Institute for Energy Research

Climate Change

Table of Contents

• Influencing The Debate
• Environmental Concerns
• Proposed Policy Solutions
• The Path Ahead

Climate change and energy security are issues of great concern for many Americans, as significant amounts of our energy come from unstable parts of the world and the debate over how to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide - one of several greenhouse gases - intensifies on the public stage. Few individuals, however, are likely to realize just how tightly linked the issue of global climate change is to American energy security.

Influencing The Debate

That human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2, a gas known to ‘force’ climate or increase temperatures while the Earth has warmed about 0.6 º Celsius over the last one hundred years is generally accepted. How the climate works and the relationship of different variables remains to be determined.¹

There is, however, a sense of urgency among many to take action in the form of policies to reduce CO2 emissions. Although the policies would be extremely expensive, consume resources that could be directed to immediate and profound problems, and have limited potential to affect climate, many contend that there is an urgent need to implement some sort of policy. Many potenital factors can contribute to and exacerbate the sense that policies are urgently needed. These factors include, for example:

Marketing: Selling newspapers and magazines and getting viewers to support higher advertising rates often motivates sensational media attention. Environmental issues are no less subject to this influence than are other media topics as is reflected from past headlines addressing sensationalized concerns regarding issues such as the ozone hole, toxic waste and the concern of global warming.

Profits: A number of corporations could see new laws and regulations to control CO2 emissions as a chance to get an advantage over competitors. Several companies have formed a coalition calling for action on climate change. Many may have aspects of their business that might benefit from such laws or regulations, including the manufacturing of wind turbines, formulating alternative fuels getting carbon credits for retiring older facilities.²

Funding: For researchers in academia and in government, issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding. The more threatening an issue is perceived to be the more likely it is to receive funding. The funds directed towards climate change research are substantial. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the amount of Federal funding for climate change related research increased to $4.4 billion in 2006.³

Advantage: For many other nations, new laws or regulations that impose costs on the US economy may make them better able to compete with the United States. According to the former EU Commissioner for the Environment, “This is about international relations, this is about trying to create a level playing field for big business throughout the world.”⁴

France and Germany have both pushed for the US to implement carbon emissions policies. France already gets a majority of its electricity from nuclear power that is carbon neutral. Many highly inefficient and polluting factories of the former East Germany are being retired, something for which Germany could get carbon credits. Emissions restrictions that make US goods more expensive relative to French or German products would reduce US competitiveness.

Politics: ‘Crises’, environmental and otherwise, that demand heroes are fertile ground for political interests. Crises like the sensationalized climate change scenarios provide issues that ensure headlines and lend themselves to many political maneuvers to establish oneself as a ‘leader’ from public statements and speeches to special committees and legislative proposals to take action.

Some Environmental Concerns

The more obvious driving factors behind the call for CO2 regulatory policies are based on environmental considerations. But, while many different ideas have been floated as to the types of policies that should be adopted, few really explain how an atmospheric CO2 concentration that does not exceed a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration — a threshold targeted by the IPCC-- can be achieved. Many legitimately question whether doing so without technologies that are unlikely for decades such as fusion energy, space-based solar energy or artificial photosynthesis is even possible.⁵

People: To some, people are essentially seen on balance as an environmental liability. The more people there are the more resources they consume. From this perspective, renewable natural resources like air, land, water, fish and wildlife are considered generally static, fragile and destined to degradation and decline when used. From this vantage, more people lead to a worse environment. This type of thinking is beginning to be openly expressed in the debate over climate change as revealed in a recent press release from one London-based environmental concern with the headline “Combat Climate Change With Fewer Babies.” The release states:

“A radical form of “offsetting” carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate change is proposed today – having fewer children…” and goes on to state, “The most effective national and global climate change strategy is limiting the size of the population.” ⁶

In a supporting briefing paper the environmental concern elaborates,

“A non-existent person has no environmental footprint: the emissions “saving” is instant and total. Given an 80-year lifespan and annual per capita emissions … each Briton “foregone” – each addition to the population that does not take place – saves 744 [tons] of CO2…each foregone Briton therefore saves society $63,240 … A 35-pence (65-70 cents) condom, which could avert this cost from a single use, thus represents a spectacular (nine million per cent) potential return on investment.” ⁷

