J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

One hesitates to suggest that anyone as exalted as an Assistant Professor at the Monterey Institute of International Studies is simply a troll for the National Association of Manufacturers
(http://blog.nam.org/archives/global_warming/) but that is certainly how it's starting to appear.

Apparently, the US, far and away the most profligate waster of energy in the world, shouldn't cut greenhouse gas emissions until China and India--two countries that both emit LESS greenhouse gas per person than the global average--make cuts.  

Apparently, white skin is not only an entitlement to use up all the world's resources, it's also a god-given right to make all the greenhouse gas emissions your consumer economy desires, because lord knows we can't hurt the economy (... and climate disruption won't cost a thing).

Stabilizing global climate doesn't require China and India to make 85% cuts, you malignant propaganda-spewing moron.  China and India could swear off fossil fuels entirely this instant and the global problem would not change significantly, because all 2.5 billion of them are BELOW AVERAGE per-capita emitters.

The people who have to make the cuts are the ABOVE AVERAGE emitters--and that would be US.

The 5% Project

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

JMG is right about the hypocrisy of the West in pointing fingers at India and China.  JMG's anger is nothing compared to the anger that is latent in those countries.  

I disagree with Jason when he equates a drop in CO2 emissions (and indirectly energy use) to a fall in living standards.  Europeans, for example, use a fraction of the energy that North Americans do and I would argue that living standards in many European countries are higher.

There are many pro-capitalist reasons to decrease energy use.

1. Having a low-energy infrastructure means that a nation's economy is less vulnerable to spikes in oil and energy prices. This is similar to the resilience that low fixed costs give a business.

2. It is very likely that the cost of oil and energy will be rising to unimagined levels.  Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan has testified to Congress about his worries on the subject. Those who believe we are at the end of cheap oil (aka we are near "Hubbert's Peak") include: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, conservative Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, oilman T. Boone Pickens and Ronald Bailey (science correspondent for the Libertarian "Reason").  

3. The fight for oil and energy will bring the U.S. into more foreign wars. Condoleeza  Rice has remarked on how the struggle for energy is "warping diplomacy."  The tremendous military expenses of the U.S. are an indirect subsidy to the oil industry.

4. Other forms of energy will replace oil, but they are expensive and some of them have severe environmental consequences, such as coal.

5. It is very likely that some form of controls on CO2 emissions will be enacted. Businesses can better embark on long-term anti-CO2 projects if they can depend on consistent regulation (Business chiefs press for tougher curbs on greenhouse gases - UK Guardian).

6. There is a big market in low-carbon, sustainable technologies. Some businesses in the U.S. see writing on the wall and are jumping aboard. Other sectors are fighting action on climate change to the bitter end -- they spend their effort lobbying rather than innovating.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

A couple quick things- I think the U.S. can greatly reduce CO2 emissions at a relatively low cost (there is plenty of evidence to support this)- whether we can reduce by 85% at a low cost is questionable, but certainly possible. The key really will be all of the new countries coming on line- China, India, Eastern Europe, oil-producing African states, and also whether people will start massively exploiting the Canadian coal shale. So in fact, ironically, even though the U.S. is by far the largest emitter, even if we dramatically reduce CO2 this is just the beginning and by no means sufficient to make any major dent in the prospects for climate change.

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/?r=NYMEX_CL

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

I don't know enough about whether this is feasible without a massive reduction in U.S. living standards so someone else would have to comment on that- it is certainly very ambitious and very costly...,

Not to worry. This is not the Soviet Union (yet). It won't happen unless living standards are kept at an acceptable level, and given today's technology, it isn't feasible. But given tomorrow's technology, it may be, in fact I am going to bet that it will be. Legislation like this can work because it gives a direction to technology growth. Profit seekers begin placing their bets and focusing their attentions on ideas that will fit into a framework that emphasizes low CO2 emissions. It is the government's role to create level playing fields and then get out of the way. The danger is that our politicians are not wise enough to stay out of the fray once they have created the playing field. They are always tempted to rig the game for their favorite team (with subsidies), which screws everything up, just like it does in any sports event.

The Prius is the tip of the iceberg. The free market spawned it and there is a lot more to come.

As for the developing nations, they will either lead the world in developing this new technology or in the least, incorportate it. For example, if fusion becomes economically viable, coal plants will quickly go the way of gas lighting. Not to say that I am not betting on fusion, I am betting on a combination of technologies that have not been imagined yet combined with a change in consumptive patterns similar to the sudden and unpredicted changes in fertility patterns that has curbed the population explosion. To get that to happen, a meme has to take hold, and that meme may help to be propogated via the blogsphere.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

J.S.

I teach environmental economics and blog at www.voicesofreason.info.

Using my numbers, $100/25 bbl./25 years Denver, $100/16 bbl./25 yr. Seattle.

