Tuesday editorial: Tepid on warming
President George W. Bush clings to his belief in free markets the way a drowning man clings to a potential rescuer.
Most of the time, that’s good — or at least it’s not bad. Markets are the best way to encourage efficiency. But sometimes, the grip of a drowning man is enough to send him and his would-be rescuer to the bottom. And sometimes, when everyone flails around in his own economic self-interest, society as a whole loses.
Economists call that “market failure.” Environmentalists call it “the tragedy of the commons.” Whatever Mr. Bush calls it, that contradiction is at the heart of his dilemma on global warming policy.
The president made a Rose Garden speech last week in which he proposed a national goal of halting the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. How does he think that should be accomplished?
“Voluntary reductions,” of course. To suggest anything else is to cast doubt on the free market’s ability to handle the challenge of global climate change. On this Earth Day, let’s examine that proposition.
Let’s leave aside, for the moment, the question of whether the world could avoid the worst effects of climate change by stopping the U.S. growth in carbon dioxide emissions as late as 2025. (We can’t, by the way; most scientists say the cuts will have to be far deeper and come far sooner). Let’s focus instead on the usefulness of voluntary emission curbs.
The United States has had voluntary emission guidelines since at least 2002. Mr. Bush announced them shortly after he began taking heat for backing out of the Kyoto Treaty on global climate change. And how are those guidelines working? They are not.
That’s because, while carbon dioxide emissions impose a real cost on society, emitting carbon dioxide imposes no cost on the people and corporations that do it. Curbing those emissions imposes a cost that cuts short-term profits.
If corporations don’t reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, they make whatever profit they make. If they do, they make the same profit minus the cost of reducing their emissions. Since executive compensation is tied to short-term profits, the decision to emit is a no-brainer.
That’s not a unique situation. The same scenario holds true for air and water pollution. That’s why Congress established economic incentives, in the form of pollution laws that limit emissions and create a market for “pollution credits.”
The same system could work for greenhouse gas emissions. Congress now is debating bills that would create a “cap and trade” system for greenhouse gas emissions. After years of inaction, Mr. Bush has a choice. He can let go of his ideology and embrace a rescuer’s helping hand. Or he can lock Congress in a death grip and try to drag it to the bottom — at least for the remainder of his fast-dwindling term.
President Bush’s “voluntary” position comes from the realization that politicians on both sides of the aisle cannot and/or will not control greenhouse emissions by themselves.
Governor Schwarzenegger (R-CA) is making a pretty good try, although some California requirements (as on gasoline lawnmowers) tread on the rights of every other state in the union and may seriously harm American manufacturers as well. Case in point: Japanese Honda overhead valve mower engines are replacing American Briggs and Stratton engines, and you might just as well forget American Tecumseh engines. Briggs may have to abandon its flat-head design, an industry standard for decades, and all mower engines will eventually require expensive catalytic converters. That will force buyers into cordless electrics which are not yet satisfactory for many lawns and which are ultimately powered by dirty coal-fired power plants.
Governor Blagojevich (D-IL) is playing both sides (first he pushes a modern technology clean coal power plant; then after the utility has spent big money on it, he demands that it be made even cleaner, at their expense of course). Another federally supported “ultimate” clean coal power plant in Illinois has already had to be abandoned due of excessive cost.
Sasol Ltd. provides most of South Africa and part of Europe with ultra clean burning automotive fuel made from coal. Sasol has partnered with Royal Dutch Shell to build a plant in Pennsylvania, with the support of Senator Arlen Specter. The feedstock for this plant would even be coal-mine “tailings”, which have previously been a serious stream pollutant. However, the most modern coal ot liquid plants, descendants of those that powered the WW2 German Panzer tanks, aren’t yet clean enough themselves to suit American politicians. It may be decades before one is in operation here, even though low-sulfur diesel fuel is in short supply and prices are driving American truckers out of business.
Meanwhile, how many Americans have bothered to re-lamp their homes, businesses, schools, and churches with compact fluorescent lamps, even though they know that government and industry have already acted to drive the incandescent lamp into extinction? I’m working under a 23 watt CFL to write this memo. Goodbye, greenhouse gas.
Sasol announced on 4/9/08 that it is the first producer (and the only one in the world) to have approval for the use of its low-pollution coal-derived jet fuel for use on commercial airliners. Betcha I can beatcha to the stock broker’s office.
Pres Bush didn’t “back out” of the Kyoto treaty. Congress never ratified it in the first place. Seems a tad disingenuous to blame a president for not complying with a treaty that wasn’t enacted.
The biggest question the editorial leaves aside is whether or not global warming is something we can or should do anything about. Tying the hands of business and industry and further destroying our economic engine for something that may likely be erroneous is folly. Not surprising that the “progressive” left and promoters of environmental hysteria support it.