New York Times Editorial - Heading off global overheating
New York Times Editorial - Heading off global overheating
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 2, 2006
Except to a few holdouts, the scientific case for the existence and dangers of global warming - that the climate is a changing, that human activities are largely responsible, and that the consequences could be irreversible - seems undeniable. Now, a much-anticipated study ordered up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair sets forth a compelling economic case for action.
The study, led by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, is necessarily conjectural, since the long-term consequences of climate change cannot be predicted with pinpoint accuracy. But its message is clear: failure to commit substantial resources now will exact huge penalties for the world economy later on.
It is a message aimed at the entire world. But one hopes that the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress, which have put the interests of current American business over any future damage to the environment, will finally pay attention.
The report warns that if we continue on our current course, atmospheric temperatures could rise 4 degrees or so in this century, four times the warming of the last 100 years. That could produce, among other effects, a hugely disruptive mix of rising sea levels and withering droughts affecting mainly but not exclusively poorer nations.
The report says the cost of these losses could be trillions of dollars - "on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century." The only way to avoid that outcome, the report says, is to slash worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide. And that will require massive investments in cleaner technologies. The report does not sugarcoat the pricetag, arguing that the world may need to spend as much as $600 billion by 2050, if it wants to head off the coming disaster.
Why so much? Well, for one thing, the report observes laconically, "the power sector around the world would need to be at least 60 percent decarbonized by 2050." In plain language, that means replacing most of the world's coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants or some other cleaner form of generation. Developing and deploying the necessary technologies will require a collective global effort.
But the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases, the United States, is doing scandalously little. A detailed examination of the challenges ahead by Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, published the same day as the Stern report, pointed out that Washington spends only $3 billion a year for all energy research and development.
According to the Energy Department, in the last fiscal year the department's total research and development budget for climate-friendly, renewable technologies like wind, solar, cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen was only $416 million. By contrast, Washington spends $28 billion on medical research and $75 billion on military research.
The administration claims that it is actually spending a lot more on climate research and that various tax incentives for cleaner fuels like ethanol should be included in the mix. But even so, in an age when people are also worried about the country's growing dependence on imported oil, and are hungry for alternative energy sources, the federal effort on cleaner fuels is pathetically small.
The administration is also refusing to use its regulatory power to limit carbon emissions - the only certain way to encourage private research and investmen in cleaner alternatives. As the Stern report reminds us, the biggest investments in cleaner energy will come not from governments - which do not have a particularly good record at picking winning technologies - but from private industry.
But private capital is not likely to emerge in big enough quantities unless a significant cost is attached to carbon emissions - either in the form of a carbon tax or a mandatory cap on emissions. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the atmosphere has served as a free dumping ground for carbon gases. If people and industries are made to pay heavily for the privilege, they will inevitably be driven to develop cleaner fuels, cars and factories.
Yet here again America lags far behind. Most of the industrialized world has accepted the need for either carbon taxes or strict regulation, and Europe has already imposed a cap on emissions from its cars and factories. Bush and many in Congress remain steadfastly opposed - still persuaded, it appears, that calamity can be avoided on the cheap.
Copyright by The New York Times
Published: November 2, 2006
Except to a few holdouts, the scientific case for the existence and dangers of global warming - that the climate is a changing, that human activities are largely responsible, and that the consequences could be irreversible - seems undeniable. Now, a much-anticipated study ordered up by British Prime Minister Tony Blair sets forth a compelling economic case for action.
The study, led by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank, is necessarily conjectural, since the long-term consequences of climate change cannot be predicted with pinpoint accuracy. But its message is clear: failure to commit substantial resources now will exact huge penalties for the world economy later on.
It is a message aimed at the entire world. But one hopes that the Bush administration and the U.S. Congress, which have put the interests of current American business over any future damage to the environment, will finally pay attention.
The report warns that if we continue on our current course, atmospheric temperatures could rise 4 degrees or so in this century, four times the warming of the last 100 years. That could produce, among other effects, a hugely disruptive mix of rising sea levels and withering droughts affecting mainly but not exclusively poorer nations.
The report says the cost of these losses could be trillions of dollars - "on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century." The only way to avoid that outcome, the report says, is to slash worldwide emissions of carbon dioxide. And that will require massive investments in cleaner technologies. The report does not sugarcoat the pricetag, arguing that the world may need to spend as much as $600 billion by 2050, if it wants to head off the coming disaster.
Why so much? Well, for one thing, the report observes laconically, "the power sector around the world would need to be at least 60 percent decarbonized by 2050." In plain language, that means replacing most of the world's coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants or some other cleaner form of generation. Developing and deploying the necessary technologies will require a collective global effort.
But the world's leading producer of greenhouse gases, the United States, is doing scandalously little. A detailed examination of the challenges ahead by Andrew Revkin of The New York Times, published the same day as the Stern report, pointed out that Washington spends only $3 billion a year for all energy research and development.
According to the Energy Department, in the last fiscal year the department's total research and development budget for climate-friendly, renewable technologies like wind, solar, cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen was only $416 million. By contrast, Washington spends $28 billion on medical research and $75 billion on military research.
The administration claims that it is actually spending a lot more on climate research and that various tax incentives for cleaner fuels like ethanol should be included in the mix. But even so, in an age when people are also worried about the country's growing dependence on imported oil, and are hungry for alternative energy sources, the federal effort on cleaner fuels is pathetically small.
The administration is also refusing to use its regulatory power to limit carbon emissions - the only certain way to encourage private research and investmen in cleaner alternatives. As the Stern report reminds us, the biggest investments in cleaner energy will come not from governments - which do not have a particularly good record at picking winning technologies - but from private industry.
But private capital is not likely to emerge in big enough quantities unless a significant cost is attached to carbon emissions - either in the form of a carbon tax or a mandatory cap on emissions. Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, the atmosphere has served as a free dumping ground for carbon gases. If people and industries are made to pay heavily for the privilege, they will inevitably be driven to develop cleaner fuels, cars and factories.
Yet here again America lags far behind. Most of the industrialized world has accepted the need for either carbon taxes or strict regulation, and Europe has already imposed a cap on emissions from its cars and factories. Bush and many in Congress remain steadfastly opposed - still persuaded, it appears, that calamity can be avoided on the cheap.
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home