Global Warming's Real
Inconvenient Truth
By Robert J. Samuelson
Wednesday, July 5, 2006;
A13
"Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the
next century, but -- regardless of whether it is or isn't -- we won't do much
about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may even, as a
nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more
dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be
observed. Little will be done. . . . Global warming promises to become a gushing
source of national hypocrisy.''
-- This column, July 1997
Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I've never quoted myself at
length, but here it's necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an "inconvenient
truth," as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That's
an illusion. The real truth is that we don't know enough to relieve global
warming, and -- barring major technological breakthroughs -- we can't do much
about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it's still obvious. Let me
explain.
From 2003 to 2050, the world's population is projected to grow from 6.4
billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person
and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions
(mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that's too low,
because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the
world's poor to their present poverty -- and freeze everyone else's living
standards -- we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and
greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the world
must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways: Improve energy
efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or no) greenhouse emissions.
Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China, for example, builds about one
coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new report from the International Energy
Agency in Paris shows all the difficulties (the population, economic growth and
energy projections cited above come from the report).
The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and
deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity
generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks
from about 40 percent to about 25 percent -- and much carbon dioxide is captured
before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy
increases. So do "renewables" (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of
global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government
regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher
fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA
simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each,
greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6
percent to 27 percent.
Since 1800 there's been modest global warming. I'm unqualified to judge
between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and
those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather
system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we're now
powerless. We can't end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere,
the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They're the
villains; they presumably trap the world's heat. They're already about 36
percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45
percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is
uncertain; so are the consequences.
I draw two conclusions -- one political, one practical.
No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and
personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might
curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they're "doing something."
The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries
that joined to castigate those that didn't. But it hasn't reduced carbon dioxide
emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn't adopt
tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe
may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that
have "ratified" Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of
these programs will reduce global warming. They're public relations exercises
and -- if they impose costs -- are undesirable. (Note: on national security
grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.)
The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the
only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer.
Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel
that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems.
It's an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave
up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only
an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our
dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge
the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral
crusade when it's really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that
if we don't solve the engineering problem, we're helpless.
© 2006 The
Washington Post Company