Guardian and BBC reports on my letter
to Prime Minister Johnson focused on the Cumbria coal mine. That’s
important: a new coal mine indicates a business-almost-as-usual
attitude.
The other purpose of my letter – the main purpose – was a suggestion for
how PM Johnson could make a global difference. I’m sorry that I didn’t
include the full Fig. 47.2 from Sophie’s Planet. The right side shows
that the UK is responsible for about 5 percent of global warming, but
the left side shows that current UK emissions are now less than 1
percent of global emissions. It’s right that the UK reduce its
emissions, but that alone has little effect on future climate.
Science informs us that fossil fuels will still be used on a large scale
globally, if their price does not include their costs to society –
costs of air pollution, water pollution and climate change. An economy
is most efficient if prices are honest. Economists agree
that we should collect a rising fee from fossil fuel companies and
distribute the money uniformly to the public. Prosperity increases,
innovation is stimulated, infrastructure is renewed; this fee & dividend enhances other policies aimed at reducing emissions. Fee & dividend is anti-regressive (progressive). Students understand that without such a rising carbon price, global warming will not be stopped.
We need a nation to demonstrate that policy. The UK could do it, if
Johnson would advocate for it – it would be wonderful to see the UK
parliamentary democracy debate the matter. There is no point to debate
it in the US Congress, where so many members are well-oiled, coal-fired
and full of gas. Instead, President Biden could impose it by having the
EPA collect a pollution fee – the Supreme Court ruled that EPA has the
responsibility to regulate pollution.
There is one other basic requirement for solving the global warming
problem, which is also discussed in Chapter 47: technology development.
Fee & dividend will spur technology development – indeed, that is
the most efficient way to achieve it. However, we also need government
policies that pave the way and international agreements that pave the
way.
The global carbon budget has been effectively used up already. We need
to at least get back to a global temperature of the mid-twentieth
century – if not a bit cooler – to shut off amplifying feedbacks such as
tundra meltdown and ice sheet disintegration.
The West burned up the carbon budget (right side of the figure), but
continuing emissions are mainly from emerging economies and the United
States. China, the U.S. and India now produce just over half of global
emissions. Technological cooperation among these nations could allow
coal to be phased out rapidly. China and India would like to replace
dirty coal-fired power – the largest source of CO2 emissions –
with nuclear power, but they will only do it with modern,
passively-safe technology. It is apparent – from the amount of material
(steel, concrete, etc.) required to build a nuclear power plant – that
nuclear power has the potential to be cheaper than fossil fuels.
Advanced generation nuclear power is a remarkably good bargain, if one
considers the millions of lives saved by replacing coal and the economic
costs avoided via reduced global warming. If we do not develop it, we
will be using gas (and coal in China and India) as the complement to
intermittent renewable energies.
You can sign up for our monthly global temperature updates here.
You can sign up for my other Communications here.
I’m on Twitter @DrJamesEHansen, (https://twitter.com/drjamesehansen), but focused on book. | |
No comments:
Post a Comment