Green Politics and hypocrisy
Posted by: McQ
The QandO Blog
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Robert Samuelson does a nice takedown of the global warming argument (talk v. walk) in a piece entitled "Greenhouse Hypocrisy". Essentially his point is that politicians use global warming and their advocacy for doing something more as a means of burnishing their eco-credentials than to actually accomplish anything meaningful.
Case in point, the Kyoto treaty. Samuelson reminds us of the sneering condemnation the US recevied from other 1st world countries for opting out of something it saw as fatally flawed. Now, it appears, those who were doing the sneering have absolutely no plan to meet their Kyoto targets (not that it's lessened the sneering one iota).
<<<
Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).
On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming—and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.
>>>
Consider those numbers.
Those aren't near misses being projected. They're complete misses.
In fact, in all honesty, they represent not even trying. And some of those countries have economies that are limping along.
As for developing countries, including China, who weren't required to become signatories or reduce their emissions? Per the IEA, their emissions will surpass those of the signatories of Kyoto (and the US) by a considerable margin in years to come:
<<<
"We expect CO2 emissions growth in China between now and 2030 will equal the growth of the United States, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Korea combined," says Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In India, he says, about 500 million people lack electricity; worldwide, the figure is 1.6 billion. Naturally, poor countries haven't signed Kyoto; they won't sacrifice economic gains—poverty reduction, bigger middle classes—to combat global warming. By 2030, the IEA predicts, world energy demand and greenhouse gases will increase by roughly 60 percent; poor countries will account for about two-thirds of the growth. China's coal use is projected almost to double; its vehicle fleet could go from 24 million to 130 million.
>>>
So, other than posture, as most politicians do, what's to be done, assuming you agree that greenhouse gasses are causing global warming (and not a normal warming cycle).
Samuelson puts three pretty common sense ideas (and they're not original, but worth discussing) on the board. I'm going to give you the short form. You can read the article for his discussion of them:
<<<
First, we should tackle some energy problems. Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases.
>>>
But what we shouldn't do is keep up this "respectable charade", that is if people are really, honestly and truly interested in reducing greenhouse emissions.
<<<
What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?
>>>
I agree with his point. If you believe in global warming, and if you believe that the reduction of greenhouse gasses is critical to stopping it, they you must agree that very little, if anything, is in truth being accomplished by Kyoto or the politicians who are using it to pump up their environmental credentials.
qando.net
washingtonpost.com |
