Posted by Jonathan Adler:
The Cost of Cooling the Climate:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_07_15-2007_07_21.shtml#1184537218
Congress is considering climate change legislation more seriously than
ever before. While there are several legislative proposals in the
House and Senate, some of which could be quite costly, none of the
bills would make an appreciable impact on future climate change. This
is the nub of the climate change problem: Reducing greenhouse gas
emissions enough to make a difference will require cuts far greater
than anyone is willing to pay for -- and this will remain the case
until there are substantial technological breakthroughs to reduce the
cost of controlling emissions or sequestering carbon.
Today's Washington Post [1]highlights the economic aspects of the
problem
Here's the good news about climate change: Energy and climate
experts say the world already possesses the technological know-how
for trimming greenhouse gas emissions enough to slow the perilous
rise in the Earth's temperatures.
Here's the bad news: Because of the enormous cost of addressing
global warming, the energy legislation considered by Congress so
far will make barely a dent in the problem, while farther-reaching
climate proposals stand a remote chance of passage. . . .
The potential economic impact of meaningful climate legislation --
enough to reduce U.S. emissions by at least 60 percent -- is vast.
Automobiles would have to get double their current miles to the
gallon. Building codes would have to be tougher, requiring use of
more energy-efficient materials. To stimulate and pay for new
technologies, U.S. electricity bills could rise by 25 to 33
percent, some experts estimate; others say the increase could be
greater.
Most of the technologies that could reduce greenhouse gases are not
only expensive but would need to be embraced on a global scale,
scientists say. Many projections for 2030 include as many as 1
million wind turbines worldwide; enough solar panels to cover half
of New Jersey, massive reforestation; a major retooling of the
global auto industry; as many as 400 power plants fitted with
pricey equipment to capture carbon dioxide and store it
underground; and, most controversial, perhaps 350 new nuclear
plants around the world.
If anything, the Post account understates the costs of meaningful
emission reductions, insofar as it relies on Nicholas Stern, author of
the the [2]Stern Review. A [3]companion story looks at the
combinations of policies necessary to produce meaningful emission
reductions.
One important debate in climate change policy today is over which, if
any, government policies can meaningfully accelerate the discovery and
deployment of new technologies. Some believe adopting a cap-and-trade
regime and other emission control technologies will induce
technological innovation. Others believe policies that are more
focused on technological innovation, as such, would be more effective.
What is clear is that without new cost-effective technologies, there
will more talk than action on carbon emissions.
References
1.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071401246.html?hpid=topnews
2. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1162481314.shtml
3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/14/AR2007071401243.html?hpid=topnews
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
