Among the responses to my last column on climate change was a comment from Bookzilla saying, "Suppose we limit carbon emissions and convert our society to renewable energy. If it turns out that climate change was only a fantasy, we end up with... clean air and no dependence on Loony Tune fundamentalist nations for our energy. If climate change is a true threat, then humanity gets a reprieve and a fighting chance." It's a perfect rejoinder to the climate change skeptics who believe that inaction is preferable to costly fixes that might not be needed.
It is, in effect, a green Pascal's Wager. The 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal formulated a neat little "bet": even if you don't have a clue if God exists, take steps to profess belief, because the downside of that wager is nil whereas the upside is pretty desirable. Or, the obverse -- if you disbelieve in God and act that way, and are wrong... well, good luck.
And so it is with climate change, as the elegantly named Bookzilla so succinctly explained. If we make the adjustments needed to prevent and reverse our greenhouse gas emissions, we not only will be doing the right thing to abate the effects of those emissions -- namely, catastrophic climate change. We will be investing in efficiency and alternative fuels that have other major benefits.
First, a time out for a new statistic: the last 12 months in the U.S. were the hottest in recorded history. The chances of June's high temperatures -- 2 degrees above the last century's average -- happening randomly were one in 1.5 million. Wildfires continue in much of the West, and now in Europe, too. Insurance companies report that claims for damage from the fires last month will reach $500 million in Colorado alone.
When many scientists pointed to these temperatures and wildfires, among other evidence, as indicative of climate change and possibly the "new normal," the Republican right howled that alarmism was afoot. The peculiar attitude of the right is that all this evidence is either a massive hoax perpetrated by thousands of scientists or part of an ideologically driven agenda to destroy capitalism.
Both are absurd, but let's try a thought experiment -- Pascal's Green Wager -- to answer in part the right's steadfast resistance to climate change remedies. What if we took the steps -- in many respects, drastic steps -- to reduce our greenhouse gases even if climate change scientists were somehow wrong? Would such investments in clean technologies be a colossal waste?
Consider one familiar example. Automobiles are responsible for a major piece of greenhouse gases -- 16 percent of those emitted in the U.S. -- and the specter of large countries like China and India rapidly expanding their car fleets is harrowing. Miles-per-gallon averages in the U.S. will rise steadily if they aren't set back by, say, a new president. Obama announced one year ago that the target for 2025 is 54.5 MPG. But that's 13 years away. An investment in really efficient cars -- 100 MPG or more -- would surely make sense if whoever does this can dominate the global market. Asian car ownership, for example, is predicted to rise from 55 million in 2003 to 420 million in 2030.
Someone will make a very efficient car for those markets, a commitment to increasing the fleet average like this, and selling in China and India. Who will that be? Japan, Korea, Brazil? Why not America? To do so would be good industrial policy and a hedge against global warming.
Even without thinking of the benefit to curbing climate change, a five-fold increase in auto efficiency from its current status would be a boon to the economy and our strategic interests in the world. Sharp reductions in gasoline use would perhaps get us out of the foreign policy disasters that have beset us in the Middle East particularly for 50 years, at a cost that likely exceeds $5 trillion. Making efficient automobiles is also a direct good for the American economy. American car makers abandoned efficiency when they fell in love with SUVs, which nearly brought down the whole industry. That at least suggests another path needs taking. The technologies certainly exist to push the MPGs way up (I was driving a Datsun that got 40 MPG more than 30 years ago) if consumers could be lured away from size and horsepower. And new designs can achieve much more -- hybrids and electric cars that recognize people's real needs.
Expansion of mass transit is the other, near-term attainable goal on this. Do you ever see subway trains less than crowded during rush hour? People want good mass transit. And there are extra benefits here, too. The trains we typically buy for mass transit aren't even made in the United States for the most part, but could be. There are many jobs in this in addition to reduced congestion, alternatives for commuting, and of course less pollution. That is system efficiency -- thinking about entire transportation needs as a system to reduce energy consumption and provide service.
In fact, efficiency is at the heart of innovation, which is the heartbeat of economic growth and prosperity. Making our energy use more efficient broadly across several industries -- refrigeration and cooling, manufacturing, service delivery -- always pays off by lowering overall costs. To realize this potential, some industries need investment to develop or refine technologies, some need regulation (standards for home refrigerators, which are the largest consumer of electricity in the house), some need public education. All will provide good returns. And in the press of concern about climate change, you can bet Europeans and East Asians particularly are innovating to reduce energy consumption. The U.S. will, like the auto industry when the first oil price shock hit in 1973-4, be far behind global competitors unless industrial policies and energy policies combine creatively and urgently.
I think Pascal's Green Wager is a good bet, although we need to recognize two additional aspects. Because efficiency (and other investments like reforestation and renewables) pays back social and economic benefits regardless of the climate argument, it is attractive, but it may not always be profitable. We shouldn't subject every social investment to market imperatives. Some actions will never provide the returns that Wall Street managers demand.
