The physics of the greenhouse effect, says former Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics Spencer Weart, are "so basic" that the question shouldn't be whether the effect would occur, but rather, "What on earth would make it not happen?" One doesn't need to be a physicist to understand that releasing pollutants into the air is not a good thing. Public discourse during the run-up to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen that began Monday has been terribly misguided — there should be no question that global climate patterns can be distorted by pollutants. Rather, the important question for the United States is why it should make overtures for the Europeans while developing nations like China, India and Brazil are conveniently given a free pass in the face of a global problem.
In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was ratified by a number of developed countries to reduce pollutant emissions (namely CO2) by 5 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012. Developing nations ratified the treaty but were exempted from obligations to reduce emissions. The United States chose not to ratify or endorse the treaty. The goal of the Copenhagen conference is to garner support for extending the Kyoto provisions that are set to expire in 2012 — and to gain official U.S. support for reduction measures this time around.
President Obama seems intent on announcing ambitious reduction targets for 2020 and 2050, but once again developing nations have gotten a free pass: Chinese Prime Minister Web Jiabao plans merely to reduce Chinese expansion of greenhouse gas emissions. Conveniently, because of pre-existing Chinese energy efficiency measures, the Jiabao government will achieve its targets for reducing its expansion of CO2 release at little cost.
Meanwhile, the United States would pay a hefty economic price. The Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House in June, proposes setting limits on fossil fuel emissions, effectively through an energy tax. But a Heritage Foundation carve-up of this legislation has shown that for a household of four, it would cause energy costs to rise astronomically. The aggregate annual, per-household cost of electricity, natural gas and gasoline would rise by $436 in 2012 and by a whopping $1,241 by 2035. Macroeconomically, the bill is even more poisonous, with a projected reduction in gross domestic product of $393 billion annually, totaling $9.4 trillion by 2035. Furthermore, green-job creation would not be enough to offset job loss, which has been predicted to reach roughly 1 million jobs annually through 2035 — a projection backed by two major Washington thinktanks as well as the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
The United States' chief economic competitor, China, is exempted from any meaningful climate change culpability, although it is, in fact, the world's number-one carbon-dioxide polluter. Nations like China, India and Brazil — and the major European powers, for that matter — are also fully aware of both the economic and political advantages they would gain from a self-induced U.S. economic contraction in the name of climate change. Brazil promised to terminate the clear-cutting and burning of rainforest reserves only if rich countries pay the price. Other poorer countries are hoping for the extension of Kyoto-era provisions mandating aid from developed nations to help them reduce emissions — all while these less-developed countries are allowed to embrace unbridled economic development with no recourse.
The United States should not act unless its principal economic competitors also act in a meaningful, proportional capacity. The Copenhagen conference is as much about international competition and the order of global authority as it is about global warming. There are better ways for the United States to go green that don't involve caving to the Europeans.
--
Teddy Minch is a senior majoring in political science. He hosts "The Rundown," a talk show from 3 to 5 p.m. every Friday on WMFO. He can be reached at Theodore.Minch@tufts.edu.
