What the U.S. Should Do About Global
Warming
Warming
John J Burton
Dec.10,2006
What the U.S. Should Do About Global Warming
Perspectives
In this case, the “we” that matters is the U.S. government. The best
that we concerned citizens can do is to enlighten our fellow citizens to
the extent that they will persuade Congress and the administration to
take action. Of course, there are many things our personal and
business lives that we can do to minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
But considering how few in number are concerned about this and how
little an incentive there is for us to give much weight to this concern,
voluntary action by individuals will have little effect in the total picture.
Next we have the question of how much action we should ask Congress
to take. Is it better to take the small painless steps that are most
feasible in the near future, or wait until really worthwhile actions are
politically possible? The drawback to waiting until there is more public
support is that meanwhile the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased so
the longer we wait, the more drastic are the measures needed to hold
the atmospheric content of CO2 to an acceptable level.
To make progress we will need not only a concerned Congress but a
President who will use his office to persuade the public of the moral
necessity to take actions.. As a practical matter, until climate change
effects become more apparent and have more ill effects, we can hope
for only relatively modest and painless actions. But we should be
thinking and planning for the more drastic actions we will eventually
come to accept when more damaging effects of effects of climate
change have taken place.
Some of the actions we should take will have an immediate effect. A
carbon tax and limiting car and truck speeds are examples. The effect
of improving CAFÉ standards for cars’ mileage steadily increase as
existing gas guzzlers are gradually replaced. would take longer as
existing gas guzzlers will still be on the road for years.
We should insist that all new power plants use the new more efficient
gasification technology and separate and store underground their
carbon dioxide emissions.
Financial incentives for use of renewable sources of energy should be
increased but limited to those that make a much better net energy
saving than does the ethanol from corn program
The Barriers To Be Overcome
But before we examine the actions our government should take, we
should examine what are the barriers that have prevented action to
date and are expected to continue to thwart any appreciable
government action.
1 President Bush has stated that actions to curb global warming would
damage our economy, a view that is supported by economists and
business leaders. Our economic prosperity is measured by GDP growth
and this depends on increasing spending by consumers and by
businesses. Producing more goods for consumers or expansion of
businesses commonly requires more use of the energy that comes
mostly from burning of fossil fuels. Government actions that would
reduce production of energy or produce more energy from other than
fossil fuels would add to the cost of energy and thus must end up with
higher prices and less of the consumer spending on which our
prosperity depends. So most business leaders support this view and
corporate lobbying and campaign contributions ensure Congressional
resistance to action to curb global warming.I view this danger to our
economy as being a real problem .But in view of the magnitude of the ill
effects that we can expect will take place if we do nothing, then it is
clear that this is a risk we should take. And we can lessen the risk if we
keep the effect on the economy in mind before we adopt new policies.
We must encourage new activities in one sector when we take
measures that will reduce employment in another. Fortunately many of
the things we need to do to curb global warming are more labor
intensive than our present practices. Just as in WWII auto companies
switched from making cars to making airplanes and tanks, so we need
to switch industrial activities to the many ways we can save energy and
generate it with less carbon dioxide emissions.
2. A 2nd major objection by Congress and the president to action by
the U.S. is that the Kyoto Agreement requires reduction of GHG
emission by the industrial nations but requires no action by China, India
or any of the undeveloped nations. With the dramatic increase of
automobile use in China, this is an objection that will have strong public
support. To overcome this objection I believe we must bring up and
make clear the matters of justice and fairness until the public has a
clear understanding of this complex issue.
