A sense of panic is setting in among many campaigners for drastic cuts in global carbon emissions. It is becoming obvious that the highly trumpeted meeting set for Copenhagen in December will not deliver a binding international treaty that will make a significant difference to global warming.
After lofty rhetoric and big promises, politicians are starting to play the blame game. Developing countries blame rich countries for the lack of progress. Many blame the US, which will not have cap-and-trade legislation in place before Copenhagen. The UN secretary general says that “it may be difficult for President US Barack Obama to come with strong authority” to reach agreement in Copenhagen. Others blame developing countries — particularly Brazil, China and India — for a reluctance to sign up to binding carbon cuts. Wherever you turn, somebody is being blamed for Copenhagen’s apparent looming failure.
Yet, it has been clear for a considerable time that there is a more fundamental problem: immediate promises of carbon cuts do not work. Seventeen years ago, industrialized nations promised with great fanfare in Rio de Janeiro to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Emissions overshot the target by 12 percent. In Kyoto, leaders committed to a cut of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by next year. The failure to meet that target will likely be even more spectacular, with emissions overshooting by about 25 percent.
The plan was to convene world leaders in Copenhagen and renew vows to cut carbon while committing to even more ambitious targets. But it is obvious that even a last-minute scramble to salvage some form of agreement will fare no better in actually helping the planet. With such a poor track record, there is a need for soul-searching and openness to other approaches.
A realistic “Plan B” does not mean plotting a second meeting after Copenhagen, as some have suggested. It means re-thinking our strategy. This year, the Copenhagen Consensus Center commissioned research from top climate economists examining feasible ways to respond to global warming. Their research looked at how much we could help the planet by setting different levels of carbon taxes, planting more trees, cutting methane, reducing black soot emissions, adapting to global warming, or focusing on a technological solution to climate change.
The Center convened an expert panel of five of the world’s leading economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, to consider all of the new research and identify the best — and worst — options.
The panel found that expensive, global carbon taxes would be the worst option. This finding was based on a groundbreaking research paper that showed that even a highly efficient global carbon tax aimed at fulfilling the ambitious goal of keeping temperature increases below 2˚C would reduce annual world GDP by a staggering 12.9 percent, or US$40 trillion, in 2100. The total cost would be 50 times that of the avoided climate damage. And if politicians choose less-efficient, less-coordinated cap-and-trade policies, the costs could escalate a further 10 to 100 times.
Instead, the panel recommended focusing investment on research into climate engineering as a short-term response, and on non-carbon-based energy as a longer-term response.
Some proposed climate-engineering technologies — in particular, marine cloud-whitening technology — could be cheap, fast, and effective. For example, boats would spray seawater droplets into clouds above the oceans to make them reflect more sunlight back into space, reducing warming. Remarkably, the research suggests that a total of about US$9 billion spent implementing marine cloud-whitening technology might be able to offset this entire century’s global warming. Even if one approaches this technology with concerns — as many of us do — we should aim to identify its limitations and risks sooner rather than later.
It appears that climate engineering could buy us some time, and it is time that we need if we are to make a sustainable and smooth shift away from reliance on fossil fuels. Research shows that non-fossil fuel energy sources will — based on today’s availability — get us less than halfway toward a path of stable carbon emissions by 2050, and only a tiny fraction of the way towards stabilization by 2100.
If politicians change course and agree this December to invest significantly more in research and development, we would have a much greater chance of getting this technology to the level where it needs to be. And, because it would be cheaper and easier than carbon cuts, there would be a greater chance of reaching a genuine, broad-based — and thus successful — international agreement.
Carbon pricing could be used to finance research and development, and to send a price signal to promote the deployment of effective, affordable technology alternatives. Investing about US$100 billion annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate-change problem by the end of this century.
While the blame game will not solve global warming, the mounting panic could lead to a positive outcome if it means we re-consider our current approach. If we want real action, we need to pick smarter solutions that will cost less and do more. That would be a result for which every politician would be happy to accept responsibility.
Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS