What's the deal with Copenhagen?

Recently, my sister sent me an email asking about what's going on with Copenhagen and the greater picture of American involvement in stopping global warming. My response was super long, but I think it is good enough to repost as a blog entry. Here it is, crash course to climate change, Copenhagen, and the United States.


As far as American foreign policy on tackling climate change is concerned, for several months, the Obama Administration has indicated that it will not agree to European targets of 20% reductions (from the 1990 level) by 2020. This has made many European governments upset and they have (politely) expressed their indignations in their media. Domestically, Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Kerry (D-MA) have crafted a bill which would outline emissions reductions targets and procedures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (from the 2005 level, which equals about 4% from the 1990 level) by 2020, because they are working with the target of 450 part per million of carbon dioxide.


As far as the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has actually signed the document during the Clinton Administration. However, you are correct in observing that the United States has not yet ratified Kyoto. Yes, the main argument then (as it remains today on any climate change treaties) is that the United States will not sign it if other major polluters like Mainland China and India refuse to sign it, because it would hurt the American economy's competitiveness. Just last week, Mainland China has indicated that it will reduce its carbon intensity per unit of output, meaning that it will produce goods at more efficient levels, leading to a slowing of their carbon pollution growth rate. In other words, their carbon pollution will still increase, just not at the same rate it would have if it were not for this new policy.


However, there are several concerns I have about the current situation as described above. First is that many leading climate scientists have concluded that the 450ppm target is based on outdated scientific data and that the situation in 2009 is projecting along the worst case scenario predictions made in 2006. The safe level of carbon dioxide to prevent global climate destabilisation is actually around 350ppm (we are currently at 390ppm). Furthermore, their models show that a 40% reduction (from the 1990 level)by 2020 has a 50% chance of preventing runaway global climate change. There are other scientists who are arguing that in order to fully solve this problem, we need to see 75%-80% reductions by 2020.


The Kerry-Boxer bill also favours non-green solutions such as nuclear and ethanol/biofuels. Nuclear energy, while providing the cheapest energy by the unit, takes about 25 years to break even (meaning it takes about 25 years of providing cheap energy to compensate for the cost to build and run a nuclear power plant). Also, there is no way to safely dispose (not just store) nuclear waste. There are other arguments against nuclear, but these are the two most compelling ones in my opinion. Ethanol, and other biofuels, are not green, because like all combustible fuels, they emit pollution. Yes, they emit less carbon dioxide than traditional gasoline, but they also emit more nitrous oxides into the atmosphere. Nitrous oxides, as you probably know well better than I, reacts with the Earth's atmosphere to form ozone. However, when ozone lingers close to the surface, it is known as smog, which not only produces sulphuric rain, but also is the leading cause of asthma and other respiratory-related illnesses in major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles. Ethanol and biofuels are also not renewable energy sources (nuclear energy sources also last a long time, so while it is technically not renewable, it will not run out before the human race goes extinct).


The next problem is with the actual policy proposed by European governments and our own in trying to solve climate change. The consensus is that we need to implement a "cap-and-trade" system, whereby the government sets a cap on the total amount of pollution that is allowed to be emitted. Each major domestic polluter would then get a fixed number of carbon credits, which determines how much it can pollute. If it does not use all its credits, it can sell it to other polluters who exceed their alloted amount. However, Europe has implemented this system after ratifying Kyoto, and with just 3 years to go until the end of Kyoto, they have not seen significant decreases in GHG emissions. Cap-and-trade grandfathers in pollution, meaning that it entitles existing polluters to continue polluting to a certain extent. It treats GHG emissions as permissible, when it should be treated as bad altogether, in my opinion.


Others have proposed that we implement a carbon tax, meaning for every unit of carbon dioxide someone/company emits, it is taxed a certain amount (perhaps, $20/ton). However, like cap-and-trade, this does not address the argument that if major polluters like Mainland China and India do not sign on, it will hurt the American economy. That is why Oxford professor, Deiter Helm, has proposed a "border tax". This is essentially the same as a carbon tax, but puts the burden on the consumption of carbon, rather than production. For example, if the United States imports toys from Mainland China, the carbon dioxide emitted to produce these toys will be placed on Americans rather than the Chinese producers. That way, even if Mainland China does not agree to a bill with this in place, it will still encourage American consumers to buy less from the Chinese, causing the Chinese to produce less, and thus forcing Mainland China to reduce their overall GHG emissions.


Like the Kyoto Protocol, and all international treaties, signing and ratifying are two separate things. Signing means nothing if it is not ratified by the domestic legislative body/ies. Assuming that we are able to agree to 80% reductions and a border tax, the House will not ratify it, because of pro-business Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans and the Senate for sure will not ratify it, because the Senate tends to be more conservative than the House.


I know, this is quite an unsatisfying conclusion to such a long email, but at this point, if Obama and the United States agrees to a 40% reduction, it would be considered a major victory. The rest is all but a daydream of the ideal situation.