21 Dec 2019 Peter Rolnick op ed for Carbon Fee & Dividend
Tools for climate change are within reach
I just got a new toy; it is a climate simulator. You decide how much you want to limit coal use, price carbon, plant trees, whatever, and it tells you how far above pre-industrial values the average global temperature will be in 2100. (We’re already at 1° C.) With everything set on “status quo” the average temperature in 2100 will be 4.1° C above pre-industrial values. Turns out that’s way too high.
The UN International Panel on Climate Change, based on the research of hundreds of climate scientists around the world, says if we go more than 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels we will face irreversible catastrophic changes. How can a few degrees make such a difference?
I remind you this is average temperature. As you know if you’ve visited Florida in July or Minnesota in January, actual temperatures go way above and below the average. If the average goes up, then that high temperature in Florida in July will go up. This is already happening: In 2018 65 people died in a heat wave in Pakistan, and that same summer there was an extreme heat wave all across Europe. The more frequent and more deadly fires we have been seeing on the west coast of the US and Canada are another consequence of that 1.0° C increase we are already experiencing. The IPCC says there will be significantly more deaths from extreme heat, extreme fire events and sea level rise at 2.0° C compared to 1.5° C.
If you want an easy one to remember: At 1.5° C many coral reefs harmed, while at 2.0° C all coral reefs destroyed. (If you don’t care about coral reefs, or California, or Pakistan, how about this: severe reduction in crop yields, more frequent severe floods on the Mississippi and Missouri.) And business as usual, leading to an increase of 4.1° C, would be a disaster beyond comprehension. You get the idea. Now back to the climate simulator.
I need to somehow bring that 4.1° C above pre-industrial values by 2100 down to 1.5° C. Assuming I get to make just one choice, here’s what I found. Reduce all coal use: reduced to 3.5° C; highly subsidize nuclear: 3.8° C; increase car and truck efficiency 5% per year; 3.8° C, aggressively restore/plant forests: 3.7° C; put an increasing price on carbon similar to the Energy Innovation Act, currently in the House of Representatives: 3.0° C.
Lesson number 1: There is no silver bullet. Lesson number 2: Pricing carbon is significantly more effective in reducing emissions than any single targeted approach. I’m not saying we shouldn’t reduce coal use, increase car efficiency or restore forests. What I’m saying is that the first thing we must do is put a price on carbon. Why is that so effective? Well, notice that a price on carbon will, by itself, reduce coal use and increase car efficiency without additional regulation.
Look at it this way. Doing the “right” thing
(putting solar panels on your house, composting kitchen waste, adding insulation, riding the bus) is difficult, either because you can’t afford it or simply because it is a pain in the neck; it feels like trying to swim upstream. But a price on carbon reverses the direction of the stream so that now doing the “right” thing is swimming downstream.
There’s another very important point. Reduce all coal use immediately? Where are you going to get the power to replace those coal plants? Engage in massive reforesting? Where are you going to get the money to pay for all that? But a price on carbon like the Energy Innovation Act, which is revenue-neutral, will cost…nothing! The most effective tool in the tool box is also the lowest hanging fruit.
If what I’m saying makes sense, please write or call Senators Ernst and Grassley and Representatives Loebsack and Finkenhauer and urge them to pass the Energy Innovation Act …soon!
Peter Rolnick is a member of Iowa City Climate Advocates, a retired physicist and a local musician.