What’s happening with Global
Warming? Why are we holding
society hostage to Luck?
Robert H. Wade
LSE
Jan 8 2015
Is GW biggest challenge our global
society faces?
• Near-consensus among climate scientists:
• GW real
• poses acute dangers to human civilization
& larger ecosystem
• caused in large part by human activities
(esp fossil fuels)
“GW paradox”
• Public & politicians not prepared
undertake costly actions now (“sacrifice
economic growth”), b/c GW not clearly
visible or acute now.
• But by time GW is visible & acute, too late
to stop catastrophic consequences –
unless a stroke of Luck.
(A. Giddens, The Politics of CC, 2009)
Pessimism reigns
• Daniel Kahneman: “I am deeply
pessimistic [on action to reduce GW]. I see
no path to success”
•
(quoted in G. Marshall, “Think about it – how our brains are wired to ignore climate change”, Guardian 24 Sep
2014, p.39)
But maybe GW sceptics right?
• Agricultural economist, ex-Ford Foundation,
Delhi, ex head of International Water Mgt
Institute, PhD in Economics from LSE:
• “There has been zero trend in temperature over
past 14 yrs with 24% increase in atmospheric
CO2. I regard the hiatus as a refutation of the
260 some climate models, since none of
them even hinted at such an event.
• “Global warming is, as someone said, ‘A
beautiful young theory raped by a gang of brutal
facts” (email to Wade, 13 Nov 2014)
I am not climate scientist …
• … but when I read what my friend
asserted with complete certainty I thought
I should look at the evidence for & against
GW
List of GW sceptics
• Wikipedia list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_sci
entific_assessment_of_global_warming
Sceptical politicians
• Prime Minister Abbott, Australia: “Climate
change is a load of crap”, 2013
• Senator James Inhofe, Oklahoma: “The
evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of
those who don’t see global warming
posing grave harm to the planet and who
don’t think human beings have significant
influence on the climate system”, 2003
Sceptical blogger
• James Delingpole, ”If you still believe in
’climate change’ read this”, Sep 3 2013 at
(www.jamesdelingpole.com)
• “If any business were to submit a
prospectus as patently false and
deliberately dishonest as the ones used to
advance the cause of the global warming
industry, its directors wld all be in prison
by now”.
Sceptical climate scientist
• Richard Lindzen, MIT, via Watts Up With
That?
• “None of the projected disastrous effects
of climate change exists in the present but
only in an imaginary future… So we ought,
when considering our expensive
prevention/ mitigation policies, factor in the
key point that ‘future generations’ are
going to be richer than we are and
therefore better able to pay for any
problems that ‘climate change’ may cause
them”
I. The evidence on GW
IPCC report, Nov 2014
• Risks of GW so high that generations of
progress against hunger & poverty cld be
stalled / reversed if GHG emissions not
very significantly cut
• Overall situation becoming more acute
as DCs join West in burning fossil
fuels.
• Prospect of mass extinctions, food
shortages, refugee crises, flooding of cities
and islands,, infectious diseases, etc
Malthus, your time is coming!
• Malthus’s prediction based on sensible
premise: Earth’s carrying capacity has a
limit.
• IPCC 2014 provided the starkest warning
yet of dangers of GW to world food supply.
Irreversibility
• Neither GHG emissions nor (many of)
climate impacts are reversible.
• Melted glaciers, ocean corals, species
being made extinct, islands and coastlines
flooded over are gone “forever”.
• So the longer we wait the higher the
irreversible damage.
IPCC warnings rest on following…
Basic science well-established
• (1) Earth has been receiving net heat gain of
0.5-1 watts/ square meter for past several
decades. Earth has accumulated MORE HEAT
in past 15 yrs than in prior 15 yrs.
• (2) Main cause: Increased concentration of CO2
in atmosphere, which has GW effect (“one way
blanket”).
• KEELING CURVE
“That wheezing
sound may be
Earth”
International Herald Tribune
December 22nd 2010
Robert Wade
On the Politics of
Basic science well-established
• (3) CO2 density b/w 200-300 PPM for at
least 800,000 years before 1880.
• (4) CO2 increased from 280 PPM in 1880
to 390-400 PPM today & going up fast.
