American Public Opinion Supports Measures to Combat Global Warming

Summary.  A consortium of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication has summarized current American public opinion regarding global warming.  The public is worried about global warming and its effects, both on themselves and on future generations.  Voters across the political spectrum favor policy action to counteract global warming.  There is strong support for developing renewable energy and extending energy efficiency measures.  Among voters who say that election candidates’ positions on global warming would affect their vote, most agree the planet is warming and that human activity is responsible. 

A review of other surveys agrees with these findings.  We conclude that in the U. S., popular support for legislation effectively addressing global warming is strong.  It is clear that the public “has the legislators’ back” in this matter.

 

Introduction.  Implementing new policies intended to counteract worsening global warming, in the U. S. and other democratic countries, necessarily requires the support of the population.  Administrative measures put in place by the U. S. executive branch, as well as new legislative measures enacted in the Congress, both depend on the assent of the people.  Barring such popular approval neither administrative policies nor proposed legislation would become reality, since there have always been many powerful corporate and economic interests dedicated to preserving the status quo.

Public opinion on various aspects of the global warming issue has been the focus of an ongoing series of surveys carried out by a consortium of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, involving Emily Vraga, Connie Roser-Renouf, Anthony Leiserowitz and Edward Maibach, among others.  Their most recent survey entitled “Climate Change in the American Mind”, was released in September 2012 (after the summer heat wave and drought in the Midwest, and an unusually intense season of forest wildfires in the West, but before the U. S. presidential election and before Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast).  This most recent survey worked with 839 subjects; their earlier surveys involved variously 774-832 subjects.

This post presents a selection of results from the most recent survey concerning the voting public’s attitudes toward global warming, including a breakdown by political affiliation.  These are categorized as Democrats (more liberal), Republicans (more conservative), and Independents (frequently called Unaffiliated by others).  This selection was released on Jan. 15, 2013 by Anthony Leiserowitz.

Survey Results.

There is strong concern among American voters about the effects of global warming.  Majorities of Democrats and Independents were worried about effects on them and succeeding generations.

Taking medium-scale or large-scale measures to reduce global warming is broadly supported, amounting to 69%, with 88% of Democrats and 78% of Independents in agreement.  Republicans in the past have been characterized as being more doubtful or skeptical concerning global warming and its effects.  Yet in this survey a majority of Republicans favor at least some level of effort to counteract global warming.

Various policies aimed at developing renewable energy sources are supported by an overwhelming majority of voters of all three affiliation groups. Such policies include eliminating current subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (many of which have been in place for almost 100 years).  Across all three groups, strong majorities favor additional research on developing renewable energy sources.

The public understands that carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas accumulating in the atmosphere.  Voters in the survey support regulating carbon dioxide emission (69%), including imposing a carbon tax.  There were slightly differing degrees of support for the tax depending on the use to which the proceeds would be applied; of the alternatives presented the most strongly supported were using the proceeds for job creation in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and promoting development of energy sources that minimize greenhouse gas emission.

93% of Democrats, 75% of Independents and 52% of Republicans were in agreement that global warming should be at least a medium priority for the President and Congress.  In the 6 months since the previous survey, these percentages for Democrats and Independents were 7-9% higher, while the percent for Republicans remained unchanged.

58% of registered voters say that the presidential candidates’ positions on global warming would be a factor in deciding how they would vote (note that this survey dates from before the U. S. presidential election).  Within this group, 83% agree that the temperature of the planet is warming, and 65% affirm that human activity is responsible for this warming. 

 
Analysis

The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continues to rise inexorably year by year, as humanity across the globe relentlessly burns more fossil fuels to satisfy its energy demands.  Over the past decade, more, and more severe, climate and weather events negatively impacting human life and livelihood have occurred.  These frequently lead to loss of life, major damage to property and infrastructure, and loss of economic activity, all of which create a need for financial relief that is frequently borne by taxpayers.  These events are associated in the minds of the public with the idea that increased greenhouse gases are causing the increased extent of global warming that we are experiencing.