The public must come to view the global atmosphere is an asset
shared in common by all the people of the world. since 1988 it has
become increasingly known that the greenhouse gases people of the
industrial nations have been putting into the atmosphere are a
pollutant that is hazardous to the welfare of future generations of all
the world’s people. From a strictly moral viewpoint , how can we insist
that the people of the undeveloped world do not have equal rights with
us when we now seek to limit the amount of greenhouse gas emissions
to safe level? Considering the widely different life styles of people in the
industrial world and of those in the undeveloped nations, equalizing
GHG emissions is not practical until many generations . But as a start
fairness says the people of the industrial nations are morally required to
drastically cut their GHG emissions andrequest , but not demand, that
others make some efforts to minimize their emissions. The
industrialized nations, with the U.S. at the forefront, have already and
are continuing to pollute this with a hazardous amount of greenhouse
gases, principally CO2. So we are morally obliged to take steps to
cease this misdeed, even though until recently we were not aware of
the hazard we were creating. But now that we know that CO2 is a
pollutant dangerous to the future of all the world’s people, the initial
and heaviest responsibility for corrective action is an obligation of the
industrialized nations. . And in accordance with our own “the polluter
pays” cleanup principle, we should hold ourselves responsible for the
atmospheric pollution we have created, or at least responsible for that
which we have done since we became aware of the effects of our CO2
emissions. #3 Unfortunately, to curb our CO2 emissions enough we will
sooner or later face strong popular opposition because many essential
new policies will hinder our consumerist culture. We must not only get
our energy from renewable sources but we must use much less
energy. And practically all of the advances that make our lives less
strenuous and more enjoyable in this century use more energy, either
directly or indirectly. Until the recent rise in gas prices , the auto
industry found the best selling cars to be those with more horsepower
and accessories, not those with the best miles per gallon. No politician
has dared to suggest the 55 mph speed limit we adopted in the 1970s
when there was a petroleum shortage and a move now that would
quickly reduce our CO2 emissions.
4. Nimby – not in my backyard- objection by local residents will often
need to be overcome by national rules. For example construction of an
offshore wind farms off Cape Cod has been held up for years by
objection of local residents that it would damage the view from their
homes. We will have cases where federal rules must supercede the
interests of local communities.
How Much Do We Need to Reduce our Emission of Greenhouse
Gases?
There is no precise or certain answer to this. At one extreme, we know
that all of the carbon we have been taking out of deep underground
storage, converting it t o CO2 and emitting this into the atmosphere
has upset the secure atmosphere we have had for thousands of years.
So the safest action would be to cease all man-made emissions of
GHGs. But seeing this as impractical, the consensus of climatologists is
that we should aim to limit the GHG in the atmosphere to 450-55 ppm.
I have not seen any good effort to forecast what climate conditions will
be like
Specific Actions that Our Government Should Take Now or Later
The following are some of the many actions that our government
should do. Each one has a particular degree of political feasibility,
economic soundness, and effectiveness in slowing global warming.
Among the first actions we should take are those that can be seen as
beneficial even if global warming does not occur. The current high price
of petroleum and the rising danger of coming shortages and much
higher prices is an outstanding example. Reducing our use of electricity
and generating more of it from renewable sources not only reduces
CO2 emissions but reduces our dependence on and from the Mideast.
Another example is government regulations that mandate more
efficient appliances; purchase costs to consumers is made higher but in
a few years this is balanced by saving in operating cost.=
1 .A Carbon Tax
A carbon tax should be applied to the sale of all fossil fuels This should
be revenue neutral in that the total amount collected by this tax should
be used to reduce other taxes and for government expenditures that
have the effect of reducing CO2 emissions. It should start at a low level,
perhaps $10 a ton, and be increased each year , deciding on the rate of
increase by noting the effects good and bad,that it is having.
A carbon tax will directly increase the cost to consumers of gasoline,
electricity and heating fuels. The ability of people of various economic
levels and occupations to pay these added costs should be recognized
and some measures taken to offset more expensive living costs.. The
primary concern must be for those whose income barely exceeds their
essential living expenses.
One means of balancing the bad effects of a carbon taxis to reduce or
perhaps eliminate payroll taxes. Another is to increase the earned
income tax credit. Another option to be considered is having utilities
set rate schedules that would apply their needed higher prices only to
usage above minimum levels, this giving consumers an added incentive
to reduce their consumption of fuels and use of electricity.
A carbon tax with it s resulting higher manufacturing costs has been
seen by economists to be a danger of slowing up the economy and
causing a recession. And this is a danger that must be seen as a risk
we should take in light of the almost certain ill effects from global
warming. The public should thoughtfully balance the likelihood and
effects of this this near term risk with the likelihood and ill effects of a
future global warming.As far as the likelihood is concerned it is
encouraging in this respect to note that economists feared an economic
recession if petroleum prices rose much above their 20-30 level, yet at
$70 prices our economy seems to have slowed our economy only
modestly. A carbon tax would initially cause trouble for industries that
use lots of energy. This ill effect could be reduced by promotion of the
industries and activities that we need to combat global warming. Just
as car manufacturers in WWII switched from producing autos to
producing tanks, they might now switch to producing small hybrid cars
wind turbines, solar panels and bicycles
2. Transportation
A conspicuous example of immediate action needed is to increase the
CAFÉ mpg rules for autos and to remove the loopholes in the present
rules. When we had a petroleum shortage in the 1970’s, national CAFÉ
rules were established. The average of all cars produced by each
manufacturer could not exceed a set figure of 27.5 mpg. Light trucks
had a lower set limit. We need to establish new CAFÉ standards for all
companies selling automobiles and light trucks in the U.S. The present
27.5 mpg limit should be replaced with a new mpg minimum which
should be set to increase each year; perhaps achieving 60 mpg by
2020. Loopholes in the present regulations should be eliminated.. In
establishing the mpg for each model care, the EPA should include the
mileage last due to all the auxiliaries commonly included by purchases
such as air conditioning, window controls, radio, CD etc. Light trucks
should be included except when purchase is for business use.