• (5) Annual emissions of GHG have
risen almost 2x as fast in 2000-2010 as
in last several decades of 20th C.
CO2 & temperature
• Av global surface atmospheric temp is
0.8C higher than in 1880;
• 2/3 of this 0.8C increase since 1975.
• Striking that evidence on damaging effects
of GW to date comes after only 0.8C rise.
• Global temp correlates fairly closely to
CO2 density. CHART
II. Answers to sceptics
(1) “pause” in GW since 1997?
• True that earth’s surface temp increased at
slower rate in past 15 yrs than since 1951.
• But …
• GRAPHS of global surface temperature change
since 1970
•
Source:Dana Nuccitelli, “Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph”, Guardian 9 Sep 2013.
•
J. Abraham, J. Fasullo, G. Laden, “Continued global warming in the midst of natural climate fluctuations”, Reports
of the National Center for Scientific Education, 34, 6, 2014)
•
How “Skeptics“ View Global
Warming
How Realists View Global
Warming
Conclusion: temperature
“pause” is not real
• (1) Relationship b/w CO2 concentration &
temperature is stochastic
• (2) Surface atmospheric temps have
increased since 1997, but at slower pace
than in prior 15 yrs.
• (3) Cause of slow-down: increased
transfer of surface heat to oceans, a
cyclical process which will come to end -& accelerate GW.
More on oceans
• 90% of net heat gain absorbed in oceans.
• New data indicates Southern Hemisphere
ocean temperatures have been increasing
at faster rate over past 35 yrs than
previously measured
• Sea-level increasing at 3.2 mm/year since
1993
•
G. Vaidyanathan & ClimateWire, “Mystery of ocean heat deepends as climate changes”, Scientific American Oct
7, 2014
(2) Arctic ice rebound?
• (2) Arctic ice was 60% more extensive by
Aug 2013 compared to Aug 2012.
Therefore, sceptics say: “recovery”, no
continuing shrinkage
• GRAPHS of trend in ice extension from
1980
How “Skeptics“ View Arctic Sea
Ice Decline
How Realists View Arctic Sea
Ice Decline
Conclusion: Arctic ice “recovery”
not real
• Conclusions: (1) Sep 2012 was record for
minimum ice, so regression to mean is
normal.
• (2) Long-term clear: Arctic has lost 75% of
summer sea ice volume over past 3
decades, due mainly to human-induced
GW (with short term effects from weather
patterns and ocean cycles).
III. What has to be achieved?
What has to be achieved?
• UN target (2010): limit temperature rise (above
1880) to 2C
• Current rise on 1880 = 0.8C
• Emissions to date = 1 trillion tons of CO2.
• Meeting UN target requires that emissions
from additional fossil fuel burning be
restricted to 1 trillion tons of CO2
• At current rate, 1 tr tons exhausted in 30 yrs
from now
• We must cut emissions by 50-70% by 2050
IV. Progress so far?
Movement on ground in wrong
direction
• “Absolute decoupling” is not occurring
• Energy companies have already booked
reserves of oil & coal = several times the
1 TR tons of GHG headroom
• Nothing done so far to curb $1,000bn/year
on bringing oil reserves into production.
• In 25 yrs of negotiations no measures
to limit fossil fuel production have even
been discussed.
Coal
• Coal remains main fuel for electricity;
global consumption growing at 2% / year
• Govts subsidize consumption of fossil
fuels at $600 bn/year
Global treaties on CC
• Exercises in empty promises.
• International agreements call for targets,
plans; but hailed as successful simply if
don’t stop.
• Key issue: No sign that govts willing to
discuss allocating 1 tr ton emissions
budget among countries.
UN COP 20 Lima Dec 2014
• 194 c’ies represented.
• Achieved bit more than Copenhagen 2009
• (1) C’ies agreed to submit national plans
for cutting CO2 by March 2015
• (2) C’ies beyond EU agreed to meet their
share of burden; esp China, whose
emissions/head > EU’s.
