Optimism and Climate Change Mitigation
I attended a meeting of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby in Santa Barbara this morning, where our small group joined 189 others around the country on a videoconference. This virtual gathering featured two fabulous speakers who both made compelling and uplifting presentations on the group’s plan to put a price on carbon.
Called “carbon fee and dividend,” it proposes a fee on all fossil fuels entering the U.S. market (at the mine, well, or port) at a certain dollar amount per ton of carbon, that is distributed to all U.S. citizens as a dividend. To prevent this plan from harming U.S. businesses in competition with companies based in countries that don’t have such a provision, there will be a tariff on products imported from those nations, and a subsidy provided to U.S. companies selling into them. The whole process can be implemented solely through the IRS; it requires no extra administrative burden.
I was impressed with the incredible level of optimism associated with solving the climate crisis. Some great points were raised which actually do cause one to believe that humankind can address this problem before the “business as usual” approach causes the average atmospheric temperature to rise by a catastrophic 4.5 degrees C by the year 2100. In particular:
• Global carbon emissions appear to have peaked and have begun to fall over the last three years, largely due to energy efficiency solutions coming into play.
• The plan described above has the approval of 48 U.S. representatives, of which 24 are Republican and 24 are Democrat. The fact that the GOP is rejecting the administration’s climate denialism at the same rate as the Dems is encouraging.
• There are already 40 nations in the world that have placed a price on carbon in one form or another, and there are 194 countries that are committed to the Paris Accord.
• Renewable energy is approaching a tipping point in terms of size, scale, and price. Public demand and lower costs are causing a boom that appears unstoppable at this point.
• China, who had put the fear of God in all of us with its rampant expansion of coal consumption, has recently applied the brakes and has begun to cut back.
• Here’s my personal favorite, a point that I have made more times than I can count: social change always looks impossible, until it’s completed. Look at things like women’s suffrage, apartheid, gay marriage, civil rights, and recreational marijuana. Five years before they happened, no one thought them possible. Remember that interracial marriage was illegal until 1962. Once that law was struck down in Virginia, the other 49 states flipped almost immediately.
Gandhi told us: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
We need to keep in mind one further thing: those who benefit from the status quo hate optimism; they love the cynics and the defeatists. In that way, optimism is a political act–one in which you and I are participating “as we speak.”
Craig,
Optimism can be a very good thing, it can be a powerful motivation to achieve the seemingly impossible and should be applauded.
However, like all human emotions, over optimism can result in very disastrous consequences.
The history of the world is littered with examples of tremendous bursts of enthusiastic optimism that result in disaster.
That’s the trouble with optimism, is can tend to blind folk from careful analysis and thinking things through in detail. The old saying “act in haste, repent at leisure” is sadly all to true.
This is especially true when you start out to solve a problem the existence and nature of which is not clearly understood , except by ‘faith’.
Craig, I hate to correct you but by 1962 only about 14 states still had miscegenation statutes (many states never passed such laws).
Nor have you got the year right, US Supreme Court case 388 Loving v. Virginia, was heard in 1967. The ruling was based on a new interpretation of the 14 Amendment inspired by the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Alabama, the last state remaining State with anti-miscegenation laws, was forced by the Nixon administration to abolish it’s now unenforceable Statute in 1970.
Oh, and the PRC hasn’t ‘flipped’ on it’s expansion of coal fired generation. The plant’s are still being built, but they are newer and better deigned. The PRC has increased funding for clean(er) coal research.
Carbon taxes, emission schemes etc, have all proved to be a huge waste of time and money. Creating enormous bureaucratic impediments without any tangible results, the measure are at the best ineffective and confusing, at the worst encourage corruption.
Like ethanol mandates, such measures are best avoided.
Remember Prohibition ? Just because something seems popular and has tremendously enthusiastic supporters afire with good intentions and moral virtue, doesn’t mean it’s been thought through or rationally considered.
Curiously, the 18th Amendment was also sponsored by the Democrats with the Senate voting 65 to 20, and the House voting 282 to 128, GOP opponents were vilified as ‘immoral’ etc.
The State ratified the Amendment by 46 to 48, only Connecticut and Rhode Island opposing.
There are other disturbing parallels. Just like climate extremist activists, the followers of Carry nation were also convinced they were saving the world. They practiced violent civil disobedience, and insisted they alone were right.
But, hey , Prohibition worked out okay, didn’t it?
Craig,
Sorry, I just realized I didn’t justify my observations on the PRC coal usage.
My comment was based on a report from the PRC’s National Development and Reform Commission’s five-year plan for the coal sector.
Although that Plan does call for cutting cut 800 million tonnes of outdated capacity, it also provides for and increase of 1.9 billion tonnes in with never facilities being built.
This is the PRC real commitment reduce pollution.
The NDRC estimates consumption will increase 3.5 percent to 4.1 billion tonnes by 2020 and to 5 billion in 2025.
It’s pollution reductions are not from less coal, just better, more efficient plants and better sequestration technology.
The mistake often made by western media, is to read the entirety of PRC reports, not just the good bits ! A reduction of 800 million tonnes sounds huge, but less so when in proper context.
(I apologize for just making the statement without including supporting material).
The actual consumption has fallen two years running.
Craig,
Although there has been a slow down in the PRC construction industry (one of the largest power users), the output from coal fired generation has not decreased in proportion.