Global Warming

This week I am posting first. The term �global warming� refers to increased global temperatures caused by increased concentrations of �greenhouse gases� in the atmosphere. A greenhouse gas is a gas that tends to block heat reflected from the earth�s surface while letting the heat of the sun through to heat up that surface; so the higher the concentration of such gases in the atmosphere, the hotter the surface becomes. The most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, which is emitted into the atmosphere by a variety of human activities, mainly the burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) and of forests; those fuels, and of course wood, are made out of carbon and burning them liberates carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Recent decades have seen large, and accelerating, increases in annual emissions of carbon dioxide, because of growth of population and of economic activity. The increases in emissions have been accompanied by substantial increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and by increases in global temperatures as well. It is now the scientific consensus that these developments are linked: the emissions increase the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in that concentration causes global temperatures to rise. Not all scientists agree, but the ranks of the dissenters are shrinking as new evidence of global warming emerges, such as the recent recession of glaciers in Alaska and elsewhere. What if anything is being done, or should be done, about global warming? The Kyoto Protocol, which recently came into effect by its terms when Russia signed it, though the United States has not, requires the signatory nations to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions to 7 to 10 percent below what they were five years ago, but exempts developing countries, such as China, a larger and growing emitter, and Brazil, which is destroying large reaches of the Amazon rain forest, much of it by burning. The effect of carbon dioxide emissions on the atmospheric concentration of the gas is cumulative, because carbon dioxide leaves the atmosphere (by being absorbed into the oceans) at a much lower rate than it enters it, and therefore the concentration will continue to grow even if the annual rate of emission is cut down substantially. Between this phenomenon and the exemptions, there is a widespread belief that the Kyoto Protocol will have only a slight effect in arresting global warming; yet the tax or other regulatory measures required to reduce emissions below their level of five years ago will be very costly. The Kyoto Protocol could certainly be improved, but on balance I think it is a step in the right direction�if the United States ratifies it, which it has thus far refused to do. But my reasoning is different from that of most of the Protocol�s supporters. They are content to slow the rate of global warming by encouraging, through heavy taxes (for example on gasoline or coal) or other measures (such as quotas) that will make fossil fuels more expensive to consumers, conservation measures, such as driving less or driving more fuel-efficient cars, that will reduce the consumption of these fuels. This is either too much or too little. It is too much if, as most scientists believe, global warming will continue to be a gradual process, producing really serious effects�the destruction of tropical agriculture, the spread of tropical diseases such as malaria to currently temperate zones, dramatic increases in violent storm activity (increased atmospheric temperatures, by increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, increase precipitation), and a rise in sea levels (eventually to the point of inundating most coastal cities)�only toward the end of the century. For by that time science, without prodding by governments, is likely to have developed economical �clean� substitutes for fossil fuels (we already have a clean substitute�nuclear power) and even economic technology for either preventing carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels or for removing it from the atmosphere. But the Protocol, at least without the participation of the United States, is too limited a response to global warming if the focus is changed from gradual to abrupt global warming. At various times in the earth�s history, drastic temperature changes have occurred in the course of just a few years. The most recent of these periods, called the �Younger Dryas� (Dryas if a flower that flourished then), took place about 11,000 years ago, shortly after the end of the last ice age. In a period of no more than a decade, temperatures soared by about 14 degrees Fahrenheit. Because the earth was still cool from the ice age, the effect of the increased warmth on the human population was positive. But a similar increase in a modern decade would have devastating effects on agriculture and on coastal cities, and might even cause a shift in the Gulf Stream that would result in giving all of Europe a Siberian climate. Because of the enormous complexity of the forces that determine climate, and the historically unprecedented magnitude of human effects on the concentration of greenhouse gases, the possibility that continued growth in that concentration could precipitate�and within the near rather than the distant future�a sudden warming similar to that of the Younger Dryas cannot be excluded. Indeed, no probability, high or low, can be assigned to such a catastrophe. It may be prudent, therefore, to try to stimulate the rate at which economical substitutes for fossil fuels, and technology both for limiting the emission of carbon dioxide by those fuels when they are burned in internal-combustion engines or electrical generating plants, and for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, are developed. This can be done, in part anyway, by stiff taxes on carbon dioxide emissions. Such taxes give the energy industries, along with business customers of them such as airlines and manufacturers of motor vehicles, a strong incentive to finance R&D designed to create economical clean substitutes for such fuels and devices to �trap� emissions at the source, before they enter the atmosphere. Given the technological predominance of the United States, it is important that these taxes be imposed on U.S. firms, which they would be if we ratified the Kyoto Protocol and by doing so became bound by it. One advantage of the technology-forcing tax approach over public subsidies for R&D is that the government wouldn�t be in the business of picking winners�the affected industries would decide what R&D to support�and another is that the brunt of the taxes could be partly offset by reducing other taxes, since emission taxes would raise revenue as well as inducing greater R&D expenditures. However, subsidies would be necessary for technologies that would have no market, such as technologies for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. There would be no private demand for such technologies because, in contrast to ones that reduce emissions, technologies that remove already emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would not reduce any emitter�s tax burden. This analysis completes the circle from our patent postings of last week. Private investment in technologies for reducing global warming by developing clear fuels or reducing emissions from the burning of the dirty ones could probably not be financed by the market, because of the cost and risk involved, unless inventors were allowed to obtain patents on these new technologies.