The Yale/George Mason survey shows that the voting public supports governmental action to help abate the worsening of global warming.  The public favors eliminating subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and government-sponsored development of renewable energy sources.  American people, as represented by the survey, support a carbon tax whose proceeds would be applied to several objectives including job creation in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and development of innovations in renewable energy.

The survey results developed by the Yale/George Mason consortium are corroborated in other recent public opinion surveys on global warming.  In a review of several surveys ClimateNexus reports similar results as of Dec. 18, 2012.  Thus they were able to report that Hurricane Sandy, the record melting of Arctic Sea ice, and other North American weather patterns already mentioned have reinforced in the public mind that global warming is happening “right here, right now”.  Global warming acted to make such disasters and extremes worse than they would otherwise have been.  The harms to Americans are understood by the public.

In another analysis, Krosnick and MacInnis (Daedalus, Winter 2013, Vol. 142, pp. 26-39; (doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00183) ) similarly find the American public understands the increase in global warming, its origins from human activity, and the need to embark on policies to mitigate warming.  They conclude that the failure to enact legislation combating continued warming cannot be ascribed to a lack of popular support.

Policymakers should be heartened by the results of surveys such as those summarized here.  It is clear that the public “has the legislators’ backs”.  In view of the strong scientific basis underlying our understanding of global warming and its worsening trends, it is highly necessary to embark on measures to abate the process as soon as possible, and as intensively as possible.  Public opinion supports enacting such measures.

© 2013 Henry Auer

Conference on “Global Climate Policy without the United States”

Summary.  A conference entitled “Global Climate Policy without the United States: Thinking the Unthinkable”, was held at Yale University Law School November 9-10, 2012.  After an opening talk detailing the worsening state of global warming already under way, several speakers dealt with frameworks and strategies that could bypass the stalemated international deliberations on global warming.  These include transnational actions involving fewer nations, and cooperation among nations, nongovernmental organizations and private corporations.  Additionally two talks addressed geoengineering, and the need to act cautiously if at all in implementing it.

Since the pace of greenhouse gas emissions is increasing, and the resulting warming of the planet grows accordingly, stratagems such as discussed in this conference should be pursued with all deliberate speed.  Avoiding the worsening effects of global warming may well rely on transnational and extra-governmental strategies such as these in pursuing mitigation and adaptation, unless and until a binding international agreement enters into force.

Introduction.  International negotiations toward an agreement on mitigating and adapting to global warming have been going on for many years under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) without apparent progress.  Among the impediments has been the reluctance of the two major emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the U. S. and China, to accommodate the viewpoint of the other side.  When the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated under the UNFCCC in 1997, all developing countries including China were excluded from coverage.  When the Protocol was presented to the U. S. Senate for ratification, the Senate decisively rejected it.  Among other reasons the debate cited the exclusion of developing countries while constraining the U. S. under its terms.  It was argued this would put the U. S. at a competitive disadvantage in international trade.  In the interim the U. S. Congress has repeatedly failed to pass domestic global warming legislation.  As a result, the U. S. currently has no legislated national policy governing mitigation of and adaptation to the worsening effects of increased average global temperatures due to greenhouse gas emissions.

A conference on this topic, entitled “Global Climate Policy without the United States: Thinking the Unthinkable”, was held at Yale University Law School November 9-10, 2012.  This post summarizes selected presentations to this conference immediately below (indented).  Then, in the Analysis section following the summary, the talks are considered against the perspective of the failure so far to reach a global agreement. 

Why Action on Global Warming is Needed.

Sir Robert Watson, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, opened the conference with a dire characterization of the present climate situation.  Increased concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other atmospheric components that affect heat retention have already had effects across the globe on precipitation patterns, a rise in sea levels, and melting of the polar ice caps. 

The strongest change in global average temperature has occurred in the last 50 years, and is due to human activity.  Projections of further increases in surface temperature by 2100, depending on the details of the modeling employed, range from 1.5-7ºC (2.7-12.6ºF).  Warming is not uniform across the globe; it is stronger in polar latitudes than in the tropics, and affects land surfaces more than the oceans.  Dry areas are projected to become drier and wet areas to become wetter.

