One of the most confusing, and yet pressing, issues before our culture today is the relationship between global warming and economic policy. Scientists and economists alike are having trouble comprehending the complexities of this problem, much less navigating a reliable path out of its tangle.
Some give little credence to the hype, trusting in the corrective abilities of the market, the earth and civilization. Others view the problem with apocalyptic concern. They warn that the affliction is not just skin deep and that serious changes must be made immediately.
Many vexing questions surround this issue, but a number of proposals have been made to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. Proposals include imposing taxes on fuels in proportion to their carbon dioxide content, emissions trading, and aggressive policy towards the development of clean technologies. One thing is for certain; this issue isn’t going away any time soon.
Our economic system and our climate system are both self-stabilizing. As our culture has found though, combining the two in one system results in chaos. The gap has not yet been bridged between the logic of economic gain and the logic of environmental preservation, and at this point we would be hard pressed to abandon one or the other. The only viable solution is to take steps toward a policy that accounts for both.
Agriculture is an area of the economy that is very vulnerable to climate change. In the global marketplace, many countries have begun importing some part of the agriculture they need. Because of this shift, the gross domestic product (GDP) of such countries seems to become less vulnerable to climate change. But if climate change significantly disturbs agriculture, all countries will feel the effect, whether or not their GDP is dependent on agriculture.
An even greater concern is the policy of congregating agriculture in certain global regions. With this lack of diversity, small climate changes in certain areas could have catastrophic consequences for the rest of the world. We have to wonder if the policy of clustering agriculture will become more pronounced in the future.
It is not an unreasonable assumption that economies will be able to adjust to changes in agriculture before they become significant. If agricultural productivity falls as a result of global warming, prices will rise and money will be averted from industries that increase greenhouse gases and therefore greenhouse gasses will decrease. One problem with this perspective, however, is that it assumes the environment acts in the same way other economic commodities act. It likens a degraded environment to an abandoned factory whose productivity will return as soon as new machines and workers arrive.
Another significant piece of the puzzle is the relationship between scientific research and economic policy. Our knowledge of global warming is informed by scientific research, but that knowledge is by no means exact or unambiguous.
Scientists don’t doubt that greenhouse gasses are accumulating in the environment; the question is the extent to which those gasses will affect the climate. All scientists have at this point is computer simulations and data from the last 100 years. The various simulations can be likened to weather predicting computers. They might be reliable in the short term, but there are just too many variables to make reliable long term predictions.
A scientist, S. A. Arrhenius predicted at the end of the 19th century that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would result in an increase of the global mean temperature by 4 to 6 degrees C. Historical records show that the temperature has increased by 0.3 to 0.6 degrees C in that time while carbon dioxide emissions have increased by about 20 percent. If this trend continues, then the prediction won’t be too far off. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are expected to reach the doubled figure before 2100 and the temperature is expected to have risen by 2 to 5 degrees C.
Many scientists argue, however, that the current rise in temperature is the result of a natural climate trend. We know that the earth gets warmer and cooler in large cycles (many decades), so it is hard to determine to what extent our current warming trend is natural or human made. There is no evidence, say, to show that temperature increases are linked with greenhouse gasses.
We see that there is ample conflict between different scientist’s best guesses. Yet, even if scientific information isn’t exact, at what point does it become necessary to take policy action? And since extensive scientific research is often done by institutions and corporations who have a vested interest in the status quo, we must wonder when scientific information can become conclusive. Is it necessary to wait for scientific certainty before a comprehensive policy will be put in place?
Two other important international problems also arise. The first, is whether developing countries should have to cut emissions along with developed countries, as was argued by China and Brazil at the recent Kyoto climate convention. And the second is to what extent policy should focus on population growth.
Developing countries already account for 30-40 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions; small when compared the United States 25 percent share of emissions. With the rising condition of living in developing countries, those numbers are very likely to increase. Take, for example, China. In its reliance on coal, China already accounts for 11 - 12 percent of world’s carbon dioxide emissions, but scientists predict that at its current rate of growth, its emissions will top the list in the next few decades. China argues, however, that it should be exempt from taxation for its emissions since it is a developing country, To what extent should international policy allow developing countries to grow without restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions?
The OPEC countries present another side of this issue. Since their economies are so dependent on the sale of fossil fuels, they have a great deal to lose from reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Should a policy take into special consideration their situation? Should they be compensated for the giant blow that will come to their economies from a reduction in the use of fossil fuels, or are they just out of luck? The population issue also cannot be overlooked. Since world population is growing at a phenomenal rate and since developing countries continue to aim for a level of consumption near that of developed countries, it will not be long before our present system will need to be changed. The continued growth of world population cannot be ignored if there is any truth in our current environmental degradation.
Scientists, economists and policy makers have come up with a number of solutions to the general problem of global warming. Energy needs instruct almost all of our economic activities. Any solutions, then, must take into account economic stability in order to be accepted.
The first, and most reasonable, solution is taxing carbon emissions. Since carbon dioxide accounts for about 45 percent of net greenhouse emissions, its reduction will greatly slow down global warming. The Netherlands, Sweden and Finland have already adopted such taxes, and several proposals for a carbon tax have come before the U.S. Congress.
One benefit of carbon taxes is its ability to generate substantial revenues. A problem that comes up with this, though, is who should receive the revenue. Should the money simply go to those collecting the tax, to those effected or should it be shared cooperatively? And who will lay down the standards for taxing and what will be done with the revenue? If funds collected were channeled to developing countries, it might secure their participation in abatement of carbon emissions. Other benefits are that it provides an incentive for technological change, and that the tax rate will be easy to change in light of new scientific information.
Another policy that aims to prevent the increase of global warming is to plant trees. Besides fossil fuel emissions, deforestation is one of the main causes of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, accounting for between 5 to 30 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. If millions or billions of trees were planted and deforestation was decreased, much of the carbon could be removed from the atmosphere. One significant policy that was dealt with at the Kyoto climate convention is tradable permits. Through this policy, countries that produce a lot of carbon emissions will be able to pay countries that produce few emissions. As a part of this policy, a ceiling would be set up to designate the amount of carbon emissions a country could produce without buying permits from other countries. This policy is easily accessible and would result in bringing everyone into the solution. However, it doesn’t attempt to combat the basic assumption of over-consumption, and makes an implicit value judgment about which countries should, and which should not have access to fossil fuels.
A last, but very significant solution, is developing new technologies. Since there is not a giant market for energy efficient technologies (they are often costly as a result of the expensive research behind them), governments must take the initiative on this issue. Governments should provide subsidies and standards for the creation of new technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since technology is behind our present problem of greenhouse gas emissions, its purification must certainly be part of the solution.
The best way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions will likely be a combination of policies, dealing with many sides of the problem. One of the most important elements to the solution will be to improve people’s knowledge of the subject. Global warming attitudes and actions need to be monitored often, and the environmental condition needs to be analyzed. Knowledge about global warming has increased significantly over the past 20 years. However, considering the complexity of the interests and powers at play, knowledge and concern must certainly be at the heart of any genuine, long-lasting solution.