Comments

[Corey]

Well, I agree, we should ratify Kyoto, and
we should do it now. Planetwide climate is not something that can change quickly. The system has a lot of inertia and by the time the problem
becomes obvious, it will already be too late to stop.

But we will need to add a bit where we punish corporations for offshoring their polluting efforts to third world countries which have an "exemption". Becker has a point there.

If clean burning fuels or CO2 inhibiting technology is invented/developed, it seems to me to be an ideal candidate for immediate widespread adoption. Allowing one company to patent such technology will only slow its spread and create lots of familiar monopoly effects. The price of rewarding the inventor the UChicago way could easily be higher than the price of subsidizing the research directly.

But this is all FantasyLand anyway, we re-elected oil money last month, remember? How many billions a year in new product development is spent at American auto companies and fuel efficiency is only dropping. Hundreds of thousands of people are already waiting for the next Hummer version.

I predict the US never ratifies Kyoto. (Or the land-mine treaty for that matter) We are too attached to those 150-1 votes in the UN, it makes us feel special and powerful.

[Larry]

Corey, don't make me list the hundreds of foolish, indecent resolutions the UN passes as a matter of course. I'm glad the US is around the stand against the UN's moral vanity. Even if you think it's not possible to be right against everyone else, at least consider the obvious point that other countries gain power when they ally together in these votes, while the US loses it; in other words, these countries are voting out of self-interest, not out of a sense of altruism or science.

To get down to particulars, Kyoto is unrealistic. Probably if passed it'll just be another UN rule that everyone flouts. If it is followed, it'll cause, just in the short run, trillions of dollars of inefficiency with very little to show for it--even if it has its long- range predicted value, that'll only mean putting off the worst for a few years.

[Rich]

The extent of global warming, if it even exists, cannot disguise the fact that Kyoto is dud policy.

In simple terms, Kyoto could delay the a temperature increase until 2100 which would have otherwise occured in 2096. That is a small benefit when weighed against the enormous costs.

[Corey]

"I'm glad the US is around the stand against the UN's moral vanity."

This is why I can predict that the US will never pass Kyoto. You sound like the german people did in 1938.

So yeah, 150 countries of the world all got together and agreed on something JUST so they can stick it to us proud Americans. But we saw through their trick! Yeehaw!

We are not talking about diplomatic power struggles, we are talking about reducing CO2 so we don't ALL die. It does not help Germany, France, Russia, or Japan to sign Kyoto, it hurts them as much as it would have hurt the US.

If global warming is inevitable, then putting it off, even for 4 years, IS worth trillions of dollars. How much would you pay for 4 more years of life? Now multiply that by the billion people who may die in diseases, floods, storms, and famines... big number eh?

[Rick Barton]

Corey:

The idea that China is a third world country is outdated. China should not be exempt from Kyoto, as they are an industrial country, producing a wide range of high quality consumer goods.

The Senate rejected the Kyoto agreement during a 1997 test vote by a 95-0 margin. Knowing that the agreement would fall well short of passing in a Senate ratification vote, the Clinton administration never would submit the treaty to a vote. What's changed now to make you think that it would be ratified?

