> But that's the point: THERE HAS TO BE A DECISION MADE.
No, not really. That's an argument that's often heard from the confirmalists(1), injecting it into the discussion as a premise. It's not the language of people who are confident truth is on their side.
The action-now argument assumes that no significant technological advances will be made. If e.g. desalination on a massive scale becomes viable, most of the drought-problem can be solved. If the nuclear power waste problem can be solved (e.g. by raising the efficiency), we can slash a huge percentage of current emissions with little to no downside. If artificial photosynthesis becomes viable, we can even wash out already emitted CO2.
Deciding against globally orchestrated emissions programs -- which will have very real costs in terms of economic growth, which fuels increases in living standards, especially in countries where it isn't so high -- isn't denying climate changes. It's arguing that we're already hard at work slashing our dependencies on fossil fuels, and that we probably know a lot more in 20 years than we do today.
If I'm wrong, and we don't take the decision, then we're much better equipped, both technologically and financially, to handle the situation in 20 years than we are today. If I'm right, and we do it, then we're severely limiting the ability of the worlds poorest regions in increasing their own well-being. 400 mio. Chinese entering the middle class, and accepting that a western standard of living (car, air condition, heating, hot baths, flying on vacation) is going to be denied to them because of changes in the climate lying decades ahead? Not gonna happen, no matter what Hu Jintao said at the UN.
(1) It's a stupid word, but so is deniers and denialists.
Deciding against globally orchestrated emissions programs -- which will have very real costs in terms of economic growth, which fuels increases in living standards, especially in countries where it isn't so high -- isn't denying climate changes
I cannot help observing that skepticism of environmental problems correlates strongly with economic certitude. Those argue most passionately that we have insufficient data about the climate are so totally confident in the predictions of economic ruin that they don't even bother to explain their reasoning.
Why this spurious equation of energy efficiency with a halt to economic development? The goal of the green movement is to increase the ratio of productivity to waste, particularly external waste (ie that affecting the commons). Your argument implies that economic development in poor countries must follow the same path that of the west during the industrial revolution, and that fossil fuels are the only coin that buys future prosperity.
If I'm wrong, and we don't take the decision, then we're much better equipped, both technologically and financially, to handle the situation in 20 years than we are today.
I've been following (but not crusading for) environmental issues for 20 years, longer if I include youthful awareness - for example, my uncle used to be an agricultural inspector who'd tackle farmers dumping manure into rivers. We have greatly enhanced our technology over the last 20 years, so why can we not put that expertise to work now, instead of waiting for some future panacea?
As for being in better future financial shape, you assume an inevitable upward trend, a future in which we will all be richer and have more disposable income, so we can afford to kick the can down the road. Only a few short years ago the bull market was hailed as a great economic success, this time it was different, the mistakes of the past would never be repeated, etc. The fact is that we are just as likely to experience a recession or other financial bust in the future as we are experiencing now. When the market is going up people procrastinate on distant necessities in favor of short-term profit. When the market is down such investments are called too risky. To believe that some future market will be so awash in capital as to render environmental improvement a trivial overhead is to subscribe to a form of socioeconomic teleology, not so different from belief in a technological singularity which will obviate all current problems as we become beings of pure energy or suchlike.
The goal of the green movement is to increase the ratio of productivity to waste, particularly external waste (ie that affecting the commons).
You can only have one objective function.
Promoting development means increasing the ratio of economic output to people. The green movement wants to increase the ratio of productivity to waste.
In the (highly likely, considering how large the solution space is) event that the solution to both these problems is not the same, following the prescriptions of the green movement will mean sacrificing some development.
Wasted labor seems to me to fall under that goal (not that I am offering a a fully burnished economic theory here). If your need is illumination, say, a lantern or even a candle is considerably less wasteful than a fire, both in terms of externalities and the effort required to operate it - obtaining oil or a candle that lasts a week, vs armfuls of wood that last for one night which cost time and effort to gather and which are not easily portable once set on fire.
