Arguments
Can we fix global warming?
What the science says...
| Select a level... |
Basic
|
Intermediate
|
Advanced
| ||||
| Scientific studies have determined that current technology is sufficient to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid dangerous climate change. | |||||||
Climate Myth...
It's too hard
"The fact is that there is no one in the world who can explain how we could cut our emissions by four fifths without shutting down virtually all our existing economy. What carries this even further into the higher realms of lunacy is that such a Quixotic gesture would do nothing to halt the world’s fast-rising CO2 emissions, already up 40 per cent since 1990. There is no way for us to prevent the world’s CO2 emissions from doubling by 2100" (Christopher Booker)
In order to avoid dangerous global warming, we need to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by about 50% by the year 2050. Skeptics often make the argument that we simply don't have the technology necessary to reduce emissions this much, this quickly.
Pacala and Socolow (2004) investigated this claim by examining the various technologies available to reduce GHG emissions. Every technology they examined "has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale." The study used the concept of a "stabilization wedge", in which "a wedge represents an activity that reduces emissions to the atmosphere by a certain amount. The study identifies 15 current options which could be scaled up to produce at least one wedge:
Improved fuel economy
Reduced reliance on cars
More efficient buildings
Improved power plant efficiency
Substituting natural gas for coal
Storage of carbon captured in power plants
Storage of carbon captured in hydrogen plants
Storage of carbon captured in synthetic fuels plants
Nuclear power
Wind power
Solar photovoltaic power
Renewable hydrogen
Biofuels
Forest management
Agricultural soils management
This is not an exhaustive list, and there are other possible wedges, such as other renewable energy technologies they did not consider. The study notes that "Every one of these options is already implemented at an industrial scale and could be scaled up further over 50 years to provide at least one wedge." Implementing somewhere between 7 and 14 wedges would be necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
The bottom line is that while achieving the necessary GHG emissions reductions and stabilization wedges will be difficult, it is possible. And there are many solutions and combinations of wedges to choose from.
Last updated on 8 November 2010 by dana1981.
I work with green action groups. In my mind, there are pervasive forms of denial common amongst such groups that almost approach the level of dangerous attitude as in those who deny global warming;
1. Acting locally (My friends and I all have sustainable homes, we eat locally, we recycle, and drive hybrids) will be enough. Not even close to being right. What about folks living in high rises in Chicago in the wintertime?
2. The Hubbard's Peak driven scarcity of fossil fuels will force reform. Old fashioned point of view. We now know we have enough readily available fossil fuels to fry the planet.
@Chris,
It depends upon how a carbon tax is done. First, it needs to be universal, so all carbon energy inputs are taxed, including fertilizer, biofuels, ethanol, plastics manufacturing, and imports from overseas containing carbon. Second, the proceeds of the tax need to be refunded. The tax proposed by Professor James Hansen and submitted as legislation in the last session of Congress by Representative Pete Stark of California would refund all of the collected carbon tax to households using the same mechanism that was used to issue stimulus checks during the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The refund would be per-person listed on federal income tax returns in the household.
This would put a price on carbon wherever it came into the United States economy, and then, since, as you say, companies would pass the costs on to people, it would refund these costs to them in proportion to the average use of carbon. If a household reduced its overall consumption of carbon by simply buying the cheaper products in the new carbon-penalized marketplace, not only would their purchases be offset, they could earn money from the deal.
I don't like cap-and-trade. I think it gives companies too much wiggle room to cheat.
The point of the carbon tax is to internalize the actual costs of carbon consumption in prices on the street. So, sure, gasoline would go up in price, concrete would go up in price, food grown with oil-sourced fertilizer would go up in price, and those silly plastic bottles of water would go up in price because the plastic they are packaged in would be taxed. But competing products which did not use these sources would not go up in price. People would buy more economical cars because they would be cheaper to drive. And they would probably buy less overall, build less (wood would go up in price, too), and generally consume less.
The marketplace would figure the relative disincentive into its workings, and would be stimulated to produce carbon-free or minimal carbon products to get people to buy them. The transition would probably be pretty quick, and would be easier because most carbon taxes are introduced over a period of time.
Food prices are going to go up a lot because of climate change. Insurance premiums are going to go up. And companies are eventually going to have to shut down during summers in places because they simply cannot operate.