The present rate of rise of sea level is greater than the IPCC predicted in its report of 2001, due to thermal expansion of water, and to the increasing runoff from glacial melting.

Other serious effects on humanity include loss of biological diversity, ocean acidification with attendant killing of coral reefs (which nurture much of the marine food chain that humans depend on), a decrease in agricultural productivity, and an increase in infectious disease rates.

The IPCC adopted the standard that world climate negotiations should strive to constrain the overall increase in global average temperature to 2ºC (3.6ºF) in order to keep warming from causing excessive damage to human life.  Sir Robert pointed out that because of projected GHG emissions and their attendant temperature increases, this constraint will be breached.  The annual meetings under the UNFCCC, most recently in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban, have made scant progress toward reaching agreement on emissions abatement.

Sir Robert concluded by listing the mitigation strategies that need to be pursued: development of carbon capture and storage technology (if successful, this would allow continued use of fossil fuels), development of biofuels (this will alleviate the dependence on fossil fuels), setting a price on carbon to deter use, and altering our behavior patterns to avoid use of fossil fuels.  He was hesitant about any role for geoengineering (see below) because there was not enough known about its capabilities and risks. 

Transnational and Public-Private Cooperation in Global Climate Initiatives

Robert Howse, Professor of International Law at New York University, spoke on transnational actions that can be taken in the absence of a binding international climate agreement.  In place of a broad mitigation agreement nations can dispense cross-border emissions allowances imposing cross-border taxes.  An example is that, under the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, any airplane landing in an EU country has to purchase allowances covering the fuel used in the flight. (Coincidentally, the New York Times reported on November 15, 2012 that this requirement is being postponed for one year in view of strong opposition from non-European countries.)  Prof. Howse cited a court case from the period before the WTO affirming such taxes, since the harms are inflicted on a global commons, and are not restricted to the offending country.

Dan Farber, Professor of Law at University of California, Berkeley, pointed out that rather than “without the U. S.” in the title of the conference, it could be “without Congress”.  He noted that administratively the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act, having effects at the international level.  He also noted the regional compacts in California and the northeastern states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  Within the U. S., such compacts face the problem of carbon leakage by purchases of energy from, or goods made with energy provided in, other states.  The U. S. Constitution prohibits taxation across state boundaries.  Ultimately there is no substitute for a legislated federal emissions framework and for a formal agreement on international emissions abatement.

Richard Stewart, Professor of Law at New York University, recognized that to date formal, international negotiations have failed to produce an agreement on global warming.  He cited the reluctance of China, and the levels and timing of commitments sought to be made as contributing causes. 

He suggests that instead of “mega” negotiations, which emphasize the dominance of nation-states, bottom-up efforts be made, developing trans-national climate regimes involving a smaller number of actors.  Ways of proceeding might include 1) private agreements among companies, non-governmental organizations and governments, working on goals such as industrial development and carbon capture and storage; 2) linkage and leverage agreements that could proceed even without the U. S. and China; and 3) building blocks that start with a small number of actors focusing on limited goals such as marine transport, or the European Union’s mitigation program.  Prof. Stewart believes such alternatives could pave the way toward developing trust among nations and lead toward an international treaty that is the ultimate objective.

Michael Gerrard, a Professor at Columbia Law School, offered perspectives on the previous three talks; these echoed as well many of Robert Watson’s thoughts.  First, the goal of limiting warming to a 2ºC limit is unattainable.  Second, emissions from China alone currently and in coming decades, will be largely responsible for the increase in atmospheric GHG levels.  Furthermore fossil fuel use is likely to increase radically as other developing countries, and currently impoverished countries, undergo economic growth; this projection includes the expected increase in the world’s population over coming decades.  Third, in the U. S., there is minimal prospect politically for abating GHG emissions because Congress has rejected putting a price on carbon.  According to Prof. Gerrard, 46% of Americans are anti-science, which hinders spreading an appreciation of the science underlying global warming.  He notes that global warming is clearly occurring already.  For these reasons he advocates promoting adaptation to warming far more intensively than has occurred to date.  He compares this with the costs incurred by society by inaction.

