Alaska is Melting.
Can Kyoto Save It?
Treaties that mandate emissions reductions aren't the
ultimate solution. R&D on efficiency technologies is.
Richard A. Muller
mirrored from
Technology for Presidents
April 16, 2004
People in cold
climates covet warmth. Not all of those 'Canadians For Global Warming' bumper stickers
are tongue-in-cheek. But they don't joke like that in Alaska. To residents of
this state, the prospect of even a small rise in average temperatures is a
looming catastrophe. That's because Alaska is melting. Literally.
Much of Alaska
is built on frozen ground called permafrost, a soil condition that results when
the yearly temperature averages below freezing. But across most of the state,
that criterion is just barely met, by a few degrees Celsius. Alaska lives on
the edge of a phase change. A small bit of warming can make a big difference.
And that's why many Alaskans, along with plenty of outside researchers and
environmentalists, are concerned about global warming and the strategies
proposed to limit its rise. Even if the United States signed international
treaties designed to limit climate change, they're starting to realize, that
might not be enough to keep the state from softening.
As I drove
Alaska's Highway 4 last summer, the landscape looked flat but the ride felt
like I was on rolling hills. The road undulated up and down, thanks to spotty
drainage from partially melted permafrost; costly road repairs must be done
every summer. Along the sides were 'drunken trees' (a local term), leaning on
each other's shoulders like thin inebriated giants, their shallow roots
loosened by soft soil. There were also drunken homes, leaning and sinking into
the ground, and sunken meadows, three meters lower than the surrounding forest.
These result when trees are cleared and a little bit of extra warmth reaches
the ground in the form of direct sunlight.
The ecology
itself seems to melt down around zero degrees Celsius. Warm weather in
Alaska in the 1990s encouraged an infestation of bark beetles that killed four
million acres of spruce forest. This has been called the greatest epidemic of
insect-caused tree mortality ever recorded in North America.
Many people
think human activity is to blame for this warming, and that Alaska is a
particularly sensitive alarm, like a canary in a mine shaft. Canaries were actually
used as recently as the late 1980s to alert coal miners to whitedamp, their
name for carbon monoxide. Now Alaska may now be our early warning against
chokedampÑcarbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide
comprises only 380 parts per million of the air that we breathe, yet this trace
gas is the primary source of carbon for plants, and thus for our food. But it
is also one of today's villains. Because carbon dioxide absorbs infrared
radiation emitted from the earth that would otherwise escape into space, an oversupply
of the gas enhances the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect. The burning of
fossil fuels and tropical rainforests has raised atmospheric carbon dioxide by
about 20 percent since 1958 (when careful measurements began), and perhaps by
as much as 35 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And
while you've probably heard it before, it bears repeating: The United States,
with about 4.6 percent of the world's population, is responsible for about 40
percent of fossil fuel emissions worldwide. That disproportionate fraction is
partly a result of our great economy and productivityÑbut is also due to our
great inefficiency, which is in turn abetted by low oil prices.
Is carbon
dioxide responsible for the melting of Alaska? As I have pointed
out previously, scientific discussion on this issue has become rude and nasty. Ad
hominem accusations
abound. Is global warming real? Are humans responsible? One side says, 'Yes,
and if you don't believe that, you are not a non-scientific troglodyte.' The
other side says, 'It isn't proven, and if you act prematurely you'll kill our
economy, you liberal communist tree-hugger.'
A symbolic word in
this argument is "Kyoto." More formally, the 'Kyoto Protocol' is a
proposed amendment to a treaty called the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, and signed by the U.S.
representative, vice president Al Gore, in 1998. Senate ratification of the
treaty would commit the United States to a reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions of 7 percent below our 1990 level. Since emissions have grown since
1990, the actual cut required works out to about 16 percent of the current
levels.
But nobody
expects the Senate to ratify the treaty, unless there are enormous changes in
the public's perception of the danger. President Clinton never brought the
treaty to the Senate (it would have been rejected), and President Bush opposes
it. If John Kerry is elected president, he is unlikely to send the treaty to
the Senate only to lose the vote.
