The Democratic debates, the European heat wave (not to mention the 90 degrees in Anchorage), et al, are getting people to talk even more about climate change, assuming that is possible. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates support the “Green New Deal.” Even those that don’t, have their own plans for dealing with climate change (and getting votes from those for whom this is the number one issue).
The thing to remember about climate change, however, is that it is a two-part question. Just because you’re right about mankind affecting the climate through increased CO2 emissions, etc., doesn’t mean you are right about what the solution is. The second question is not whether we need to reduce emissions. The second question is how we reduce emissions – and how much we need to reduce them. Do we need to reduce emissions to zero or can we just reduce annual emissions to 25% of current levels? Or do we need to get them to below zero, because we need to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?
The same is true with climate change. There are all kinds of ideas and proposed solutions out there. But will they work? Just because the person proposing them is right about the fact of climate change doesn’t mean they are right about the way to solve it. And you can’t assume ideas are going to work like their proponents claim just because the idea sounds logical or looks good.
Proposed solutions need to be carefully reviewed and tested to see if they are going to accomplish what their proponents say they will do. There are all kinds of ideas that don’t work out like they are supposed to and all kinds of equipment that doesn’t do what was promised. Spending $X billion (or $X trillion) may make you feel like you are solving the problem. But if the idea doesn’t really reduce CO2 emissions or do whatever else it is supposed to do, you have not only wasted money, you have wasted time.
One particular fallacy is the assumption that the most expensive solution is the best solution. This is important for at least two reasons. First, the most expensive solution may not be the most effective. For example, the most expensive cars usually aren’t any better than, or even as good as, a really good, cheaper car.
But even more importantly, we can’t solve climate change by ourselves. Regardless of what the United States does, if other countries don’t work to reduce emissions, too, what we do won’t matter. Of course, this is not an excuse to do nothing, but it is a reason to figure out a way to not only reduce our emissions, but also make it easier for other countries to reduce their emissions, too. This is where cost is really important. Maybe we can afford an expensive plan. Maybe we don’t mind spending the money, or maybe we are willing to give up future growth (or even cut back on our current standard of living), to cut our emissions.
But other countries may not feel that way’. People in other countries, people who aren’t rich or even middle class yet, aren’t going to be willing to pay for expensive solutions or to cut their standard of living in order to reduce emissions.
If we are going to cut emissions world-wide, and not just in the United States (and western Europe), we need to a way to make cutting emissions the cheap way to get economic growth. A plan that cuts emissions by cutting economic growth isn’t going to work. You need a way to cut emissions while still having growth.
This kind of goal is not going to be easy, but it’s the only way we can cut emissions world-wide. Which means the best way for the United States to be a leader in cutting emissions is not to talk about cutting emissions by cutting living standards. Instead, we need to develop cheap ways to cut emissions, ways to cut emissions while still pursuing economic growth. Maybe economic growth doesn’t matter for some people in the U.S., but it does for most of the people in the world. If we really care about climate change, we need to figure out ways to cut emissions while still letting people get better off.
Comments