Ersatz Climate Policy
" The administration says that it will
reduce this ratio by 18 percent over the next decade. But
since most forecasts call for G.D.P. to expand 30 percent
or more over the same period, this is actually a proposal to
allow a substantial increase in emissions. "
The New York Times
February 15, 2002
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Alert shoppers know that an
extra word in a product's
description can make a big
difference, and rarely for the
better. Apologies to connoisseurs
of Velveeta, but most of us don't
regard "cheese food" as a good
substitute for plain ordinary
cheese.
To the unwary, yesterday's pledge by the Bush
administration to reduce "greenhouse gas intensity" by 18
percent may have sounded like a pledge to reduce
greenhouse gases, the emissions (mainly carbon dioxide,
released by burning fossil fuels) that cause global
warming. In fact, that's the way it was reported in some
news articles. But the extra word makes all the difference.
In fact, the administration proposed to achieve almost
nothing; consistent with that goal, it also announced
specific policies that are trivial in scope and will have
virtually no effect.
What is this thing called greenhouse gas intensity? It is
the volume of greenhouse gas emissions divided by gross
domestic product. The administration says that it will
reduce this ratio by 18 percent over the next decade. But
since most forecasts call for G.D.P. to expand 30 percent
or more over the same period, this is actually a proposal to
allow a substantial increase in emissions.
Still, doesn't holding the growth of emissions to less than
the growth of the economy show at least some effort to
face up to climate change? No, because that would
happen anyway. In fact, the administration's target for
reduction in greenhouse gas intensity might well be
achieved without any policy actions - which is good news,
because the administration hasn't really proposed any.
The reasons greenhouse gas intensity tends to fall over
time are complex, but the basic logic is simple: We are
gradually becoming a post-industrial society, in which
knowledge and service industries grow faster than the old
smokestack sector. Because pushing bits around doesn't
take as much energy as pushing around large pieces of
sheet metal, a dollar of new-economy G.D.P. generally
doesn't require burning as much carbon as a dollar of
old-economy G.D.P.
But the old economy is still there, and the new economy
still uses significant amounts of energy - especially if
office workers drive S.U.V.'s long distances on their way
from house to mouse and back. So as the economy grows,
greenhouse gas intensity may fall, but greenhouse gas
emissions - which are what damages the planet -
continue to rise.
So what does the Bush administration propose to do?
Nothing much.
The main actual policy described yesterday was an array
of tax credits for planet-friendly activities, such as
installing solar power or capturing methane from landfill.
It's not worth trying to analyze the specifics of this
proposal, such as why tax credits should be the tool of
choice. (Oh, I forgot - tax cuts are the answer to all
problems.) The key point is that it's just too small to do
the job. It offers $4.6 billion over the next five years. That's
less than a penny a day per American. Do you really think
that's enough to produce a major change in the way we
use energy, or that it is an appropriate level of response to
a major threat to the planet?
And that's the substantive part of the proposal. The other
part is creation of a "registry": companies can, if they
choose, report their emissions of greenhouse gases. If
they show reductions in emissions, they will receive -
well, nothing. But future administrations might be
pleased.
The real question is why an administration that clearly
doesn't want to do anything about climate change feels
obliged to put on this show.
The answer, of course, is that on environmental issues the
administration is clearly out of step with the public. Its
indifference to the fate of the planet would be quite
unpopular if it were generally appreciated.
To deal with this potential political threat, the Bush
administration exaggerates the economic costs of
environmental regulations. Last spring Dick Cheney
implied, disingenuously, that environmental rules had
caused a shortage of refining capacity; now George W.
Bush tells us, implausibly, that the Kyoto Protocol will
destroy millions of jobs.
Meanwhile the administration offers the illusion of
environmentalism, by announcing policies that sound
impressive but are nearly content-free.
So buyers beware. What the administration offered
yesterday was processed climate-change policy food,
bearing very little resemblance to the real thing.
nytimes.com |
