|
||||||||||
The real issue is, "what if anything should we be doing about this warming effect?"
Before addressing this question, I would like to raise five somewhat 'convenient' issues.
One, it's fortunate that we're dealing with a warming effect, rather than a cooling effect. Several decades ago, the scientific community was suggesting that the earth was gradually cooling. The consequences of moving into another ice age could be catastrophic for humanity. So, in general, we should be happy that we're facing the other side of the coin.
Second, for much of the world, a few degrees of atmospheric warming would be a good thing. I realize that this is a contentious and parochial remark, but bear with me for a moment. On balance, for us in the northern tier states and Canada (I live in Wisconsin), our environment would be improved if we were a bit warmer, and if there is a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Consider the following:
- More people die annually from exposure to frigid winter temperatures than die from heat exhaustion.
- We're located well above sea level, so we don't need to worry about rising tides.
- Annual energy consumption would be reduced by more moderate winter temperatures.
- The annual growing season would be moderately extended and additional carbon dioxide would enhance yields.
- Our winters are just too darn cold and summers are far too short.
Ah, but you say, "What about the rest of the world, and the various species that rely upon the temperatures experienced prior to the carbon dioxide build up? Would you have us contribute to the devastation of more vulnerable populations, as well as the polar bears and the dozens of other species that are being impacted by global warming?"
And you are right; my second point is admittedly a narrow, parochial view.
However, I don't mean to argue that we shouldn't act. I just want to point out that, in acting to reduce the effect of global warming, we may be working contrary to our own interests. Perhaps this fact helps to explain why many Americans are fairly ambivalent about global warming1.
Third, the 'bell has already rung.' Excess greenhouse gases have been accumulating in the atmosphere for a long time and are not going to disappear overnight. In fact, if the models are right, there is little that we can do to impact the trend line over the next decade or two. We can affect the slope of the curve beyond that period, and limit the maximum temperature gain, but we can't change the upward trajectory for decades -- no matter what we do.
Fourth, the temperature increase that we're likely to experience over the current century is within the range of temperatures the earth has experienced in previous centuries. As has been noted by others, Greenland was not named for its current snow-covered condition. Somehow, mankind and the other species we share the planet with have managed to survive.
Fifth, we're rapidly depleting the world's fossil fuel resources. While we have a couple of centuries of known coal reserves, this is not the case for natural gas and oil, in which world-wide known reserves are measured in decades or less. We're going to have to move away from fossil fuel, over time. In the meantime, it's important that we use what we have wisely.
Given this backdrop, what should we do?
For starters, let's not panic. The world as we know it is not ending. Florida isn't going to be swallowed up by the ocean, Wisconsin isn't going to become the new California (darn), and polar bears aren't going to become extinct.
But it is appropriate to address the issues that an increase in average global temperatures is causing. So let's start with a practical list.
Establish a Plan to Address the Adverse Impacts. We need to rapidly develop a consensus of the anticipated adverse impacts associated with a gradual warming of the earth over this next century and then establish and fund plans to ameliorate the problems. The 'sky is falling' greenhouse warming coalition doesn't want to talk about 'adaptation,' which is unfortunate, because we are losing time in addressing the problems.
As a crude analogy, if someone is drowning in a pool, you don't concentrate on reducing the water level -- you throw a life preserver.
This is a global problem, so we need to establish a global response. If a portion of the problem is caused by man-made emissions, the costs should largely be disproportionally borne by the emitters -- rather than those being impacted. As an example, the counties of Africa are among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases, yet they will likely suffer the greatest impacts of climate change. An international funding mechanism is imperative.
This effort will not be easy to implement, given the nature of global politics. However, we need to get on with this task. Frankly, we are wasting time by focusing on carbon emissions, rather than dealing with the global warming issues. If the models are right, we don't have time to waste.
Regulate Energy Efficiency, Not Carbon Emissions. I propose that we forget about measuring carbon but instead continue the practice of using energy efficiency as a proxy. We already regulate energy efficiency in the United States -- through automotive mileage standards, appliance efficiency standards, lighting standards, etc. Since we are already used to thinking in these terms, it allows us to move rapidly toward additional improvements.