Affluence: From the IPAT perspective, increasing affluence magnifies peoples’ negative environmental impact. More affluent people demand more natural resources and have a greater ability to exert negative pressures on the environment. A recent article from an environmental concern’s journal opposing the alternative fuel ethanol echoes this sentiment:

“The only answer to these problems is a dramatic reduction in our energy and resource consumption.” ⁸

The notion that economic growth is inherently at odds with environmental quality can even be found in the statements of environmental concerns that would generally be perceived as ‘mainstream.’ According to one such entity:

“If nothing is done to address unsustainable consumption in industrialized nations, as well as the high rates of growth in poverty-stricken countries, the impact that human beings could have on remaining habitat and natural resources will be unprecedented.” ⁹

And as IPAT co-conceiver Ehrlich put it:

"We've already had to much economic growth in the United States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease not the cure." ¹⁰

Technology: Like affluence, under the IPAT equation, technology is seen, on the whole, as leading to more environmental degradation. Technology magnifies the potential for humans to affect their environment and perhaps no technologies do so more than those related to energy. The word energy derived from the Greek word energos meaning ‘active’ or ‘working’ and is considered by physicists as the capacity of a physical system to do work. The greater the capacity, the more work that can be done and from the IPAT perspective, the greater the work, the greater the environmental impact. As one former US Senator put it nearly two decades ago:

“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is to try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” ¹¹

Although generally doubted now, when two researchers, Fleischmann and Pons, created a flurry of interest by announcing they had experimentally demonstrated cold fusion — a potentially inexhaustible, clean and inexpensive source of energy — a number of leading environmental figures commented on the prospect. ¹²

For one, it was “… the worst thing that could happen to our planet.” John Holdren, IPAT co-conceiver, remarked that “…clean-burning, non-polluting, hydrogen-using bulldozers still could knock down trees or build housing developments on farmland.”

Ehrlich put the perceived perils of inexpensive energy more directly: "Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”

If one sees growing economies supporting more people and advancing technologically as leading to environmental degradation and one is concerned about climate change, what might otherwise seem to be a rush toward ineffective and unachievable CO2 policies that would impose enormous costs might make sense. From this perspective, limiting economic growth is a desirable outcome. Economic growth is dependent upon access to affordable and reliable energy. Measures that reduce the reliability and affordability of energy would result in reduced economic growth. Politically, however, directly calling for limitations on energy through taxation or other means is a more difficult position to take. Calling for immediate CO2 policies is different. Demands for such policies assert that the policy will avert an impending crisis. The effect, however, is the same.

CO2 is a ubiquitous byproduct of human activity. It is a byproduct of the technologies we employ to generate energy, for transportation, in manufacturing and agriculture and even when we breathe. CO2 is a byproduct of humans and almost everything we do. Limiting CO2 emissions would have the same effect as increasing the cost of energy through taxation. While discussed as solutions to climate change, all the proposals to control carbon emissions — the Kyoto Protocol, cap and trade, carbon tax — would have the effect of energy taxation and constrict the energy supply.

Energy: Pushing policies that reduce our energy supply is not a new course for many environmental concerns. Consistent with the notion that reliable and affordable energy leads to economic growth and with it, environmental degradation, many environmental concerns have commonly worked to restrict access to and development of energy resources.

Generally, the greater the capacity of an energy source to meet near term needs tends to be, the more it is negatively portrayed by some environmental concerns. This includes fossil fuel, nuclear and hydropower energy sources that supply over 95% of our energy.¹³ The benefits provided by the energy source to energy security, the economy and to human beings are often not taken into account. At the same time, while some other energy sources are portrayed as more desirable, the fact that these sources have far less potential to meet our current energy needs is given little attention. And, when there are actually efforts to integrate such resources into the energy supply rather than simple rhetoric about the need to develop them, environmental issues are often raised.

When considering the potential for different energy sources to meet our current and future needs and some impediments to tapping them including environmental opposition, one way to group them is into renewable energy sources such as solar , wind , alternative fuels and hydro power; nuclear energy; and hydrocarbon-based or fossil fuels energy including coal , natural gas and oil.

