When many environmentalists discuss the costs of significantly reducing CO2 emissions in the near-to-medium future, there is a degree of unreality clouding the discourse. There is plenty of talk of new technologies and improvements in energy efficiency, but insufficient discussion of the projected demands for energy in the future.
The reality is that there are billions of people in less developed countries who have been waiting a long time to enjoy the comforts and luxuries we take for granted in the developed nations, and they are not going to put aside their material aspirations for the sake of global warming, no matter how convincing the evidence.
In fact, they are going to do everything in their power to acquire cars, refrigerators, fresh food, electronic devices, and larger homes, and there is every indication they are going to succeed. Growth rates in China, India, Brazil, and many other poorer countries point towards a huge increase in the ranks of the world's middle class in the coming decades. Any realistic projections of what we need to do to tackle global warming must take into account levels of resource use that include at least another 1 billion to 2 billion voracious consumers.
Any policies that don't recognize this are worse than fantasy; they are elitist. For who are we in the developed nations to even hint at trying to deny the large majority of the world the material progress we have enjoyed? It is simply a non-starter.
The only viable solution (as I see it) is massive CO2 reductions in the developed countries, followed by massive technology transfer to the developing countries (likely as foreign aid); otherwise, our reductions will eventually be surpassed by their increases.
This brings us to the most inconvenient truth of all.
I see very little evidence to suggest that there is the will in the developed countries to even begin to make the necessary sacrifices, investments, and transfers of wealth required to reduce CO2 by quantities being suggested by climate scientists.
There is no better case study to support my skepticism than the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound. This renewable energy project would provide 75% of the electricity of Cape Cod and replace an oil-fired power plant. On face value, it seems like a perfect green project. But in the bluest of blue states there is fierce opposition, because the windmills will interfere with the views of the rich people who live near the bay (many of them in their second homes no less); the project may very well never see the light of day.
Think about this situation for a moment to fully appreciate it: the economy-wide sacrifices of a serious commitment to CO2 abatement will mean higher prices for many of life's basics, like heat for homes, transportation to work, and food, yet in one of the most liberal enclaves in the world people aren't even willing to sacrifice a little of their view from their country homes. (What's even more ironic is that I like the sight of windmills and would be happy to look out on them from my ocean view.)
I could go on and on about how the great champions of combating global warming fly in private jets, own multiple mansions, and to my knowledge have not sacrificed barely anything to reduce their CO2 emissions, but that only belabors the point.
Given the available evidence, I believe global warming merits action within reasonable bounds that takes into consideration the likely opportunity costs. I am willing to make a number of personal sacrifices to reduce CO2 emissions, including not eating animal products, which is one of the most effective ways to combat global warming (and easy because I've been vegan for over 15 years), paying more for green power (I did until the California fiasco destroyed the green electricity markets), paying more for energy-intensive products (as is only right), and paying more in taxes if our government made a serious commitment to the development and dissemination of energy-saving technologies and CO2 sequestration (which hopefully some presidential candidate will have the courage to suggest).
The central question is whether the majority of the citizens of the wealthy nations are prepared to make tangible sacrifices that by all indications will not be trivial (certainly more substantive than a mildly altered ocean view). From all indications, the answer at this juncture is no.
Comments
View as Threaded
Bensch Posted 4:44 am
22 Aug 2006
The questions you've just raised are where the concept of "think globally, act locally" originated. Trying to effect change on even a national scale is usually impossible - but changing a community, even an entire city, is much more likely.
I live in Seattle, and it has a few examples. While it failed, the Seattle Monorail Project was an attempt to improve transit and reduce car use in the city - it was largely grassroots, and enjoyed strong popular support until it was mismanaged into the ground.
A hard part of discussing issues this big on a site that's not geographically linked, like Grist, is that most of these discussions have been taking place in the same form they are now since the late 60s and early 70s.
If Grist wants to be able to effect change, it will have to pick a topic (not necessarily just one) and engage its readers in more than simply commenting on a blog. It's all too easy to read an article like this and wring your hands. Maybe we could talk about methods of bringing people who don't read the site already into these paradigms?
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:07 am
22 Aug 2006
Last I checked, I live in a first world country, and I do all of the above. I would imagine so do many of the people who read this site.
Granted, we are not a majority of people in the "first" world...most likely a teeny, tiny minority. But we all made the choice to do those things listed above, and more, for our various reasons... who's to say that many, many more people may not make similar choices when faced with the realities of global climate change?
Call me Pollyanna, but I think the view expressed by Jason and Bensch is too pessimistic, and I do not believe it is reliably supported by a single instance of bickering over a wind farm in Nantucket.
