With the scientific consensus more or less settled that human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, torching of forests, and so forth -- is contributing to a warmer and less hospitable planet, one might reasonably ask, why is it so hard to agree on a plan to curb those activities? The answer lies with the many fault lines that cut through the debate over climate change. Those deep divisions will be on display beginning this week as representatives of 192 nations gather in Copenhagen for a United Nations conference on the issue. Organizers had hoped to emerge with an international compact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help countries most threatened by rising sea waters and temperatures. But the divisions between nations are such that world leaders agreed last month to put off resolving the most contentious issues until next year. They will try instead to reach a nonbinding interim agreement in Copenhagen, then work toward a binding treaty in 2010.
With the scientific consensus more or less settled that human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels, torching of forests, and so forth -- is contributing to a warmer and less hospitable planet, one might reasonably ask, why is it so hard to agree on a plan to curb those activities?
The answer lies with the many fault lines that cut through the debate over climate change. Those deep divisions will be on display beginning this week as representatives of 192 nations gather in Copenhagen for a United Nations conference on the issue.
Organizers had hoped to emerge with an international compact to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help countries most threatened by rising sea waters and temperatures. But the divisions between nations are such that world leaders agreed last month to put off resolving the most contentious issues until next year. They will try instead to reach a nonbinding interim agreement in Copenhagen, then work toward a binding treaty in 2010.
COPENHAGEN -- At an abandoned beer warehouse in this city's Valby district, law enforcement officials have constructed an elaborate holding facility with three dozen steel cages to accommodate over 350 potential troublemakers during a United Nations climate conference that gets under way here on Monday. Critics call the holding pens -- and a range of other security preparations made as thousands of government officials, heads of state, environmental groups and assorted anarchists descend on the Danish capital -- over the top. The police say the detractors' reactions are overheated, if predictable."This is surely the biggest police action we have ever had in Danish history," said Per Larsen, the chief coordinating officer for the Copenhagen police force. "But I think the complaints are the kind we are very used to hearing in this country."Officials have made it clear that they aim to keep the peace during the 12-day conference, organized under United Nations' auspices. From new laws rushed through Parliament allowing stiffer fines and extended detentions for those deemed unruly, to public displays of newly acquired anti-riot and emergency equipment, leaders here say they are preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. Meanwhile, a variety of protest and advocacy groups -- some with obscure political lineage -- have signaled in online postings and other public statements that they will not be cooperating.
COPENHAGEN -- At an abandoned beer warehouse in this city's Valby district, law enforcement officials have constructed an elaborate holding facility with three dozen steel cages to accommodate over 350 potential troublemakers during a United Nations climate conference that gets under way here on Monday.
Critics call the holding pens -- and a range of other security preparations made as thousands of government officials, heads of state, environmental groups and assorted anarchists descend on the Danish capital -- over the top. The police say the detractors' reactions are overheated, if predictable.
"This is surely the biggest police action we have ever had in Danish history," said Per Larsen, the chief coordinating officer for the Copenhagen police force. "But I think the complaints are the kind we are very used to hearing in this country."
Officials have made it clear that they aim to keep the peace during the 12-day conference, organized under United Nations' auspices. From new laws rushed through Parliament allowing stiffer fines and extended detentions for those deemed unruly, to public displays of newly acquired anti-riot and emergency equipment, leaders here say they are preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. Meanwhile, a variety of protest and advocacy groups -- some with obscure political lineage -- have signaled in online postings and other public statements that they will not be cooperating.
As the world gathers for negotiations billed as likely to determine the very future of life on earth, many on the outside are feeling weary of the Doomsday prognoses and wary of the plodding process meant to prevent them from coming true. The world's leaders ought to be noting that.>The easy thing would be to link those people to the sceptics who vocally deny the existence of a problem. I prefer to think of them as climate agnostics, or as the non-partisan millions still seeking clarity.Whether they are a silent majority or a substantial minority depends on how you count them. But whether the next fortnight goes down in history rather than as a footnote to it will depend on how well the public at large receives the result. And the agnostics are a substantial presence in that public.A Harris poll released last week found just 51 per cent of American adults believe the fundamental argument that greenhouse gases will cause the Earth's average temperature to rise. That was the lowest level measured in 12 years and down from 71 per cent two years ago.The US has long been the bogeyman of climate change talks, but it would be wrong to say the scepticism is limited to America and its fossil fuel-guzzling SUV drivers.
As the world gathers for negotiations billed as likely to determine the very future of life on earth, many on the outside are feeling weary of the Doomsday prognoses and wary of the plodding process meant to prevent them from coming true. The world's leaders ought to be noting that.>
The easy thing would be to link those people to the sceptics who vocally deny the existence of a problem. I prefer to think of them as climate agnostics, or as the non-partisan millions still seeking clarity.
Whether they are a silent majority or a substantial minority depends on how you count them. But whether the next fortnight goes down in history rather than as a footnote to it will depend on how well the public at large receives the result. And the agnostics are a substantial presence in that public.
A Harris poll released last week found just 51 per cent of American adults believe the fundamental argument that greenhouse gases will cause the Earth's average temperature to rise. That was the lowest level measured in 12 years and down from 71 per cent two years ago.
The US has long been the bogeyman of climate change talks, but it would be wrong to say the scepticism is limited to America and its fossil fuel-guzzling SUV drivers.
While right-populism is the new centrism, it appears being stupid is the new agnosticism. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there's one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop "going green." Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d'oeuvres. December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country's last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn't ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider "10 Ways to Go Integrated" at their convenience.