Proposed Climate Change Solutions

Proposed policies to control CO2 emissions vary but share some common elements:

• They are often promoted with sensational scenarios.

 

Sensational scenarios such as a 20-foot rise in sea levels are often brought up in the course of discussion about CO2 regulatory proposals. Despite such dramatic statements, in the worst case scenario the IPCC or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s reported maximum range of sea level rise is about 23 inches over the next century.2 The IPCC estimates that sea levels rose 4.7 to 6.7 inches over the 20th century.¹⁴

• The resulting impact in atmospheric CO2 concentrations would have a virtually insignificant effect upon temperature.

 

The various proposed CO2 regulatory policies would have little effect on the climate. For example, some climate model calculations show that if the Kyoto target of reducing emissions to seven percent below those of 1990 were achieved, it would postpone a temperature change of 0.15˚ Celsius anticipated in one century by six years. Some climate modeling further calculates that even more aggressive measures than Kyoto would be needed to stay below the IPCC CO2 target threshold of 550 parts per million.¹⁵

• They impose large economic costs that would require significant changes in the quality of life.

The enormous cost of the initial proposal to control carbon emissions, the Kyoto Treaty, was recognized by the US Senate. The Senate overwhelming rejected the Kyoto Treaty that — during the Clinton Administration — was estimated to cost as much as four percent of GDP.¹⁶

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently conducted an analysis of another approach to reducing emissions — the cap and trade method. Under this method the government would set limits on the amount of CO2 that could be released and permits to release a set amount of CO2 would be issued. Those whose CO2 emissions fell below what were allowed under their permits could sell the difference to others who did not have enough credits. The CBO found that the increased costs resulting from this approach would ultimately affect individuals with lower incomes most adversely and that a cap and trade program would be expensive. According to the CBO :

“Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by customers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households. In addition, workers and investors in parts of the energy sector- such as the coal industry- and in various energy-intensive industries would be likely to experience losses as the economy adjusted to the emission cap and production of those industries’ goods declined.” ¹⁷

The potential costs of CO2 policies are so huge that they can be difficult to comprehend. Economists often use the analysis tool of opportunity costs as a measure. The idea of opportunity costs is “what could we spend this money on instead?”

The Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg gathered a group of leading economists, including several Nobel Prize winners, and asked them to rank a series of proposals to spend money to benefit people based upon which expenditures would have the most beneficial effects. At the bottom of the list was incurring costs to reduce CO2 emissions. At the top was providing clean drinking water to the poor.¹⁸

A statement by the recent director of the World Health Organization lends support to the selection of clean drinking water over CO2 emissions policies. According to the late Dr. Lee Jong-Wook:

"Water and Sanitation is one of the primary drivers of public health. I often refer to it as “Health 101”, which means that once we can secure access to clean water and to adequate sanitation facilities for all people, irrespective of the difference in their living conditions, a huge battle against all kinds of diseases will be won." 19

Photo USAID

Providing clean drinking water to the poor is indeed a huge battle and huge potential opportunity cost. In less than a minute, another child will die from contaminated water or poor sanitation.

Cutting Carbon Emmissions:

Just how difficult it would be to stay below the threshold CO2 concentration is revealed by the particulars of some of the proposals to do so using current technology. One notion that has been put forward is that various carbon emissions offset strategies, called wedges, that use existing technologies can be adopted over the next five decades to keep the overall atmospheric CO2 concentration from rising above the IPCC’s threshold. The idea is that each wedge would represent a means to offset a section of a triangle formed by the upward sloping line of carbon emissions anticipated with energy, economic and population growth and a base line representing an atmospheric CO2 threshold. While no single solution or wedge is anticipated as being sufficient to equal the triangle, the wedge proponents envision a series of stacked wedges providing a formula for staying below the threshold. ²⁰

The proponents offer wedges that offset carbon emissions in the provision of electricity. For example:

• One wedge could be derived by large scale adoption of wind electricity to replace a portion of the electricity derived from fossil fuels. The wedge would require about 50 times the amount of wind energy in use today. While some of these turbines might be placed offshore, the authors calculated the area required to support this many wind turbines is about 74 million acres — equivalent to around 3% of the United States or somewhat less than the area of Arizona.