But Kyoto stays
alive, mostly as an emblem of the potential problem. People are categorized by
their stand on this treatyÑfor it or against itÑeven though the issue is subtle
and complex. I hold an unusual position. I believe carbon dioxide emissions
should be brought under controlÑnot because they are the scientifically proven
cause of global warming, but because they could be responsible. Yet I dislike
the Kyoto approach, since I believe it does not address the real issue. In
fact, complying with the Kyoto treaty might lull us into thinking we
had taken a valuable step, when in fact a substantially different
direction is needed.
Virtually
everyone agrees that if the United States were to comply completely with the
Kyoto protocol, that by itself would not halt global warming. We may be
responsible for much of the rise of the last century, but we will not be
responsible for the 2- to 8-degree Celsius rise that climate modelers say could
occur over the next 50 years. The long-term problem comes from India and China.
Their economies, and thus their energy use, are rapidly expanding. Fortunately,
these countries have taken strong conservation measures, which appear to have
paid off. Carbon-dioxide emissions in China have actually gone down recently,
while its economy has grown. Part of that may be attributed to good will, but
most of it is probably just good economics.
But it is hard
to be optimistic. The easy measures have been taken. The 1.3 billion people in
China and the 1.0 billion people in India deserve a standard of living equal to
ours, and they are heading in that direction. With that many people striving
for automobiles and air conditioning, what future can we expect?
Pro-Kyoto
advocates say that we must set an example. Let's show we can restrain
ourselves, and China and India will eventually follow. I find this argument
weak. We have already set an example: our standard of living is so high that
for the first time in recorded history obesity among the poor is a serious
health problem. China and India have a right to covet a life of abundance, and
we have no right to deny it to them. They'll get their SUVs first, and only
then will they consider following our lead toward benefiting the rest of
mankind. That approach is not good for Alaska.
Moreover, China
has vast coal reserves, so they will have cheap fossil fuels too, just like we
had. Can we deny them the right to use it? No, of course not. Can we set an
example that they will follow? The welfare of their people is more important to
them than the ecology of Alaska. Kyoto does not address this serious problem.
It has no limits whatsoever on carbon dioxide emissions of China and India.
There is a
solution. India and China will endorse conservation, not because it is good for
the world, but because it makes economic sense. A kilowatt-hour saved is a
kilowatt-hour earned. Amory Lovins coined the term 'negawatts' for energy not
used. Negawatts are cheaper than megawatts because you don't have to build
new power
plants. Spend a little bit improving efficiency, and you'll save a lot of money
on the fuel you don't buy and carbon dioxide reduction is thrown in for free.
And with steady progress, we can reduce emissions while bringing the standard
of living of China and India up to oursÑa point I made in a previous
column.
The Kyoto
approach is actually harmful to the extent that it nudges industry and some in
government to oppose conservation, since anything Western industry does to
conserve will be undone by development in India and China. But energy
efficiency need not be painful for East or West, if done in such a way as to
save money. The conservation movement has a long history of endorsing visible
but ultimately meaningless steps (e.g. recycle your grocery bags) that make us
feel good but accomplish little. Let's not do that again.
Substantial
improvement in energy efficiency requires research and development. Some
development can be done in the private sector (e.g. hybrid cars) but
stockholder pressure has killed most of the truly long-term research in the
great industrial laboratories. Long-term anything, especially if it is expensive,
requires government support.
The best part
about energy efficiency is that it makes economic sense. Let us welcome China
and India into the modern standard of living, and maybe save Alaska in the
process. Let's pour federal money into research on methods of conservation,
methods that don't reduce our standard of living but allow usÑand the rest of
the worldÑto enjoy life while using fewer gallons of gasoline. With energy
efficiency, rather than dreading the ecological consequences of economic growth,
we can have the joy of sharing it with the rest of the world.
------------------------------------------------
Richard
A. Muller, a 1982 MacArthur Fellow, is a physics professor at the University of
California, Berkeley, where he teaches a course called 'Physics for Future
Presidents.' Since 1972, he has been a Jason consultant on U.S. national
security. More by this author
>>