> ... totally confident in the predictions of economic ruin that they don't even bother to explain their reasoning.
I don't predict economic ruin -- I predict slower economic growth. It's not the same.
What I do think, is that there's a huge moral dilemma when we in the western world who're enjoying the fruits of economic growth are now ready to push much poorer parts of the world into slowing their growth, and thus slowing their ascent to the prosperity we're all but taking for granted.
> Why this spurious equation of energy efficiency with a halt to economic development?
Energy efficiency is going to advance itself, since efficiency equals money saved. But the kind of energy efficiency sought under the banner of saving the planet has nothing to do with efficiency, and everything to do with forcing us into using less energy at whatever the cost.
> Your argument implies that economic development in poor countries must follow the same path that of the west during the industrial revolution
Burning fossil fuels is by far the cheapest and easiest way to generate mechanical and electrical energy on demand. Especially when bootstrapping an infrastructure, it's also the most efficient. Gasoline, diesel and oil are simply the only readily available sources of energy that's immediately and cheaply transportable and storable. There is no reason to believe that rural Africa is going to go anywhere without burning a lot of fossils. China and India are sufficiently densely populated and able in terms of infrastructure that they can probably fuel much of their growth electrically -- but barring a breakthrough in nuclear power, there's only so much of it that's going to be generated without fossil-burning.
However: That might change, come economic development.
Taxing (in whatever way, directly or indirectly) carbon emissions -- and that's really the only political proposal that's on the table will curtail economic growth: It will make it harder for the "little man" in China, India, Africa and Russia who can create economic growth by driving his car to the next town, or who can increase yield from his field by using a tractor, or mechanised irrigation pumps, or who tries to run a factory. To hundreds of millions of people there is simply no way of doing these things available, that doesn't involve burning fossils.
Since rich countries for this reason will be expected to lead the way, it will also mean that the inventor of something that might change this dynamic, would have a harder time raising the necessary capital. The richer an economic is, the more money it can afford to throw into universities, research and startups.
> I've been following (but not crusading for) environmental issues for 20 years
Good. Then I'm sure you'll agree it would have been disastrous if humankind had sat down in 1989 and decided to implement a world-wide scheme that would essentially dampen economic growth and development.
> We have greatly enhanced our technology over the last 20 years, so why can we not put that expertise to work now, instead of waiting for some future panacea?
Because we still don't have a solution that doesn't involve dragging down the world economy. Our solution today is to try to stop doing the things that emit carbon, but as long as those things are also to a large extend the things that create wealth, it has some extremely bad side effects. Wind turbines are fine for up to about 15% of the electrical supply in the developed world. Solar is promising where and when the sun shines. Water plants are fine where are water for them (not many places left, if any). Nuclear is nice, except for the waste and the extremely high requirements for safety (making them slow and expensive to construct and operate).
We are getting there, and we have several outs. Electrical cars and hydrogen infrastructure would allow a much higher share of wind and solar in the mix. 3rd gen. biodiesel might help. Efficient scrubbers would allow us to stop caring about coal, oil and gas plants. But we are not there yet.
> As for being in better future financial shape, you assume an inevitable upward trend (...) Only a few short years ago the bull market was hailed as a great economic success
Energy creates wealth, because it makes the same person more efficient. That's the essence of the industrial revolution: harnessing energy in machines, suddenly one person can create much more. Since then, machines and how we operate them has developed massively in favour of efficiency -- from the steam hammer to Tim Ferris operating business on an iPhone lying on a beach.
And we need to look at the economy at a much grander scale than 10 years. Economies expand and contracts, but over a longer time, it invariably expands. When there is talk of global climate change, a scale of 100 years is more appropriate.
> To believe that some future market will be so awash in capital as to render environmental improvement a trivial overhead is to subscribe to a form of socioeconomic teleology
I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that it's going to be richer than this one, and not least, more developed than this one. About 120 years ago we worried about the wether the supply of whale oil could meet the demand -- in other words, it seemed unlikely that in the future, the market would be awash (pardon the pun) in whale oil. Then we refined mineral oil, and that was that. Nobody knows what the future holds. The officials going to Copenhagen (which reminds me, I need to find a place out of the city to park my car for those weeks) think they know what the future holds. I claim that they can't and that history speaks against what they are trying to do.