• Another wedge composed of off-sets from photovoltaic panel generated electricity (solar) used to replace fossil fuels would require 700 times today's deployment requiring around five million acres or an area less than the lands of Israel.

• A wedge of nuclear power to replace coal that would require approximately doubling the installed nuclear capacity and nuclear power output.

• Another wedge could be derived from about doubling the efficiency of conversion of fuel to electricity at a huge number of coal-fired plants.

Wedges are also offered to achieve CO2 offsets through various land management strategies. For example:

• A half wedge could be derived if clear cutting of primary tropical forests was reduced to zero over 50 years.
  

• A half-wedge would be created by reforesting approximately 250 million acres in the tropics — an area greater than the lands of France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Poland, Portugal and the UK combined — or by reforesting 400 million acres in the temperate zone — an area substantially larger than India and Pakistan together.
  

• A half wedge would result from the creation of 300 million acres of plantations on land that is not currently forested — an area about eight percent greater than that of Argentina.

Still, other wedges could be created by strategies to offset carbon emissions from fuels. For example:

• A wedge could be created by replacing two billion conventionally-fueled cars with ethanol-fueled cars supported by high-energy crops grown on some 617 million acres, an area equivalent to almost one million square miles and estimated by the authors as about one-sixth of the world’s cropland. That would be equivalent to about 25% of the United States — more than Alaska, Texas and New Mexico combined. (Note: According to a study published in Science, the use of ethanol could increase - not decrease - carbon dioxide emissions.)

• The authors propose that another wedge could be derived by increasing the average fuel economy of the world’s vehicle fleet to 30 mpg while somehow cutting the average distance traveled in half (from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year).

The wedge proponents explain that their analytical tool allows comparison of the different means that can be employed to stay within the targeted CO2 atmospheric concentration. Each of the carbon management strategies represented by a wedge is anticipated to be phased in over the next 50 years and eventually reach the point where it provides an annual offset of one gigaton of annual CO2 emissions. Exactly how many wedges would be needed is dependent upon the growth rate of carbon emissions. The wedge authors explain that their projections continue:

“… the 1.5% annual carbon emissions growth of the past 30 years. This historic trend in emissions has been accompanied by 2% growth in primary energy consumption and 3% growth in gross world product … If carbon emissions were to grow 2% per year, then 10 wedges would be needed instead of 7, and if carbon emissions were to grow at 3% per year, then 18 wedges would be required …”

Essentially, just how many such wedges would be required is dependent on other variables such as the growth in energy supply, the economy and population. The relationship between these variables has been expressed in a number of ways including by an equation known as the Kaya Identity.

Under this equation, for CO2 emissions to decline, then one of the variables contributing to it must decline – carbon-intensity, energy-intensity, GDP or people. The above discussed wedges were offered by their authors as possible strategies to stay below the IPCC’s atmospheric CO2 threshold concentration without technologies like fusion while energy supply, GDP and population increased.

The Path Ahead

Responsibly addressing our energy and climate issues presents a serious challenge not only because of the complex and huge economic, technological and scientific aspects involved but also because of the enormous volume of sensationalized, simplistic and often plain wrong information interjected into the discussion. If we are to develop responsible policies then they must be anchored in hard facts — not hype.

However rhetorically appealing to politicians, pundits and those promoting an agenda, the fact is that there is no magic energy bullet and that certainly applies to wind, solar and ethanol. There are no simple cures to a challenge that has been in the making over decades. If there were, we would already be adopting them.

As regards our energy supply there is, however, much we can do — many parts to the solution of meeting our energy needs. Whatever the exact mix, diversity of energy resources is key. Having a broad energy portfolio contributes to energy security by reducing dependence upon any single source and it insures competition that promotes technological advances. And, in any case, it is really the only viable option. But having an effective diverse supply requires recognizing that our energy infrastructure is complex. A complex energy supply and infrastructure will be most effective and dependable and technologically advanced when responding to market forces not Federal mandates that are likely to hurt both reliability and affordability.

