Larry Summers on What Must Be Done About Global Warming

In the Financial Times (which really is the best newspaper in the world), Larry Summers writes:

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - We need to bring climate idealism down to earth: With the accumulation of scientific evidence and its persuasive presentation to the public, the global warming debate has reached a new stage. Those who still deny that human activity is warming the planet, or claim that “business as usual” can continue indefinitely without profoundly adverse consequences, are increasingly seen as the moral and intellectual equivalent of those who deny that tobacco has adverse consequences for human health.... [T]here are huge opportunities to reduce emissions with economic benefit or negligible economic cost... [with current] worldwide subsidies to energy use... [of perhaps] $250b [a year].

The real question for debate is not whether something should be done – that debate is over among the rational. The crucial question now is what should be done so as to leave our descendants with the highest possible quality of life. Answering it effectively requires vision and ambition. But, as the example of Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations teaches painfully, utopian vision and ambition unmoored from political, economic and social reality can be counterproductive....

[T]he global cap and trade approach directed at achieving the rapid emissions reductions enshrined in the Kyoto protocol... could be ineffective or even counterpoductive by substituting for more realistic approaches.... Kyoto is... the only game in town for those who do not want to be ostriches.... But it is surely useful to try to be clear about the potential pitfalls....

[T]he Kyoto approach depends on the questionable premise that nations will, in fact, be bound by binding targets.... [C]onsider the history of the Maastricht Treaty.... It broke down almost immediately when it looked like the targets would not be binding for big countries....

Whatever evidence there is of impressive emissions reductions comes from countries such as the UK, Germany and the former communist states, where coal use was being phased out for other reasons. The limited impact of Kyoto is evinced by the fact that carbon permits are now selling in the range of a negligible one euro a ton....

[C]arbon markets are invitations to engage in pork-barrel corporate subsidy politics on a massive scale. If greenhouse gas emissions are to be substantially reduced, the value of the associated emissions rights will be in the tens of billions of dollars.... [B]usinesses that can pass on carbon costs to their consumers are excited about schemes that compensate for these costs by allocating them permits related to their existing emissions levels. As investigations by this newspaper have highlighted, the clean development mechanism has resulted in substantial payments for emissions reductions that would have occurred anyway or could have been achieved at negligible cost. There is even reason to think that certain industrial gas emissions may have been increased so that credit could be claimed for their abatement.

[T]he most serious problem with the Kyoto framework is that it is unlikely to generate substantial changes in developing country policies... [which] are not likely to accept binding targets on their energy use or greenhouse gas emissions that fall way short on a per-capita basis of emissions levels in the industrial world. Nor is it reasonable to expect them... to commit to energy use goals that fall short of patterns observed in the rich countries....

[D]eveloping countries are where most of the future action has to be. They will account for 75 per cent of the increase in emissions over the next quarter century and are now making the infrastructure investments that will shape their future economies.... [A]ny international regime that does not include them will [simply] not work... as energy intensive activities relocate to the developing world....

Perhaps these problems and others... can be overcome with goodwill and extensive thought. But next month I shall suggest [alternative] approaches that... may over time provide a more secure foundation for the progress that the world must have.

Comments

[Bupa]

Neil Craig,

Please point us eager readers to Antonio Zichichi's recent publications in established peer-reviewed journals of science on the issue of climate change. He must be in line for a Nobel Prize to have proved all his colleagues wrong.

Please point us eager readers to President Vaclav Klaus' recent publication in established peer-reviewed journals of science on the issue of climate change.

Here is Havel on Klaus:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20153

[Bupa]

Neil Craig,

Please point us eager readers to Antonio Zichichi's recent publications in established peer-reviewed journals of science on the issue of climate change. He must be in line for a Nobel Prize to have proved all his colleagues wrong.

Please point us eager readers to President Vaclav Klaus' recent publication in established peer-reviewed journals of science on the issue of climate change.

Here is Havel on Klaus:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20153

[James Killus]

Oh darn, I seem to have missed Mr. Craig's posting before it was deleted. Still, the references to it were enough to let me find the 9% Party page, (which I'll not link to for obvious reasons):

The loonies are only the tip of the iceberg, of course, though they do serve the purpose of helping to poison debate. And that is where Mr. Summers' noble intentions run aground: on the shoals of true believers and authoritarian thugs.

[Moloch-Agonistes]

Of course anything can turn into a boondoggle, but the very fact that American energy companies have basically hired the Republican Party to fend off the anthropogenic global warming model in general and the Kyoto Protocol in particular raises eyebrows. Someone must not think it's such a hot business opportunity, eh?

In any case the factors that underly any largescale social change like the switch from coal to carbon-neutral technologies are to be discerned on the margins. For Summers to say that conversion from coal "would have happpened even without Kyoto" without specifying how that conclusion was arrived at and what a more appropriate course of action might be is fairly unpersuasive.

These arguments sound an awful lot like Bush's. Maybe 75% of the increase in greenhouse gases over coming years will be in India, China, Brazil et al, but that's increase from a very low number. As a wise man put it not so very long ago, developing countries remain "vastly underpolluted."

Here and now, we should be worrying instead about the overpolluted countries, beginning with the country that produces a quarter of all carbon emissions worldwide. If Summers has a better idea than Kyoto to get that show on the road, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'm tempted to conclude that the same people who've been buying loony anti-GW ads in the New York Times for the last twenty years have simply tacked strategically under the figurehead of yet another unofficial spokesman.

[NeilS]

What infrastructure changes can be made in developing countries?

They are going to burn either coal, gas or oil. Do we want them to choose nuclear power instead?

My point is that we need to develop a safe source of energy other than burning fossil fuels.

We can slow the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, but we cannot stop it unless we stop buring fossil fuels.

[bigTom]

moloch:
A number of economies (including the US during the nineties) were converting a significant portion of energy supply from coal to natural gas. Since natural gas is roughly twice as efficient in terms of CO2/BTU this transition causes a significant reduction in CO2 emmisions.

The 75% of the increase in GHG expected from developing countires, means that of the increase in emmisions (est 26GT/year today) to ??? will come from the developing world. As a percentage their emmisions would increase by much more than that. Even if OECD countries emmisions rapidly went to zero, without serious action in developing economies CO2 levels will reach dangerous levels.

Arguing that since we used carbon intensive means to expand our economies therefore newly developing economies have a right to do it the same way is wrong. The reason is that available technologies for energy generation and usage have improved greatly in the time gap. It is neither in world's nor the developing economie's interest to use the same dirty inefficient means we did fifty years ago.

[Kent]

Global warming is a myth invented by the left so as to cultivate an expansion in governmental power.

[Moloch-Agonistes]

Tom--

Many possible responses, but the most obvious is that conflating Europe and the U.S. is mixing apples and oranges. We in the U.S. are the largest single offender right now and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Given the time horizon, developing countries and their prospective environmental burden are a red herring. The idea that I want them to continue polluting until they "catch up" with Anglo-America is an even more obvious nonsequitur.

So, then. Will America mandate clean energy? What would shift the cost-benefit calculus in that direction? Seems to me that's what we should be advocating and pursuing, and that carbon emissions taxation/trading is one such strategy. I'm open to others, but Summers offers none, and neither do you. If you did or he did, my stance would possibly be different. But one can't evaluate what's not proposed.

[Gerard MacDonell]

I am a huge Larry Summers fan, but this does not relate to the post. Instead, it is about news that Bush is going to appoint an Iraq Czar.

As often, The Onion beat the NYT to the story, this time by 18 months. I think it was Brad DeKrugman or another of the House Liberals who first pointed out that the Onion is truly America's finest news source. As usual, they got it right.

WASHINGTON, DC—In response to increasing criticism of his handling of the war in Iraq and the disaster in the Gulf Coast, as well as other issues, such as Social Security reform, the national deficit, and rising gas prices, President Bush is expected to appoint someone to run the U.S. as soon as Friday.

"During these tumultuous times, America is in need of a bold, resolute person who can get the job done," said Bush during a press conference Monday. "My fellow Americans, I assure you that I will appoint just such a person with all due haste."

The Cabinet-level position, to be known as Secretary of the Nation, was established by an executive order Sept. 2, but has remained unfilled in the intervening weeks.

"I've been talking to folks from all across this country, from Louisiana to Los Angeles, and people tell me the same thing: This nation needs a strong, compassionate leader," Bush said. "In response to these concerns, I'm making this a top priority. I will name a good, qualified person as soon as possible."

Among the new secretary's duties are preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States, commanding the U.S. armed forces, appointing judges and ambassadors, and vetoing congressional legislation. The secretary will also be tasked with overseeing all foreign and domestic affairs, including those relating to the economy, natural disasters, national infrastructure, homeland security, poverty, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The secretary will report directly to the president.

For weeks, members of both political parties have been urging Bush to fill the post.

"Every day the president waits is another day he's accountable for needless deaths at home and abroad, the stagnating economy, and the threat of terrorism," Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said. "This post is far too vital to be left vacant. Mr. President, there is no reason to delay."

"I applaud the president's decision to find a strong leader for our country, but it's imperative that he make his selection soon," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), adding that he and all Democrats hope to work closely with the new national executive.

"In the spirit of bipartisanship, we will welcome the new secretary," Reid said. "Together, we will strive for a new dawn of American politics, one unmarred by partisan bickering between Congress and the White House."