As President Obama heads to Copenhagen next week for global warming talks, there's one simple step Americans back home can take to help out: Stop "going green." Just stop it. No more compact fluorescent light bulbs. No more green wedding planning. No more organic toothpicks for holiday hors d'oeuvres.
December should be national Green-Free Month. Instead of continuing our faddish and counterproductive emphasis on small, voluntary actions, we should follow the example of Americans during past moral crises and work toward large-scale change. The country's last real moral and social revolution was set in motion by the civil rights movement. And in the 1960s, civil rights activists didn't ask bigoted Southern governors and sheriffs to consider "10 Ways to Go Integrated" at their convenience.
The UN's top climate official has given an upbeat assessment on the prospects of a global deal at a climate summit which opens in Copenhagen on Monday.Yvo de Boer told the BBC things were in "excellent shape" as officials from 192 nations began gathering in Denmark. Any agreement is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. The UN official panel on climate change says emissions must be limited to avoid dangerous global temperature rises. "Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so many pledges. Almost every day now governments are announcing pledges - it's unprecedented," Mr de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate convention, told the BBC.
The UN's top climate official has given an upbeat assessment on the prospects of a global deal at a climate summit which opens in Copenhagen on Monday.
Yvo de Boer told the BBC things were in "excellent shape" as officials from 192 nations began gathering in Denmark.
Any agreement is intended to supplant the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
The UN official panel on climate change says emissions must be limited to avoid dangerous global temperature rises.
"Never in 17 years of climate negotiations have so many different countries made so many pledges. Almost every day now governments are announcing pledges - it's unprecedented," Mr de Boer, executive secretary of the UN climate convention, told the BBC.
... Action on climate, if it happens, will take the form of "cap and trade": businesses won't be told what to produce or how, but they will have to buy permits to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So they'll be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon -- and there's every reason to believe that they'll be clever and creative about finding ways to do just that. <...> The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today's fight over climate change. Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost. Curbing greenhouse gases will be a much bigger and more complex task -- but we're likely to be surprised at how easy it is once we get started. ...
... Action on climate, if it happens, will take the form of "cap and trade": businesses won't be told what to produce or how, but they will have to buy permits to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So they'll be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon -- and there's every reason to believe that they'll be clever and creative about finding ways to do just that.
<...>
The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today's fight over climate change. Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.
But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost.
Curbing greenhouse gases will be a much bigger and more complex task -- but we're likely to be surprised at how easy it is once we get started. ...
I know there are skeptics/critics of cap & trade here, and I was wondering what you think of Krugman's faith in the cap & trade approach to reducing carbon emissions based on its success with acid rain in the U.S. in the 1990's? La Chine dorme. Laisse la dormir. Quand la Chine s'éveillera, le monde tremblera.
I should have read this first:
James Hansen - Cap and Fade - NYTimes.com
... Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate. If every polluter's emissions fell below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would disappear.
Yes, but what is the likelihood that emissions will fall more quickly than the incrementally lowered cap? Did that happen with acid rain?
Worse yet, polluters' lobbyists ensured that the clean air amendments allowed existing power plants to be "grandfathered," avoiding many pollution regulations. These old plants would soon be retired anyway, the utilities claimed. That's hardly been the case: Two-thirds of today's coal-fired power plants were constructed before 1975. Cap and trade also did little to improve public health. Coal emissions are still significant contributing factors in four of the five leading causes of mortality in the United States -- and mercury, arsenic and various coal pollutants also cause birth defects, asthma and other ailments. <...> To compound matters, the Congressional carbon cap would also encourage "offsets" -- alternatives to emission reductions, like planting trees on degraded land or avoiding deforestation in Brazil. Caps would be raised by the offset amount, even if such offsets are imaginary or unverifiable. Stopping deforestation in one area does not reduce demand for lumber or food-growing land, so deforestation simply moves elsewhere. ...
Cap and trade also did little to improve public health. Coal emissions are still significant contributing factors in four of the five leading causes of mortality in the United States -- and mercury, arsenic and various coal pollutants also cause birth defects, asthma and other ailments.
To compound matters, the Congressional carbon cap would also encourage "offsets" -- alternatives to emission reductions, like planting trees on degraded land or avoiding deforestation in Brazil. Caps would be raised by the offset amount, even if such offsets are imaginary or unverifiable. Stopping deforestation in one area does not reduce demand for lumber or food-growing land, so deforestation simply moves elsewhere. ...
... There is a better alternative, one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade: "fee and dividend." Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production. All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicle and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs.For example, when the fee reached $115 per ton of carbon dioxide it would add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline and 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of electricity. Given the amount of oil, gas and coal used in the United States in 2007, that carbon fee would yield about $600 billion per year. The resulting dividend for each adult American would be as much as $3,000 per year. As the fee rose, tipping points would be reached at which various carbon-free energies and carbon-saving technologies would become cheaper than fossil fuels plus their fees. As time goes on, fossil fuel use would collapse. ...
... There is a better alternative, one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade: "fee and dividend." Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production.
All of the collected fees would then be distributed to the public. Prudent people would use their dividend wisely, adjusting their lifestyle, choice of vehicle and so on. Those who do better than average in choosing less-polluting goods would receive more in the dividend than they pay in added costs.
For example, when the fee reached $115 per ton of carbon dioxide it would add $1 per gallon to the price of gasoline and 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of electricity. Given the amount of oil, gas and coal used in the United States in 2007, that carbon fee would yield about $600 billion per year. The resulting dividend for each adult American would be as much as $3,000 per year. As the fee rose, tipping points would be reached at which various carbon-free energies and carbon-saving technologies would become cheaper than fossil fuels plus their fees. As time goes on, fossil fuel use would collapse. ...