• But very vague on: how burden to be
shared; funding from rich to poor. “Freerider’s charter”
US-China climate accord
• Nov 2014 Pres Xi & Pres Obama, deal: China
will slow, then start to reverse carbon emissions
by 2030, & increase renewables to 20% of
energy consumption by 2030.
• US will set new goal of reducing net carbon
emissions by 26-28% below 2005 level by 2025
(up from target of 17% by 2020 announced June
2014).
• Unambitious: likely to bring emissions to level
consistent with 3C rise in global temperature
(making plausible assumptions abt other c’ies).
US
• Obama: “US must decarbonize its energy
system”.
• Energy Dept – no strategy document outlining
HOW this might be done.
• New Republican chair of Senate environment
cttee says climate science “a giant hoax”
• US govt continues to subsidize fossil fuels =>
incentive for CO2 emissions
• 2014 defence appropriate bill – fracking legal on
all US public land
India
• India = 3rd largest emitter of CO2
• India firms have long complained that env regs
“choke econ growth”
• Modi govt moving fast to remove env regs on
industry, mining, power, armed forces
• High-level cttee assigned to rewrite env laws
says India must rely on firms voluntarily to
disclose the pollution their projects will
generate & monitor their own compliance
India’s coal rush
• Power minister: “India’s devt imperatives
cannot be sacrificed at the altar of potential
climate changes many years in future. The West
will have to recognize we have the needs of the
poor”. He promised India will double use of
domestic coal by 2019 (Gardiner Harris, “As others try to clean air, India raises
bet on coal”, INYT 18 Nov 2014)
• Env minister: The new govt is not phasing out
all env regs, just “those which, in the name of
caring for nature, were stopping progress”
•
(Ellen Barry & N Thiranbagri, “Favoring growth, India pares back rules to safeguard the environment”, INYT 6-7 Dec 2014)
India & global GW negotiations
• “India is the biggest challenge in global
climate negotiations, not China” (Durwood
Zaelke, president of the Institute for
Governance and Sustainable Devt)
• But,
• Modi has promised to build vast array of
solar power stations…
Good news: GW action getting
rapidly cheaper
• Dramatic recent progress in renewable
energy sources. Eg costs of solar power
per unit of output plunged by half since
2010.
• Progress in electricity storage
• New fuel cell which produces electricity
AND captures CO2
• More knowledge of co-benefits of cutting
emissions, beyond climate risks: eg health
V. Why no serious policy
response in ACs?
• “Greater than the tread of mighty armies is
an idea whose time has come” (Victor
Hugo)
• GW is not an idea whose time has come,
despite scientific near-consensus that it is
a threat to human civilization.
• This = “GW paradox”
Research framing
• For any research question, ask: “What is
this [fact, or relationship] an instance, or
example, of?”
• “Why no serious policy response to GW?”
is an instance of, “When & why do ideas or
issues or problems become ‘hot’, in sense
of being put onto ‘political agenda’ and
then ‘decision agenda’ of govt?”
• Neglected Q in development studies!
(1) Public opinion on GW is …
• Not convinced that GW is real, acute,
actionable
• Polling evidence:
• (1) No sigt change in public acceptance of
scientific conclusions since 1980s. Public
opinion in West less concerned than a
decade ago.
• (2) High % have no understanding of
causes (eg agree that “ozone hole main
cause of CC”)
(Nisbet, M, & Myers, T., Public Opin Quart. 71, 444-470, 2007)
Polling evidence
• Eg 2009: two thirds of Americans “disagree” or
“don’t know” in response to: “GW is a fact & is
mostly caused by emissions from vehicles &
industrial facilities” (Angus Reid poll) (Oreskes & Conway,
“Defeating the merchants of doubt”, Nature, 465, 686-87, 10 June 2010).
• Eg 2008: 60% of UK “strongly agreed” or
“agreed” that “many scientific experts still
question if humans are contributing to climate
change”; 77% agreed that “most people are not
prepared to make big sacrifices” to help stop
climate change (Giddens, Politics, p.103)
(2) Sceptics have excellent
media access
• They have manufactured a “debate”,
convincing media that journalists obliged
to present “both sides” of it
• Yet media not feel obliged to present
“balance” on question of whether Earth
revolves around Sun, or vice versa
• “Balance” gives sceptics influence
disproportionate to small numbers
(3) Campaigns to raise “doubt”
• Public unmoved, confused & rejectionist
b/c people & orgns have waged organized
“campaigns of doubt” against climate
science.
