Climate Change: The Standard Fixes Don’t Work

World leaders seem to have their minds made up regarding what will fix world CO2 emissions problems. Their list includes taxes on gasoline consumption, more general carbon taxes, cap and trade programs, increased efficiency in automobiles, greater focus on renewables, and more natural gas usage.

Unfortunately, we live in a world economy with constrained oil supply. Because of this, the chosen approaches have a tendency to backfire if some countries adopt them, and others do not. But even if everyone adopts them, it is not at all clear that they will provide the promised benefits.

Figure 1. Actual world carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, as shown in BP’s 2012 Statistical Review of World Energy. Fitted line is expected trend in emissions, based on actual trend in emissions from 1987-1997, equal to about 1.0% per year.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997. If emissions had risen at the average rate that they did during the 1987 to 1997 period (about 1% per year), emissions in 2011 would be 18% lower than they actually were. While there were many other things going on at the same time, the much higher rise in emissions in recent years is not an encouraging sign.

The standard fixes don’t work for several reasons:

1. In an oil-supply constrained world, if a few countries reduce their oil consumption, the big impact is to leave more oil for the countries that don’t. Oil price may drop a tiny amount, but on a world-wide basis, pretty much the same amount of oil will be extracted, and nearly all of it will be consumed.

2. Unless there is a high tax on imported products made with fossil fuels, the big impact of a carbon tax is to send manufacturing to countries without a carbon tax, such as China and India. These countries are likely to use a far higher proportion of coal in their manufacturing than OECD countries would, and this change will tend to increase world CO2 emissions. Such a change will also tend to raise the standard of living of citizens in the countries adding manufacturing, further raising emissions. This change will also tend to reduce the number of jobs available in OECD countries.

3. The only time when increasing natural gas usage will actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions is if it replaces coal consumption. Otherwise it adds to carbon emissions, but at a lower rate than other fossil fuels, relative to the energy provided.

4. Substitutes for oil, including renewable fuels, are ways of increasing consumption of coal and natural gas over what they would be in the absence of renewable fuels, because they act as  add-ons to world oil supply, rather than as true substitutes for oil. Even in cases where they are theoretically more efficient, they still tend to raise carbon emissions in absolute terms, by raising the production of coal and natural gas needed to produce them.

5. Even using more biomass as fuel does not appear to be a solution. Recent work by noted scientists suggests that ramping up the use of biomass runs the risk of pushing the world past a climate change tipping point.

It is really unfortunate that the standard fixes work the way they do, because many of the proposed fixes do have good points. For example, if oil supply is limited, available oil can be shared far more equitably if people drive small fuel-efficient vehicles. The balance sheet of an oil importing nation looks better if citizens of that nation conserve oil. But we are kidding ourselves if we think these fixes will actually do much to solve the world’s CO2 emissions problem.

If we really want to reduce world CO2 emissions, we need to look at reducing world population, reducing world trade, and making more “essential” goods and services locally.  It is doubtful that many countries will volunteer to use these approaches, however.  It seems likely that Nature will ultimately provide its own solution, perhaps working through high oil prices and weaknesses in the world financial system.

Elastic Versus Inelastic Supply

It seems to me that many bad decisions have been made because many economists have missed the point that crude oil supply tends to be very inelastic, while other fuels are fairly elastic. Let me explain.

Elastic supply is the usual situation for most goods. Plenty of the product is available, if the price is high enough. If there is a shortage, prices rise, and in not too long a time, the market is well-supplied again. If supply is elastic, if you or I use less of it, ultimately less of the product is produced.

Coal and natural gas usually are considered to be elastic in their supply. To some extent, they are still “extract it as you need it” products. Supply of natural gas liquids (often grouped with crude oil, but acting more like a gas, so it is less suitable as a transportation fuel) is also fairly elastic.

Crude oil is the one product that is in quite short supply, on a world-wide basis. Its supply doesn’t seem to increase by more than a tiny percentage, no matter how high the price rises. This is a situation of inelastic supply.