To chart an intelligent energy course requires recognizing the potentials and limitations of different energy sources. For example, solar and wind energy, while growing parts of our energy portfolio, only contribute a fraction of a percent to meeting our total energy demand. Without some radical and unforeseen technological change, the fact is that their inherent limitations mean these and other renewable resources are unlikely to reliably provide for more than a relatively small faction of our energy needs for decades to come.

And like wind and solar, while conservation of energy sources has an environmental imprimatur and should be pursued, it is not a magic energy bullet. Real conservation gains are demonstrated by the fact that overtime less energy is used for every dollar of GNP generated.²¹ These gains are the result of efficiencies that make sense. Everyone is for conserving energy whether concerned about the environmental ramifications or not. Companies that run coal fired plants don’t burn extra coal just to increase their costs and decrease their profit margin. Just about every drop of crude that can be converted into a useful product is. If one oil, coal, natural gas or other kind of energy producer or supplier can get a competitive advantage in the market by producing more bang for the buck they do it or lose out to someone else who does. In fact, energy companies pay money to scads of engineers to do just that. And, when the average individual makes intelligent conservation choices it is money in their pocket.

The reality, however, is that economically viable gains from conservation of our current energy supply alone will not meet the increasing demand necessary for a growing economy and it is entirely unrealistic to think that, for example, solar and wind could reliably and economically make up the difference within several decades. While low-watt light bulbs, replacement windows and small cars make contributions to addressing energy demand, they hardly constitute a strategy for prosperity or for improving the well-being of the average American by ensuring a reliable and adequate energy supply.

The question is not whether we should conserve energy but rather conserve energy derived from what? Oil and natural gas require drilling unless we wish to import even more. Coal requires mining and coal fired power plants. Nuclear requires more nuclear plants and disposal of nuclear waste and there is little suppott for expansion for hydropower . Whatever we might lose from each of these sources just adds to unmet demand. And, all of these things including wind, solar and other renewable energy sources require infrastructure. Just which of these energy sources do the environmental concerns pushing for immediate CO2 regulatory policies actually support?

For now, without these energy sources — barring some transformational technology advance we would all love to see — there are no realistic alternatives to meet our near term energy supply needs next year or five, ten or even 20 years from now. Calling for ‘more renewables like wind and solar and more conservation’ alone is to push for cutting the energy supply essential to economic growth without admitting it.

The reality is that fossil fuels provide 86% of our energy supply now and the Department of Energy anticipates fossil fuels will provide a similar portion of our energy supply for decades into the future. The fact is, if we wish to ensure the adequate and reliable energy supply necessary for our economy and security, we need to ensure adequate supplies of fossil fuels for decades to come.

Another fact that must be recognized is that the development of our energy infrastructure and energy resources — coal , natural gas , oil , nuclear , hydroelectric and even wind — has been severely limited by environmental concerns. In some instances compelling cases can be made that the limitations were justified but the totality of the effect has been to seriously hinder our energy security, even to increase the political influence of hostile nations that are energy suppliers. Restricting energy supplies has been a consistent pattern of environmental concerns. According to the Wall Street Journal a recent legislative effort supported by many environmental concerns:

“… fulfills one big ambition of environmental groups in recent years: a rollback of any smarter use of public (or even private) lands for energy use. Gone are previous gains for more drilling, more refineries, more transmission lines. But the big prize was an unprecedented new power allowing green groups to micromanage U.S. lands. That section creates ‘a new national policy on wildlife and global warming.’” ²²

A large number of environmental concerns voiced their strong support for this legislation — with one acknowledging that it "worked with committee and congressional staff as they developed" the bill.²³

Despite conventional wisdom, the reality is that there are huge energy resources that we have not yet tapped. Some would require technological advances but the hurdles are often far less then those faced by other potential energy sources that are discussed as possible solutions. Other sources that do not present similar technological challenges could be tapped if we just had the will. The amount of energy that these resources could provide would not make the United States energy independent but could certainly be equivalent to a substantial portion of the energy we import from hostile and unstable regions of the world. Tapping these resources could significantly improve America’s energy security.

