GBN Blog
Dealing with Climate Change is Very Hard
Several events in recent weeks demonstrate clearly why climate change may be the most difficult challenge our civilization has ever faced. The uncertainties in the science, both perceived and real, still remain, leading to a broad spectrum of concern ranging from “What, me worry?” to literally “The sky is falling!” The things we must do may—or appear to—cost a great deal, while having only a gradual impact on the problem. The interests of many nations, large and small, and many important actors within and across them are not aligned, and indeed, are often in conflict. The effective governance needed to bridge these gaps and negotiate an equitable compromise is not widely in place. In fact, the institutions trying to manage this global issue are not adequate to the task. Moreover, weak international institutions leave room for mavericks to unilaterally act and disrupt fragile arrangements. As a result we are going to see a great deal of climate change over the next half century and beyond.
So what recently happened that leads to these observations?
The Science: More than enough attention has been focused on the University of the East-Anglia email non-controversy. Yet the speed and dominance with which this issue was propelled to the foreground of the news cycle (and U.S. congressional hearings) shows that the views that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is “very likely” the main driver are not as commonly held as the IPCC would like to think.
The Costs: There was also some less-than-stellar news on the cost of clean technologies. The US National Academy of Sciences announced in December;
“Costs of plug-in hybrid electric cars are high—largely due to their lithium-ion batteries—and unlikely to drastically decrease in the near future, says a new report from the National Research Council. Costs to manufacture plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in 2010 are estimated to be as much as $18,000 more than for an equivalent conventional vehicle. Although a mile driven on electricity is cheaper than one driven on gasoline, it will likely take several decades before the upfront costs decline enough to be offset by lifetime fuel savings. Subsidies in the tens to hundreds of billions of dollars over that period will be needed if plug-ins are to achieve rapid penetration of the U.S. automotive market. Even with these efforts, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are not expected to significantly impact oil consumption or carbon emissions before 2030. “
Although there has been some controversy surrounding this publication, it makes the point that one of our best technological hopes still has some very significant barriers to overcome and, even then, is likely to have only a modest relative impact on oil use and hence CO2 emissions. In part this is because conventional engines will also improve. But in addition, a growing and more prosperous population will lead to many more cars on the road. This report points to how hard it is to bend the emissions trajectory significantly.
Governance: The governance issues continue to be especially challenging, and at multiple levels. The outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Conference was actually better than we could have reasonably expected, largely because of President Obama’s dramatic last minute intervention in a negotiation with the leaders of China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. The terms of the deal they struck might actually be doable. And the move to get around the obstruction of Venezuela, Cuba, and Somalia got most of the world to buy in. But while there is forward momentum, a binding treaty is unlikely to ever occur. The issues are sovereignty and the differing stages of development. None of these nations is prepared to give in on these points due to domestic politics, but they will act in rough concert along lines congruent with the deal they struck in Copenhagen. But this outcome does suggest that the UN system is inadequate to get a deal done. Two hundred nations cannot negotiate a treaty that involves vast, complex compromises over decades. Some other framework for international governance has to be found or the agreements will all be informal and bilateral. It will be a world of alliances and interests, not laws and institutions.
On the national level, there are challenges as well. The Australian parliament again defeated Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s plan for a cap and trade system on the grounds of excessive economic impacts. In a resource- and agriculture-intensive economy it is not hard to understand why there is so much opposition to climate legislation from the supply side.
In France, on the other hand, the constitutional council struck down a new carbon tax championed by the Sarkozy government because it was not equitably applied and had too many exemptions. In other words, it was not tough enough. And this is a French carbon tax on top of the European system of cap and trade. (The fact that France has so much nuclear power gives it the luxury of being aggressive in other sectors.)
On the local level, Senator Diane Feinstein (Democrat, California), who supports most measures to deal with climate change, submitted legislation to put much of the California desert off limits for solar and wind development. Deserts are important ecosystems and precious to at least some Californians. And, of course, the power lines needed to bring the solar power from the desert generate objections from environmentalists as well. Because of what they are and because “brown” in addition to the “green,” electrons may flow over them. This ban is simply further evidence of how hard it is to deploy many of the “solutions” to carbon reduction. Likewise, Native Americans have just sued to block the new Cape Wind offshore wind power development off Cape Cod because it will interfere with their pristine view of the sacred morning sunrise. When this NIMBY obstruction of green power is challenged, wherever it occurs, the answer is that we should simply use less and therefore, don’t need this power.
Finally the Russians have announced they are going to try to nudge an asteroid. What does this have to do with climate change? One of the options we will have to address is geo-engineering on a global scale to redirect the trajectory of climate change. Unilateral action on that front may be cataclysmic in terms of the physics of climate change as well as the politics. The Russians only want to test approaches to diverting an asteroid on a collision course with the Earth. They have chosen one that is on a near-miss trajectory, but if they get it wrong its new course could lead to a massive collision. Can and should we try to constrain this precedent for unilateral action in the face of global consequences?
So all these developments suggest that agreeing on what to do and then making it happen in the face of huge global uncertainties, risks, and consequences will be nearly impossible, particularly when our institutions are weak. Despite our current efforts to mitigate and adapt, we are not likely to do nearly enough to radically redirect the trajectory of climate change in time. There is not enough agreement, alignment of interests, and will to move fast—say, toward Jim Hanson’s target of 350ppm of CO2. That means we will see a great deal of climate change and most likely soon.
9 Responses to “Dealing with Climate Change is Very Hard”
Leave a Reply
Peter Schwartz
GBN cofounder and chairman. An internationally renowned futurist and business strategist, Peter previously headed scenario planning for Royal Dutch/Shell and directed the Strategic Environment Center at SRI International.
Read more.
Arthritis in dogs can be a huge issue that many people never even think of in senior dogs.
I fully agree with the bottom-line conclusion: “we will see a great deal of climate change and most likely soon” with “soon” being decades or even years, rather than the 21st century. Moreover, I would like to suggest that it is quite possible–say, perhaps 50-50–that methane will soon replace CO2 as the greenhouse gas of greatest concern.
And if the methane clathrates in the oceans start thawing, in addition to methane release from melting tundra, we may well bring on the runaway warming Venus scenario posed by Jim Hansen.
[NOTE: Although not appearing anywhere in print, this forecast of methane surpassing CO2 was corroborated by Mike MacCracken of The Climate Institute, with whom I am corresponding.]
Which is some inspirational stuff. In no way suspected that viewpoints may very well be this varied.
Such a nice post. I just found your site and felt it was my duty to say that it has been nice reading your blog posts. Of course, I will be subscribing to your feed and I’m looking forward to the next post.
Wow, amazing weblog structure! How lengthy have you been blogging for? you made blogging look easy. The entire glance of your website is great, well the content material!
Great read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
Nie do koñca siê ze wszystkim zgadzam, ale generalnie teksty mnie zaciekawi³y.
At the moment you could possibly department out from your daily understanding
Well written article. I really like reading this blog for the reason that the writers often write excellent posts. Great work once again. I am planning to subscribe to this feed and bookmark this blog.Great. Ain’t technology sweet?