J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

A Winning Flip: I can remember when Republicans liked Cap-and-trade. (1) For instance, John McCain cosponsored cap-and-trade bills in the Senate in 2003, 2005, and 2007 and, during his 2008 presidential campaign, proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. As he said then,

“A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.”

And he was right. Having to pay the true cost of fossil fuel use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Cap-and-trade was once considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. While popular, a number of key Republicans, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went on record as endorsing the policy. Even Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), only two years ago, while supporting a version of a cap-and-trade bill in the Massachusetts legislature said:

”Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine. Passing this legislation is an important step … towards improving our environment.”

But somewhere amid lobbying, big donations from power companies, and criticisms from so called conservatives who don’t really want to conserve much, the Republicans are now calling it cap-and-tax, essentially making fun of what was once their own idea.

The Sticker Shock Distortion Flop: In an effort to kill the bill, Republicans such as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) are now claiming cap-and-trade would cost each U.S. households about $3,100 a year, a cost that has considerable sticker shock. However, that number was fabricated by doing some misleading  additional math on a MIT study. Dr. John Reilly, the economist who authored the study, has criticized Republicans for distorting his work. In his words,

“It’s just wrong, It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” Not only is it wrong, but he said he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him. “That’s just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal”, Reilly said. “The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices.” Moreover, he said, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. (2)

What Is the Uninflated Cost? The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the entity responsible for providing Congress with nonpartisan analyses of economic and budget issues, estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or an average of about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. Households in the lowest income bracket would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020 while those in the highest bracket would see a net cost of $245. Overall, net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income. (3) That doesn’t seem so bad, particularly as the CBO experts also estimate the climate and energy bill now stalled in the Senate would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. (4)

The High Cost of Doing Nothing: The cost of doing nothing may be unacceptably high in the long run because of resource scarcity, environmental damage, and the risk of reachng catastrophic tipping points. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details the high economic costs of reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields (5). Estimates by the World’s top economists such as Britain’s Nicholas Stern (6) or the US’s Paul Krugman (7) are that right now it would cost about 2% of the worlds GDP to mitigate environmental damage – but if delayed, that amount could rise to 20% or more of the world’s GDP and put us at risk of an environmental catastrophe.

A Flip is Needed: What is it worth to have clean air, clean water, a more sustainable economy, and a less risky future? Can we risk doing nothing? We need a flip by our Republican leaders.

(1) http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-29-remember-when-republicans-liked-cap-and-trade/

(2) http://flavcountry.blogspot.com/2009/05/mit-economist-john-reilly-calls.html

(3) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300

(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

(5) http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15536630

(6)   http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

(7)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html

During the last Presidential Election,  John McCain proposed a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and reasonableness. George Will attacked the proposal in his “Questions for McCain”  in Newsweek (5/19/08).  As a preface to the question, George Will states  that “(the World Meteorological Organization says global temperatures have not risen in a decade)”. However, that quote cannot be found anywhere in the World Meteorological Organization’s reports. The Organization’s 2007 Summary Report for Policy Makers (http://www.wmo.ch ) says that the Earth’s mean temperature is rising, that it is causing changes in the environment, and that it is the result of man’s activities. That is just the opposite of George Will’s premise.

When I contacted  George Will for an explanation, he said that the hottest year on record was 1998 and no year since has been hotter; therefore, global temperatures have not risen in a decade. However, the World Meteorological Organization says that eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the twelve warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850).  The graph on page six of the report shows a very clear upward trend in the global average temperature from 1997 to 2007. George Will’s clever statement was an attempt to mislead readers. NASA’s data shows that 2005 was the hottest year on record so George Will is clearly wrong. (See graph below.)

           http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/        Credit: NASA/JPL/MSSS

 Next, George Will asked McCain about the potential high cost of measures proposed to reduce global warming – which George Will claimed were too great. However, he does not consider that the measures would also alleviate some of our pressing energy problems or that economic growth would certainly occur in sectors of the economy producing energy efficient products. He also does not mention the principles of good stewardship or personal responsibility involved.  Is it responsible to let other countries address the issue while we pretend it does not exist? Should we expect future generations to pay to clean up the pollution we are creating?

 Finally, George Will’s asks McCain  “… what is the Earth’s proper temperature, and how do you know? “ It was a trick  question – a reasonable answer to that question has been known for decades. The graph in the World Meteorological Organization report shows the Earth’s mean temperature was reasonably stable from 1850 to 1925 which is a  proper baseline to measure global temperature increases. More importantly, the proper temperature of the Earth is one at which we can live comfortably. We know that is true now, but will that be true for our children and grandchildren?

The global mean temperature has  now increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit and it is increasing each year. Is that a crisis? That depends on how long you plan to live. Every major scientific organization in the world has endorsed a statement that global warming is occurring and that it is caused by man’s activities.  John McCain was right. Our nation is in critical need of a pragmatic national energy policy based upon good stewardship, good science, and cooperation with other countries. We all share the same atmosphere.

You may nominate someone who has affected the environment through word or deed for either the Environmental Hall of Shame or the Environmental Hall of Fame. Please send an e-mail through the “Contact” link with a short reason that they should be included. A link or reference to their accomplishments or misaccomplishment  will increase their chance of being included. It will be assumed that your reasons are accurate and may be quoted with proper credit to you, unless you request otherwise.

Nominees will be listed and a  vote will be taken at the end of each year. The  year’s winner in the Environmental Hall Shame category will receive the “Ignoble Prize in Environmental Science” and a  suitable gift. For instance,  George Will might receive a case of CFL bulbs or the Robinson’s might each get embossed copies of  “ The Chemist’s Code of Conduct”.

The  winner in the Environmental Hall of Fame category  will receive the “Most Noble Prize in Environmental Science” and a  suitable gift. For instance,  John McCain might receive a framed picture of a trout swimming upstream.

You may suggest a suitable prize for your nominee