E S S AY
BY TO M G IE SE N
WHY GLOBAL WARMING MITIGATION WILL FAIL
Unless we create a new, smaller, low-energy, humane society
G
reenhouse gas emissions are still increasing:
Yearly increases were 2.7 percent in the 1990s,
3.5 percent between 2000 and 2007, and 5.6
percent between 2009 and 2010. But nothing
effective is being done to reduce them. There are
multiple reasons for that:
Apathy/hypocrisy. Americans, by about 3-1, say they
are concerned about warming, but citizens are not vocal in
support of mitigation: No one is marching in the streets or
burying politicians in letters of protest over global
warming . Opinions expressed in polling are easy to offer,
but opinions do not mitigate emissions. Eugene, where I
live, has a “Climate and Energy Action Plan” calling for
deep reductions in emissions in the city by 2020, but the
city does not intend to implement it among the citizenry.
The “Plan” is just green-washing for City Council
politicians — apathy in action!
Delayed consequences. Warming is a current
phenomenon, but most of the damage is in the future, like
a time-delayed bomb — we emit now and suffer the
consequences later. But because it is a future event, neither
citizens nor politicians feel any urgency. Politicians say
they want action, but “not during my term in office.” But
mitigation must start now — we cannot wait for dramatic
events, as by then it is too late. Remember: On any human
time scale, warming is irreversible.
Amenities. We ignore our pollution because we love
our amenities — our two cars, boats, motorcycles, leaf
blowers, heated/cooled houses, stylish clothing, ubiquitous
entertainment/communication, tourist travel, travel by air
(the greatest travel emissions), driving the kid to school,
and so on — wretched excess! Subtract fossil fuels (which
are about 87 percent of our energy supply) from those
comforts, and virtually all of them disappear or are much
more difficult and expensive to enjoy: no wonder we cling
to the myth of infinite resources! Comfort and pleasure
seduce reason; reason submits.
Growth! The sanctity of growth in the economy and in
population is the real American religion. What all cities/
communities want is more economic and population
growth. In the 19th and 20th centuries, economic and
population growth were enabled by oil, coal and (later)
gas, which all became critically important to our economy.
But growth is now impossible without cheap and abundant
fossil fuels, and they are finite and becoming prohibitively
expensive — causing recessions. We still believe in
unlimited growth and resource abundance — geology and
physics be damned!
Energy cornucopia! First, contrary to news reports,
the U.S. will never become energy independent in fossil
fuels, nor will we out-produce Saudi Arabia. Those absurd
ideas depend on two claims (per the International Energy
Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2012).
First claim: We will have greatly increased production
from fracked oil and gas wells. But depletion rates for
hydraulically fractured (fracked) wells in shale are high
(oil: 40 percent/year on year; gas: 75 percent year on year).
Drilling is financed by Wall Street, and drillers are not
disclosing depletion rates, as that would make financing
difficult.
Second claim: new Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) standards require much higher mileage —
increased efficiency — and we’ll need less gas. But, note
that Jevons Paradox indicates that if increased efficiencies
keep resource costs down, the result is more resource
consumed, contrary to our goal.
The CAFE standards would simply disappear with the
election of a Republican president.
The “booms” in oil and gas are mostly just Wall Street
bubbles like the real estate and internet bubbles of recent
years. Conventional (cheap) fossil fuels are declining
12
December 27, 2012 • eugeneweekly.com
resources, and fracked, deep water, oil sands and arctic
sources are prohibitively expensive. But no matter — the
press is still full of empty chatter about the U.S. out-
producing Saudi Arabia and being energy independent.
Individualism. Individualism adherents dislike
cooperative processes, preferring go-it-alone methods. A
carbon fee (as an example) may be accepted by some such
folks (because it is a market-based approach — you only
pay it if you use carbon) but to others it may seem a
mandate. With a carbon fee, individualists who didn’t pay
would not be able to use carbon-based fuels, and they seem
likely to resist anything that restricts driving — an
essential American “right.” Mitigation itself is a globally
cooperative effort, and such cooperative projects might
feel to individualists like unacceptable liberalism/
collectivism, and hence resisted. Many in the U.S.
demonize any multi-nation cooperation.
