A crucial question is whether the U.S. government can produce a detailed and coherent plan. On the surface, the answer would seem to be surely yes. The administration officials charged with the climate change issue, ranging from energy secretary and Nobel laureate Stephen Chu to presidential science advisor and Harvard University professor John Holdren, to White House climate and energy advisor Carol Browner, and many others, are committed world-class leaders in the field. President Obama is also deeply knowledgeable and committed.
Yet there are serious reasons to worry. For decades, the federal government has distinguished itself with a lack of coordination among competing departments, an allergy to detailed plans (whether for Iraq, climate, New Orleans, health care, or countless other complex topics) and a power for narrow interests in Congress to frustrate the most basic logic of thinking ahead. Climate change is certainly the most complex of all the challenges facing the administration and the world: it reaches into the core of the economic system, raises fundamental questions about technology, poses tremendous natural and social uncertainties, requires an outlook of decades rather than months or years, and engages every interest group. These are reasons why we need an adaptable plan and rational framework more than ever, but also reasons that help explain why— nearly 20 years after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the agreement on the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—we still lack one.
This article was originally published with the title Still Needed: A Climate Plan.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentLast time I look not everyone believes this BS. This magazine never allows others opinions on this subject - except to treat the opponents as idiots!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's no way to predict higher numbers, these are predictions which the U.S. is trying to give its best estimation. Reducing emissions is not an easy tasks, if it were then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. So estimating 15% reduction in the next (say) 10 years is not bad considering the growth which we may experience during this time as well. We don't even have a solid fuel alternative in this country yet, not even half the population has gone green, and pollution is growing everyday. We give too high estimates, like 75% reduction in 10 years, then when we fail to hit that mark the U.S. is looking like the bad guy. They did it right in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.cormetech.com">NOx Reduction</a>
It's not a matter of belief. It is a matter of understanding. The magazine, run by people with no vested interest in it being true, understands what you may not. They'd sell more issues by saying that AGW is wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only thing worse then no planning is bad planning that is mandatory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the government can't get fission power underway after 30 years what in the heck makes them think that they can do any thing else to benifically effect the energy needs of this country.
How about fixing the electrical grid that has been overloaded for at least 20 years. These are only two of the needed fixes that the federal government is the chief roadblock and therefor a cheap and easy fix and fixing these would be a positive for the economy and enviroment.
Sachs underestimates the efficacy of a cap and trade plan. It's not just a free market design. It's a plan in itself. People do the planning instead of the government telling them how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCap and Trade is, at its fundament, a system that shifts the costs of carbon to consumers of energy, while allowing the energy suppliers to abrogate their responsibility to deal with the mess.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA far simpler, fairer system, which would be more easily implemented and regulated by governments is to require producers to deal with their own products' noxious byproducts.
This would create a direct market in dealing with these products, i.e. if they did not deal with the pollution themselves, they would have to outsource it to a specialist industry. Either way, the Hydrocarbon Industry would then have to add this cost to the bottom line prior to selling their product, which is, after all, Energy. The price of dealing with carbon (and other noxious pollutants) would thus be built in to the price of energy and the pump or socket.
The immediate consequence of forcing producers to include the cost of disposal into their own products is that energy suppliers and consumers would, for the first time in history, have a level playing field, a true market. If a Green Energy company can supply a unit of energy to the market at less cost than a
pollutant-free barrel of oil, then the consumer will choose the green every time. In fact, the Hydrocarbon Industry could, in this scenario, be considered "green" as they supply pollution-free energy. How is that for irony?
Enter Your Comment Here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphilmac ... you of course are correct. Unfortunately, political spin would label it the "Energy Tax" and then the crazies will rally to defeat it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust look at the "Death Tax" ... that mere labeling has rallied support by middle america on legislation that only affects 0.025% of the most affluent americans.
Nuclear power is not a part of the solution to climate change and is not cost competitive with small, distributed energy sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid504.php
"Lovins highlights four problems with nuclear that keep it from competing against cheaper, swifter rivals such as cogeneration, wind and energy efficiency:
Cost: Nuclear plants are very expensive to build, and getting more so. Worldwide, construction costs have risen much faster for nuclear plants than non-nuclear plants.