What is clear is that as we search for long-term solutions, failure to provide for our energy needs in coming decades, not just the distant future, could have seriously adverse consequences. Making provisions for sufficient energy is crucial — crucial to our economy and security and crucial to addressing any environmental challenges we may face including climate.

Now, many are arguing that we must urgently implement CO2 polices — policies that would increase the costs of an energy supply that has already been consistently constrained on the basis of environmental concerns. Just how such emissions reductions would actually be accomplished without wrenching transformations of our society and economy are not well explained.

Using the wedge approach to explore some of the ‘possible’ courses reveals that it would be, to put it mildly, hard to do. If we converted the world’s automobile fleet to ethanol and a portion of the world’s arable cropland equal to about 25% of the US to energy crops, we would have one wedge — not to mention some significant problems with the world’s food supply. Covering an area equivalent to Arizona with wind turbines and an area a bit less than the nation of Israel with photovoltaic panels would provide two more. Adding plantations on currently unforested land that total an area greater than India and Pakistan combined and reforesting enough tropical lands to cover an greater than France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Spain and the UK combined would provide a fourth wedge. With a doubling of nuclear power we would have a fifth; doubling the energy efficiency of a huge number of coal plants would provide a sixth.

According to the wedge analytical tool, these actions and one additional wedge of some sort would provide the needed CO2 offsets for a carbon emissions growth rate of 1.3% — a rate of growth that reflects the energy-starved and consequently, economically destitute and squalid environmental conditions for billions of people. If growth in emissions increased to 3% as a result of increased energy consumption generating greater prosperity and all the contributions the accumulation of wealth brings to human well-being beginning with longer lives — then we would need to find an additional 11 wedges.

Such unrealistic strategies are consistent with the thinking that people in an increasingly prosperous and technologically advanced society present an environmental threat. This belief is evident in the IPCC emission scenario that happens to result in the least predicated increase in temperature and sea level ranges. That scenario is based upon a ‘storyline’ for the world in which there is:

“…rapid change in economic structures toward a service and information economy, with reductions in material intensity and the introduction of clean and resource efficient technologies. The emphasis is on global solutions to economic, social and environmental sustainability, including improved equity, but without additional climate initiatives.” ²⁴

The average individual worried about climate change may not be sufficiently informed to understand what little consequence some of policies being promoted would have upon climate or the huge costs such proposal could impose on our economy, environment and energy security. The same, however, cannot be said of many among the leadership of those highly organized and well-funded and informed environmental concerns that have promoted the constriction of energy supplies and the adoption of ineffective climate policies.

Despite the belief of some that economic growth is essentially bad for the environment and, consequently, that constricting energy supplies is good, the reality is that without economic growth technological advances and adoption of new technologies suffers. And, as more and more people realize, technology holds the keys to many of the challenges we face including environmental challenges.

If, for example, we were to develop hydrogen as a means of fueling vehicles we would have to build an entire new infrastructure to support it. Building a hydrogen generation and distribution system would be a hugely expensive undertaking. But not only would we have to build a new infrastructure but also replace the huge vehicle fleet of the United States, some 191 million cars, with hydrogen vehicles.²⁵

In robust economies more people could afford to purchase hydrogen vehicles than in an economy suffering from the effects of a reduced energy supply. The same can be said of increasing the number of vehicles with improved fuel efficiency, hybrids or vehicles that use other alternative fuels. Similarly, the potential to construct new power plants with reduced emissions or new nuclear plants, expanding the grid to accommodate more wind development or improving older facilities to reduce emissions would be far less in weaker economies.

The development and adoption of new technologies, some we can imagine — like fusion or artificial photosynthesis — or others still unknown, suffers when the economy suffers. If we wish to develop and enlist technology to meet our challenges, then we have to have the financial ability to make it happen. Increasing the cost of energy—an essential component of wealth creation — reduces wealth.

Wealth generated by a strong economy not only advances technology but also is strongly and positively tied with numerous measurements of human well-being including the single most important environmental measurement — human health. And, despite the many sensational claims made and much conventional wisdom, strong economic growth in the United States has been accompanied by dramatic improvements in a wide range of environmental measurements like air and water quality and average life span. Certainly there are negative environmental impacts in prosperous societies but wealth makes expenditures that benefit the environment possible, expenditures that, to poorer societies are luxuries beyond reach —including having the financial ability to address and adapt to any future environmental challenges that could result from changes in climate.