 

Kenneth Abbott, Professor at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, gave a talk that was similar in theme to that of Prof. Stewart, above.  Prof. Abbott recognizes the failure of the international framework to make progress on an agreement to combat global warming.  He noted that Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, and that Japan and other nations have opposed extending it beyond 2012.  Instead, he proposes bypassing states, promoting actions by governmental and nongovernmental actors within states.  These groups would establish transnational advocacy activities.  Prof. Abbott models these by a pyramid, as shown: 

Prof. Abbott populated this pyramid with about 70 examples of organizations arrayed according to their characteristics; each could establish bilateral or multilateral associations with others.  He envisions that these activities would involve entrepreneurs and officials that catalyze and support unconventional advances, building transnational liaisons that combat global warming.

Geoengineering

Two speakers addressed the controversial topic of geoengineering: Edward Parson, Professor at UCLA School of Law, and Jane Long, Associate Director at Large, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.  The terms “geoengineering” or “climate engineering” encompass several technologies.  These talks focused in particular on injecting white aerosols into the stratosphere that would remain airborne for several years and act to reflect sunlight back into space.  Prof. Parsons noted that aerosol-based geoengineering is fast, cheap and imperfect.  Rocket-based injection of aerosols is easily accomplished, and would probably cost a few billion dollars a year.  Yet it is imperfect because its effects are uncharacterized.  Geoengineering raises several concerns related to the global reach of the technology.  First, if successful it could create the moral hazard of relieving the incentive among humanity to mitigate GHG emissions.  Second, in spite of its universal effect around the globe, it could be accomplished unilaterally by a state acting alone, thereby affecting other states without their consent.  Currently no aspect of international law covers such activities.  Because mitigation and geoengineering act in complementary fashions, Prof. Parsons suggests proceeding simultaneously on mitigation activities coupled with research on geoengineering.

Dr. Long likewise believes that geoengineering cannot be a substitute for mitigation activities.  She described policy activities within the U. S.  She recommends setting up “protogovernance” to deal with geoengineering policy, which should be a new advisory commission established within the federal government.  It should be in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, since no other agency is appropriate.  Currently there is no policy guiding research on geoengineering, since most work originates as investigator-initiated projects.  Additionally, there are private groups considering the deployment of geoengineering, such as a pilot project in the Eastern Pacific.  Some of these are offered as having only regional rather than global effects.  

 

Analysis

Recent UNFCCC annual conferences, including those in Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010) and Durban (2011), have striven unsuccessfully to supplant the Kyoto Protocol on its expiration at the end of 2012.  These involve the 193 member states of the United Nations.  The Cancun Agreement established binding objectives and subgroups to advance aspects of mitigation and adaptation.  At the Durban conference it became clear that agreement on a global warming treaty would be seriously delayed.  The delay represents a serious setback to limiting atmospheric GHG levels, and clearly is one factor underlying the observation by speakers at the Yale conference that the goal of constraining global average temperature rise to 2ºC cannot be achieved.

The extent of increase of the global average temperature is determined by the total accumulated level of GHGs, not by the annual rate of emissions.  Since the principal GHG, carbon dioxide, persists in the atmosphere for at least 100 years (and probably much longer), each year humanity emits more GHGs into the air raises the total accumulated level of GHGs, thereby raising the global average temperature higher and higher.  The only way to stabilize the global average temperature is to reduce the annual emission rate to near zero, or to sequester GHG emissions underground.  These considerations lead to the conclusion that the delay enshrined in the Durban Platform will produce irreversibly higher global average temperatures than would have been obtained had an international agreement been successfully negotiated earlier.