The Obama administrations recent decision to increase automotive mileage requirements is a very good step. Tare numerous additional opportunities available. As one suggestion, I believe the United States should phase out inefficient power plants. At least half of the electric capacity of the domestic power plant coal fleet is over 40 years old and operates at relatively low efficiencies. If these units, operating at perhaps 30 percent efficiency, were phased out and replaced by new ultra-supercritical coal plants operating at an efficiency of 45 percent, carbon dioxide emissions from these power plants would be reduced by 33 percent. [See Appendix for more on this subject.]
Similar requirements should be considered for all energy-intensive industries. Since industry generally responds better to a carrot than a stick, accelerated tax depreciation could be afforded to projects that achieve the new energy efficiency standards.
Such measures have the advantage of making the country more productive and are eminently better than carbon capture technologies that will reduce energy efficiency and leave the nation with a problem of storing immense quantities of carbon dioxide in perpetuity.
Develop All Sources of Energy. If we are going to be able to meet our energy needs reliably in the future, we need to develop it all -- nuclear, coal, biomass, wind, solar, hydro, tidal, wave, demand-side efficiencies, etc. To leave anything off the table will ensure that we are suboptimal -- that our citizens will pay too much for energy and not effectively powering our economy.
While incentives are necessary for some energy sources (in particular to develop tidal and wave power, off-shore wind energy and additional nuclear generation), we should be careful to avoid favoring one technology or energy source over another through disproportional Federal incentives. Whenever this is done it leads to suboptimal results.
Adopt Legislation. I propose that the United States adopt legislation to eliminate 90 percent of man-caused carbon emissions by year 2100. Congress and the administration can then claim that they have addressed the issue, and we can then focus on more important tasks.
OK, this is obviously a 'tongue in cheek' recommendation, but it isn't much different than the current proposals to reduce carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Such measures are easy for congress to adopt, since they won't be around to deal with the consequences by then, and it allows them to avoid the need for current action.
Attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will do little, if anything, to improve global well-being. To the contrary, it will waste resources without achieving any significant benefits. The plan outlined above, on the other hand, is a cost-effective strategy that would provide a quicker response to the adverse impacts that we are going to experience, and result in an increase in the national productivity.
APPENDIX
The electric power industry seems poised to install equipment to capture carbon dioxide from its coal-fired power plants and then store the resulting CO2. What is known is that such technology will be incredibly expensive and will significantly reduce unit efficiency. It's been estimated that the technology will increase the cost of coal-based electricity by 50 percent, which could cause a huge drain on the economy. And there are significant liabilities associated with the permanent storage of huge amounts of CO2.
I suggest we consider an alternative and more affordable way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
About half of the coal plant capacity in the United States will have exceeded their 40 year design lives by year 2010.
Source for above: Energy Information Administration Database, Department of Energy [should be updated and only include coal units]
With appropriate Federal regulation and incentives, the replacement of this capacity with more efficient generation could present an opportunity to effectively reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Rather than add a billion dollar investment to the back-end of aging power plants, we should replace them with the most efficient technologies available. If the average efficiency of these oldest coal units is currently 30 percent, replacing them with ultra supercritical coal-fired units or coal gasified combined cycle power plants would increase the efficiency of this fleet to 45 percent and result in a 33 percent reduction in carbon emissions -- without the need to capture and store CO2! By reusing existing power plant sites along with some significant consolidation, we could effectively clean up these energy sources and prepare the country's electrical system to meet the next 40 years.
Similar practices could be applied to natural gas and oil-fired units, replacing them with the most efficient combined cycle plants, or with the latest iteration of combustion turbine technology, depending upon the application.
References
1. In an article entitled, "American Apathy and Global Warming" (Forbes.com, May 20, 2009), Karlyn Bowman reports that in a May 2009 Gallup survey only 34% of respondents told interviewers they worried a great deal about global warming. Further, Global Warming ranked dead last -- 20th of 20 issues -- when Pew Research asked respondents to list top priorities for President Obama and Congress.