I don't want to endlessly grow the thread so I won't respond with an essay, but: [green causes] have everything to do with forcing us into using less energy at whatever the cost is where we disagree. The environmental goal is to reduce externalities which damage the environment and result in costly future problems. Energy efficiency is one strategy in pursuit of that goal. In short, I feel you are discounting the future cost of pollution management.
it would have been disastrous if humankind had sat down in 1989 and decided to implement a world-wide scheme that would essentially dampen economic growth and development
You say you don't predict economic ruin, but you suggest that more attention to environmental considerations in 1989 would have been 'disastrous' - hmm. Conversely, it would have been advantageous if we had sat down in 1989 and committed more resources to renewable energy sources instead of dismissing their utility. For example, British engineers had developed promising wave-power technology in the 80s which now enjoys a renaissance, but when North Sea oil was discovered investment in that technology was halted. It would have been better to exploit North Sea oil and funnel some of that windfall back to R&D. Some background on this particular case: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article1018.html
I really don't want to get into politics or point-scoring, but I basically believe you are naively discounting the utility of environmental stability.
First, let me apologize for the essay. I didn't mean to write that long when I set out.
I don't discount the utility of environmental stability. But I have a hard time convincing myself that politicians and bureaucrats are in any position to impact environmental stability in a significant positive way.
If only this was a Pigovian tax on carbon emissions being suggested, I'd probably go along -- especially if sweetened with some development subsidies for the countries hit harder by this. But it's not. It's a bid to get people to stop using the single source of energy that has brought about the largest expansion of prosperity ever seen.
> You say you don't predict economic ruin, but you suggest that more attention to environmental considerations in 1989 would have been 'disastrous'
Well, I did contradict myself slightly there. It was said with reference to the boom in prosperity enjoyed by eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union -- one that was largely fuelled by cheap and readily available gas. Form them not to have experienced that, while not spelling economic ruin, would have been very unfortunate.
Is it not essentially a Pigovian tax? I assumed (perhaps naively) that that is exactly what it is. What aspects of it make you think differently?
> It's a bid to get people to stop using the single source of energy that has brought about the largest expansion of prosperity ever seen
Maybe, but the intention behind it is irrelevant isn't it? If the benefits outweigh the costs then we should do it. If not, not.
Just because some (or most) of the green movement wants to reduce fossil fuel consumption for agrarian-socialist reasons doesn't automatically make reducing fossil fuel consumption a bad idea, does it?
No, not really. That's an argument that's often heard from the confirmalists(1), injecting it into the discussion as a premise. It's not the language of people who are confident truth is on their side.
The action-now argument assumes that no significant technological advances will be made. If e.g. desalination on a massive scale becomes viable, most of the drought-problem can be solved. If the nuclear power waste problem can be solved (e.g. by raising the efficiency), we can slash a huge percentage of current emissions with little to no downside. If artificial photosynthesis becomes viable, we can even wash out already emitted CO2.
Deciding against globally orchestrated emissions programs -- which will have very real costs in terms of economic growth, which fuels increases in living standards, especially in countries where it isn't so high -- isn't denying climate changes. It's arguing that we're already hard at work slashing our dependencies on fossil fuels, and that we probably know a lot more in 20 years than we do today.
If I'm wrong, and we don't take the decision, then we're much better equipped, both technologically and financially, to handle the situation in 20 years than we are today. If I'm right, and we do it, then we're severely limiting the ability of the worlds poorest regions in increasing their own well-being. 400 mio. Chinese entering the middle class, and accepting that a western standard of living (car, air condition, heating, hot baths, flying on vacation) is going to be denied to them because of changes in the climate lying decades ahead? Not gonna happen, no matter what Hu Jintao said at the UN.
(1) It's a stupid word, but so is deniers and denialists.