According to a nationwide poll conducted by the Cook Political Report, the majority of U.S. citizens find the question of national leadership to be highly significant, with 61 percent of respondents "strongly" believing that the country is suffering from a leadership vacuum. Fifty-four percent said they trusted Bush to find an appointee who will be able to effectively manage the country.

While many Beltway insiders have named senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and John McCain (R-AZ) as likely candidates, White House sources revealed that Bush may be leaning toward a stalwart loyalist. The list reportedly includes fellow Yale graduates, Midland, TX business associates, and various GOP fundraisers with connections to the Bush family.

"Despite their inexperience in government, they've clearly passed the Bush character test," said a White House staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "I think the president is looking for someone he's comfortable with and can trust, above all else. A [former FEMA director] Michael Brown type, or maybe even Brown himself."

Bush said the creation of the Secretary of the Nation post directly addresses the increasingly complex and sometimes overwhelming challenges facing the executive branch in the 21st century. Although he acknowledged that the tasks facing the new appointee will be extraordinary, Bush ended his announcement on a positive note.

"As your president, it is my duty to see this nation through any crisis, no matter how severe. And as your president, I pledge to you that I will find a man capable of doing just that," Bush said. "I will not—I repeat, I will not—let you down

[Slocum]

"We in the U.S. are the largest single offender right now and will remain so for the foreseeable future."

But this is wrong. China will pass the U.S. in emissions very soon (as in this year or next):

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0305-02.htm

Or if you meant per-capita, that's also wrong -- Australia and Canada (yes, polite, liberal, green, Canada) are worse:

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=5827

[jim]

Back in the day, OPM used to run an "Executive Seminar Center" on the grounds of the Coast Guard Academy in Kings Point, NY. I don't think it's still going. I went there for a couple of two week seminars in the '80s. Mine were Science and Technology seminars since I'm a tech guy. One of the high points of these was a fairly high White House person came and gave an unvarnished Administration view of whatever topics the participants wanted aired. At one, I think it was maybe 1984 or 1985, late in the first or early in the second Reagan administration, after the NASA guys had pushed the White House guy on the Space Station, someone asked about global warming.

"We think of that as an international trade issue."

No further elaboration. On to the next question.

I believe the Reagan staffer was right, though probably he was right for the wrong reason.

There is a fundamental conflict. Summers is quite right. If there's a treaty which permits developing nations unlimited CO2 emissions, every company which wishes to engage in polluting activities will be calling Ministers of Development: "Have I got a deal for you!" On the other hand, how can we ask developing nations to forgo the means by which we ourselves developed?

We have to offer them something. What do we have to offer that will enable their development? The only thing I can see we've got is favourable trade terms. Better than most-favoured nation. In effect, we have to offer to export non-polluting jobs to them to make up for the fact we're precluding exporting polluting jobs.

I doubt this was what the Reagan staffer meant.

[bigTom]

moloch, we may not be as far apart as it seems.
One reason for putting a lot of the effort in the developing world is that the economic cost of saving a ton of emmisions is often lower there. Consider the case of using solar power. If a US town, converts from grid to solar, high value past investment -in generation and transmission has to be abandoned. Now for a remote village in the developing world this infrastructure doesn't exist. This means that the net cost of a unit of solar power is lower there. For this reason it would make sense for developed countries to purchase carbon credits from them, transfering some of the physical investment in alternate energy to the developing world.

Now this in no way absolves the US from tackling the issue head-on. Politically raising the issue of increasing developing world emmisions is just another stall tactic. But in terms of future CO2 levels, it will be a crucial issue to tackle.

[johntoff]

Efforts to reduce carbon output in the developed world will inevitably drive carbon-generating industries to China. But China desperately needs to develop and will be delighted to take up the slack from the developed world (of course, they will produce more carbon emissions than if industries in the developed world produced the same products but this seems to be lost on those "rational" among us). If China's development is stunted by the efforts of the developed world led by the "rational", then China will face internal upheaval. China will never accept this and this is why they are resisting pressure in the current climate change conference underway in Bangkok.

One thing that "rational" people seem to be forgetting is that China holds more than 1 trillion dollars of leverage in the form of US treasury bonds. If "rational" people think that China will not use this leverage as a sledgehammer, then such people have never done business with Chinese. Those among us who have done business with Chinese know that they, unlike the Japanese and Taiwanese holding the same leverage, will use their leverage to their advantage.

If "rational" people think that China can simply be bought off by the developed world, think again. Brace yourself!

[TJIT]

We need to be vigilant about stopping environmentally destructive rent seeking AGW policies. Quote from the link below gives and example of this problem in action.

"Throughout tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, and Colombia, rainforests and grasslands are being cleared for soybean and oil-palm plantations to make biodiesel, a product that is then marketed halfway across the world as a "green" fuel."

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/05/olmstead/