Carbon: Because new nuclear power costs far more than its competitors, it buys far less energy per dollar, and therefore displaces far less coal energy per dollar than other sources of power.
Reliability: When nuclear plants go offline, they fail in billion-watt chunks and take a long time to restart.
Security: Proliferation is greatly facilitated by nuclear powers flow of materials, equipment, skills, and knowledge, all hidden behind an innocent-looking civilian disguise.
On all these fronts, Lovins says small, distributed energy sources are better buys than nuclear. To learn how, check out the links below:"
Another pro-nuke guy...yawn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGee, let's trade one scarce, centralized, dirty & very expensive energy source for another one just like it with, yet again, maybe 50 years worth of raw material out there.
This problem doesn't go away until people are more involved in their own, distributed energy production. Oops! But it's really hard for anyone to get stinking rich that way. Guess that's why we keep hearing the neverending "Go nukes!" refrain.
It does not matter if you believe in climate change caused by humanity or not. What I believe everyone can agree on is; we need high paying jobs and we need to stop paying big bucks for energy. Now is the time to exploit space power and resources. Sunlight is available in high Earth orbit 24/7, 365 days a year. We have had the technology since the late 60’s to transmit via microwave all the energy we could ever use, to Earth, from orbit. The material for constructing the space end of the system is available on the near Earth asteroids and the Moon. We the people need the government to fund the project just as the government funded World War II. Our survival as a people with liberty was threatened by mad men with weapons during WWII. Today our survival is threatened by mad men with oil. If we as a people shrink from the task at hand we will lose our liberty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReduce maximum speed limits to 50mph and we will hit the 2020 targets almost immediately. A useful side effect would be a drastic fall in road accident fatalities and serious injuries, meaning huge savings on hospital costs and human suffering. Such measures need no new technology, investment or laws, as members of the public could apply the speed limit voluntarily...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClimate Plan:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoney to implement: Found in the reduction of building destruction!! Follow me on this, please;
Improve the building and structure frames so that they won't get destroyed by tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc. Keep the sizes, shapes, architectural designs and features, and just improve the structural performances of the frames. This cuts losses from natural disasters by a lot, enough to pull the Country out of debt. The extra money goes to energy, transportation, healthcare, etc.
Quick example: $250,000.00 dollar building destroyed costs twice that to someone, when you consider rebuilding costs. Improve the frames so that the building in same event that used to destroy it. Repairs run from $20,000.00 to $50,000.00, saving between $200,000.00 to $280,000.00 per building.
Real event: Hurricane Katrina. 287,000 foundationed buildings destroyed, at an average of $250,000.00 (times two for rebuilding). That's roughly 145 million dollars tossed away, before considering how much personal property was lost, bridges, roads, power grids, oil tanks, etc; was lost and cost.
Better structurally performing building frames saves around 130 million dollars for the buildings, and however much personal property losses, etc; that are saved because the buildings held up to the hurricane.
That looks like free money for anyone who wants it!!
Sustainability has several definitions, including how well buildings, etc; hold up to hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, storm surges, fire, and so on.
Weatherizing residential, commercial, and public buildings also includes how well the buildings hold up against hurricanes, water, temperature, floods, fire, etc.
As a matter of fact, if these are not the first considerations of the building designers, sellers, and buyers, somebody forgot their formal education, their professional principles, their personal safety criteria, and so on, and "bling" is the "ring" of "honor", while at the same time our Troops are fighting for our rights and dying in wars!!
Why doesn't the U.S. declare ar on hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, etc?
As proved above, higher construction costs, if any, are absorbed by the savings realized by the reduced damages and destructions.
It amazes me that in 1970, the average appraised value of a house in the U.S. was around $20,000.00, and 40 years later, the same sized buildings are valued at around $200,000.00!! Did the houses get better where it counts, in protecting us from hurricanes, etc? No!!