Science has known since about 1990 that everything we hold dear is endangered by global warming. If we had taken the problem sufficiently seriously then, greenhouse gas concentrations would today be far lower than they are and we would be on the road to a healthy future based on clean energy. Instead, the fossil fuel industry and our own self-indulgence persuaded us our carbon-burning lifestyle was just peachy.
The bad news is that this irrational nonchalance has gotten us into big trouble. Human-caused emissions have raised atmospheric carbon concentrations above 400 parts per million (carbon dioxide molecules per million air molecules), a level not seen since 4 million years ago during the Pliocene era. That era is a good indicator of what we can expect in the future. During the Pliocene, the planet was far warmer, the poles were largely ice free, and sea levels were 70 feet higher. Under business-as-usual, concentrations will reach 500 parts per million around 2050. Both ice caps are melting, sea level rise is accelerating, island nations are vanishing, and extreme weather events are increasing. We've allowed this problem to fester far too long. We're falling into a dangerous new era that geologists are already calling "the Anthropocene."
The good news is the world is finally awakening, economically feasible alternative energy sources are ready to step in, and market economies can profitably reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050. This will be in line with the United Nations goal of holding global temperature increases since 1900 to 2 degrees Celsius. Achieving all this cannot guarantee we will avoid disaster, but it can put us on a trajectory that will ward off the worst.
Evidence that we are waking up comes from the United Nations. On April 22, Earth Day, 175 countries signed the Paris Agreement on climate change. Never have so many nations signed an agreement on the first available day. Although it's non-binding, and signing nations must still internally ratify it, the agreement bodes well. China, the world's top emitter, announced it will ratify by September, and Secretary of State John Kerry said the U.S. "absolutely intends" to ratify this year--despite the grumbling already emerging from spoilers such as Republican lawmakers.
Two recent resources show alternative energy is ready to do the job, and economies can thrive while achieving the needed emission reductions. Two years ago, America's Citizens Climate Lobby (you can help by joining this fine organization) released a study that examines the impact of a fee on carbon-based fuels, under the assumption that the fee would be made revenue-neutral by returning the revenue to households in equal shares. Find the study by searching on "Remi Report CCL." A fee would discourage carbon burning and is right in line with free-market principles, since it merely asks fuels to incorporate their true environmental and health costs into the cost of their products. The study concluded the fee would achieve the needed emissions reductions, the economic stimulus of returning the revenue to households would add 2.8 million jobs to the U.S. economy, and improved air quality would save 230,000 lives during 20 years. The fee will increase fossil fuel costs, but the monthly dividend will outweigh this for most families and American's real incomes will increase, on average, by $500 per person by 2025.
The other resource is a short book titled "Greening the Global Economy" by Robert Pollin, distinguished professor of Economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He has served with the U.S. Department of Energy, the United Nations and other prominent institutions. I am ordinarily bored with economics, but Pollin's book excited me. It shows that large-scale global investment in energy efficiency is the single-best option for achieving emissions reductions. Like the REMI study, Pollin suggests setting a price on carbon emissions as a free-market method of promoting such efficiency.
Pollin's other cornerstone for achieving emissions reductions is renewable energy, primarily wind and solar--resources that are now cost-competitive with modern fossil fuel energy sources. He argues against biofuels such as corn-based ethanol because they have high emissions, and they increase food prices. He argues that nuclear power should be neither dismantled nor expanded.
Pollin studies the effects of moving 1.5 percent of global gross domestic product from fossil fuel investments to efficiency and renewable investments. This will, he shows, achieve the needed emissions goals while creating a net increase in jobs (as compared with fossil fuels).
Finally, the world is ready, willing, and able to resolve its most threatening problem. We'd better not blow it.
Commentary on 05/03/2016