Figure 2. World crude oil production (including condensate) based primarily on US Energy Information Administration data, with trend lines fitted by the author.

Even though oil prices have been very high since 2005  (shown in Figure 3, below), the amount of crude oil has increased by only 0.1%  per year (Figure 2, above).

Figure 3. Historical average annual oil prices, (“Brent” or equivalent) in 2011$, from BP’s 2012 Statistical Review of World Energy.

In the case of oil, both supply and demand are quite inelastic. No matter how high the price, demand for oil doesn’t drop back by much. No matter how high the price of oil, world supply doesn’t rise very much, either.1

In a situation of inelastic supply, the usual actions a person might take appear to work when viewed on a local basis, but backfire on a world basis, if not everyone participates. When one country tries to conserve crude oil (whether through a carbon tax, gasoline tax, or higher automobile mileage requirement), it may reduce its own consumption, but there are still plenty of other buyers in the market for the oil that was saved. So the oil gets used by someone else, perhaps at a slightly lower price.  World oil production remains virtually unchanged. Thus, a reduction in oil usage by an OECD country can translate to more oil consumption by China or India, and ultimately more development of all types by those countries.

Adding Substitutes Adds to Carbon Emissions

If we don’t have enough crude oil, one approach is to create substitutes. Because crude oil supply is inelastic, though, these substitutes aren’t really substitutes, though. They are “add ons” to world oil supply, and this is one source of our problem with increasing world emissions.

What do we use to make the substitutes? Basically, natural gas and coal, and to a limited extent oil (because we can’t avoid using oil). The catch is, that to make the substitutes, we need to burn natural gas and coal more quickly than we would, if we didn’t make the oil substitutes. Since the supply of coal and natural gas is elastic, it is possible to pull them out of the ground more quickly. Thus, making the substitutes tends to increase carbon dioxide emissions over what they would have been, if we had never come up with the idea of substitutes.

The increased use of coal and natural gas is pretty clear, if a person thinks about coal-to-liquids or gas-to-liquids. Here, we need to first build the plants used in production, and then with each barrel of substitute made, we need to use more natural gas or coal. So it is very clear that we are extracting a lot of additional coal and natural gas, to make a relatively smaller amount of oil substitute. There is often a substantial need for water to make the process work as well, adding another stress on the system.

But the same issue comes up with biofuels, and with other renewables. These too, are add-ons to the world oil supply, not substitutes. While theoretically they might produce energy with less CO2 per unit than fossil fuel systems, in absolute terms they lead to natural gas and coal being pulled out of the ground more quickly to be used in making fertilizer, electricity, concrete, and other inputs to renewables.2

Carbon Taxes and Competitiveness

Each country competes with others in the world market place. Adding a carbon tax makes products made by the local company less competitive in the world marketplace.  It also signals to potential coal users that the countries adopting the carbon taxes are willing to a leave a greater proportion of world coal exports to those who are not adopting the tax, thus helping to keep the cost of imported coal down.

Asian countries already have a competitive edge over OECD countries in terms of lower wages and lower fuel costs (because of their heavy coal mix), when it comes to manufacturing. Adding a carbon tax tends to add to the Asian competitive edge. This tends to shift production offshore, and with it, jobs.

Figure 4. China’s energy consumption by source, based on BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy data.

China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Figure 4 shows clearly that its fuel consumption ramped up rapidly thereafter. It seems likely that the number of Chinese manufacturing jobs and spending on Chinese infrastructure increased at the same time.

Economists seem to have missed the serious worldwide deterioration in CO2 emissions in recent years by looking primarily at individual country indications, including CO2 emissions per unit of GDP. Unfortunately, this narrow view misses the big picture–that total CO2 emissions are rising, and that CO2 emissions relative to world GDP have stopped falling. (See my posts Is it really possible to decouple GDP growth from energy growth and Thoughts on why energy use and CO2 emissions are rising as fast as GDP. See also Figure 1 at the top of the post.)

