Clearing the Air on Global Warming Policies
Roger Pielke Jr has a thoughtful run-down of what he, as a “non-skeptic heretic” on global warming, would do in constructing a policy around the issue. In this long post I’d like to comment on his suggestions and propose an alternative framework that may be more appealing to conservative policy-makers.
On Roger’s elements:
1. Adaptation. Roger rightly points out that this would be essential to any climate policy. However, Roger characterizes it as “more closely related to the original notion of sustainable development.” I presume that he means by that something like the UN’s 1987 definition as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This definition has always struck me as combining Malthusianism with the fatal conceit - assuming that future resources are constrained by current technology while at the same time assuming that we have any idea of what future needs will be (imagine what an inventory of needs for the year 2008 would have looked like if compiled in 1908). Roger is, however, a great supporter of technological capacity to solve problems, so I’m not exactly sure what he means by the characterization. I also note that Roger does not address the resiliency argument that free-marketers contend is vitally important in adaptation discussions. Briefly put, the richer you are, the less the vagaries of climate affect you, so building resiliency in poorer nations is vitally important in any adaptation strategy. That is why trade liberalization and so on should form a vital part of any adaptation strategy.
2. Make Carbon Emissions Pricier. Roger rightly points out that this may be infeasible politically. There is also a moral aspect, I would suggest. Even at the currently artificially inflated prices, carbon-based energy is the most cost-effective way of providing a whole bunch of fundamental services, such as the provision of food. Making these more expensive will, at present, come with a whole host of unpleasant consequences. It’s not just about heat, light and transportation. In addition, there will be regional dislocations, as areas that depend on and produce carbon-based energy are penalized. It was one of the biggest mistakes of the Thatcher government in the UK that it failed to consider the frictional effects of the end of the British coal industry, for instance. This caused the Thatcher government to be viewed as cruel and uncaring. Closing down mines in America in the name of green ideology is likely to be viewed as uncharitably as was closing down mines in Britain in the name of the free-market. The issue is fundamentally one of cost-effectiveness. Welfare is maximized when energy is most affordable, and so driving up prices is inevitably associated with a decrease in welfare. Even the dreaded externalities of carbon do not change this fundamental issue. There are external damages, in the form of cascading costs to other people (even though they are eventually captured in the price system), to carbon pricing. That is why the far better approach to reducing emissions is the next one.
3. Make Carbon-Free Energy Cheaper. I prefer “more affordable,” but that’s a quibble. This is a laudable goal and one that will certainly be achieved in the long run whatever happens. The question is how best to achieve this. Roger has a list of ultimately taxpayer-funded initiatives. The trouble is that these simply distribute the higher costs of alternative energy across the economy (the same is true of subsidies to energy companies, even in respect of fossil fuel technologies, the abolition of which would therefore not have the same effect as introducing carbon pricing). A better initial approach is the removal of regulatory barriers to carbon-free (or reduced carbon) energy. For instance, Air Traffic Control reform could reduce airline carbon emissions by 12 percent according to some estimates (and the similar “green landings” by 25 percent). Similarly, removing regulatory barriers to innovation could spur technological development and deployment. In fact, removing barriers to deployment is perhaps the easiest thing to do - the various barriers erected under the Clean Air Act that provide a perverse incentive to retain higher emitting technology, for instance, could be removed to great benefit (for example, the use of the “New Source Review” process to punish Detroit Edison in 2000 for installing two new state-of-the-art turbines that used less coal). There are extensive regulatory barriers to nuclear deployment that need to be removed. Meanwhile, we must avoid the problem of political patronage with funding new technology R&D from the public purse. There are ways to do this and decouple political patronage from funding. These need to be discussed.
4. Energy Modernization. I’m not entirely sure what Roger means by this, but most of his comments seem along the right lines - the developing world is going to develop and attempts to hold it back even in the name of the climate would be unconscionable. Improved arrangements for technology transfer would presumably be at the core of this.
5. Air Capture Backstop. Roger is bold but sensible to venture into the sphere of geo-engineering. Yet air capture should not be the only avenue of research. Roger often talks about the need for scientists to expand the range of policy options available to policy-makers, and this is a great example of where that should take place.
6. Recognize that climate change is not only carbon dioxide. This is a very important point, with, for example, black carbon (soot) having been nominated by no less than Jim Hansen as responsible for perhaps 25 percent of the recent warming. A balanced global warming policy would address all of these other factors. Again, resiliency is an appropriate policy response as making the developed world richer is likely to result in a significant decrease in black carbon emissions.
With all those comments in mind, here’s what I think a global warming policy acceptable to most conservatives would comprise of. This builds on the strategy I outlined in the final chapter of my book, The Really Inconvenient Truths.