Since the U. S. and China, the two highest emitters of GHGs, approach these negotiations with seemingly irreconcilable differences, both of them may be considered to be responsible for the historical failure to reach agreement.  The theme of the Yale conference was to examine paths that can be taken that skirt the necessity of involving the U. S. government.  In view of the strategies evinced in the conference, the title might also have included the phrase “[without] China” as well.

The speakers at “Global Climate Policy without the United States: Thinking the Unthinkable” offered a variety of ways for actors other than sovereign nations to undertake initiatives that advance the objective of constraining global temperature rise.  Some of these involve regional transnational regulatory regimes.  Others, such as those within the U. S., involve states or provinces which are smaller entities typically not having authority to act internationally.  Still others envision development of extra-governmental consortiums among nations or states/provinces, non-governmental organizations and private corporations to advance global warming initiatives.  Only in considering geoengineering did speakers rein in their proposals because of the many risks involved.

This conference emphasized the dire need to stabilize global average temperature at as low a level as possible in order to minimize the harms to human society already happening.  These harms are destined to become worse absent meaningful action.  Many innovative stratagems, involving state actors, nongovernmental organizations and private enterprise, offer the prospect of making meaningful progress even without the participation of the two largest emitting nations, China and the U. S.  Speakers at the conference encouraged these efforts, including both mitigation and adaptation, in order to help humanity meet the global climate crisis.

 

  © 2012 Henry Auer

Review: “Climate Change Policy Failures” by Howard A. Latin

Summary.  This post reviews the new book “Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed” by Prof. Howard A. Latin.  Prof. Latin begins by reviewing the past decade or more of legislative activity in the U. S. concerned with abating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, finding the drafts to be ineffective (none were enacted into law).  More generally, he characterizes the gradual approach to abatement currently prevalent both nationally and internationally as being “too little, too late”, and being “back-loaded” toward later decades.  This is ineffective because GHGs would continue to accumulate, building up ever higher levels in the atmosphere and worsening the warming of the planet.  Additionally, the book details the failures at the international level to agree on world-wide abatement policies, over more than two decades.

Instead, the book calls for innovative measures to “decarbonize” our energy economy by deploying replacement technologies, starting right away.  Prof. Latin suggests 1) setting up an independent Clean Technology Commission to select promising replacement technologies to pursue; 2) implementing a progressively increasing carbon tax to fund the investments identified by the Commission; 3) imposing economy-wide regulation of fossil fuel use in those industries responsible for most GHG emissions; and 4) requiring public disclosure of GHG emission rates by emission sources.

Prof. Latin has written a compelling book setting forth the reasons for immediate or early action to abate further emissions of GHGs, and has presented a comprehensive plan on how to go about this task.  “Climate Change Policy Failures” is strongly recommended to policymakers, to researchers and commentators, and to the interested public.

(Readers preferring not to delve into details may wish to pass directly to this reviewer’s Assessment, which appears below, following the exposition of the book’s features.)

 Introduction.

Many books have been published on global warming, including policy approaches to combating the worsening warming of the earth by man-made greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Howard A. Latin, Professor of Law at Rutgers University, has written a book on this topic, entitled “Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed” (“Policy Failures”; see Note 1).  The book presents a cogent argument on the urgency of embarking on mitigation efforts.  Setting forth this rationale in itself performs a valuable service.  His statement of the problem, while not original with the author, is all too frequently overlooked in reporting on global warming, and justifies the provocative title that Prof. Latin has chosen for his book.

The Case for Urgent Action

Prof. Latin cites several reports from late in the last decade attesting to the warming of the planet.  For example, the U. S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration reported that 2010 tied with 2005 as the hottest year in recorded human history (citing the New York Times), and that long-term warming is scientifically “unarguable” (citing many reports).

Current policy initiatives are characterized as “too little, too late”.

The U. S. has never enacted greenhouse gas legislation.  Policy Failures points out that, most recently, in 2009-2010, neither the Markey-Waxman bill in the House of Representatives, incorporating a watered-down cap-and-trade mechanism, nor the Senate’s Kerry-Lieberman bill, whose provisions resemble those of the Markey-Waxman bill, was enacted into law. [Presumably after this book went to press, however, the Obama administration issued regulations doubling the fuel efficiency of cars and imposing restrictions on emissions from new large electric generating plants.]  