The Employment Connection

I have shown that in the US there is a close correlation between energy consumption and number of jobs. (For more information, including a look at older periods, see my post, The close tie between energy consumption, employment, and recession.)

Figure 5. Employment is the total number employed at non-farm labor as reported by the US Census Bureau. Energy consumption is the total amount of energy of all types consumed (oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, etc.), in British Thermal Units (Btu), as reported by the US Energy Information Administration.

There are several reasons why a connection between energy consumption and the number of jobs is to be expected:

(1) The job itself in almost every situation requires energy, even if it is only electricity to operate computers, and fuel to heat and light buildings.

(2) Equally importantly, the salaries that employees earn allow them to buy goods that require the use of energy, such as a car or house. (“Energy demand” is what people can afford; jobs allow “demand” to rise.)

(3) The lowest salaried people can be expected to spend the highest proportion of their salaries on energy-related services (such as food and gasoline for commuting). The wealthy spend their money on high priced goods and services, such as financial planning services and designer clothing that require much less energy per dollar of expenditure.

The thing I find concerning is the close timing between the ramp-up of Asian coal use and thus jobs using coal, and the drop-off of US employment as a percentage of US population, as illustrated in Figure 6 below. Arguably, the ramp up in world trade is just as important, but some aspects of programs that are intended to save CO2 emissions also seem to encourage world trade.

Figure 6. US Number Employed / Population, where US Number Employed is Total Non_Farm Workers from Current Employment Statistics of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Population is US Resident Population from the US Census. 2012 is partial year estimate.

Of course, the US did not sign the Kyoto Protocol or enact a carbon tax, and it is its jobs that I show falling as a percentage of population. It is more that the CO2 solutions act as yet another way to encourage more international trade, and with it more “growth”, and  more CO2.

Using More Biomass is Not a Fix Either

Burning more wood for fuel and creating “second generation” biofuels from biomass seems like a fix, until a person realizes that we are reaching limits there, as well.

In June 2012, twenty noted scientist published a paper in the journal Nature called Approaching a State Shift in the Earth’s Biosphere. This report indicates that humans have already converted as much as 43% of Earth’s land to urban or agricultural uses. In total, 20% to 40% of Earth’s primary productivity has been taken over by humans. The authors are concerned that we may now be reaching a tipping point leading to a state shift, because of loss of ecosystem services as use of biological products increases. With this state change would come a change in climate. Simulations indicate that this tipping point may occur when as little as 50% of land use is disturbed. This tipping point may be even lower, if world-wide synergies take place.

On Our Current Path – Lacking Good Solutions

While this list of problems relating to current proposed solutions is not complete, it gives a hint of the problems with reducing CO2 emissions using approaches suggested to date. There are many issues I have not covered.

One issue of note is the fact the cost of integrating intermittent renewables (such as wind and solar PV) increases rapidly, as we add increasing amounts to the grid. This occurs because there is more need to transport the electricity long distances and to mitigate its variability through electricity storage or fossil fuel balancing. (See for example, Low Carbon Projects Demand a New Transmission and Distribution Model, Grid Instability Has Industry Scrambling for Solutions, and Hawaii’s Solar Power Flare-Up.)

While the problems noted in these articles are probably solvable, the cost of these solutions has not been built into energy balance analyses. Energy balances (or EROEI estimates) as currently reported do not vary with the proportion of intermittent renewables added to the grid. If energy balance analyses were adjusted to reflect the high cost of adding an increasing proportion of wind or solar PV to the grid, they would likely show a rapidly declining energy balance, above a certain threshold. This would indicate that while adding a little intermittent renewables (as we have done to date) can be a partial solution, adding a lot is likely to have serious cost and energy balance issues.