Moreover, they can't be accomplished through market incentives alone. Carbon taxes, efficiency standards, federal investments (such as enormous purchases of highly efficient autos for federal use), and other measures do not conform with market economics. We need to be able to measure the returns in other valued outcomes -- clean air and water, rejuvenated forests, biodiversity. These concepts aren't new, either. But the fight for them is everlasting.
No it does not. If it did we would refrigeration and cooling systems that are far more efficient and lower in cost. The reality is that everything is a trade-off. Investing to reduce energy use means that scarce resources are not invested in other areas. Making energy use more efficient only make sense when the cost of the savings is greater than the investment.
The statement above ignores the scarcity of resources.
EFFECTIVE SOLUTION:
A carbon tax set at a high $ level would incent business and consumers to find ways to reduce emissions. It would do it more effectively than subsidies to green energy, mass transit or CAFÉ standards. That is why it is the first choice of most economists in choosing possible solutions.
SUPPORT FROM THE RIGHT:
Achieving the political support necessary is the key, but is quite simple. Identify the tax level necessary and agree to cut other business or income taxes 2-3 times as much. Add in proposals to eliminate market distorting policies like Auto efficiency standards, federal directed investments and other measures that do not conform to market economic realities would eliminate claims on the right that this is just an effort to expand government control over our economy. If politicians still oppose the change it would be clear evidence that they just want to protect oil and gas. A position that is easily vilified in campaigns advertisements.
RESULTS
Greater economic growth caused by a net reduction in taxation. Carbon emission reductions achieved at the lowest cost because the winners would be selected by customer demand and market investment.
Simple to implement if this is truly a top priority. Not so if it is just being used as a screen to hide a dislike for economic growth and development and a desire to expand political control over economic life.
Pascal proposed to anoint a skyfairy, despite an absolute lack of evidence that there was a skyfairy to appease.
To choose not to act on climate change, in the fact of abundant evidence for it, is not just taking a harmless and pointless superstitious precaution, it's a bullet-headedly stupid choice.
The original sin was when we gave up on going after polluters. We should view polluters as property damage.
The benefit of this solution is that the case must pass the standard of evidence not the whims of political appointees.
www.bit.ly/NBAieP
If you haven't looked at the graph, please do so, you can change the vertical axis to any human condition - and the vast majority are better with energy intensive countries.
I am not "in the pay" of any "polluters" , if you know where I can get paid for commenting, please let me know.
http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/TCB/2011/05/11__WasteManagement__PM.html
http://www.acgusa.org/userfiles/Rodgers,%20ELR%20Article,%20Carbon%20Emissions.pdf
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67899/steven-rattner/the-secrets-of-germanys-success
If politicians past a law tomorrow that all cars must be coated in gold (because it last so long) it is true that people that own or produce gold benefit, but it would increase the cost of cars. This would reduce demand for new cars. People would keep used cars on the market longer and many would eventually learn to live without the benefit of transportation.
Artifically increasing the cost of goods and services never leads to economic growth and prosperity.
These people live lives without access to electricity which means completely inadequate sanitation which means short brutish lives dominated by disease and death. Prolonging that situation is extremely costly. Raising the cost of power slows the pace of development which prolongs that profound human misery. That is why the developing nations made it perfectly clear in Copenhagen that if we want them to switch to more expensive power, we need to pay for it. As we are unwilling and probably unable to do so increasing emissions from the developing world will continue to swamp whatever middling reductions the rich world achieves.
Wait and see if the science is correct?
For one thing greens need to get their priorities straight. The US has decreased our carbon emissions by 450 million tons over the past five years due almost entirely to fracking. We have switched a large portion of our power generation from coal to gas because of the cheap gas we have access to. Fracking is not environmentally benign, but it is not demonstrably that bad either. If climate change is such a dire threat, the benefits of fracking absolutely bury the potential costs. Europe could make a similar transition if they embraced fracking as well.
We need to continue our efforts at improving renewable and efficiency technology so that more and more such measures become economically viable. As soon as non-carbon based sources of energy become cheaper than fossils in fact and not just by rich government fiat, the changes will happen all by themselves. That is really the only solution I see. Solar still has a long way to go on the cost side. On shore wind is getting very close. But for intermittent sources like wind and solar to be viable primary sources of generation we need to figure out how to efficiently store large amounts of power for long periods of time. We are plowing a lot of money and talent into that search, but it is going to likely take decades.
Pascal’s Wager ‘works’ because it appeals to our brains’ ‘reflex’ to detect the pattern that whatever most people believe around you, regardless of the fact if this belief has any appeal to reason, is more likely to be true than beliefs that are less popular, but which are favorable to the side of logic.
Here’s a thought experiment: If you don’t believe that I am the Creator of the Universe, you and all your descendants are doomed to Hell.
You find it ridiculous if I espoused a ‘Pascal’s Wager’ argument in support of my claim.