Post by Kahlessa on Feb 10, 2008 15:46:42 GMT -5
Here’s an op-ed I had published in the Sunday February 10, 2008 edition of the local newspaper:
Constricting the Economy Is Not the Solution to Climate Change
By Marla Warren, Peoria Journal Star, Sunday, February 10, 2008
For many people, the problem of global warming has a simple solution: Reduce CO2 emissions. A Feb. 4 New York Times editorial, "Late and Lame on Warming," called for a "mandatory program of capping carbon emissions."
But here's the problem: Restricting emissions means restricting energy use, which in turn means restricting economic growth. That is a poor strategy for several reasons.
First, nations (especially developing ones) won't go along with it even if they say they will. The industrialized nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol have not reduced their emissions - they've increased them. Two emerging giants, China and India, will not slow their economic growth to fight global warming.
China is building coal plants at an incredible rate. Poor Indians are looking forward to owning their own cars. A 2006 study from the International Energy Agency indicates that CO2 will more than double by 2050, with developing countries accounting for almost 70 percent of the increase. These countries and others want to maximize the economic development of their countries in the same way Western industrialized nations have done.
Even among Americans, while most people express concern for global warming and the environment, they rank the issue well below economy/jobs and health care. Should we be surprised that people in developing nations want the same things? For most people, economic growth means a better and safer lifestyle than they have now. People who don't have access to clean water, housing, employment and medical care rightly place those concerns over global warming.
Who would object to a new coal plant in their neighborhood if it brings jobs they don't have? Who will cut energy that will build and power a hospital that is badly needed?
A second reason why restricting economic growth is a bad idea is because a healthy economy can fund more research into energy alternatives. Future technologies may make it possible to reduce emissions without reducing productivity. Technologies developed by wealthy industrialized nations can be shared with developing ones. China, for instance, has indicated a willingness to utilize cleaner technologies, so long as it doesn't have to scale back its economy.
At present, however, we don't have these technologies, and curbing economic growth would reduce the money needed to research them.
Finally, a healthy economy is better able to adapt to climate change, which will be necessary, no matter what the cause of global warming. While warming is occurring, how much of it is due to human activity still cannot be pinpointed. Even if we could drastically cut emissions today, the planet still will continue to warm for decades.
Thus, adaptation should be the main focus in dealing with global warming. Unlike preventative strategies, which must be widespread, global and drastic to have any effect, adaptation strategies can be implemented on a local level at a much lower cost. The richer the economy, the more money will be available.
Studies have shown that the more prosperous a society is, the more likely its citizens are to care about the environment. So the best strategy for protecting the planet is to enrich its inhabitants. No matter how loudly some scream that the sky is falling, people will, and should, choose economic growth over curbing emissions to try to prevent global warming.
Constricting the Economy Is Not the Solution to Climate Change
By Marla Warren, Peoria Journal Star, Sunday, February 10, 2008
For many people, the problem of global warming has a simple solution: Reduce CO2 emissions. A Feb. 4 New York Times editorial, "Late and Lame on Warming," called for a "mandatory program of capping carbon emissions."
But here's the problem: Restricting emissions means restricting energy use, which in turn means restricting economic growth. That is a poor strategy for several reasons.
First, nations (especially developing ones) won't go along with it even if they say they will. The industrialized nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol have not reduced their emissions - they've increased them. Two emerging giants, China and India, will not slow their economic growth to fight global warming.
China is building coal plants at an incredible rate. Poor Indians are looking forward to owning their own cars. A 2006 study from the International Energy Agency indicates that CO2 will more than double by 2050, with developing countries accounting for almost 70 percent of the increase. These countries and others want to maximize the economic development of their countries in the same way Western industrialized nations have done.
Even among Americans, while most people express concern for global warming and the environment, they rank the issue well below economy/jobs and health care. Should we be surprised that people in developing nations want the same things? For most people, economic growth means a better and safer lifestyle than they have now. People who don't have access to clean water, housing, employment and medical care rightly place those concerns over global warming.
Who would object to a new coal plant in their neighborhood if it brings jobs they don't have? Who will cut energy that will build and power a hospital that is badly needed?
A second reason why restricting economic growth is a bad idea is because a healthy economy can fund more research into energy alternatives. Future technologies may make it possible to reduce emissions without reducing productivity. Technologies developed by wealthy industrialized nations can be shared with developing ones. China, for instance, has indicated a willingness to utilize cleaner technologies, so long as it doesn't have to scale back its economy.
At present, however, we don't have these technologies, and curbing economic growth would reduce the money needed to research them.
Finally, a healthy economy is better able to adapt to climate change, which will be necessary, no matter what the cause of global warming. While warming is occurring, how much of it is due to human activity still cannot be pinpointed. Even if we could drastically cut emissions today, the planet still will continue to warm for decades.
Thus, adaptation should be the main focus in dealing with global warming. Unlike preventative strategies, which must be widespread, global and drastic to have any effect, adaptation strategies can be implemented on a local level at a much lower cost. The richer the economy, the more money will be available.
Studies have shown that the more prosperous a society is, the more likely its citizens are to care about the environment. So the best strategy for protecting the planet is to enrich its inhabitants. No matter how loudly some scream that the sky is falling, people will, and should, choose economic growth over curbing emissions to try to prevent global warming.
