Bad climate change policy is worse than business as usual

Just wanted to put that out there

Posted by Jason D Scorse (Guest Contributor) at 4:58 PM on 17 Apr 2007

Read more about: politics | climate | climate change mitigation

This is rarely said openly, but needs to be.

Yes, climate change is a serious problem; yes, we should address it; but beware of easy solutions and feel-good measures like carbon neutrality that are more than likely scams than serious measures, since they more often than not pay people to do things they would already have done.

Also, beware of solutions that say that climate change policy is win-win-win, good for jobs, business, and the environment. This may very well be true in the long-run, but not in the short-run. There will be pain and major transitional costs, and many of these costs will likely fall disproportionately on the poor.

All of these issues need to be seriously addressed because what we're seeing so far -- ethanol subsidies leading to massive deforestation and rising food prices as well as poorly conceived carbon trading policies in the EU that have led to increased CO2 emissions -- demonstrate that climate change policy is by no means unambiguously good.

P.S. For a similar take by a conservative economist in the Weekly Standard, check this.

For story: Bad climate change policy is worse than business as usual
11 Comments | Post a Comment

Evidence?

... feel-good measures like carbon neutrality that ... more often than not pay people to do things they would already have done.

Bold claim. Evidence?

There's a lot of room between saying carbon credits (and trading) are not as beneficial as advertised and saying they are worse than business as usual. I'm disinclined to accept that as bare assertion.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 5:06 PM on 17 Apr 2007

Have to admit,

it's hard to be optimistic when you look at all the stupid gaffs to date, government backed flex fuel SUVs with MPG averages in the low 20's actually increasing fuel consumption, corn and soy based biofuel mandates and subsidies, palm oil plantations increasing global warming and destroying biodiversity with carbon sink destruction. I suspect deals will soon be struck for sugarcane ethanol from South America as corn and soy based biofuels drive food prices up accelerating the destruction of more ecosystems and God knows what else.

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

by biodiversivist at 6:39 PM on 17 Apr 2007

As always

It's really catch-22 with climate change policy - a lose-lose situation. On the one hand, if you encourage people to do the little things, "every little bit helps", then they think that's enough, and in the end it's almost as bad as if nothing had been done. If you say that more needs to be done, they give up and say it's not worth it and they'll take what's coming. There's got to be some middle ground, but it's tough to find. It's like the whole scientist dilemma.

Personally, I do feel that every little bit helps, as it's easier to progress in gentle steps. It's still difficult to see a way of winning, though.

If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?

by tico89 at 7:35 PM on 17 Apr 2007

David- fair enough

Here are a couple articles- one from Grist- but I do need more info to back up my claim- more coming soon...

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/23/121237/422

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/reviews_third.cfm?NewsID=348 ...

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

by Jason D Scorse at 7:45 PM on 17 Apr 2007

Here's some components of a serious effort:

1. The need for greater wildlife corridors and adaptation planning

http://www.conservation.org/xp/frontlines/2007/04160701.x ...

http://www.conbio.org/CIP/article81whe.cfm

2. A new panel for evaluating biofuels

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/04/17_ro ...

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

by Jason D Scorse at 8:42 PM on 17 Apr 2007

A Light

>>> it's hard to be optimistic when you look at all the stupid gaffs to date >>>

indeed, despair all ye who look for help in this modern polluted mad mad world.

see
Global climate change book
The Death of Clouds
omegafour.com

All you questions answered, and more... maybe even a solution :)

by Zarkov at 9:25 PM on 17 Apr 2007

Where the cost fall

Also, beware of solutions that say that climate change policy is win-win-win, good for jobs, business, and the environment. This may very well be true in the long-run, but not in the short-run. There will be pain and major transitional costs, and many of these costs will likely fall disproportionately on the poor.

How about win-win for everybody but the rich. After all the rich disproportionately have affected our politics. If there are short term costs in excess of benefits how about taking them out of the military budget, and out of the tax breaks we've given the rich from Reagan forward. Why insist that it has to be at the expense of the poor. And since such changes will pay for themselves in the long run, even the rich will come out ahead eventually; it is just that they can afford to wait for the money longer than the rest of us.

by Gar Lipow at 9:55 PM on 17 Apr 2007

Gar -- Meet The Guillotine

How about win-win for everybody but the rich.

http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=511

I am announcing a new societal concept: The Guillotine
The Guillotine states:

The majority of societies problems are caused by the top 3% of society.

The top 3% therefore must be segregated for the general good of the People and the Planet.

The form of isolation or sequestering has not been determined.

Taking this action will prevent the top 3% from warming the planet further by making movies, organizing electricity-wasting benefit concerts or otherwise getting around a spending a lot of money in the name of "helping".

by jabailo at 4:48 AM on 18 Apr 2007
[ Parent ]

Gar- I think you simplify the issue...

If the price of carbon increases dramatically in the short-run large segments of society will be affected- this is not trivial.

Also, while I agree that income transfers from rich to poor should be part of the policy process to mitigate the regressive effects of climate change policy think of how difficult politically all of this is going to be.

Finally, I don't think a winning political strategy will be to take money from the military budget to help pay the Indians and Chinese to burn cleaner fuel.

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

by Jason D Scorse at 10:07 AM on 18 Apr 2007

Politics

The key is to step away from "tranfer from rich to poor" and to "transfer from rich to poor AND MIDDLE CLASS". 80% of the population in the U.S. have gained essentially nothing from economic growth from 1976 forwarded. Almost all increase in household income comes from longer hours, not higher per hour wages - except for the top 20%. So that is not just the poor. That is the vast majority of the middle class. I think there is potential for a populist/Green alliance. Not an easy potential, but one with better odds than the usual green industry/upper middle class alliance that seems to be the standard strategy.

As to support for cutting the military: as long as the era of cowardice continues, the fear of evil demonic strangers that overrides all common sense, nothing forward thinking can gain much traction for long. Any politics that win the scale of changes we are talking about has to include reducing our military fetish. Surely anyone who is as concerned about cruelty to animals as you are, is opposed to devoting as much effort as we do to killing people. (And that is not sarcasm. I take it for granted that you are concerned with this; I assume that like me you tend not to write much about war and Iraq not because you lack passionate opinions on the subject, but because (also like me) you don't have much to say that has not been said better elsewhere.)

by Gar Lipow at 11:10 AM on 18 Apr 2007

Gar, you are correct....

in fact, the majority of my posts on my own website:

http://voicesofreason.info

revolve around foreign policy, war, security, and human rights and rarely the environment

Check it out.

J.S.

We need to focus on the root causes of problems.

by Jason D Scorse at 12:53 PM on 18 Apr 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.