• N. Oreskes & E. Conway, Merchants of
Doubt, Bloomsbury: NY, 2010
Doubt campaigns
• GW is only latest of long line of “doubt
campaigns”.
• (1) 1950s -- 1980s: cigarettes  cancer
• (2) 1970s -- 1980s: man-made pollution 
acid rain & ozone hole
• (3) 2000s: pesticide DDT  harm to
humans, bald eagle, etc. Campaign
argued govt shd not have banned DDT
Premise of doubt campaigns:
• Campaigns focus on getting public &
politicians to reject scientific evidence
that threatens ideology or profits.
• Mantra: “the science is too uncertain to
justify action”.
• Mantra works, b/c if people think the
science is contentious, they are unlikely to
support public policies that rely on that
science
“Doubt is our product”
• Playbook written by R.J. Reynolds: “Doubt
is our product, since it is the best means of
competing with the ‘body of fact’ that
exists in the minds of the general public”
(senior tobacco industry executive, memo,
1969, quoted Oreskes & Conway,
Merchants, p.34)
Organization of doubt
campaigns
• In US, network of conservative & Libertarian
think-tanks:
• EG Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise Institute, Competitive
Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, Marshall
Institute
• They are anti-government, anti-regulation, pro
“free market”.
• Anti “liberal environmentalists” = “internal
enemy” = “watermelons: green outside, red
inside”.
• Regard GW as scam to justify more
“government intervention”
“Climategate”
• Online release of emails from climate
scientists at University of E Anglia in UK
turned into media event, “Climategate”.
• Investigations showed charges almost
completely baseless. Polls showed that
event precipitated doubts about reality of
GW in large swathes of US & UK
populations
Conclusion so far
• GW is not “hot” (its “time has not come”)
b/c a very small number of sceptical
scientists + a whole “industry” of doubtcampaigners have combined to keep the
public & politicians mostly unmoved by
GW
• That is not end of story. Also, GW is by its
nature a “wicked”, not “tame” problem that
most of us try to avoid contemplating
(3) GW = “wicked” problem
• GW is classic “wicked” rather than “tame”
problem: we know general direction of
solution, but:
• (1) efforts to solve create other huge
problems;
• (2) solution requires billions of people to
change mindsets & behaviors;
• (3) the “stakeholders” have very different
worldviews
GW = “wicked” problem (ctd)
• (4) Evidence that might be construed as
“the problem of GW” (eg more frequent
floods, droughts, etc.) can plausibly be
attributed to “weather”; so GW not seen as
“problem”
• (5) Solution requires many countries to act
to cut emissions – therefore vulnerable to
“free riding”
• (6) Problem persists over centuries; appropriate
mitigation today depends on how we value future costs & benefits compared to today.
GW = “wicked” problem (ctd)
• (7) Deeper level: Human brain wired to
mobilize/ cooperate in response to external
enemy.
• If North Korea discovered to be lacing
atmosphere with chemicals to destroy US
agriculture, rapid mobilization: policy window
wide open
• GW not caused by external enemy, but by
“us” living normal, “innocent” lives; & “us”
in DCs trying to secure fast econ growth,
reduce poverty. So easy response: reject
GW, or “someone else’s problem”
Why no serious policy
response: conclusions
• GW is not “hot” problem for political action –
“idea whose time has come” – because
• (a) visible disasters (floods, droughts etc) can
always be presented as “weather”, not “climate”;
(b) small band of sceptics good access to media;
(c ) campaigns of doubt;
• (d ) “wicked” problem: especially, international;
intergenerational
• Therefore public unmoved by GW (except as
background worry)
Therefore politicians mostly
uninterested in GW
• Climate expert asked, “When you go to
Washington and tell them that the CO2 will
double in 50 years and will have major
impacts on the planet, what do they say?”
“They … ask me to come back in 49
years” (O & C, p173)
• So GW policy entrepreneurs see no policy
window of opportunity
VI. What to do
Paris 2015 as last chance
• Paris 2015 will be 21rst Conference of the
Parties (COP21).