Free markets in the US is an oxymoron.

     If Americans refuse to reduce their emmissions, how about at least helping the rest of the world achieve their growth with as little addition to the problem as possible?

    Ironically, in the developing world, people are being asked to sacrifice for the sake of sustainable development and the future.  America should do the same and then, only then, can it earn the right to criticize the developing world.  

    I agree with JMG, though not the intemperate language, but the feeling.

    And Jason, you engage in your own share of name calling, as well, every time you dismiss others as immature, irrational, etc.  This is a form of name calling, though you may not realize it.

    Any act that heads the US in the right direction is useful for opening discussion, if nothing else.

    My main criticism of this is that it puts the reductions too far into the future, and thus likely in the out of sight, out of mind category.   But it is a good talking point.

patrick

Commentary: Oil Exporters Consuming More, Eventually Will Export Less

Excerpts from articles by Jeff Rubin and Randy Kirk, with comments by Steve Andrews

(Note: Commentaries do not necessarily represent ASPO-USA's positions; they are personal statements and observations by informed commentators.)

When people ask who to blame for high oil prices, analysts typically point fingers at a combination of tight supply plus growing demand in China (up 216,000 b/d last year), India and the US. But that tells only part of the story, as shown by BP's consumption data for 2005. Here's an important reality flying under the radar screen: during 2005, the OPEC nations' growth in oil consumption outpaced demand growth in China by a three-to-two margin. And OPEC's demand growth trend has been reliable: Saudi Arabia's oil consumption has steadily increased 18 out of the last 20 years. OPEC consumption, which already exceeds China's demand, is expected to hit 10 million b/d by 2010 (Table 1).

Yet the story about growing demand by exporters doesn't stop with OPEC. Last year, Mexico's growth in domestic oil consumption . . . (more . . .)

The 5% Project

I would rather see a solid attempt to reach an 85% reduction, and perhaps we won't make it; however, this is a chaotic system, so any reduction will have an impact.  And, if an effort is not made today, at what cost later?

Environmental stewardship and economic progress does not need to be an either-or scenario. Organizations like the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) are consultants to businesses and countries (including China!) in real solutions that are economically feasible.

You wrote :

[I'm] "not sure how China and India, which are building a new coal plant each week and have about 2 billion people that want electricity are going to agree to 85% reductions at just the time they are developing."

This appears to assume that if the US cuts GHG output by 85%, developing nations should be expected to do the same.

Given that we, the developed nations, are responsible for over 75% of the current excess atmospheric CO2,
and for the massed casualties and loss it is causing,
and that we've profited mightily by its emission,
the idea of expecting pro-rata cuts seems to me somewhat naive.
Quite apart from grossly inequitable.
And, critically, wholly destructive of the possibility of an agreement between "North" & "South"
of the requisite "Treaty of the Atmospheric Commons."

In dismissing a pro-rata arrangement,
and recognizing that the nations' CO2 outputs correlate strongly with their GDPs,
I'd suggest that a more equitable arrangement will not only be negotiable,
but will also prove more resilient under the looming strains the nations will face.

What I'd suggest is titled "Contraction & Convergence",
which was developed by the London-based Global Commons Institute,
and has been widely endorsed since its presentation to the UNFCCC in '92.

It proposes that science should provide the target peak of CO2-equiv ppmv within a specific date,
by which GW will be constrained within 2 degrees C of the global temperature prior to fossil energy dominance,
for the nations to agree to accept as the limitation on their GHG outputs.

This scientific advice implies an overall GHG budget for the period,
which in turn implies the scale of a declining global annual budget.
This is the Contraction of the framework's title.

Given the highly unequal national shares of emissions at present,
as well as the need for change in these shares to be gradual
(both to be negotiable and to avoid economic collapse)
it is proposed that all nations' emission rights should Converge
from the present GDP-based shares to per capita parity by an agreed date.
That is, a transition period moving toward national emission rights according to size of population.

With the emission rights being tradeable up to an agreed cap,
and the income earned (mostly by populous poorer nations)
being ring-fenced for sustainable energy development,
this arrangement could provide the most rapid transition from fossil fuel dependence
that is economically endurable.

The right to use the atmosphere's capacity to assimilate our GHGs
cannot, logically, be siezed by any nation, however mighty.
The atmosphere needs to be recognized, and managed, as a commons,
if we are going to see the resolution of the issue of Climate Destabilization.

To this end Contraction & Convergence offers a framework within which the nations can negotiate the key dates,
and so effectively the key rates of change.

It is partly this transparent simplicity that has led to C&C's endorsement
not only by the European Parliament,
but also by the African Group of Nations at the UNFCCC.

I would commend it to you Jason,
as a hugely preferable option to the hopeless dead-end of seeking pro-rata cuts.

Regards,

Billhook