Title I: Technology & Mitigation
a) Remove regulatory barriers to innovation and deployment
- remove barriers to new or upgraded facilities that would reduce emissions eg New Source Review
- remove regulatory performance standards that act as a barrier to developing better performance
- remove barriers to developing & introducing biotechnology that could significantly increase food supplies in the developing world and create greater yield per acre in the US, allowing cropland to return to nature
- remove barriers to developing & introducing nanotechnology
b) Reform and expand federal energy R&D program (this would form and should be sold as a major part of the “mitigation effort” of the program)
- replace current federal grant system with a program based on prizes, thereby removing political patronage, obviating the “picking winners” problem and removing what amount to subsidies to established energy firms
- expand energy R&D to $6-7 billion, paid for by budget cuts elsewhere (eg by privatizing Amtrak) and use “matching funds” program to begin to attract private money
c) Institute geo-engineering research program separate from energy R&D and climate science research program. Concentrate climate research in areas of improving predictive capacity of models.
d) Abolish all subsidies to energy companies, reducing emissions quickly without introducing carbon tax
e) Repeal corn ethanol program in its entirety as likely to increase GHG emissions and contributing to increased hunger; redirect subsidies to new energy R&D program
f) Abolish barriers to sugar ethanol imports
Title II: Adaptation
a) Institute Adaptation Fund/Program to be based on successful AIDS/communicable disease aid program to fund worthwhile “no regrets” adaptation efforts in developing world; increase contribution to malaria control in the disease project.
b) Institute domestic adaptation research program to assess feasibility of projects to stem effects of sea level rise etc
c) Abolish “moral hazard” federal programs like coastal flood insurance etc that create incentives to live in/develop vulnerable areas
d) Free up transportation market
- reform Air Traffic Control system to allow ‘free flight’ and ‘green landings,’ saving up to 25% of airline emissions
- remove regulatory barriers to highway construction to reduce congestion and associated “wasted” emissions
- reform zoning regulations to reduce barriers to telecommuting
- reduce barriers to construction of heavy rail infrastructure to allow more shipping by rail and reduce highway congestion
e) Free up electricity market
- remove regulatory barriers to new construction of nuclear plants; allow reprocessing or open Yucca Mountain
- eliminate local and national monopoly franchises
- remove barriers to distributed generation such as microturbines
f) Free up domestic energy exploration
- End restrictions in ANWR and OCS as an energy security measure
- Allow exploitation of Rocky Mountains gas reserves etc as viable competitor to coal
Title III: Resiliency
a) Set up Global Resiliency body to incorporate/replace Millennium Challenge Corporation and concentrate on spreading property rights, rule of law etc around world. Utilize Hernando de Soto’s expertise in setting this up. Particular responsibilities should include encouraging institutional reforms on disease, food supplies, water supplies, coastal defense and biodiversity.
b) Create a Global Free Trade Area by a provision allowing GFTA members free access to US markets on the condition that they reciprocate to the US and other GFTA members. USTR would certify. GFTA membership would be granted on the basis of an objective analysis of the country’s commitment to free trade (eg Heritage Index). This will encourage trade liberalization and thereby resiliency.
c) Expand Asia-Pacific Partnership to encourage and facilitate technology transfer to developing world.
I’ll be writing this package of measures up into a “white paper” over the ensuing weeks.
AEGeneral said,
May 8, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
You’ve made some interesting proposals here. I’m sure I’ll enjoy your book when it arrives.
One additional item I advocate under “freeing up domestic energy exploration” is mining the Kaiporowitz Plateau. What that would entail is beyond my knowledge, as it was (inexplicably) declared a National Monument via Executive Order despite the fact that it is one of three known sites in the world that contains low-polluting coal.
A trillion dollars worth of non-polluting coal on our own soil, and we can’t even use it. It’s simply incomprehensible.
Roger Pielke Jr. said,
May 8, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Thanks Iain, I’ve put up a very short reply (for now):
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001419iain_murray_on_clima.html
I look forward to continuing the conversation.
Steve Darden said,
May 11, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Your post is a very useful contribution to what I hope will become a conversation around the pragmatic themes of Roger’s post. I hope to have something to add after some reflection.
Could you please reconsider the colors of your WP theme? The graphic design is beautiful, but for my eyes is virtually unreadable and actually painful. I had to copy/paste your commentary into a text editor to read comfortably.
Though I’ve not yet read your new book, based on your commentary above I’ve just ordered
Lab Lemming said,
May 16, 2008 @ 3:47 am
A few things you’ve missed:
If you really want to get cost-effective gas into the US, before digging up the rockies you’ll want to open a Pacific gas terminal.
Related to that, and my point number three is that you’ll need to find some way of stopping NIMBYs from blocking all of the infrastructure that will be necessary for both adaption and mitigation. Otherwise, you’ll end up with folks like the Kennedys adding a decade to the start time and half a billion dollars to the cost for any renewable projects that are actually cost-effective in the current economy.
[Update: Comments added] Iain Murray: Another libertarian makes climate policy proposals! - TT`s Lost in Tokyo said,
July 17, 2008 @ 4:02 am
[…] Iain helpfully spells out on his blog a number of areas where deregulation is needed, he also surprising provides quite an extensive […]
TokyoTom said,
July 17, 2008 @ 4:14 am
Iain, I applaud your constructive proposals.
I’ve made a few observations and questions for your consideration here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/06/17/iain-murray-another-libertarian-makes-climate-policy-proposals.aspx
Tom