I was at a Massachusetts business gathering recently and one of the criticisms leveled at Candidate Trump was that he wouldn’t lead the world out of the problems caused by CO2 emissions, i.e., “climate change.” Obama was a potential “leader” for the world to follow who met with this person’s approval, but he hadn’t been effective due to obstruction by Congress. Bernie Sanders was this Trumpophobe’s choice for President, partly due to the fact that he could be expected to become a leader in the climate change area.
Regardless of the merits of these various candidates and politicians, I’m wondering why anyone would expect the U.S. to be a leader in this area. If we consider atmospheric CO2 to be a technical problem that will require a technical solution, what is the basis for expecting the U.S. to lead? Suppose that a fully installed solar cell array cost one third as much as it does currently and produced twice as much electricity. That would be the end of demand for electricity from fossil fuel, right? (Wikipedia says that prices for cells have come down about 10 percent every year since 1980, so this is not an inconceivable scenario, though there is more in a solar array than just the cells.) But if China and Germany are the world leaders in solar cell production and also in producing electricity from solar cells, wouldn’t we expect leadership from China and Germany rather than from anyone in the U.S.?
Let’s look at our political leaders. Barack Obama has no technical education. King Bush II studied history at Yale. Bernie Sanders studied political science. Hillary Clinton studied also political science in college and then, like President Obama, went to law school. These people may have many virtues, but technical knowledge or a desire to acquire it, doesn’t seem to be one of them (see this chapter where a lawyer notes that “Judges went to law schools. They don’t want to be bothered learning new things.”).
What about other countries? Angela Merkel studied physics and then got a PhD in quantum chemistry. China’s Premier from 2003-2013 was Wen Jiabao, a geologist. Who is more likely to lead the world in a technical solution? The PhD in chemistry and the geologist or the lawyer with a briefcase?
We’ve got a lot of programmers so it seems plausible that we could lead the world in computer nerdism (we gave them Java, they should be grateful!). We’ve got a lot of farmland so we could certainly lead the world in large-scale agriculture (though perhaps not if water is a constraint). But where does the “we will lead the world in reversing climate change” assumption come from?
[In Forensic History: Crimes, Frauds, and Scandals
Not an inconceivable scenario? Maybe – but for now, seems unlikely if this writer is reporting the facts correctly. Once the subsidies cease, the going gets tough.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/20/the-solar-industry-is-dying-good-riddance/
Global warming isn’t just a technical problem which requires only a technical solution. The costs from global warming due to dumping CO2 into the atmosphere are external to cost of producing fossil fuels. Fossil fuels also benefit from network effects established in part by taking advantage of this externality and government subsidies granted in the past. With these conditions we can expect free markets to fail because classical economic theory assumes markets free of externalities and network effects. Thus, in addition to the technical problems there are economic problems whose solutions are ultimately political. Because the U.S. remains a major emitter of CO2, it reasonable to expect the U.S. to be one of the leaders in dealing with the economic/political issues even if it isn’t a leader in dealing with the technical issues (although I don’t see why the U.S. shouldn’t be a leader on the technical side as well).
Neal has it. It’s a free-rider/tragedy-of-the-commons problem. The costs of reducing CO2 emissions (phasing out coal-burning power plants, building new carbon-free power generation capacity) are borne by individual countries, while the benefits are spread out over the entire planet. So self-interest isn’t going to solve the problem; to deal with it, the major industrialized countries have to come to an agreement, making this a foreign-policy problem. The key countries involved in coming to an agreement would be the US, China, the EU, and Japan, maybe Russia and India. It’s hard to see how any action would be possible without the US on board.
If you talk to economists, the cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions with minimal economic cost is a carbon tax, refunded in the form of matching cuts to other taxes. Trevor Tombe explains. British Columbia put this in place back in 2008, and Alberta’s planning something similar; the Canadian government is currently pushing the provinces to agree on a minimum carbon price.
William Nordhaus explains one way of dealing with the free-rider problem at the international level.
I would expect the US to be a leader because it already is and has been for over a decade. This is a problem to be solved by millions of independent thinkers, not by government bureaucratic edicts.
Since 2000 the US has dropped it’s emissions measured in tons/capita by over 25%. It has dropped total emissions (in tons) by over 10%. These numbers are slightly better than Europe’s numbers. The trend is very steady and almost unrelated to government programs. The combined total of all renewable energy programs since 2000 has reduced emissions by 30 megatons/yr. Total emissions reduction from all activity is close to 400 megatons/yr for the same period. More than 90% of emissions reductions are unrelated to government edicts.
The two key steps are:
1) Stop making decisions based on religion or political ideology. What matters is tons of CO2 equivalent and cost per ton. Electric cars are beloved in Norway, which spends $13,500/ton to reduce CO2 from cars. The US gets CO2 reductions for about $50/ton in the typical building renovation. There are still improvements available that cost under $10/ton. The winning industrial retrofit in the TVA for 2014 was a steel mill renovation that achieved $4/ton for the steel mill.
2) Stop having Washington bureaucrats making decisions. The decisions should be made by the people who are close to the problem. Provide truthful accurate cost figures (e.g., the Energy Star programs for commercial and industrial users) and truthful accurate improvement approaches to them. Eliminate stupid regulations, e.g., MA requirement that schools be fully lit (100% of floor space) if any room is occupied.
There is a lot of brainpower that can make highly cost effective local decisions and reduce CO2 emissions very effectively.
Perhaps because the other relevant governments will be able to force/talk their reprective populatons into accepting any of proposed solutions (and this is where Chinese leaders’ technocrat background is releveant).
Thus the US is left as the major country where actual discussion on the topic is likely to happen. In that sense accepting necessary sacrifices would have to be an active choice of the population – which would probably deserve to be called ‘leadership’.
As a Canadian, I feel all warm and comfy that our provincial and federal governments appear to be somewhat serious about limiting growth in CO2 emissions. On the other hand, it’s like trying to swim in the non-peeing part of the pool. GFL
Is there any global track record that indicates more mathematically competent leaders produce better outcomes? I’d argue the opposite. Seems pretty clear to me that you’d literally be better off being governed by a random name out of the phone book. I mean, Merkel has potentially just destroyed the German nation forever.
You nailed it perfectly.
China is low cost producer in solar cells, batteries, and magnets/rare earths (wind turbines). China will adopt solar and EV when they make technical sense, and the rest of us will follow, probably by buying the low cost stuff from China.
China won’t adopt a carbon tax, but if there is a low cost way to reduce smog, the state will decree it. They have a powerful incentive to clean their air if feasible,
Meanwhile the usual folks will talk CO2 tax, commons, western leadership, etc., and ignore the global carbon arbitrage that has already lead China to consume more than 50% of global coal production.