Western Regional Climate Change Initiative
February 27, 2007
The aim of the program may be to help businesses reach emission-reduction goals, but do the businesses want it? It seems to me that regional carbon initiatives aren’t meant to help businesses at all; in fact, they are aimed at forcing the hands of businesses in reducing emissions. In my opinion, states that enter into such regional agreements place their businesses at a comparative disadvantage to competitors in non-member states and abroad, effectively creating an incentive for businesses to relocate. What these states should do is press the federal government to take action at the international and national levels.
Global Warming and the Global South
February 26, 2007
Should Global Warming be addressed by an International Regime?
If So, what (if any) is the appropriate role for the countries of the ‘Global South’ in an international climate change regime?
Differently situated individuals answer these questions differently. This is how I assume the issue looks from each perspective.
North-Realist
Generally, a realist would oppose an international regime, but I think there may be more moderate realist position that would support international action. Reliance on voluntary unilateral emission reductions will lead to a collective-action problem. An international regime reduces the realist’s concerns about comparative advantage. No matter how the realist answers the first question, I think the realist answer to the second is no. The realist sees the participation of the global south as unnecessary (their emissions are dwarfed by the North’s), and as a weakening factor in an international regime. From the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC-1992), Article 4 paragraph 7:
“The extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties.”
This language clearly describes the South’s motivation. The realist would likely oppose Southern participation citing that an international climate change regime should be targeted only at the global warming problem, not at eradicating poverty or promoting development.
North-Liberal
A liberal will generally perceive the potential for effective cooperation and support an international regime. I think a liberal would stress the importance of Southern participation, arguing that failure to include developing countries would create ‘pollution havens’ where industries could move to avoid regulation.
South-Realist
My assumption is that a realist viewing these questions from the Southern perspective would support an international regime, but would not want developing countries to be involved. I assume this because global warming is a threat to all nations, especially small island and less-developed states; but global warming has been almost entirely caused by the Global North. Responsibility for solving the problem should rest with those who created it.
South-Liberal
The liberal position from the Southern perspective would probably be supportive of an international regime, and would advocate developing country participation. The argument might be something like: the Global South does not want to follow the North’s “path of polluted development”, so developing countries should receive development-funding and technology-transfer to allow them to develop in a sustainable way.
We’ve Got Our Woodstock
February 19, 2007
As Professor Klunk has pointed out, our generation has our Vietnam. Now, thanks in part to Al Gore, we’ll have our Woodstock too.
Live Earth, a concert series whose goal is “to mobilize action to stop global warming”, is slated to begin July 7th, 2007 (7-7-07) and include events on every continent. Report from Reuters.
My initial reaction was something skeptical like: “There’s no way to battle a global crisis like organizing a hippie jamfest.” I assume that it will accomplish little more than providing an opportunity for young people to groove out to some tunes while using recreational drugs. The accuracy of this assumption will be seen.
I found a reason for optimism in the list of confirmed musical acts in the events’ Wikipedia (a bastion of truthiness) article. The list includes U2, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Bon Jovi, Lenny Kravitz, and Snoop Dogg. While I still think the most effective action would be something like Rio (UNCED- 1992), I think a highly publicized event such as this can do a great deal to attract the attention of the 18-35 crowd, a group which will be central to any successful effort to control global warming.
How to Cut the Carbon: Trading or Taxes?
February 14, 2007
Below is an excerpt from an article by Anne Applebaum entitled “Global Warming Is a Real Problem…The Kyoto accords aren’t the solution.” It was brought to my attention by Prof. Sylvester as part of a discussion comparing sin taxes to carbon taxes.
“For those whose memory needs jogging, let me remind you that the much-vaunted treaty—whose full name is the “Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change“—creates a complicated and completely unenforceable system of international targets for carbon-emissions reduction based on measurements taken in 1990. Critics of the U.S. president have condemned him for failing to sign it, conveniently forgetting that the Senate had voted 95-to-0 to reject it way back in 1997, a margin that surely reflects broad bipartisan opposition. At the same time, few of the Asian and European signatories are actually on track to meet their goals; those that will meet the targets, such as Britain, can do so because their economies rely less on industry than they once did. Canada and Japan aren’t even close to compliance; China and India, whose emissions rates are growing most rapidly, are exempt altogether as “developing” countries—which, given their current economic strength, is absurd.
None of which is to say that reduction of carbon emissions is impossible. But the limitation of fossil fuels cannot be carried out with an unenforceable international regime, using complicated regulations that the United Nations does not have the staff or the mandate to supervise, with the help of a treaty that effectively penalizes those that bother to abide by it. Though I once thought otherwise, I no longer believe that a complicated carbon-trading regime—in which industries traded emissions “credits”—would work, even within the United States. So much is at stake for so many industries that the legislative process to create such a regime would be easily distorted by their various lobbies.
