In his state of the union address, President Obama devoted a significant portion of the speech to discussion climate change and its economic repercussions.
He discussed how the switch from coal to natural gas-- a cleaner-burning fossil fuel--has reduced our carbon pollution levels. Positive, yes, but we can't pat ourselves on the back yet.
Carbon dioxide levels are still
extremely high--- 395.5 parts per million as of January, when 100 years ago we were about 180 ppm, and we're slated to cross the 500 ppm threshold by 2050, a level last seen in the Eocene era 55 million to 36 million years ago, back when there were palm trees in Wyoming and crocodiles in the Arctic, according to Harvard professor of earth and planetary science Daniel Schrag.
And coal is by far our primary energy source--
Schrag predicts that by 2100, 50 percent of the world's energy supply will come from coal-- because it's plentiful and dirt-cheap. But burning coal produces twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas. Even the most efficient technology only captures about 45 percent of the energy, sending 55 percent into the air as waste. Plus, most coal plants aren't that efficient.
What's more, we export tons coal to China. So even though we're reducing emissions somewhat in America, we're still shipping it to China, and guess what, the tradewinds carry it right back over to the west coast.
I'm sounding like an activist, I know. But sit with me in Professor Jim Casey's 8:30 am Environmental and Natural Resources Economics class and you'll understand why I'm starting to freak out. The way I see it, climate change is more of an economic issue than a moral one. Inefficient energy use is just… silly!
Obama said that it's the overwhelming judgment of science that climate change is an issue. It is, and it's overwhelmingly agreed upon in the scientific community that climate change is anthropocentric (caused by humans), even though some try to argue that it's not. Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures, according to a
study conducted by scientists at the University of Illinois.
Obama made two additional comments that harken to particularly appealing solutions.
First, he spoke of the need to encourage research and development. Precisely.. but easier said than done. Research and development poses the ultimate free rider problem-- everyone benefits from technological advances, but who shoulders the cost? Especially if Obama wants to stop spending. I have an idea-- actually it's not mine, it's Schrag's idea from the article linked to above, that he outlined in Harvard Magazine-- but I propose it to this blog. Carbon sequestration in the Atlantic Ocean. This involves trapping the emissions from coal plants, sending it into an offshore platform on the Atlantic and sinking it into deep-ocean sediment.
It actually stays down there because under high pressure and low temperature, the carbon dioxide actually becomes more dense than water, and would slowly dissolve into the ocean floor. The Atlantic coastline has room, Schrag estimates, for thousands of years' worth of current U.S. carbon emissions. The best part? It would only cost able $100 billion, or 1 percent of GDP. For reference, Congress approved $700 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program. I'd say it's a deal, especially considering that this lifesaving tactic actually creates longer-reaching benefits than TARP's controversial cash injection, and by creating sustainable jobs.
Second, Obama asked for the states' help in the climate control solution. Well, nine New England states, which together represent 20 percent of the nation's economy,
are already doing this. It's called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which began in 2008 and imposed a cap-and-trade system on the states. And they're saving money and creating jobs. Between 2008 and 2011, the RGGI reduced carbon emissions by 20 percent in the states. The program also put $1.1 billion back into the economy through energy bill savings, and created 16,000 new job years (one job sustained for one year). They're doing such a good job that they're lowering their emissions cap because it was so easy to meet. It has worked for them, and it could work for other states.
Washington and Lee is its own little microcosm of how environmental policies don't necessarily contradict economic goals. The school recently launched an
energy-saving program. In July, the school reduced energy usage 30 percent, saving $57,455 in utility costs, even with almost all residence halls filled with visiting students. Since the inception of the program in January 2011, the university has saved $766,309 in utility costs. Plus, building and maintaining the infrastructure once again creates sustainable jobs.
These two proposals won't solve the problem, but they're a step in the right direction, and they're economically viable.
Stubborn opponents of environmental reform should remember that with climate change, being stubborn only gets you so far. When our luck runs out, we won't even have economic interests left to defend.
-Katy Stewart