Some regional climate agreements have been reached in the U. S. in recent years.  These include the Northeast states’ Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the first (if modest) cap-and-trade regime enacted in the U. S., and the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) of seven western states and four Canadian provinces.  Unfortunately the book fails to note that WCI actually fell apart shortly after its formation, leaving only California and one Canadian province in a reduction program extending to 2050.  The book further mentions that the European Union (EU) has undertaken to reduce emissions with the same goal as the state of California.

Policy Failures makes the strong, and valid, point that policies such as these suffer “the same climate policy mistakes”, namely, that they are too gradual. Their stated goals are to reduce emissions over a multi-decade interval, mostly using cap-and-trade mechanisms.  Prof. Latin believes this “consensus approach will prove ‘too little, too late’ by deferring crucial GHG reductions too far into the future….[which] would consistently be back-loaded” to later decades (emphasis in original).

“Back-loading” is inappropriate because carbon dioxide (CO₂), the most prevalent GHG, persists in the atmosphere for centuries or longer (citing the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).  Thus GHGs that continue to accumulate during the coming decades under gradual reduction policies irreversibly increase the total atmospheric concentration of GHGs.  “At best”, Policy Failures states, “the consensus emissions-reduction programs will only slow the growth of … atmospheric GHG[s] and related climate change risks to a minimal extent” (emphasis in original).  While this would “create an illusion of climate change mitigation progress”, it would actually “wast[e] irreplaceable time and resources that could [instead be used] to implement more promising…efforts”.

Policy Failures cites an analogy by Prof. John Sterman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  Imagine a bathtub containing atmospheric CO₂.  It continues to fill up higher as long as the faucet delivers more CO₂ than is removed by the drain.  The best we can hope for realistically in the foreseeable future is to stabilize the bathtub at a new, higher, level of CO₂ because emissions are essentially irreversible.  Natural processes that remove CO₂ are inadequate to pull all the added, man-made GHGs out of the atmosphere.  (The technology of carbon capture and storage, which would store excess CO₂ underground, is still in the experimental stage.)

The need for GHG-free replacement-technologies.

Instead of the gradual policies, Prof. Latin argues strongly that the U. S., and other emission-intensive nations of the world, need to “decarbonize” our energy economies, i.e., to develop ways of obtaining energy that eliminate the release of CO₂ and other GHGs into the atmosphere; this must be done “[n]ow, today, not tomorrow”.  Otherwise, under the “back-loaded” consensus approach, the world continues to emit GHGs and accumulate them in the atmosphere, leading to worsening global warming and its attendant climate harms.   In addition, Prof. Latin declares that rapid transition to carbon-free replacement technologies is the only way for developed countries to respond to the aspirations of developing or less affluent countries without continuing to degrade the climate in ways that adversely affect them. 

Economic strategies for reducing GHG emissions.

Cap-and-trade is one system for lowering emissions.  Under it, all major emitting facilities are allotted allowances that license the release of a fixed amount, say 1 ton, of GHGs.  An administrative agency decides allotments for each period.  Ideally the emitters would pay for the allowances, frequently by auction, but at the outset in many regimes these are distributed at no charge.  Markets are set up for trading allowances, thereby establishing a price for emissions.  In addition, inefficient sources can buy offsets from operations that consume GHGs (tree farms, for example).  The market price on carbon deters fossil fuel use and motivates research and deployment of replacement energy sources. 

There are many problems with a cap-and-trade regime that make it difficult to succeed.  Emissions continue to be sanctioned according to allotted allowances.  Large corporate emitters can influence allotments such that they are improperly allocated. A large new bureaucracy is needed to administer it.  The market can wind up not valuing emissions high enough to act as a deterrent to emitting GHGs.  Offsets are difficult to regulate and properly administer. 