You don't suggest an "extraconstitutional" imposition of the treaty accords through executive orders, and new regulatory rules inspired by the treay, do you?

You comment that we elected "oil money" last month is puzzling. I had thought that most of the President's money came from buying and selling a baseball team. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say we elected "baseball money"?

[Matt]

I like the reasonable opinion expressed in this blog - along the lines of the precautionary principle espoused by most of the natural scientists studying this maddeningly complex and uncertain phenomenon. One small point, though - if a considerable, uniform carbon tax were applied across the globe, then a private market for carbon dioxide removal could almost certainly arise AS LONG AS WE TAX NET CO2 EMISSIONS. Thus, for example a corporation could pay a license fee for the technology to remove CO2 from the air to offset their own production if that fee is less than the tax.

If the social gains from this technology exceed the private gains of the would-be supplier, then subsidy may still merit consideration, but a smart implementation of a tax/quota regime would produce myriad solutions to the build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[mark]

Some years ago I read a chapter in a book that compared the earth to a 'black ball', a perfect absorber of solar energy. Since about 85% of solar heat is already held in by the natural greenhous, the temperature increase is limited to all the remaining energy. At that time the author suggested 4 degrees was the upper limit of heat gain. At that point all the heat would be retained. Most of the climate model estimates have fallen over time, to about 4 degrees. Increases above that seem to be associated mostly with fund raising letters, not peer reviewed articles.

[James]

To be precise, carbon dioxide is not the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor is. Water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide only accounts for four percent or so, at most.

I find there to be a number of problems with the "consensus" on global warming, but two aspects particularly trouble me.

First, the Earth's climate has naturally fluctuated over time. The average temperature was quite a bit warmer during a few stretches of human history (corresponding to accelerated advancements in civilization as a result of longer growing seasons and shorter winters), and we happen to be in a bit of a cold snap right now compared to what is "average" over the course of human history. It wouldn't be unusual for the Earth to be natural warming regardless of human action. In fact, it would be expected. To what extent that human action is accelerating this warming is unclear, since the climate models have generally failed to properly account for the roles of water vapor and the Sun's fluctuations -- both of which have a far greater effect on warming than carbon dioxide concentrations -- in the Earth's temperature. In other words, scientists cannot tell us whether removing the effects of human activity will result in a cooling or warming climate. There won't be a natural climate that stays the same for the rest of time, that's for sure. We'll get warming and cooling whether we like it or not. Without knowing what we'll get if we decide to actually "do something" about global warming, we're likely to be wasting our efforts.

Second, for all the effort being dedicated to "proving" that the Earth's climate is warming, there is surprisingly little scholarship on what the actual economic effects of a warmer or colder climate would be. We know that, over the course of human history, civilization has made impressive advances during periods where the Earth's climate was warmer. We also know that human civilization suffered during cold periods, such as the Little Ice Age that spawned the Dark Ages. It is not necessarily true that global warming is a bad thing -- people have assumed that it is because change is scary. Some scholars, such as Thomas Gale Moore's efforts in "Climate of Fear," think that we'd be better off getting warmer than getting colder. More study should be done on this before we start throwing money at stopping global warming.

The ultimate solution would be to scientifically determine the Earth's optimal climate for our purposes and then using our technology to keep it there, sort of a "room temperature" for the planet. No warming, no cooling, no changes, just right. Instead, the debate has been largely taken over by those who view global warming as the product of human development -- Nature's pox upon greedy humanity. It's a near-religious come-uppence on those who dared to be successful and productive. This is why you get things like the Kyoto Treaty, where the "answer" to the problem is to curtail human wealth generation, instead of proposals for human action to produce cooling effects. For example, my father has perfected patents for ocean fertilization, where huge blooms of plankton can be created and then allowed to die, sucking carbon dioxide out of the air and sending it to the bottom of the ocean. Environmentalists upset about global warming also oppose this, mostly because it would allow economic growth to continue unabated. Global warming is just a means to the end of punishing capitalism for these folk, and it clouds the real issues involved.