In the gasoline shortage in the 1970’s, we reduced the speed limit to
55 mph. This we should promptly do so it both increased the mpg of
travel but to some degree reduces the incentive for unnecessary travel.
Lower speeds improve traffic safety and as we increased the prevalence
of smaller cars, this would become more effective.
Reducing cares speed from 65 to 55 cuts fuel use by 10%. Reducing
the 70 mph speed common on highways to 55 cuts fuel use 17%.
Spring 2006 bulletin of Union of Concerned Scientists
Encourage the use of bicycles. More bicycle lanes, more parking
facilities for bicycles, and more rigid enforcement of auto traffic in cities
would add to the incentives for their use.
In Japan, some railroad stations have invested in vertical, multilevel
parking garages for commuters' bicycles.
3. Reducing the Use of Electricity and Fossil Fuels in Homes
Houses will use less heating and cooling energy with better
construction such as more insulation and , double-pane windows
Energy-saving construction should be mandated for new houses and
subsidy help for improvementstoy to existing houses Federal subsidies
are needed to promote use of solar roof and solar side panels
Difficult as it will be to establish the necessaryregulations, there must
be a reduction in the prevailing size of houses. , The size of houses
whose average size has perhaps doubled since the 1950s, must be
reduced to save heating and cooiong and use of construction materials.
All incandescent lighting should be replaced with fluorescent bulbs. .
For nearly all appliances—refrigerators, air conditioners etc—more
efficient but more expensive units are available. And the government
should continue to improve efficiency standards to match technological
advances. Appliances should be designed for longer life, ability to be
repaired and ease of recycling when abandoned. Eventually we might do
better by having suppliers rent rather than sell appliances , thus being
responsible for repairs and eventual disposal. Many life-style changes
will save energy but will require government mandates or financial
incentives. Lower building temperatures winter and cooler
temperatures in summer.to save air conditioning and heating should be
mandated and enforced-perhaps impossible to enforce until rising
temperatures have made this perceived to be moral obligation .
4. Fossil Fuel Utilities
About 1/3 of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions is the carbon dioxide
emitted in the stacks of fossil fuel power plants. The cheapest fossil fuel
is coal which supplies about ½ of of our electricity. When natural gas is
used as the fuel, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of electricity is
reduced by 1/3. But the supply of natural gas is limited and most new
power plats will use coal.
In this electric generation part of our economy we have an opportunity
to make a substantial reduction in our GHG emissions. We well know
how to separate out 90% of the CO2 in power plant stack gases.
Extensive geological studies have been underway for years that
demonstrate that this CO2 can be buried deep underground.in many
areas of the country. This combined process is known as CCS- Carbon
Capture and Storage. CCS can be added to many existing power plants
buit this is very costly. The best solutionis to add CCS to the design of
new power plants. And we have demonstrated in a power plant in
Tampa a new cosl gasification technology , call IGCC.that makes CCS
much less costly. A large scale power plat based on IGCC technology
and CCS , financed by the government and industries, is expected to
be in operation in 2012. Our government should require that all new
coal-fired power plants include CCS and allow the utilities to add the
extra cost to their electric rates.
5. Renewable Sources of Energy
Gradually, renewable energy sources must replace the use of fossil fuels.
We now get about 7% of our electricity from hydroelectric sources; this
cannot be increased very much.
We now get about 8% of our energy from nuclear plants. To maintain
this with our aging plants or to increase it with more nuclear installation
is a debatable issue.
Wind farms on land and off shore are a relatively low cost and publicly
acceptable renewable energy The present time limit on subsidy for
wind power should be made permanent to encourage investment.
Wave power-harnessing the ocean’s waves at certain sites—is
commercially feasible but of uncertain extent.
