For the next couple of weeks, thousands of government officials, NGOs, environmental activists and reporters will gather in Cancun, Mexico for international climate negotiations, officially known as the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) [PDF]. It's fitting that the talks are being held in a vacation resort, where people go to escape -- because only by ignoring what's happening in the rest of the world is it possible to take these U.N. negotiations seriously.
Heading into the Cancun talks, expectations are low. They aren't low enough. Here are 10 reasons why it will be hard, if not impossible, to bring about meaningful action to curb global warming through this U.N. process. Many are admittedly U.S.-centric, all of them matter and if you want to skip ahead through this unusually long post, No. 10 is the biggest reason why I doubt that these Cancun talks, or the successor negotiations -- COP17 in South Africa, COP18 in South Korea, etc. -- will get us the change we need.
So as not to be too gloomy, I'll conclude with a thought or two on what might work instead…but first the discouraging news.
1. Global warming pollutants are invisible. So it's hard to get people to care about them. Winning broad public support to regulate soot or smog or soiled rivers or polluted beaches is easier. A 1969 fire in the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland lasted just 30 minutes, but it helped fuel the environmental movement and passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.
2. The costs of curbing climate change are immediate and the benefits are in the future. Any effort to reduce emissions will cost money because low-carbon energy sources (solar, wind, nuclear) are more expensive than burning fossil fuels. Electric cars are pricier than gas-powered vehicles. But Americans don't like to sacrifice today for a better tomorrow. We're lousy at saving. Instead of raising taxes or cutting government benefits, we run up huge deficits that will burden future generations. Government debt is close to 90 percent of GDP. Deferred gratification is not our strong suit.
3. Environmentalists have been disingenuous about the climate issue. They've argued that regulation of carbon dioxide will create green jobs and grow the economy. Typical is this graphic from Environmental Defense. ("Get a step-by-step picture of how a carbon cap will spark new jobs, lift the economy and clean the air.") Uh, no. Most economists agree that dealing with global warming will entail short-term costs. (See Eric Pooley's excellent analysis at Slate.) Their estimates of those costs are generally in the range of 0.5 to 1 percent of U.S. GDP (Harvard's Robert Stavins) or 1 percent of global GDP (The Stern Review, PDF). The costs of inaction will eventually be much greater. But carbon regulation will likely slow economic growth in the short run by raising energy costs. It's not a free lunch, and we should be honest about that.
4. Republicans who matter don't believe climate science. Ron Brownstein put it well a few weeks ago in The National Journal:
The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.
Indeed, it is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here.
Why this is the case is a topic for another day. It's worth noting that when Republicans polled by The Washington Post were asked, "Is there solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades or not?" only 38 percent of Republicans said yes while 53 percent said no.
For a reality check, visit the very useful Global Climate Dashboard (bottom left of the page) or look at this global temperature chart from The New Scientist.
Without Republican support, comprehensive carbon regulation can't be approved in the U.S. What's more, as you may recall from high school civics, it takes a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate to approve a treaty. And the goal of these negotiations is ... a treaty!
5. China's no more interested in a global treaty than we are. While you read lots about clean energy investments in China, economic growth in the world's No. 1 emitter of GHGs is fueled by cheap coal. Some people argue that China deliberately sabotaged the Copenhagen talks -- here's a dramatic account from The Guardian.
The issue isn't whether
The issue isn't whether average global temperatures are rising, it is whether this is due to increased CO2 emissions. Global temperatures have been bouncing around for aeons, far longer than the 250 years since the industrial revolution kicked off in Britain.
You said: "Imagine a
You said:
"Imagine a grass-roots, networked, distributed, moral-religious crusade against climate destruction…"
Don't we already have that?
Marc, Love the idea of an
Marc,
Love the idea of an abolitionist movement around fossil fuels but don't think it can happen if people don't even understand what that is.
Here's new research that shows 4 out of ten Americans don't know coal is non-renewable. Sigh.
http://www.greendetectives.net/?page_id=1553
Your article was very
Your article was very pleasant to read. Your 10 points are very well selected and mostly I share them. But what is bothering me is how you are bravely walking to the closing of the climate question by the UN and leaving it desperatly unsolved for the future. I think you are in contradiction with the line of GREEN BIZ which hopes a salvation coming from an outside agent which could be a world company like Google or SAP as told in the "green biz" gate because it has finalized a new software. On my own European side I would suggest the case of BP facing the payment of the pollution after prosecution in the USA. for the begining I have been writing that BP was a CY issued or the European countries where it is subjected to the KP and its culture. Though the head of executive of BP becomes recently American it seams better to convert USA to the targets of a cap and trade agreement that paying the price of the pollution. Curiously displayed on the Reuter's gate are side by side your article and the count out of BP adding 8 billions to the 40 already funded for the oil spill. That is to say exactly the amount the UN needs for the start fast climate fund you have been writing on that though fast it was not yet started. More In november arises a new situation that was not existing in june: the currency war. In fact the euro collapsing is making the suplying of fuel payed in US dollar more expensive. An the winter began very early. Wouldn'it much better that BP is paying the toll of its pollution to UN rather than to the US state?
Generally, a good
Generally, a good well-informed article. But I must take issue with your characterization of environmentalists as being "disingenuous" about the economic aspects. Are you being fair to both sides?
I'm a climate change activist and I make no secret of the short term transitional costs when discussing policy with people. But the conservative position has exaggerated the economic harms of climate change regulations to the point of absurdity. They focus on the disruptions to one or two industries without focusing on the general effects on the economy. Here's a list I've been gathering of economic analysis of the impact of climate change legislation like Waxman-Markey (RIP). http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/2010/05/what-will...
Even the relatively credible estimate by CBO doesn't take into account the potential economic benefits, only the costs.
I found the University of Mass 2009 economic analysis very convincing: "Our key finding is that clean-energy investments generate roughly three times more jobs than an equivalent amount of money spent on carbon-based fuels." http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/clean_energy.html Does this mean that there's going to be no disruption during the transition? Of course not. But the net effect could be positive on job growth.
I live in Houston, home of many petroleum companies. I read many press releases that give one-sided portraits of the potentially devastating economic consequences of climate change legislation. I would characterize many of them as disingenuous. In that EDF graphic you criticized, it did not purport that climate change legislation would guarantee that no jobs would be lost. It only served to illustrate the job-making process.
In my city there are a fair number of oil and gas jobs and practically zero green jobs. As someone out-of-work I would feel more comfortable with a job in the green industry (likely to grow) than a fossil fuel industry (likely to change or diminish in some way). Many oil and gas jobs in Houston are actually "traveling" jobs to Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. These are not good jobs for Texans. I would argue that green jobs are better and more stable jobs.
I realize that this bullet point was not the central focus of your article. Still, you owe it to readers to make it clear who is dispensing the misleading statistics. I encourage readers who want to know more about the economic consequences of climate change policies to read the Robert Stavins papers you have cited. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/analysis/stavins/