People Of WFIT
Tue November 26, 2013
What's In It For U.S. To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
Originally published on Tue November 26, 2013 1:28 pm
The United Nations negotiations in Warsaw over a climate treaty are moving at glacial speed — and that's in part because there's a fundamental problem.
In the coming decades, carbon dioxide emissions from China, India and other rapidly developing countries are expected to grow quickly. Residents there aspire to lifestyles Americans and Europeans enjoy today, and those nations aren't willing to slash emissions, because doing so could slow their economic growth.
With carbon dioxide on the rise from sources outside the United States, some people are asking why the U.S. should bear the expense involved in slashing its own emissions.
We put that question to some of the world's leading climate strategists — several academics who live and work in California, home to the nation's most ambitious policy for dealing with climate change.
Take, for example, Catherine Wolfram, an economics professor and co-director of the Haas Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. She says it's fair to ask why the U.S. should shift from cheap fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources that are more expensive.
"If you look at the numbers," Wolfram says, "they suggest a whole year of California reductions [are] wiped away in one week of Chinese growth."
Looked at that way, it seems futile to try. But Wolfram says there is a rationale for the United States to show some leadership.
"I don't think the political message is what India and China need to hear," she says. "I think they just need to see — and we haven't shown it yet, but the hope is that we will show it eventually — that we can produce low-carbon energy cheaply."
Nobody disputes that's a huge challenge, but if you ask Daniel Kammen, it's a goal within reach. He's a professor of energy and nuclear engineering at the Energy and Resources Group at Cal, and has an office just down the hill from Wolfram's.
"China already has a carbon price; the U.S. does not," Kammen points out, arguing that the world's largest emitter isn't ignoring climate change. That price is paid, one way or another, by companies that emit carbon dioxide.
It's a relatively small amount of money — not nearly enough to stop the rapid increase in emissions from China. But China has other motivations to reduce emissions — starting with its toxic air.
"China is already paying a very high price for its fuel diet, and sees every motivation to ramp that amount of pollution down," Kammen says. "That's why China has become the world's leader in production of solar panels, wind turbines and batteries for electric vehicles."
Those technologies are still dwarfed by fossil fuels, but China is at least positioned for a transition, Kammen says.
Across San Francisco Bay, Stanford University's Sally Benson also sees a rationale for cleaning up U.S. emissions, even as China and other countries are making the problem worse.
"Certainly you do it for the good of the world, but you also do it for risk management," says Benson, who directs the Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford. Benson is referring to both economic and physical risk.
"I think there will come a day," she says, "when it will become so clear that we need to do this right away, that the countries that haven't prepared themselves really put themselves at much greater economic risk."
Benson says the cost of switching to low-carbon energy will probably mean spending twice as much as the U.S. does today on energy investments — a noticeable expenditure, she admits, even though the investment would be spread over several decades. The cost to the U.S. economy would have been a lot less, Benson notes, if we'd started this transition back during the energy crisis of the 1970s.
Finally, we posed the question to Chris Field, an environmental biologist who directs the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, also on the Stanford campus.
Field argues that the United States can find ways to act that aren't simply unilateral. If the U.S. gets the structure right, its strategy could actually shape what happens in the rest of the world, he says.
For example, the price of a product should reflect its environmental cost, Field says. That way, any buyer would help pay for the small incremental damage caused by the carbon dioxide that ended up in the atmosphere when the product was made.
The U.S. could impose this price unilaterally on domestic products. If China doesn't also add that to the price of, say, an iPhone made in China, the U.S. could add the carbon fee with a tax at the border — and that money would go into the U.S. Treasury.
But Field also makes a more philosophical argument, one based on doing the right thing.
"Personally," he says, "I believe that we are close to an era where if a country wants to be regarded as a leading country on the international scene, [its leaders] will recognize that this is one of the things you need to do."
DAVID GREENE, HOST:
The United Nations climate treaty talks ended this past weekend in Poland with a familiar result - near failure. China and India said they will not commit to controlling their carbon emissions. The growth in pollution from those two countries effectively cancels out U.S. carbon reductions, which has led some to ask a question: Why do we even bother? NPR's Richard Harris put that question to some of the world's leading climate strategists.
RICHARD HARRIS, BYLINE: California is home to the nation's most ambitious climate change policy and it's also home to some of the most prominent academic thinkers on this subject. Take, for example, Catherine Wolfram. She's an economics professor and co-director of the Energy Institute at the Haas Business School at UC, Berkeley. She nods knowingly when I ask a question she's heard many times before.
If you look at many of the projections for global energy use, they are going to be skyrocketing in the next couple of decades, and the question then becomes why should we even try if we know that the rest of the world is not going to limit its emissions? Why should we inflict pain on ourselves?
CATHERINE WOLFRAM: That's a great question. If you look at the numbers, they suggest that, you know, a whole year of California reductions is wiped away in one week of Chinese growth.
HARRIS: Looked at that way, it seems futile to try. But Wolfram says what if we could set an example that made renewable energy appealing to China and other rapidly growing economies.
WOLFRAM: We haven't shown this yet, the hope is that we will show it eventually, but they need to see that you can produce low-carbon energy cheaply.
HARRIS: A tall order. But if you ask Daniel Kammen, it's within reach. He's a professor of energy and nuclear engineering and his office is on the Berkley campus just down the hill from Wolfram's. He argues that China isn't simply ignoring climate change.
DANIEL KAMMEN: China already has a carbon price and the U.S. does not.
HARRIS: That carbon price would be paid by companies who emit carbon dioxide. It's a small figure, 2 to 8 dollars a ton. That's not nearly enough to deter companies from polluting. But Kammen says just look at China's toxic air and it's obvious they have other motivations to reduce emissions.
KAMMEN: China is already paying a very high price for its fossil fuel diet and sees every motivation to ramp that amount of pollution down. That's why China has become the world's leader in production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries for electric vehicles.
HARRIS: Those clean technologies still provide a tiny sliver of China's energy, but the country is at least positioned for a transition. I took the question across the bay and posed it to Sally Benson, who is director of the global climate and energy project at Stanford University.
SALLY BENSON: Certainly there are reasons you do it for the good of the world, but you also do it as a risk management.
HARRIS: And here Benson is talking both economic and environmental risk.
BENSON: I think there will come a day when it will become so clear that we need to do this right away, that I think that those countries that haven't prepared themselves really put themselves at much greater economic risk.
HARRIS: There is a cost for this kind of insurance. Benson says the amount of money we invest in energy infrastructure would gradually double, but in her mind it's worth it. Finally, I turn to Chris Field, who is the director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, which is on the Stanford campus.
He argues that the United States is such a powerful economic force that actions here can actually change what happens in other industrial countries.
CHRIS FIELD: For example, if the United States had a price on carbon, they could easily add that price at the border if a country didn't also charge its price internally.
HARRIS: Field wants the price of a product to reflect its environmental cost. You'd pay for the carbon dioxide that ended up in the atmosphere when the product is built. And if China doesn't add that to the price of, say, and iPhone, the U.S. could do that with a tax at the border, and that money would go into the U.S. Treasury.
But Field also makes a more philosophical argument, one based on doing the right thing.
FIELD: Personally, I believe that we are close to an era in which if a nation wants to be regarded as a leading country in the international scene, they'll recognize that this is one of the things you need to do.
HARRIS: So in sum, if places like California can show that clean energy won't break the bank, these four prominent thinkers say action in the United States could lead to action in the rest of the world, where it matters most. Richard Harris, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.