Le Dernier Cri

“Every once in a while I feel despair over the fate of the planet,” writes Paul Krugman (”Cassandras of Climate,” NYT editorial 9/28/09). And maybe rightly so: the scientific consensus on climate change is that it is occurring at faster rates—and with potentially direr consequences—than previously thought, while the political consensus… well, there isn’t one. Understandably, it’s difficult to keep attention on an impending crisis that is seemingly less critical in some years than in others: try convincing someone experiencing one of the coldest winters on record that it’s due to global warming (”global warming” is an imprecise term when you consider that it is accompanied by increasing extremes across the weather spectrum). And when you take into account the price tag associated with emissions reductions and the impact that could have on American industry—not to mention energy prices—support for the cause dwindles even further.

Still, there is a sense of urgency in the predictions of climatologists that calls for an immediate response to prevent real catastrophe. So why is it that Congress cannot agree to act as a unified body to divert a disaster that only becomes more serious with inaction? Because, Krugman theorizes (as did Al Gore), it’s inconvenient. The kind of measures required not only to halt but to reverse global warming trends necessitate some serious changes in attitude and lifestyle. That’s a tough sell even when the economy isn’t in recession.

In thinking about this I was reminded of one of Thomas Friedman’s editorials from the NYT (”Live Bad, Go Green”;  7/8/07) in which he talks about the effectiveness of carbon offsets in confronting climate change. It’s a nice idea: purchase an acre of rainforest in Indonesia or buy a solar water heater for a small village in China and feel better about driving around town in your giant Hummer. Carbon offsets (and similarly, cap-and-trade programs) represent a feel-good volunteer-based approach to the problem, but by themselves are a zero-sum solution that on a larger level may serve only to concentrate pollution in heavily industrialized areas—areas, I might add, that are more likely to be populated by members of the lower class. What offsets DON’T do is force us into changing our daily routine, creating the illusion that we can achieve our desired result in a virutally painless and sacrifice-free manner. And to quote Friedman, “A revolution without sacrifice where everyone is a winner? There’s no such thing.”

The single most effective way to incorporate the requisite changes and sacrifices into a viable energy policy is to focus on demand-based solutions, i.e. those policies that seek to reduce overall demand for energy. These solutions might include implementation of higher efficiency standards for vehicles, buildings, and appliances; carbon and gas taxes; and tax incentives for the purchase of “green” goods and commodities.

A good starting point is policy that seeks to reduce demand on traditional energy sources (i.e. fossil fuels) through development of alternative (and potentially renewable) energy sources. However, the feasibility of a such energy policies depends on the extent to which they can meet energy needs both economically and efficiently, subject to environmental constraints. Where the costs of energy production (funding for research and development, costs of infrastructure and equipment, etc.) are high, where energy input exceeds output, and where environmental impact (air emissions, impact to land and water systems, etc.) is high, production of alternative sources of energy may, at least initially, prove very costly. It takes time to develop and begin mass-producing alternative sources of energy on an economically efficient scale, and during the interim, demand-based policies that seek to reduce demand on all types of energy are especially critical.

The bottom line is this: for an energy policy to be truly effective in combatting global climate change, we ought to consider doing more than replacing barrels of oil with an equal number of barrels of something else, be it ethanol, or biodiesel, solar or wind power. In this day and age of globalization when very little we consume comes without some impact, it is the elimination and not the replacement of barrels that makes a practice truly effective. That might take a little sacrifice.

This entry was posted on Monday, October 5th, 2009 at 4:01 pm and is filed under Current Events. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.