TOM GIE S E N AN D HIS
D A U G H T ER ERI KA
Anti-scientism. Many in America have not moved
beyond medieval science. Most Americans accept using
the fruits of modern science (cars, airplanes, modern
medicine, imaging tools such as MRI, exotic drugs, the
internet, remote sensing, etc.), but that does not imply an
understanding or acceptance of scientific discipline,
processes or of scientists. Rationality does not often apply
in scientific issues with political overtones, or with
personal preferences, and hence global warming, the end
of cheap oil, and other issues are falsely labeled as
scientific frauds by opponents of science.
American exceptionalism. We imagine we are
different from others, an exception to many of the rules
that govern other people and other nations. Some of that
exceptionalism is a repudiation of European social/political
customs, from which some colonial settlers fled. Some of
it is home-grown, as exemplified by the American Dream
myth. Some of it stems from the hugeness of our economy
— and of our military. But in all cases what many
Americans accept is that we are not subject to the same
rules as other nations, and that is reflected in our reluctance
to participate equally (or at all) in international treaties and
other agreements — such as those related to land mines,
cluster bombs and (even more destructive) CO2 emissions.
Globalism. It is nearly universally believed that the
solution to the problem of warming lies in global treaties
involving all nations and dealing with emissions reductions
and related equity/financial issues. Warming cannot be
mitigated nation-by-nation, as cheating would be rampant,
with efforts to gain advantage at other nations’ expense.
But international negotiations to agree to a treaty to reduce
emissions have so far proved useless, as the process is long
on rhetoric and intention, and bereft of action. For
example, if we wish to avoid a climate warmed by 4
degrees C, many if not most scientists feel that emissions
reductions must begin now. The new agreement in Doha is
to have a new treaty by 2015 to start reducing emissions in
2020 — 8 years from now. The process seems a farce,
completely disconnected from the science that ought to
inform it, and it fails to reflect the incredible urgency of
the issue. It’s now 25 years since James Hansen warned
Congress, and we have done nothing. Nothing.
Monitoring and assuring compliance. Samuel Hays,
the environmental historian, famously wrote that passing a
law is just half of the process — implementing and
enforcing the law is the other half. That will be true for any
emissions treaty ever adopted. How do you closely
monitor emissions of a gas which quickly diffuses globally
in the atmosphere? How do you closely monitor all
production and use of fossil fuels? How do you monitor
and control land use change (deforestation) before the
deed is done? Etc.
Greed. Fossil fuel producers must be delighted by the
current state of the market. The production of fossil fuels
(coal, oil and natural gas) is at historic high levels, and
much of the resource now being sold was developed at a
time when developing wells and mines was much cheaper
than today. But the price of crude oil is three times higher
today than it was just 13 years ago, and the price of coal is
increasing. That leaves lots of “room” for incredible
profits. Demand is outstripping supply: prices, over time,
will continue to rise. No wonder the fossil fuel industry
lavishly funds global warming deniers and skeptics — the
“lavish” funding is chump change in view of current
profits. At the same moment as they fund deniers and
skeptics, oil companies now claim to support global
warming science (see their websites), but minimize the
risks of high levels of cumulative emissions. Hypocrisy
reigns! Greed permeates political life as well: Worldwide,
governments’ subsidies to fossil fuel producers now total
$100 billion a year, and subsidies to consumers are $675
billion. The subsidies are like crack cocaine — the
addiction is extremely difficult to treat.
Carbon fees. Carbon fees on fossil fuel extraction,
rebated to taxpayers, are the only effective means to
reduce fossil fuel use, as they will make renewables cost
effective. Will Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich
countries ever agree to a carbon fee, which would, if
effective, price petroleum out of the energy market?
Tribalism. Recent research shows that, almost
regardless of education, scientific literacy and numeracy,
folks adopt beliefs like those they think of as their peers.
The tribe rules.
Inertia. We have conceptual, emotional, financial and
infrastructure investments in fossil fuel technology that we
don’t want to give up.
We must wise up and rise up, take to the streets in
protest, and create a new, smaller, low-energy, humane
society.
Tom Giesen of Eugene is an adjunct professor in the UO Public Planning,
Policy and Management Department and has master’s degrees in both forest
ecology (biogeochemistry) and creative writing. He has also been active in
Citizens for Public Resources, the Native Forest Council, the Oregon Natural
Resources Council, Iszaak Walton League and more.