• If IPCC report 2014 accurate, Paris 2015
may be last chance to stop CC from
spinning out of control
Insure against extreme outcomes
• Sceptics say: “we don’t know enough,
action now too expensive, leave it to later
generations who will be wealthier, more
knowlegable than us”
• Would you overtake on corners with
justification that you cld not be certain a
car was coming at you?
• We must insure against extremes
We are obliged to future
generations
• We benefit from efforts of our ancestors to
leave a better world than the one they
inherited
• We have the same obligation to our
descendants
•
(M. Wolf, “An unethical bet in the climate casino”, Financial Times 12 Nov 2014)
We know broad direction of
policy
• Solution:
• (1) well-known “polluter pays” principle: eg
carbon tax, auctioned permits.
• (2) speed up innovation => “industrial
policy”.
Role of government
• Govt must keep GW near top of political
agenda.
• Concordat b/w main political parties that
GW & energy policy will be sustained.
• Govt must lead in steering behavior of
businesses & citizens. As catalyst,
facilitator, & enforcer.
Role of govt (ctd)
• Govt must undertake long-term planning,
& encourage same in businesses, NGOs,
citizens.
• “Forecast” future seen from present; also
“backcast” based on vision of desirable
future & then translated into plans from the
present.
• Need short-term as well as long-term
targets
• Independent monitoring agency.
• Obligatory 2 yearly review by Parliament
“Industrial policy”
• More active in microeconomics, not just
macroeconomics
• Use tools of “industrial policy” (eg to
promote low-carbon technologies).
Emphasize positives
• Present strategy -- win public acceptance by
provoking fear & anxiety, urging people/
businesses to deprive themselves. Unlikely to
work.
• Strategy shd emphasise positives &
opportunities. Opportunities for energy
efficiency: eg home insulation, under banner of
“style”, “comfort”, “saving money”
• Opp’ies for energy security: eg local power
production (solar, wind, etc).
• Opp’ies for better health
Enlist corporate support
• Corporate sector split on GW
• Eg Obama plan to curb emissions from
power plants
• Consumer businesses support: eg
Kelloggs, Mars, Starbucks, Levi-Strauss,
Nike
• Industrial businesses oppose: eg
American Petroleum Inst, Am Chemistry
Council, National Assoc of Manufacturers
International cooperation
• ACs must take the lead & make bigger
proportional cuts in emissions (than DCs)
• Most of required emission cuts could be
made by small number of countries:
• 2 countries (China + US) = > half of global
emissions;
• 15 c’ies + EU = 80% global emissions
(R. Stavins,
“Climate realities”, NYT Sep 20 2014)
END
Which ideas have their time come,
& why
• General: At any one time, govt cld pay attention
to many subjects-problems; must limit attention
to some rather than others.
• Those taken seriously by people in & around
govt constitute “govt agenda”; the subset being
considered for legislation constitute “decision
agenda”.
• What determines which subjects-problems make
it to either agenda? Ie … wh are “hot”, wh enjoy
the status of “their time has come”?
How to tell when an idea’s time
has come?
• (1) Sustained & marked changes in public
opinion.
• (2) Repeated mobilization of people with
strongly held preferences.
• (3) Bandwagons onto which politicians
from across political spectrum climb.
John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives and Public
Policies, 2nd ed., New York: Longman, 2011
• JK identifies 3 streams which together constitute
the policy system (eg for education, health,
transport, macroeconomic, environment):
“problem” stream, “policy (or solutions)”
stream; “politics” stream.
• Within any one policy domain, & across policy
domains, there are periods when “policy
windows of opportunity” open; analogous to
“launch windows” for space rockets.
Windows of opportunity
• Window may be opened by events in “problem”
stream: eg sudden worsening of some indicator
(eg unemployment), or disaster (eg airplane
crash). May be opened by events in political
stream (eg budget, new govt, shift in “public
mood”)
• Then “policy entrepreneurs” or “policy
advocates” in the policy stream can ride their
favorite “solutions” to the now salient problem
into the political stream & help to get it onto
government agenda. “Strike while iron hot”
• Key: visible/acute problem + plausible policy
solution  government agenda
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Kingdon: when do major new
issues come onto “political
agenda”?