Another issue that is difficult to deal with is the fact that we are not dealing with a temporary problem with CO2 emissions. The idea is not to slow down the burning of fossil fuels, and burn more later; what we really need to do is to leave unburned fossil fuels in the ground for all time. This is a problem, because there is no way that we can impose our will on people living 10 or 50 years from now. The Maximum Power Principle of H. T. Odum would seem to indicate that any species will make use of whatever energy sources are available to it, to the extent that it can. Even if we temporarily defeat this tendency with respect to humans’ use of fossil fuels, I don’t see any way that we can defeat this tendency for the long term.

Considering all of these issues, it does not appear that most of the “standard” solutions will really work.3 What other options do we have?

Nature’s Solution  

The Earth has been handling the problem of shifting conditions for over 4 billion years. The earth is a finite system. Nature provides that finite systems, such as the Earth, will cycle to new states of equilibrium over time, as conditions change. While we would like to defeat Earth’s tendency in this regard, it is not at all clear that we can. Part of this cycling to a new state is likely to be a change in climate.

A state change is a cause for concern to humans, but not necessarily to the Earth itself.  The Earth has moved from state to state many times in its existence, and will continue to do so in the future. The changes will bring the Earth back into a new equilibrium. For example, if CO2 levels are high, species that can make use of higher CO2 levels (such as plants) are likely to become dominant, rather than humans.

Exactly how this state change might occur is subject to different views. One view is that changing CO2 levels will be a primary driver. The Nature article referenced previously suggested that increased disturbance of natural ecosystems (as with greater use of biomass) might force a state change. My personal view is that a financial collapse related to high oil price may be part of Nature’s approach to moving to a new state. It could bring about a reduction in world trade, a scale back in CO2 emissions, and a general contraction of human systems.4

However the change takes place, it could be abrupt. It will not be to many people’s liking, since most will not be prepared for it.

Steps That Might Work to Slow CO2 Emissions

It would be convenient if we could slow CO2 emissions by working to produce energy with less CO2. This option does not seem to be working well though, so I would argue that we need to work in a different direction: toward reducing humans’ need for external energy. In order to do this, I would suggest two major steps:

(1) Reduce the world’s population, through one-child policies and universal access to family planning services. This step is necessary because rising population adds to demand. If we are to reduce demand, lower population needs to play a role.

(2) Change our emphasis to producing essential goods locally, rather than outsourcing them to parts of the world that are likely use coal to produce them. I would suggest starting with food, water, and clothing, and the supply chains necessary to produce these items.

Changing our emphasis to producing essential goods locally will have a multiple benefits. It will (a) add local jobs, and (b) lead to less worldwide growth in coal usage, (c) save on transport fuel, and (d) add protection against the adverse impact of declining world oil supply, if this should happen in the not too distant future. It should also help reduce CO2 emissions. The costs of goods will likely be higher using this approach, leading to less “stuff” per person, but this, too, is part of reaching reduced CO2 emissions.

It is hard to see that the steps outlined above would be acceptable to world leaders or to the majority of world population. Thus, I am afraid we will end up falling back on Nature’s plan, discussed above.


[1] Michael Kumhof and Dirk Muir recently prepared a model of oil supply and demand (IMF working paper: Oil and the World Economy: Some Possible Futures). In it, they assume a long run price-elasticity of oil supply of 0.03, and remark that a paper by Benes and others indicates a range of 0.005 to 0.02 for this variable. The long term price elasticity of oil demand is  assumed to be .08 in the Kumhof and Muir analysis.

[2] I would argue that standard EROEI measurements are defined too narrowly to give a true measure of the amount of energy used in making a particular substitute. For example, EROEI measures do not consider the energy costs associated with labor (even though workers spend their salaries on clothing, and commuting costs, and many other good and services that use fossil fuels), or with financing costs, or of indirect impacts like wear and tear on the roads by transporting corn for biofuel.

Other types of analysis have ways of dealing with this known shortfall. For example, when the number of jobs that a new employer can be expected to add to a community is evaluated, the usual approach seems to be to take the number of jobs that can be directly counted and multiply by three, to estimate the full impact. I would argue that with substitutes, some similar adjustment is needed. This adjustment which would act to increase the energy use associated with renewables, and reduce the EROEI. For example, the adjustment might divide directly calculated EROEI by three.