Any real, lasting solutions will have to be extremely simple, and—because of the high cost implicit in reducing the use and emissions of fossil fuels—will also have to benefit those countries that impose them in other ways. Fortunately, there is such a solution, one that is grippingly unoriginal, requires no special knowledge of economics, and is extremely easy for any country to apply. It’s called a carbon tax, and it should be applied across the board to every industry that uses fossil fuels, every home or building with a heating system, every motorist, and every public transportation system. Immediately, it would produce a wealth of innovations designed to save fuel, as well as new incentives to conserve. More to the point, it would produce a big chunk of money that could be used for other things. Anyone for balancing the budget? Fixing Social Security for future generations? Cutting income tax dramatically? As a little foreign-policy side benefit, users of the tax would suddenly find themselves less dependent on Gulf oil or Russian gas.
Most of all, though, the successful use of carbon taxes does not require “American leadership,” or a U.N. committee, or indeed any complicated international effort of any kind. It can be done country by country: If the British environment minister or the German chancellor wants to go ahead with it tomorrow or the next day, nothing is stopping them. If a future U.S. president wants to call on the nation to rally around a truly patriotic and noble cause, then he or she has the perfect opportunity. If the Chinese see that such a tax has produced unexpected benefits in America and Europe, they’ll follow. And when that happens, we’ll know that the apocalyptic climate-change rhetoric has finally been taken seriously.”
Ms. Applebaum takes a typical realist position on the Kyoto Protocol’s potential for success. She discounts the ability of an international institution to affect state behavior. She cites the Senate’s 95 to 0 rejection of the Protocol in 1997 as evidence of “broad bipartisan opposition”. The world has changed significantly since 1997, as has the level of public concern within the US. Hybrid cars are rapidly increasing in market share. Americans are aware of the problem, and seem to be as eager to solve it as their European counterparts.
She mentions that few parties to Kyoto are on track to meet their goals; and that those which will (she cites Britain) can do so because their economies rely less on industry than they once did. I think that domestic politics can help to explain the change in those countries which are on track to meet their commitments. The futility of the Protocol serves to explain the lack of widespread implementation.
She describes the UNFCCC as an unenforceable international regime, incapable of limiting fossil fuels. She fails to recognize the reasons for its lack of enforcement power and Kyoto’s futility. The history of international environmental politics suggests that the UNFCCC will become more effective in time. The most effective international regimes have started as “toothless” entities. As scientific consensus develops, the regime undergoes a process of strengthening; as is evidenced in the international ozone regime. The most imparing element of Kyoto is the lack of US membership. A protocol can not be effective if the biggest culprit is not a party.
I don’t disagree with Ms. Applebaum’s carbon tax, but to rely on unilateral action would, in the words of Garrett Hardin, lead to a tragedy of the commons. Multilateral action is necessary to overcome the collective action problem. In my opinion, the carbon tax would be a more effective instrument for the UNFCCC than carbon trading. A carbon tax does not license pollution, and it would create incentives for businesses and individuals to “go greeen”.
In order for an international regime to be successful in combating global warming, it must have the participation of all key states, effectively monitor and enforce adherence to commitments (to reduce fears of free-riding and double-crossing), and increase levels of domestic concern. Public reaction to the recent report of the IPCC serves as evidence of the regime’s ability to increase domestic concern about global warming. This may have the effect of creating incentives for politicians to pursue greener policies. These “green politicians” largely possess liberal ideologies, which generally entails optimism regarding the potential effectiveness of international regimes.
Iraq Opportunity Costs
February 4, 2007
These are two stories from Newsvine from this week:
Now I’m not a political scientist, nor am I an economist; but I do understand the idea of opportunity cost. American lives are being lost, and vast amounts of American money are being spent. What, exactly, are the American people receiving in return? OK, OK, I won’t discount the importance of an American presence in the Middle East. As the #1 importer of Middle Eastern oil, we certainly have interests to protect. But wouldn’t that money be better-spent developing strategies to get the US off foreign oil? If it was a high-priority issue for the administration, it could be done; the technologies exist.
The point I’m trying to make is that for every dollar we sink into Iraq, we could be investing in our energy future as opposed to our energy present. Not to mention the lives that would be saved by such an alternative.
Climate Change
February 2, 2007
This morning (Friday, Feb 2 – Paris) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its Fourth Assessment Report (Summary for Policymakers). The report is a bearer of bad news. Temperature increase, sea-level rise, melting glaciers and icecaps…you name it. In its Third Assessment Report (2001), the IPCC used the word “likely” (IPCC lingo for 66-90% certainty) to describe the connection established between human activities and climate change. In this year’s report, the IPCC estimates a 90% certainty, using the phrase “very high confidence” “very likely” (>90% certainty).
In related news, Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing much-needed attention to global climate change.
My question is: With the “virtual consensus” that has developed among climate scientists in recent years, how can members of the general public remain skeptical? Is it just that people choose to ignore?
I don’t mean to take anything away from Al Gore; I think his efforts will one day be seen as integral components in the fight against global warming. It just seems to me that far too much effort is being spent on convincing people that the problem is real. In my opinion, there is virtually no room for well-informed skepticism…but skeptics will remain.
I tend to think that some (right/left) political tension is healthy, but on this issue, I think the tension should be over how to solve the problem rather than over whether a problem exists.
