but nor is an american lifestyle for 6.5 billion. Perhaps then the real issue is: There’s not a sustainable lifestyle that can be practiced by 6.5 billion people, which means we’re overpopulated. No amount of techno-wizardry or fusion will help that. I can’t eat fused atoms.
Evan
Evan,
If, as you say, you are interested in a “just” society, then it seems to me that you are indeed interested in “what people want.” Is it “just” to dismiss the desires of poor Chinese and Indians to escape abject agrarian poverty?
I don’t think you’re so much interested in a “living planet” so much as a living society. The planet is not in danger — WE are.
Lindsay
I was not saying to use these sources for all time. You can use these technologies to buy the time to get population under control and figure out the next step. A sudden uncontrolled humanity collapse would be much more destructive to the other living systems of our planet (i.e., desperate people using up the resources would likely wipe out more of the ecosphere) than using some controversial technologies for a transition period.
As for eating fused atoms (or burned oil) we in a sense do that now with fertilizers and farming machinery.
Even with less damaging techniques (hydroponics, etc) electricity will still be required.