[Mike]

The emissions trading system sounds wonderful. Where has it been used before?
Oh, yeah - in the Clean Air Act (CAA), Subchapter IV, which provides for emission trading for SO2.
Q: But, what makes it a "success?"
A: CEM: Continuous Emissions Monitoring coupled with crminal penalties for fraud.
Q: Will we have such an international system set up where you, the polluter in the U.S., have confidence in China's reporting?
A: Not in the near or medium term.

Also,
Q: What makes us think that the CAA, Subchapter IV has been a success?
A: Net emissions of SO2 have been reduced.
Q: Ah, but are there any other reasons that SO2 may have been reduced other than the emissions trading system?
A: Certainly - namely the availability of cheap, low-sulfur coal.

We should be cautious of signing ourselves up for a mandatory cap-and-trade program unless it has very stringent control systems.
Even then, to get everyone to buy in, you have to give out the initial credits pretty generously.
In short, a good idea that needs a lot of work.
Thanks for listening.

[Dru Stevenson]

I really enjoyed this set of posts by Posner and Becker. I am reading Posner's "Catastrophe" book right now, and found the discussion timely and informed.

There are reasons why a relatively infeasible or unenforceable treaty, like the Stockholm Convention or the Kyoto Protocol, may be desirable nonetheless. It draws developing nations �into the fold,� by creating a membership roster that takes on symbolic significance of having "joined" a club with the wealthy, developed nations. Such treaties also "signal" the dominant party�s seriousness and willingness to cooperate, so as to win reciprocal concessions.

Kyoto is costly (perhaps to the point of being impossible to implement fully), but the expenditures purchase more than straightforward reductions in emissions. Sacrificial actions are particularly valuable for signaling coordination in repeat player games. It is in the interest of developed nations to to court the undeveloped nations into more treaties, leading to more cooperation and interdependence. Isolationism among undeveloped countries can lead to outright oppositional defiance and threats to Western interests (see North Korea) or too-late-to-stop genocides and purges internally. Each treaty leads to divulgence or sharing of more useful information about what goes on within the developing countries, which is often otherwise inaccessible (like the locations of large, unused chemical stockpiles in the third world).

[A Scott Crawford]

This debate is rife with false and/or undemonstrable claims. Before we fall into the trap of trying to reason about hypothetical situations, and especially before we commit ourselves to the adoption of sweeping measures to address what could be a case of excessive fear mongering, shouldn't we try to more clearly evaluate the subject under discussion? It seems to me that there is a heck of a lot of question begging surrounding environmental policy, and this habit should be nipped in the bud.

"Survey on Environmental Indicator Sets, GAO-05-56SP, November 17, 2004

"This document is a companion report to GAO-02-52, and presents the results of GAO's survey of developers and users of environmental indicator sets. The purpose of the survey was to gather information on environmental sets that have been developed and the perceptions of practitioners who develop and use environmental sets...."

http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-05-56SP

[Jacob]

There are four questions that have to be addressed before any Global Warming policy should be implemented:

1) Is global warming occuring?

2) To what extent is this being caused by human action?

3) What is the effect of a change in temperature upon human well being?

4) What is the cost of the policy?

To my knowledge, the first question is the only one which has had a significant quantity of research. The few studies that have been done on the other three all would lead us to exercise caution.

On the subject of the fourth question in particular, I refer the reader to Lomborg's op-ed in the London Telegraph.

Mr. Posner needs to offer a satisfying answer to all four questions before we commit hundreds of billions of dollars a year to policies which may or may not be beneficial.

[Anonymous]

it is our common duty to prevent earth from getting hotter and hotter.

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
شات

دردشة

[Anonymous]

شات مصر
--
دردشة مصرية

[Anonymous]

YOUWGi

[Anonymous]

دردشة
___
صور

[Anonymous]

thanks
شات تعب قلبي

شات الحب

[Anonymous]

شات الرياض

شات غرام

[Anonymous]

It is the coolest site, keep so!

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. Get pleasure out of life...as much as you can. Nobody ever died from pleasure.
I am from Peru and now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Get the latest business news from inland california and top business technology stories and ap business headlines including stock market information from."

Thanks :P. Uriana.

[Anonymous]

دردشة الشلة

دردشة تعب قلبي

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
tiffanys
links of london

[Anonymous]

I want to say - thank you for this!