Kaela
Permalink
sunflower Posted 5:21 am
22 Aug 2006
I have reduced my energy consumption by 75% and saved a lot of money. I would never do something expensive. I live in a solar home but I do not have a pv solar power panel.
The wealthy of Cape Cod can afford expensive convenient energy. The rest of the world can not, and will not.
The U.S. has over-developed old energy and it is very cheap. Cost effective carbon-neutral energy in the U.S. will be even more competitive in areas lacking infrastructure and domestic coal/gas/oil.
Energy is too big to subsidize in a meaningful way. Sacrifice is not required. Not importing energy mined from distant sources preserves local economies.
Energy self-reliance is freedom, comfortable, secure, sustainable, and sexy.
It is wrong to promote the export of expensive junk and call it environmental. Call it propaganda.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 5:39 am
22 Aug 2006
1) The rising price of energy. Whether one believes in peak oil or not, there is widespread consensus that the price of energy will go up, perhaps dramatically so. Alternative sources of energy are costly, inefficient or have unpleasant side effects. At a certain point, the lightbulb will go on above our collective heads and we will see that conservation and efficiency are BY FAR the most cost-effective ways to have a satisfying way of life. Although it's hard to make sense of the contradictory trends in China, at least part of the population there seems to be thinking along these lines.
2) Religion. Traditionally there has been a strong streak of anti-consumerism in most religions and spiritual traditions. As it becomes apparent that consumerism is related to global warming, war and social fragmentation, I think we will see a resurgence of this tendency.
3) Science and common sense. A growing number of economic and sociological studies verify the traditional wisdom that "money can't buy happiness." Past a certain point, there is little correlation between affluence (energy use) and happiness. In fact, affluence brings with it stress, overwork, obesity and a breakdown in relationships. For example: A culture of overwork exacts an extreme price: Thousands of Chinese are literally being worked to death (Globa & Mail)
4) Fashion. There's no reason that sustainable practices can't be chic -- we've seen that local organic food can be a status symbol, as can green building and solar power.
Permalink
Bensch Posted 5:53 am
22 Aug 2006
People have been faced with the realities of global climate change. Those realities are not locusts, they're slow shifts. They are not making the changes necessary to create sustainable systems. You can ask anyone ont he street what they think about global climate change, and they have already formed an opinion. In order to change that opinion, we have to do what Gore's doing - simple, elegant presentations of information, often disguised as solutions to everyday problems.
Commute time is a great example - that's one of the examples I use to support sustainable transportation. It isn't about going out of your way to be green, it's about using systems more effective and efficient than cars to get where you need to go. Green is a side benefit, and it will have to be a side benefit until people start discovering it as a common thread in solutions to problems they care about.
Stewart Brand and Paul Hawken recognize this - "The Clock of the Long Now" is about promoting long-term thinking, because it favors ecologically sustainable solutions. "The Ecology of Commerce", logically followed by "Cradle to Cradle", both explore the economic benefits of sustainable business systems. These are successful. As long as we raise questions that appear not to have answers over and over again, we will not be.
The point of my comment was that change will occur only if we get people involved. Kaela, you illustrate my point - people who read Grist now are mostly already very aware of the issues and both capable of and interested in making changes in their lives to support change. While being vegetarian and buying organic, using a bicycle and mass transit are necessary, they do not create sustainable systems in and of themselves - they only support those systems.
If we want to change the trends that already exist in society, in order to combat climate change, we will have to find ways to involve more people - and that means focusing on solutions now, instead of whinging and wringing our hands the way this article does.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 7:06 am
22 Aug 2006
I do think most people are willing to make some major changes but there is too little support both economically and structurally. For instance, it's expensive to get a more efficient car if you're making under $15/hour. Organic food is way more expensive than conventional food, at least most of it is, which is unfortunate because conventional food is more costly to the environment. It can't be just up to individuals to counter climate change. We need massive efforts, supported by governments and forced upon industries whether they like it or not, in addition to what you and I can do.
Right now, my personal financial situation is maxed out, since most of our energy expenses have just about doubled in the past three years and income hasn't kept up. So we can cut back on some stuff (but we don't really buy all that much "stuff" anyway) but not much else. Most everyone I know is in this same situation. We have no flexibility, no wiggle room. Eventually we're hoping to sell our house and move to a smaller, more efficient one, but that doesn't solve the problem of today, or this winter.
In order to make the kinds of sacrifices we're talking about here, we need to come together in our communities and support one another in real, tangible ways, not just to talk or bitch, but to live together, work together, feed each other, keep each other warm, share what we have, you get the idea. . .
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:04 am
22 Aug 2006
I actually agree with Jason, but since he is talking about sacrifices, how about going carless as well? (smile). Cars and meat eating are the two worst things for the environment, generally speaking.