Political agenda at any one time results from interaction of 3 “streams”: problems, policies,
politics.
They often flow separately, with own rules, personnel, dynamics; sometimes converge.
Problem stream comes to attention of policy-makers thru shifts in key indicators (eg crime,
unemployment), focusing events (which catch headlines) or (negative) feedback
Policy stream goes on continuously, pursued by policy communities made up of specialists in
different subjects (like education, health, macroeconomics, CC) and partly independent of politics
& public mood. Policy stream generates “solutions” looking for “problems” when “problems” come
to attention of policy-makers. Some specialists become “policy entrepreneurs”, or prominent
advocates for certain solutions.
Problems which do not attract “solutions” (widely agreed in policy community) unlikely to stay on
political agenda; will quickly fall down people’s ranking of what disturbs them the most.
NGOs, business groups, other interest groups shape what problems are perceived and what
policy solutions deemed appropriate.
When problems converge with policy solutions, window of opportunity opens when policy
entrepreneurs, or advocates for change, can make transformative departure, enlisting shifts in
public mood in favor of action by politicians. But may not remain open for long. Especialy if it calls
for action against the “public mood”. If public mood “anti-government”, public & politicians will
discount state role.
Kingdon & GW policy: problem
stream
• GW is an issue facing strong handicaps as a top
policy priority
• Problem stream: “Wicked problem”. (1)
Scientists identify the problem as resulting from
the way people live & produce. Members of
public only recognize toxic effects of their
everyday consumption once they accept reality
of GW; easier to reject GW. (2) Any “focusing
event” (hurricane, drought) can be blamed on
contingent factors (“weather”). The generic
phenomenon of GW is abstract, not visible, not
acute
Kingdon & GW: policy stream
• Policy stream: (1) Basic principle of “polluter
pays” is simple & familiar; but very difficult to
apply wrt de-carbonizing economy. (2)
Rationale for action by one nation easily
undercut by “free rider” incentive.
• Yet if broad agreement on policy “solutions” not
in place within policy stream before events open
a policy window, change advocates will not be
able to take advantage of open window.
• Political stream: Politicians have strong
incentives to think short-term, length of
electoral cycles, not longer.
Fossil fuels, econ growth, &
temperature
• 300 years of econ growth in ACs fueled by
fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas)
• Econ growth in DCs over past 60+ yrs
fueled by same.
• DCs determined to grow with fossil fuels,
saying “we did not cause CC, you caused
it, you solve”
The economic growth – survival
dilemma
• Annual emissions of GHG have risen almost 2x as fast in
2000-2010 as in last several decades of 20th C.
• World on track to more than double current GHG
concentration in atmosphere by end of century, relative
to 1880. Doubling might push up av global temps by 3 –
8C relative to late 19th C.
• Devastating effects: glaciers, droughts, crop productivity,
sea levels/flooding, vanished coastal land, storm
frequency & intensity, species extinction, infectious
diseases.
• So, fuel of econ growth might destroy growth -- & human
civilization, & many non-human species
2C rise in global surface
temperature as ceiling-target
• Av global surface temp is 0.8C higher than in 1880; 2/3
of this since 1975.
• Striking that evidence on damaging effects of GW to
date come after only 0.8C rise.
• Medium (not extreme) forecasts suggest rise of global
surface temperature of 2C relative to 1880, by 2040-50.
• Widely agreed international target [CHECK]: limit temp
rise to 2C.
• Present rise is almost 1C. So only 1C “headroom” left.
• But 2C is NOT “temperature cliff”: it is compromise on a
spectrum, b/w what is inevitable (1C rise) & what wld
probably have extremely disruptive consequences for
world (3C or more)
Effects of GW on DCs
• To extent that GW happens, costs born
disproportionately by popns of DCs – who
did least to cause the problem
• Likely (but not certain) that costs will
overwhelm development (& recurrent)
budgets of many DCs
The “pause”
• Why difference b/w surface temp trend & heat
absorption trend in past 15 yrs?