A carbon tax or fee can be imposed directly, and the tax or fee used in a variety of ways.  The tax increases the price of the fuel, and of any article of commerce made using the fuel, thereby discouraging use of the fuel.  This provides an incentive to commercialize and deploy replacement energy sources. 

There are many possible ways that a carbon tax can be imposed and the revenue dispensed.  One system, offered by Dr. James Hansen, a respected climate scientist who has consistently warned of the perils of global warming for decades, is his fee-and-dividend plan (see Note 2).  The carbon fee would be collected at the source at which a fossil fuel enters the economy, and its revenue would be distributed to all members of the public in equal shares regardless of usage.  Thus there is an incentive to reduce consumption in order to benefit more from the dividend.  Surprisingly, Policy Failures devotes an inordinately large amount of space to criticizing Dr. Hansen’s fee-and-dividend plan in minute detail (see the Assessment below).

Prof. Latin concludes that neither cap-and-trade nor a free-standing carbon tax regime would successfully reduce fossil fuel use and carbon emissions.

International climate negotiations are stalemated.

Policy Failures reviews international climate negotiations since the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992.  The UNFCCC includes all United Nations members, now numbering 193 nations.  UNFCCC negotiations led to the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, under which developed countries agreed to modest reductions in GHG emissions.  The term of the Protocol expires at the end of 2012.  Developing countries were excluded from its coverage.  The U. S., although it is a developed country, rejected the Protocol and so likewise does not fall under its terms.

In recent years the annual UNFCCC conferences in Copenhagen (2009), Cancun (2010) and Durban (2011) have sought without success to conclude a new agreement to follow the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.  The main points of contention remain those that led to exclusion of developing countries from being bound by the Kyoto Protocol.

Developing countries argue that historically the developed countries have been responsible for most emissions already produced; their per capita emissions rate is much higher than for developing countries.  The continued economic growth of developing countries, on the other hand, necessarily implies a profound increase in their per capita emissions rate as their growth continues.   They contend that it is the developed countries that should take the initiative in reducing their emissions rates.  In their view fairness requires nothing less.  

Developed countries defend the need to include all nations in climate accords now by noting that widespread recognition of the climate conundrum became prevalent only in recent decades.  They feel that the developing countries, with their rapidly growing populations and economies, cannot realistically expect developed countries, whose populations and economies are more stable, to significantly reduce their living standards in order to grant developing countries more leeway with their emissions.

These fundamental differences persist to the present.  By the time of the Durban conference in 2011, all ambition to conclude a successor to the Kyoto Protocol had been abandoned; the only development was an intention to complete negotiation of a new treaty by 2015, with an expectation that it would then be implemented by 2020.  Prof. Latin reflects the opinion of many of not being sanguine about the success of this endeavor. 

Policy Failures laments that it is hard to see how climate negotiations that have been fruitless for the past decade can reach a meaningful agreement for the coming decades as called for by the Durban plan.

Policy Failures proposes four interacting mechanisms to stabilize GHGs.

Prof. Latin proposes that the only way out of an impasse so fundamental is to devise new policies recognizing both points of view.  Significantly, he states  “[s]uccessful climate change policies must accomplish two demanding goals concurrently: eliminating as much residual GHG pollution as feasible to stabilize …[GHGs]…, and promoting greater economic and social welfare in developing countries that otherwise will continue discharging more GHGs …every year”.  He laments that world leaders continue discussions on gradually lowering the rate of emissions rather than seeking the necessary stabilization of accumulated GHGs by early deployment of decarbonizing replacement technologies. 

Current policies, he feels, will achieve neither of these objectives.  Rather, Policy Failures proposes four program steps, starting in the U. S. 

1. Set up an independent scientific, technological and economics Clean Technology Commission (CTC), as a quasi-governmental body, to assess various replacement technologies and decarbonization methods.  It would identify, support development of, and assist in deploying the most promising replacement technologies, while striving to deflect political and corporate influence.