Nevermind possible threats a century away, poorer societies cannot afford to address immediate and well-understood environmental problems for which the solutions are known — like the death of nearly two million people, mostly children, each and every year. Certainly, in any honest assessment of immediacy and gravity of threat posed by the world’s environmental problems, the lack of clean drinking water trumps possible climatic changes from manmade CO2 decades or a century from now.

The path ahead is forked. Choosing the responsible path to meet our energy and climate challenges requires making decisions based on solid facts. There must be an honest discussion and accurate understanding of these issues including many that have been absent in the current public discourse. Of the forks we could choose, one is a perilous course where the past push for constricting energy and the actions that have done so merge with rashly enacted CO2 policies and rumble along on a downhill trajectory. Rejecting this course and choosing the responsible path will still require meeting significant challenges but none are insurmountable. Perhaps the greatest challenge we face is tuning out the hype and mustering the will to take the right path.

Citations

1 US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/cliihis100.html.

2. US Climate Action Partnership, http:// www.us-cap.org; Strassel, Kim, “If the Cap Fits, Why Our CEOs are Warming to Kyoto,” Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2007.

3. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), “Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress,” April 2006.

4. Castle, Stephen, “EU Sends Strong Warning to Bush Over Greenhouse Gas
Emissions,” The Independent UK, March 19, 2001.

5. Hoffert, M.I., et al, “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet,” Science, vol. 298, no. 5595, November 1, 2002, p. 981- 987, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/298/5595/981?ijkey=c3cde14ebb02da881b1b176ee74f2b4d04d2c07b& keytype2=tf_ipsecsha.

6. Quoted in press release, “Combat Climate Change with Fewer Babies- OPT
Report,” Optimum Population Trust, May 7, 2007,
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release07May07.htm.

7. Nicholson-Lord, David, “A Population- Based Climate Strategy—An Optimum
Population Trust Briefing,” Optimum Population Trust, May 2007, http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.sub.briefing. climate.population.May07.pdf.

8. Simmons, Skyler, “Full Tanks, Empty Stomachs,” Earth First! Journal, 2007,
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=305#comments.

9. National Wildlife Federation, http:// www.nwf.org/popandenvironment/index.cfm.

10. Quoted in Bailey, Ron, “The Law of Increasing Returns”, CATO Institute, March 18, 2000, http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18- 00.html. too_muc.html.

11. Quoted in “Global Warming Treaty Costs for the US,” National Center for Policy Analysis, September 6, 1996,http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba213.html.

12. Ciotti, Paul, “Fear of Fusion: What if It Works?,” Los Angeles Times, April 19, 1989.

13. EIA, Energy Basics, http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/energybasics101.html.40.

14. IPPC, p. 410, http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch05.pdf.

15. Wigley, T.M.L, “The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 25, no. 13, 1998, p. 2285- 2288.

16. US Energy Information Administration (EIA), “Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on the US Energy Markets and Economic Activity, Comparing Costs of the Kyoto Protocol,” 1998, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html.

17. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Trade-Offs in Allocating Allowances for CO2 Emissions,” April 25, 2007.

18. Copenhagen Consensus, 2006, http:// www.copenhagenconsensus.com.Introduction.pdf.

19. World Health Organization (WHO), “Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to
Health- Facts and Figures,” November 2004.

20. Pacala, S., Scolow, R., “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years Using Current Technologies,” Science, vol. 305, no. 5686, August 13, 2004, p. 968-972, http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/305/5686/968?ijkey=Y58LIjdWjMPsw&keytype=ref&siteid=sci.

21. Quoted in press release, “U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuels Declined by 1.3 Percent in 2006,” EIA, May 23, 2007, http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press284.html and see http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld022.htm.

22. Strassel, Kim, “Green Goodies,” The
Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2007.

23. Ibid.

24. IPPC, Working Group III, Box SPM. 1, p. 9.

25. EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption/index.html.