A calculation of the true net benefit of renewables also needs to recognize that nearly the full energy cost is paid up front, and only over time is recovered in energy production. When renewable production is growing rapidly, society tends to be in a long-term deficit position. Typically, it is only as growth slows that society reaches as net-positive energy position.

[3] I obviously have not covered all potential solutions. Nuclear power is sometimes mentioned, as is space solar power. There are new solutions being proposed regularly. Even if these solutions would work, ramping them up would take time and require use of fossil fuels, so it is wise to consider other options as well.

[4] The way that limited oil supply could interfere with world trade is as follows: High oil prices cause consumers to cut back on discretionary goods. This leads to layoffs in discretionary sectors of the economy, such as vacation travel. It also leads to secondary effects, such as debt defaults and lower housing prices. The financial effects “concentrate up” to governments of oil importing nations, because they receive less tax revenue from laid-off workers at the same time that they pay out more in unemployment benefits, stimulus, and bank bailouts. (We are already at this point.)

Eventually, countries will find that deficit spending is spiraling out of control. If countries raise taxes and cut benefits, this is likely to lead to more lay offs and debt defaults. One possible outcome is that citizens will become increasingly unhappy, and replace governments with new governments that repudiate old debt. The new governments may have difficulty establishing financial relationships with other governments, given that most are major debt defaulters. Such issues could reduce world trade substantially. With the drop of world trade would come much more limited ability to maintain our current systems, such as electricity and long distance transport.

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Energy policy, Financial Implications and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Climate Change: The Standard Fixes Don’t Work

  1. ChiefEngineer says:

    The world should stop building new fossil fuel burning personal transportation vehicles now

    • Good luck on that one! I expect China and India will build them, even if we don’t.

      • ChiefEngineer says:

        Hi Gail,

        I noticed you didn’t disagree with me. First, let’s apply the five stages of grief to our two comments.

        I believe you are trying to say that my acceptance will find resistance from others that are in denial, anger and bargaining from the depression of reality. My statement was one of many sacrifices mankind needs to make and would be a globe sign of acceptance.

        Realistically, 2030 and production of near ( more than 99% less than current) fossil fuel free personal transportation should become a globe regulated standard. We need to live within whatever technology advanced transportation this regulation brings us.

        I will leave it to the female species to figure out how to regulate(control) the population to a sustainable mankind.

        Failing to plan is planning to fail.

        • I believe back in The Long Emergency, James Kunstler made the argument that if we know we are not going to need automobiles sometime in the future, we should just stop making them. We could continue using what we had, and they might wear out about the time oil was depleting. It struck me as an innovative way to solve the problem–more so than deciding to make $40,000 plug-in cars that people who are getting poorer and poorer have no way of purchasing. So it doesn’t sound like a bad idea to me.

          I’m not sure if there is any way of getting countries to work toward a goal such as 99% less fuel than current usage. I think it is more likely that the way people will move toward vehicles that use very little fuel is if they discover the conventional vehicles are way too expensive, and find a cheap alternative that sort of satisfies their needs. I wonder if people will move toward scooters or electric bikes or vehicles like golf carts. We could even move back to carts pulled by animals again. For some purposes, they seem to work OK, and the fuel requirements are manageable without fossil fuels.