• Ocean heat absorption. Rising atmospheric
heat absorption (generated largely by human
activity releasing GHG) absorbed more in deep
oceans than at surface. In previous several
decades oceans absorbed less heat, causing
faster surface warming.
• Why the difference? Ocean cycles. Cycles come
to end; current cycle of deep ocean absorption
will end, surface warming will accelerate.
Other ampliers of GW
• Positive feedback loops: eg ocean
warming; permafrost melting
• Current human dietary trends: Human diet
switches towards meat as incomes rise.
Livestck emissions of GHG (methane)
likely to almost double by 2050. Emissions
cld be much reduced by switch in diet to
Mediterranean, fish, vegan
GW effects of animal ag
• New documentary film, Cowspiracy, producers
Kip Anderson & Keegan Kuhn
• Shows how livestock  GW, via methane.
• But this hardly known. Why? (1) Political power
of livestock industry.
• (2) Environmental NGOs (eg Sierra Club) mostly
silent on role of livestock. Don’t think they can
base a “win” campaign on it. Their funding
organizations have threatened to withdraw.
• Solution simple: plant-based diets
Economists and GW
• Almost all prominent economic commentators
take economic growth and consumption
increases as the touchstones of progress; and
think of “environmental sustainability”, if at all, in
a separate box.
• Eg comments on big falls in oil prices, 2nd half of
2014. Most stress benefits, make no or marginal
mention of environmental effects of higher oil
consumption. Eg Martin Wolf, ___.
DCs: China
• China = 29% carbon emissions, highest. (US = 25%)
• China expected to add equivalent of new 500 MW coalpowered electric plant every 10 days for next decade
(US govt projections)
• China a world leader in renewable energy innovation.
Planning major expansion of emission-free power by
2030. But, large components of that are nuclear, &
hydro. And 80% of China’s energy will still be from
fossils.
• Strong current of opinion: “West trying to slow C’s
industrial growth”
• But also, C govt worried (& public worried) abt local air
pollution; most actions to improve also reduce carbon
emissions.
DCs: India
• 3rd largest global carbon emitter. Accounts for __% global.
• 300 mn Indians no access to electricity, many mns more get it
fitfully. Average energy consumption = 7% of US’s.
• India – 5th largest reserves of coal in world, little oil & gas. GOI
committed to “coal rush” (its coal 2 times as polluting as West’s). P.
Goyal, power minister: “India’s development imperatives cannot be
sacrificed at the altar of potential climate changes many yrs in the
future. The West will have to recognize we have the needs of the
poor” (quoted in G. Harris, “As others try to clean air, India raises bet on coal”, NYT, 18 Nov 2014
• Yet India’s cities already world’s most polluted. Delhi air 3 times
more toxic by one crucial measure than Beijing’s.
• Its coal plans represent biggest obstacle to global agreement in
Paris
ACs:USA
• US: Obama blocked by Congress. Has resorted
to tighter regulations on emissions from cars &
coal power stations – w’out much public support.
• Power shifting from paralysed federal level to
state level, which may be more open to pressure
from NGOs (eg to push solar).
• But, Keystone XL Pipeline [CHECK]: if it goes
ahead, Obama = not-climate president
ACs: EU
• Has pledged to cut emissions by 40% by
___.
International action
• Current disputes b/w DCs & ACs rooted in
international agreements signed in 1990s
(esp Kyoto), when ACs alone agreed to
reduce emissions. Since, ACs have kept
emissions fairly flat, while DCs have fast
increased theirs.
• Most DCs still insist that reductions shd be
made by ACs only.
Possible reasons for no serious
policy response?
• Not because we don’t know main lines of
solution. We do: (1) switch to renewable/
non-fossil fuels (& leave most of world’s
fossil fuel reserve in ground)
• (2) capture & bury fossil fuel emissions
• (3) switch consumption / economic growth
towards non-material services, esp in ACs
Positives
• Tax measures crucial; but either tax revenue
must be tied to environmental purposes, or taxes
must be applied where there are clear options
for behavior change – eg a progressive tax on
cars according to gasoline consumption will lead
people towards smaller cars or driving less.
• Subsidies for low-carbon innovations (eg
hydrogen-powered cars)