Solar power, principally from rooftop or building side-panels is an
expensive renewable power
A 1992 estimate was that 60-70 million tons of logging waste is left in
the woods. This could be a source of about 1.3 EJ per year of energy if
all could be recovered without environmental damage. (Michael Brower,
Research Director of UCS)
The U.S. should not only drastically reduce its greenhouse gas
emissions, but should aid the undeveloped nations to do so. We must
recognize this right to achieve higher standards of living for all people
which means they will have to emit more carbon dioxide. But we,
together with the other industrial nations, should give them the
technologies we have that will enable them to do so while emitting less
CO2 per unit of output than they will with backward technologies. A
particular case of this at present is that China and India are building
many more power plants to meet their new energy needs and we
should furnish them with our various improved technologies including
the advanced IGCC and CCS technologies.
Our recent decades of urban sprawl have increased the necessity of
using cars for commuting, shopping and entertainment. Our population
density in cities is less than that in Europe.
So we need government policies that will minimize this. Portland,
Oregon has shown better design of cities and suburbs to reduce CO2
emissions can be done. New Jersey has a new state-wide program to
discourage residential developments in rural areas.
6. Life-Style Changes
To get Americans to accept life-style restrictions will be handicapped by
this requires more than patriotism. We need to replace the already
existing influence of patriotism with a concern for all the world. And
public acceptance of a less energy-dependent living will be heavily
influenced by seeing how much the rest of the world is joining in this
effort. An essential prerequisite for this is a public education program
aimed at getting the public to view conservation of energy as a public
duty just as in WWII we accepted many unpleasant restrictions on our
personal lives. We can expect that as the effects of global warming
become more obvious and create more hardships, more of such
restrictions will be acceptable and can be made mandatory.
Ban use of non-refillable beverage containers and mandate standard
designs to simplify recycling. Use glass bottles of standardized design
, not cans, as is done in Denmark. Transportation and travel in all
forms, especially by auto, is an outstanding example of a highly valued
life style that must be reduced. Unless there is some unforeseen
technological advance, it seems likely that a drastic in energy used for
transportation will eventually be needed. We can reduce use of fuels for
heating our houses and a commercial buildings by lowering our
thermostat settings, perhaps to 65o. IN the summer, air conditioning
thermostats should be set higher—perhaps at 78°. Changes in
clothing customs to permit sweaters in winter and shorts etc in summer
would help. In spite of households getting smaller, the average new
house size has increased—perhaps nearly doubled—since the 1950’s,
much of the increase being in the luxury house class. These bigger
structures also end up with more TVs, computers and appliances of all
sorts. A carbon tax with its resulting higher fuel and electricity costs
will probably not do enough to reverse this trend; making tax rates
proportional to size could help. We will need to discourage personal
travel of all kinds, visiting distant friends and relatives, traveling on
vacations and shopping trips. This is an unpleasant prospect, it would
be going back to life a century ago but at least we now have more
means of home entertainment.
How Much Do We Need to Reduce CO2 or GHG Emissions?
The consensus among climate experts is that in order to avoid
catastrophic effects we must reduce out GHG emissions by 80% by
2020. This is to limit global temperature rise to 2-3 degrees C.
Kyoto permits a nation to get credit for some of its required emission
reductions by buying emission credits from another nation. For
example, Canada can finance reforestation in Brazil or supply to China
the technology to generate electricity from coal more efficiently than
China could with its own technology. In such cases, the amount of CO2
absorbed by reforestation or the reduction in CO2 emissions by new
technology would be credited to Canada as part of the emission
reduction required by Kyoto.In calculating emission reductions, a nation
can take credit for the CO2 absorbed by net growth of forests, or by
new agricultural practices that cause the soil to absorb more CO2.
The U.S. should sign the Kyoto Protocol, not only to give weight to
actions to curb our own CO2 emissions, but to encourage the other
industrial nations to live up to their Kyoto requirements. There is no
provision in Kyoto for its enforcement. Like many international treaties,
adherence to it by its signers depends on the honor system which
history shows is ignored when it conflicts with what a nation sees as its
own best interests. And there is no clear method of measuring the
emission credits allowed by Kyoto—this can easily lead to endless
disputes. Also it I well recognized that the amount of reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions required by the Kyoto Protocol is only a
small step in the reduction of emission that would be required to reduce
the amount of climate change to a level with only few disastrous effects.