  2. OK, I got it, we need “Hunger Games” on a truly massive scale.

  3. we are locked into a commercial system that demands growth
    capitalism doesn’t have a reverse gear or a brake, we go on until we hit the wall of finite resources. it really is that simple folks. And we are all capitalists, like it or not
    we face a triumvirate of chaos, overpopulation, energy depletion and food shortage. they are acting in unison, yet there is an odd inclination to address them separately. it doesn’t matter which hits first, it will exacerbate the other two.
    The only ‘fix’ to all this is what nature will fix herself, humanity can only tinker around with it. As the planet heats up, (its fever), climate change will be the sneeze that gets rid of us, simply by cutting off the food that the planet has supplied so amply until now.
    Every species that outbreeds its environment invariably has its food supply removed. this law of nature is immutable. perhaps our biggest mistake was in granting ourselves immunity from the laws of physics.
    we were never the creation of any god, just a big brained primate who learned how to control fire

  4. Your arguments all point to an obvious but taboo subject: trade tariffs for carbon. If we think countries should all put a price on carbon, then we should allow those countries to protect their local jobs with carbon-tariffs. That is a big can of worms, as the amount of ’embedded carbon’ in any product is not easy to estimate. And the WTO doesn’t allow anybody to just slap a tariff on anything. The result would be trade wars.

    That is the reason that so many countries resist so strongly the EU bringing flights into the ETS carbon-trade system. The next step would be shipping, and after that embedded carbon isn’t far away.

    If carbon tariffs can become acceptable, and a fair way can be designed to determine how high they should be .. that would help stench the problems indicated in this blogpost. The only alternative is that the world agrees on energy policy .. but that will not happen. We will need some combination of cap-and-trade, carbon-tax, and carbon-tariffs.

    • “In 2008, British Columbia rolled out the first large-scale carbon tax in North America. It is a somewhat unique tax because it is “revenue-neutral,” meaning that the government returns the revenue to taxpayers in the form of reductions in personal and corporate income taxes, along with a few other targeted tax reductions. In short, BC aims to reduce emissions by taxing harmful pollution while at the same time boosting economic growth by reducing tax rates.”

    • People in warm countries tend to have lower living costs–often,they don’t need to heat, cool, or insulate their homes. Workers in cold countries need higher salaries, to have sufficient funds to pay for sturdier homes and heat them. It is hard to see how workers in cold countries can compete on a level playing field with workers in warm countries.

  5. Don Stewart says:

    I will pose a couple of questions, rather than provide answers.

    (1) How did the Nature article treat livestock grazing in the grasslands? The way most people do it today is clearly atrocious and creates deserts and releases carbon into the air. BUT, we also know how to increase the biodiversity in the grass and soil and sequester carbon. A quick search on the many entries under ‘carbon farming’ will reveal many examples. Allan Savory from Zimbabwe is a common thread through these examples. Carbon farming with livestock in the grasslands of the world is, in my opinion, a no-brainer. Politically, I believe that growing livestock should be a licensed occupation, just as prescribing drugs is a licensed occupation. The license is granted when carbon farming skills are demonstrated, and the license can be revoked if carbon farming is not practiced. And feeding grain to livestock should be banned.

    (2) Carbon farming is also clearly applicable to crops other than grass. See, for example, the World Bank description:
    We clearly have research and development work to do in terms of things like row crops, but our knowledge currently far outstrips our practice. The community college in my town bases it’s agricultural curriculum on carbon farming. We can do a great deal with what we already know.

    So…I would make a distinction between a pre-ordained doom and the doom we will most certainly experience if we just keep on doing stupid things.

    One could also argue that keeping on doing stupid things with debt will lead us to our doom before the carbon does–but that’s another story.

    I don’t have the skills to project what the temperatures would be if we continue burning fossil fuels, but also adopt quite rapidly a carbon farming best practices political program. But clearly we can put an awful lot of carbon into the soil, and I don’t think we should despair until we look carefully at that scenario.

    Don Stewart

    • The length supply chain supporting the food we eat is much shorter if we do it right than if we try to maintain what we are doing today. Seems like we need to take steps to get back to short supply chains.

