The United States and Global Warming
Published in Prensa Libre
(Guatemala) on 27 August 2013
by Bjorn Lomborg (link to original)
(Guatemala) on 27 August 2013
by Bjorn Lomborg (link to original)
Translated from
by Maria Tartaglia .
Edited by Keith Armstrong.
Since President Barack Obama announced the new U.S. policy on climate change, many observers have believed that the country is taking on global warming again after a decade of being the “bad boy” regarding climate. However, this is erroneous. Obama has offered as many great ideas as useless ones for dealing with this very real problem. Disgracefully, the useless ideas are those climate policies adopted by the European Union (EU), Japan and Australia that did not work.
The useful ideas are the ones that are usually dismissed by most climate advocates. To ensure that the new policies of the United States are worthy of being carried out, they need to confront three fantasies about the climate:
Shortly, renewable energies will be the largest part of the solution. No, they are almost trivial. Currently, the world gets 81 percent of its energy from fossil fuels — by 2035, under the best case scenario, we will still be getting 79 percent from fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy use worldwide will increase from 0.8 percent to 3.2 percent. Impressive, but it will not be what matters.
Biofuels will play a more important role in the solution. No. For now, biofuels simply give energy to automobiles, allowing the price of food and level of global hunger to increase. As long as forests are being cut down to achieve new areas for plantations, we will provoke greater carbon dioxide emissions than the use of biofuels saves.
Efficiency can cut down on emissions. No. Although efficiency is good, several studies have demonstrated that it has a negligible impact on the climate, due to the fact the savings are consumed by greater use. As your car becomes more efficient, you drive it more, and the money that you save is used for other activities that have carbon emissions.
However, if carefully implemented, Obama’s plan could also show the manner in which the world can face the three truths about the climate.
Fracking is the green solution of the present decade. Obama recognizes the gas as a “bridge fuel.” Cleaner and cheaper than coal, the gas obtained by the hydraulic fracking process has eliminated up to 500 million tons of CO2 emissions in the U.S. As long as renewable energy costs the U.S. and the E.U. several billion dollars per year, fracking has saved American consumers $125 billion a year in lower energy prices. Fracking may create environmental problems at the local level, but these can be treated with good regulation.
Adaptation is a smart move. Obama did the right thing by emphasizing it, while in other countries they avoid discussing the subject. Wetlands, tidal barriers and groundwater levels could have greatly reduced the impact of Hurricane Sandy in New York, regardless of whether or not global warming caused the hurricane.
Finally, we need to innovate in the area of green energy in the long term. Obama suggests creating a fund of $7.9 billion, once again setting an example for other countries. Obama has realized that while green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels, it will always remain as a niche [product], subsidized by the rich countries as a way to feel good. But if innovation makes future sources of green energy cheaper than fossil fuels, all, including the Chinese and Indians, will change. This is similar to what occurred after 30 years of investigations in the U.S. that revealed that the gas obtained from fracking was cleaner and cheaper than coal. This development resulted in a historic reduction of CO2 emissions in that country, two times the reduction obtained by the EU/Kyoto [Protocol signatories].
The final fantasy that we should all face is the idea that international negotiations can somehow produce significant reductions. We have tried this for more than 20 years and we have failed, from Kyoto to Copenhagen, and we will fail again in 2015 in Paris. More than 180 countries will not significantly reduce CO2 emissions emanating from fossil fuels that strengthen their economic growth.
Instead of this, we need to follow the lead of the U.S. in eco-innovation. Economic models show that this is, by far, the best long-term climate policy. If everyone were to invest more in innovation aimed at reducing the cost of the future green energy, we would be able to assure that new technologies, like solar panels 2.0 or 3.0, out-compete fossil fuels and truly resolve global warming.
The useful ideas are the ones that are usually dismissed by most climate advocates. To ensure that the new policies of the United States are worthy of being carried out, they need to confront three fantasies about the climate:
Shortly, renewable energies will be the largest part of the solution. No, they are almost trivial. Currently, the world gets 81 percent of its energy from fossil fuels — by 2035, under the best case scenario, we will still be getting 79 percent from fossil fuels. Wind and solar energy use worldwide will increase from 0.8 percent to 3.2 percent. Impressive, but it will not be what matters.
Biofuels will play a more important role in the solution. No. For now, biofuels simply give energy to automobiles, allowing the price of food and level of global hunger to increase. As long as forests are being cut down to achieve new areas for plantations, we will provoke greater carbon dioxide emissions than the use of biofuels saves.
Efficiency can cut down on emissions. No. Although efficiency is good, several studies have demonstrated that it has a negligible impact on the climate, due to the fact the savings are consumed by greater use. As your car becomes more efficient, you drive it more, and the money that you save is used for other activities that have carbon emissions.
However, if carefully implemented, Obama’s plan could also show the manner in which the world can face the three truths about the climate.
Fracking is the green solution of the present decade. Obama recognizes the gas as a “bridge fuel.” Cleaner and cheaper than coal, the gas obtained by the hydraulic fracking process has eliminated up to 500 million tons of CO2 emissions in the U.S. As long as renewable energy costs the U.S. and the E.U. several billion dollars per year, fracking has saved American consumers $125 billion a year in lower energy prices. Fracking may create environmental problems at the local level, but these can be treated with good regulation.
Adaptation is a smart move. Obama did the right thing by emphasizing it, while in other countries they avoid discussing the subject. Wetlands, tidal barriers and groundwater levels could have greatly reduced the impact of Hurricane Sandy in New York, regardless of whether or not global warming caused the hurricane.
Finally, we need to innovate in the area of green energy in the long term. Obama suggests creating a fund of $7.9 billion, once again setting an example for other countries. Obama has realized that while green energy is much more expensive than fossil fuels, it will always remain as a niche [product], subsidized by the rich countries as a way to feel good. But if innovation makes future sources of green energy cheaper than fossil fuels, all, including the Chinese and Indians, will change. This is similar to what occurred after 30 years of investigations in the U.S. that revealed that the gas obtained from fracking was cleaner and cheaper than coal. This development resulted in a historic reduction of CO2 emissions in that country, two times the reduction obtained by the EU/Kyoto [Protocol signatories].
The final fantasy that we should all face is the idea that international negotiations can somehow produce significant reductions. We have tried this for more than 20 years and we have failed, from Kyoto to Copenhagen, and we will fail again in 2015 in Paris. More than 180 countries will not significantly reduce CO2 emissions emanating from fossil fuels that strengthen their economic growth.
Instead of this, we need to follow the lead of the U.S. in eco-innovation. Economic models show that this is, by far, the best long-term climate policy. If everyone were to invest more in innovation aimed at reducing the cost of the future green energy, we would be able to assure that new technologies, like solar panels 2.0 or 3.0, out-compete fossil fuels and truly resolve global warming.