One of the keys here, though, is moving beyond individual responses.
As various respondents have pointed out, there are limits and constrictions on what they and others can do as individuals.
What needs to change is the environment in which we find ourselves. And that is going to require first of all, action by governments.
Only governments have the resources to create transportation alternatives.
Government tax changes (tax surcharges on large suburban house, rebates on small urban apartments, for example) will help create an environment that makes it possible for people to have good choices.
Right now, the best choices are available to people with money (as usual!), and poorer people find themselves without so many choices.
How about limiting communities ability to zone economically? Right now, people who work in service jobs in well off communities have to commute into those communities. Why? One reason is that the communities have zoning laws that keep low income housing out (they want the poor to come to work, but not to live there). Beyond the moral issue, this is an environmentally unfriendly practice.
How about big tax rebates/credits for those who don't own cars? Imagine if you got $5000 for not owning a car. How about $7000?
How about tax rebates/credits for living in small apartments in urban areas? Imagine another $5000! Woo Hoo!!
We need to look beyond making choices in a bad environment to changing the environment to reward the choices that will save us.
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:15 pm
22 Aug 2006
thanks, I always enjoy your messages, no less so now.
On your fourth point, "Fashion," our friend and great Gristmill contributor Biodiversivist has already had a fair amount to say. My own feeling is, I dislike the concept, and hope it never becomes part of orthodox activist-environmentalist doctrine; but if it works, sure, go for it.
On your second point, "Religion": From your mouth to God's ear! In my experience, there are certain scattered individual Christians who are doing lots of good locally. And though I do not quite know what you mean by "anti-consumerism," I believe those Christians give great emphasis to earth-loving, humility-loving, poverty-sustaining, simplicity-encouraging attitudes in both the Christian Bible and in the traditions of the Christian Church.
On the other hand, it seems our values are not widely shared by our fellow Christians. Nor does it seem there is any movement in that direction. If you have data telling you otherwise, please share it. Meanwhile, I am doing what little I can, to get out the word.
In general, not just to Bart, on the Cape Wind project: I love Cape Cod, and my husband and I visit it frequently. We would love it if the wind turbines get installed and go into operation between Nantucket and the Cape's southern coast. Thus far, I am persuaded reasonably that casualties among birds and marine fauna -- which generally should always be an important consideration, and never to be underestimated -- will be minimal.
And I wish that the opponents to the project will come around to agreeing with all of us, and supporting it.
But meanwhile, I dislike the tendency to demonize them, the property-owners that is, with the prejudice that their only interest is the quality of their ocean views, and their property values. Hopefully, there are already a number of historians working on this story, as one might expect, and they will tell us in due course what all the motivations and interests of the opponents are.
Of Mitt Romney's motivations, I expect nothing decent. Of Ted Kennedy's, I am mystified and in the dark.
Anyway, I strongly dislike misdirected anger. Please let us refrain from that. We can most certainly continue to work for the success of the wind project, without having to vilify its opponents.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:46 am
23 Aug 2006
Chinese companies are now manufacturing wind power systems due to the huge demand worldwide. Orders are backed up years for this least expensive, pollution free techology.
The competitive approach of Chinese and Indian companies powered by Japanese capital investment is eclipsing the research and development lead that small US companies still have in fuel cell,electric vehicle, solar, wind, and heat pump systems.
US capital is going to oil war military industrial spending and manufacturing popular gas guzzlers. The same fellers who run this administration are clones of those sitting in the boardrooms of US banks, oil companies, and auto companies.
Their energy and capital is invested in the nearly extinct fossil fuelish, earth destroying, military industrial culture.
The developing world can leapfrog this mess o' bushmania. The profit motive demands it, capitalism itself. The monopoly capitalism of the old world is doomed and US with it if we don't unelect it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:20 am
23 Aug 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
rh Posted 2:14 am
23 Aug 2006
So, why not just get rid of the perverse incentives that are already in place? Sure, the real estate lobby and the road building lobby love the mortgage interest tax deduction, but just getting rid of that would help a lot of problems (not the least a serious revenue crunch the fed gov't may be facing soon). It made a lot of sense post-WWII, but 60 years later it's not the greatest public policy tool.
I really think the market can drive some impressive changes, BUT only if the signals are correct. If the signal from the government is that you can build a large house on a 2 acre lot 25 miles from anywhere, well, that's probably what you're going to get.
Of course, considering the current atmosphere inside the Beltway, I'm living in fantasy land right now. But, I put this out there because once we as a society decide to get our heads on straight about some of the issues we're facing, it may not be nearly as difficult to make changes as many pundits claim.
rh
Permalink