      • Don Stewart says:

        I just returned from a trip to Texas to visit my newly relocated grandchildren. Which gave me an opportunity to look at the world they are growing up in with fresh eyes. A couple of observations:
        1. I didn’t see a vegetable growing anywhere. Long supply chain.
        2. I saw an enormous investment in highways and automobiles. Investments which may be very hard to maintain in the near future.
        3. The suburbs remind me of Jim Kunstler’s description of ‘the greatest mal-investment ever made’. Nothing looks sustainable.
        4. Everything is financialized. It’s all about buying and selling. In a crunch, the people may have very little self-reliance to fall back on.
        5. The idea of cooking a meal from simple raw materials seems alien to them. They do have some glitzy ‘life-style foodstores’ with a lot of pre-packaged stuff. In one of them, I did manage to buy the only two bundles of rubber banded kale they had in the store. In an energy crunch, the people who shop in this store are in for a shock.

        In terms of food, I think the proper focus for farmers is carbon farming, and for families it is getting the carbon (and complexity) out of the distribution and preparation. Which implies using unprocessed ingredients from local sources (not put in plastic in California). And, somehow, converting suburban lots filled with swimming pools into lots with gardens–but that project looks hopeless to me. What seems more likely to happen is that the McMansions will be be abandoned and older homes built with more resilient goals in mind will come back into style and rise in price.

        Ironically, Money magazine recently gave this suburb high honors.

        Don Stewart

        • Don,

          When one travels, it seems like a person sees things they didn’t notice otherwise.

          When I flew to San Francisco and drove to Santa Cruz, California a few months ago, I was surprised at how “packed-together” everyone was. The highway from San Francisco to Santa Cruz was inadequate for the number of cars. While I saw food growing and little gardens, the number of people, by itself, was clearly a problem. Finding a place to park all of the cars was a problem.

          Even at this point, it looked like the area was barely keeping up with natural deterioration. I wasn’t there long enough to see many of the details, except to decide it wasn’t a place I would like to live.

  6. Les D. says:

    I’m not quite so pessimistic about a carbon tax as you are. It seems to me that a substantial carbon tax, including an imputed tax levied on imports and services from countries without a similar tax at the same rate, would substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions if implemented by the countries with the greatest carbon footprint (essentially the OECD).

    The biggest problem is the escalating coal burning, particularly in China and India. While some of this is for local consumption, a large part of it is for outsourcing manufacturing and services for OECD countries. If these countries had to pay a tax (of perhaps $100/ton) on the carbon dioxide emitted by their suppliers, the consumption of cheap Chinese junk would drop substantially.

    The amount of international trade would also drop, but the carbon saving from this would not be dramatic: container ships are a pretty efficient way of moving goods, especially if they drop the speed a bit. A bigger saving would be a reduction in numbers of trucks on the interstates, shipping goods from west coast ports to the eastern half of the U.S.

    Of course, the big problem with a carbon tax is the political one. But a few more climate-related (or apparently climate-related) natural disasters might change the political balance on this.

    A really big problem might arise if implementation of a hefty carbon tax in the few countries with surplus agricultural production (the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the most important) reduces the amount of food available in world trade so much that the poorer countries in the long list of those unable to feed themselves suffer mass starvation.

  7. Vali Tralov says:

    The standart fixes – mean CO2 reduction – really don’t work. But the climate (balance of heat on Earth) is not limited by CO2 only. That is why the way out should not be focused only on said gas – non-standart fixes can differ greatly. Let’s look/correct the whole picture but not only 1% of global heat in GHGs.
    With respect.

  8. Sinnycool says:

    Gail, this is one of your very best articles, thank you.

  9. yt75 says:

    “1. In an oil-supply constrained world, if a few countries reduce their oil consumption, the big impact is to leave more oil for the countries that don’t. Oil price may drop a tiny amount, but on a world-wide basis, pretty much the same amount of oil will be extracted, and nearly all of it will be consumed.”

    You forget the image aspect, what does the US has to offer, besides being the most digusting piece of ignorant and deeply illiterate shit to ever roam the earth ?

    • yt75 says:

      Note : sorry for this stupid message (not written in a normal state)
      But indeed you forget the image and in this case form of “leadership” aspect the US is playing, in terms of cars, way of life , many things, and even towards China for instance.
      Plus again, I maintain that reducing the consumption of a country is valid in a pure country selfishness sense. You could argue complete collapse is coming anyway for sure, in which case all this doesn’t matter one way or another.

