I imagine Robert Samuelson will get a ration of flak from the true believers for writing his column today. But in trying to point out the impossibilities (not difficulties, impossibilities) of eliminating CO2 emissions in the short term, he is telling the truth. Which is why it won't sit well with the folks who are the most rabid advocates of the whole global warming agenda.
Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior.
Anyone who honestly examines global energy trends must reach these harsh conclusions. In 2004, world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2, the main greenhouse gas) totaled 26 billion metric tons. Under plausible economic and population assumptions, CO2 emissions will grow to 40 billion tons by 2030, projects the International Energy Agency. About three-quarters of the increase is forecast to come from developing countries, two-fifths from China alone. The IEA expects China to pass the United States as the largest source of carbon dioxide by 2009.
Poor countries won't sacrifice economic growth — lowering poverty, fostering political stability — to placate the rich world's global warming fears. Why should they? On a per-person basis, their carbon dioxide emissions are only about one-fifth the level of rich countries. In Africa, less than 40 percent of the population even has electricity.
Nor will existing technologies, aggressively deployed, rescue us. The IA studied an "alternative scenario" that simulated the effect of 1,400 policies to reduce fossil fuel use. Fuel economy for new U.S. vehicles was assumed to increase 30 percent by 2030; the global share of energy from "renew ables" (solar, wind, hydro power, biomass) would quadruple, to 8 percent. The result: by 2030, annual carbon dioxide emissions would rise 31 percent instead of 55 percent. The concentration levels of emissions in the atmosphere (which presumably cause warming) would rise.
I posted yesterday about remarks from the Chinese government about global warming.They will be more than happy to blame every bit of global warming on the West and do nothing whatsoever to change what they are doing. And they will soon take the lead on CO2 emissions. Samuelson says that what is needed is a push for real solutions, not politically-motivated feel good actions. His disdain for the "cap and trade" schemes is absolutely spot on, by the way. Those are fundamentally slapstick solutions, meant to make everyone feel better but with minimal real impact. And oh, boy, will some people get rich off those schemes.
One thing I think Samuelson has wrong, however, is his call for higher energy taxes to spur development. Europe has had astronomical gasoline taxes for decades and they are not exactly a hotbed of innovation in increasing mileage. Frankly, anyone who tells you that there are easy solutions to any of this is either lying or completely misguided.