2. Implement a progressively increasing carbon tax whose revenues will be used to fund the activities of the CTC.  The tax, once assessed at an appropriate economic level, will motivate consumers to reduce their interim use of fossil fuels.  The tax revenue should not be applied to uses not related to renewable energy such as deficit reduction, income redistribution, or a rebate or “dividend”.

3. As a complement to the carbon tax, impose new regulations to reduce fossil fuel use in those sectors of the energy economy most responsible for high GHG emission rates, using federal regulatory authority.  These regulations should be stringent enough to induce those affected to invest in replacement technologies sooner rather than later.  Policy Failures recognizes the serious and difficult political obstacles that these regulations are likely to encounter. 

4. Require public disclosure of all GHG emission rates in the U. S.  Enhanced knowledge of emissions would provide incentives for the public to lower their use of fossil fuels.

Assessment

Prof. Latin has written a cogent, compelling book setting forth the reason for immediate or early action to abate further emissions of GHGs, and has presented a comprehensive plan on how to go about this task in the U. S., if not worldwide. In summary

1. The factor determining the extent of global warming is the cumulative atmospheric concentration of CO₂ and other GHGs, not the annual rate of emissions.  Humanity is ill-advised to seek gradually to reduce the emissions rate over a period of several decades, all the while continuing to accumulate more atmospheric GHGs. 

2. Policy Failures summarizes the inability at the international level to achieve even modest progress on a worldwide accord to address global warming.  It further reviews the failed legislative efforts domestically in the U. S. to regulate GHG emission rates. 

3. Prof. Latin seeks to stabilize the accumulated GHG concentration at as low a level as possible.  Accordingly, he offers a new private-public framework to develop replacement technologies as rapidly as possible and to fund the framework with a comprehensive progressive carbon tax.  This framework abandons the “back-loaded”, gradual approach that is common policy in various settings around the world.

Policy Failures represents an important contribution to the literature on abating GHG emissions.  That said, the book would have benefited from proposals aimed at incorporating developing countries into a program for stabilizing GHG emissions.  This failing is all the more unexpected in view of the detailed presentation of the current status of international climate negotiations.  The developed countries of the world are projected to have essentially constant annual rates of emission of GHGs in coming decades.  Developing countries including China and India, on the other hand, are projected to continue their development by burning ever-larger amounts of fossil fuels and emitting more and more GHGs each year.  Stabilizing the accumulated level of atmospheric GHGs must include these countries.  Proposals for deploying replacement technologies in these countries would have rounded out the book.  Prof. Latin defended himself against a similar concern expressed by a U. N. official, stating “I do not have a realistic, comprehensive political solution today and neither does anyone else.”

The book would also have presented a stronger case for action had it reviewed the relationship between extreme weather events and the warming of the planet.  Recent scientific analyses of past climate and extreme events have clearly demonstrated causative associations between them and global warming. Also, many internet and other sources are available providing data on the large economic damages and significant societal harms inflicted by the severe weather events of recent years.  Reference to these developments would have enhanced the book.

The book is exceptionally well supported by references in the endnotes.  These cite both internet pages as well as printed sources.

A lesser concern is that Policy Failures devotes a seemingly excessive amount of attention to criticizing and rebutting James Hansen’s “fee-and-dividend” proposal.  The book did not consider other carbon tax proposals in such negative detail.  It appears to this reviewer that perceived defects in Dr. Hansen’s proposal could have been discussed more briefly and more objectively.

In summary, Policy Failures is strongly recommended to policymakers dealing with global warming at both the national and international levels, to those dealing with this issue as researchers and commentators, and to the interested public.  Its important contribution is the case made for taking immediate, bold action rather than continuing with conventional, gradual approaches to mitigation.  Its particular proposal for taking action is also useful; it will certainly serve to stimulate discussion, and hopefully, lead to enacted policy.  

 

Notes

1. “Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed”, Howard A. Latin, 2012, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore.
2. “Storms of my Grandchildren: The Truth about the Coming Climate Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Humanity”, James Hansen, 2009, Bloomsbury USA, New York.

© 2012 Henry Auer