      • I am not sure any country would do well in a leadership role with respect to reducing CO2 emissions.

        The US has done not-too-badly recently, in reducing emissions because

        (1) 2012 Jan-Feb-Mar was a warm winter
        (2) Relatively fewer people have jobs, so there has been a cutback in new cars bought over the last few years
        (3) With the artificially low price of natural gas, there has been a big shift from coal to natural gas for electricity

        I am not sure how much of these are directly going to last though.

        Going forward, I expect the fiscal cliff will have a big effect, downward, because of more job loss. So, as you say, it may not matter anyway.

  10. Mel Tisdale says:

    There is one direction that events could take that I don’t think you have mentioned, Gail. The craving for economic growth with its dependence on scarce resources could easily lead to conflict. Anyone who has bothered to study nuclear weapons technology will know all too well that if the Cold War were ever to return, it would last five, maybe six, minutes before it got hot – very hot!

    Modern nuclear weapons are only a deterrent to minor nations, who, if they ever obtain nuclear weapons themselves will most probably deliver them in the hold of a ship or the boot of a car, anyway, so perhaps not even a deterrent to them either. There is no longer any of Herman Kahn’s ladder of escalation. That way leads to defeat in the modern nuclear age. It will be all out war from the off because any missile not used will not be able to be used, because either it or its launch infrastructure will have been destroyed. It is what you get with MIRV systems delivering warheads with miniscule CEPs.

    An all out nuclear war lasting at most an hour – but what an event filled hour it would be – would do wonders for curbing population growth and the nuclear winter that would ensue would do wonders for curbing global warming.

    When the ‘1%’ stop taking holidays all of a sudden and curiously stay near their mansions, which you can bet have fully stocked nuclear shelters, it might be time to blow any money we might have on a damn good farewell party. From what I have seen of the ‘1%’ I think we can forget any notions of the meek inheriting the earth. Any proles that survive will soon be put to work clearing up the mess while their new lords and masters divvy up the spoils.

    • GermanStacker says:

      I think most people would prefer not to be alive in such a world. And the 1% wouldn’t be there anyway, only the 0,001%. The normal 1% will get their french revolution treat in due time. They are very visible. Most nuclear bunkers are not for world war. They are for things like regional neutron bombing in case of severe civil unrest.

    • It is not clear to me that the winners would really be winners, in the scenario you outline. The resulting mess would be difficult for anyone to live in.

      The ones who died suddenly in such a mess might be in some ways better off. They lived reasonable lives up until the end. It was only in the last hour that everything fell apart. The result might not be worse than dying of a heart attack or a major stroke.

      • Mel Tisdale says:

        Very true. What I was really trying to do was raise awareness of the increased dangers that nuclear weapons pose to us today, even though peace has broken out. There seems to be the notion that because the Cold War is over, nuclear Armageddon has gone away. The truth is the exact opposite. When the Cold War ended, neither side possessed the capability to deliver a successful pre-emptive first strike, though they were clearly on their way towards doing so. It is very difficult to believe that they have not used the intervening years to complete their nuclear weapons systems to the point where a pre-emptive first strike can now be guaranteed to be successful.

        The most sobering thought is that the only real defence is to automate the launch process, seeing as there will not be time for a sensible discussion by the high command of either side in the event of incoming missiles being detected. A faulty diode in an IBM machine promoted Major Major Major to the rank of Major in Catch 22. In today’s world that same faulty diode could send us all to kingdom come and our finite world with it.

        It is not as though living with a hair trigger nuclear situation is inevitable. A treaty that banned multiple warheads on any missile, be they MIRV or not, would put an end to either side’s ability to take the other side by surprise. Such a ban will never happen until the public calls for it, hence my desire to raise awareness of the danger nuclear weapons still pose.

        As for the 1%, they were just a peg to hang the comment on.

Comments are closed.