Ethan Nulton

Discussing Global Climate Change and Why We Wont Do Anything About It

Ethan Nulton March 12, 2012

Ethan Nulton
Every week, I vacuum my apartment and clean my bathroom. After a week of perpetual

wear on my carpets, they accumulate copious amounts of dirt. This filth that I brought into my house will not spontaneously disappear; it needs to be manually removed. If I refuse to clean my carpets, or pretend that they arent dirty, eventually my house will become something akin to a dumpster. Along with having OCD for immaculate living conditions, I take care of my house because I am not the only one living in the house. On a macroscopic scale, a similar analogy can be applied to the Earth. Anthropogenic carbon emissions are the dirt that will ultimately degrade our beautiful planet. Luckily, our global apartment is very large and can buffer much of our dirt. With that being said however, there is a breaking point in any system where its defenses become overwhelmed and shut down. In the foreseeable future, the effects of global warming will become a severe detriment to humanity, the ecosystem, and the planet itself. The only way to prevent this disaster from happening is to implement drastic strategies to halt the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. With that being said however, I do not think it is feasible to implement any major strategies at this time. This paper will discuss these strategies and why I think they will not be implemented even though an effective strategy is desperately needed. On discussing these scenarios, there will be key factors to consider including cost, global support, daily life disruption, and efficacy. Our nations economy, along with the worlds, is currently extremely fragile. While our recession appears to be coming to an end, it may only take one significant event to send it plummeting back into the depths of peril. Such an event could be the introduction of a new law increasing the cost of fossil fuel consumption. Therefore, the costs of a method to halt global warming must be weighed with its corresponding detriment to the economy. Humans in general want equality in the legal system of the government, especially if a new law has negative consequences. If America implements a new law to reduce

Ethan Nulton
atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, it is only fair that the rest of the world reciprocates. The reasons for this are twofold: the clich misery loves company and also

that coping with this new regulation is pointless if the rest of the world does not follow suite because our sufferings/attempts alone are not enough to clean the planet. The third factor to consider is the methods disruption of daily human activity. For instance, if the strategy forces humans to walk to work instead of drive, it is a severe impedance on their daily routine. For drastic strategies like this, public approval of such an action will be extremely low. It might even be the most influential factor because everyone could be affected by such a radical strategy. The final factor that will be considered is the efficiency of the carbon reduction strategy. The efficacy of a strategy encompasses the first three factors because if the public is paying extra money to clean the Earth, it had better do a good job. Furthermore we would expect that the strategy would be extremely effective if it severely hinders our daily routines. While these four factors are not the only ones to consider in discussions of strategies to halt global warming, they are extremely important and are the main focus on considerations of implementing any given strategy. These are the main factors why I think that these carbon reduction strategies will never be introduced. A strategy that is in consideration is to increase the CO2 tax to $14/ton. A tax such as this will cut CO2 emissions by 5% and drop global temperatures by an estimated 0.16 degrees F (Lomborg, 2007). While the effects of this proposed law seem minimal, the Kyoto protocol, which created turmoil in the world government for a decade, will only reduce global carbon emissions by .4% (Lomborg, 2007). Carbon pricing such as this may force or sway industries to utilize additional renewable energy and increase R&D on renewable energy technology. As promising as this sounds however, I do not think it will be applied. At $14/ton, it would triple the cost of using coal and double the cost of using natural gas

Ethan Nulton
(Poterba, 1991). Immediately, electricity prices would skyrocket. But that is only the

primary consequence. Secondary impacts of this tax will occur in just about everything else. Food, appliances, and gas prices will all also increase dramatically. Everything in the economy is interconnected. This is especially true when key infrastructure like electricity and transportation are manipulated. Sadly, America is far behind in carbon taxing compared to the rest of the developed world. For instance, Denmark has an $18/ton policy, Sweden has a staggering $150/ton law, and Canada has a tax of $30/ton of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere (International Energy Agency, 2011). These data prove that there is global support for such a policy, but I fear that the costs would alter our daily life to such an extent that such a law would never be approved. Another method that has been proposed to slow global climate change is to replace all coal powered electricity plants with nuclear power. This would essentially triple the nuclear power generated currently today. With the exception of the CO2 used to obtain the uranium used in the fuel rods to boil the water, energy created via nuclear fission expels no carbon dioxide. Currently in the United States, 20% of energy output originates from nuclear energy while 40% is created from coal burning electric plants (Energy Information Association, 2005). Currently, 5.5 billion metric tons of CO2 are produced each year by the United States. If this law is enacted, and we triple the number of nuclear power plants, our emissions will drop to 3.2 billion metric tons/year (Raupach et al., 2004). While there is little cost of producing nuclear power after the plant is built, unfortunately there are significant upfront costs. The costs are so colossal that it would take the majority of Americas investment capital to accomplish this, and this project could ruin our economy (Friedman, 2009). Therefore, while the proposal would almost halve our carbon emissions, it is not effective because of the enormous costs to do so.

Ethan Nulton
Furthermore, the word nuclear has severely negative connotations, especially after the TMI, Chernobyl, and Japan incidents. It would be hard to garner public support of such a strategy because no state wants a menacing nuclear power plant or potentially hazardous nuclear waste in their backyard. Also there are only limited locales to create such a facility. This is because reactors require large continuous stores of cold water to prevent overheating. These reasons, among many others, will prevent this strategy from being implemented. In this case, the dangers of nuclear energy and the waste created outweigh the dangers of global climate change. The final strategy that is under discussion is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). According to Friedman, installing CCS modules at 800 coal burning power plants would significantly reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Friedman, 2009). A CCS coal plant would emit up to 90% less CO2 into the atmosphere than a normal coal power plant (IPCC, 2005). The process can be summarized by simply sending the CO2 created by the combustion of coal into underground empty geological formations. Only, it is not that

simple. In order for this to occur, the CO2 needs to first be compressed which will ironically increase the fuel needs of a coal plant by up to 40% (Metz et al., 2005). Also, the costs of implementing such a system could increase the plants expenses by at least 25% and up to an estimated 91% (Metz et al., 2005). Additionally, further costs will accumulate with the construction of an ugly, extensive pipeline spanning the region. Not only will the costs deter the public but also the aesthetics of a metal, above ground pipeline are not something the public would want. While the American economy might be able to withstand a 25% increase in prices, the rest of the world would not. This strategy would therefore fail the global support factor, further dissuading Americans from creating such a system to prevent the effects of global warming.

Ethan Nulton
I think if we are going to get action on this [global warming], we have got to start

from the brutal honesty about the politics of how we deal with it. The truth is no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem. What countries are prepared to do is to try to work together cooperatively to deal with this problem in a way that allows us to develop the science and technology in a beneficial way (Lomborg, 2007). Tony Blair put it bluntly but correctly in his public address to the Kyoto Protocol. It is scientifically proven that the global climate is changing and poses a serious problem to the entire world but currently, no strategy or technologies exist to prevent the impending disaster. Turning the lights out in the daytime and riding a bike to work is one thing, but if clean energy or energy conservation comes between a father having enough money to feed his child or to contribute to global warming, then the father is always going to choose feeding their child. This rationale will never change; therefore creating new technology that is cost effective is the only way to slow the warming of the planet. In conclusion, global warming is a significant problem and needs to be halted, but there are no effective strategies at this time.

Ethan Nulton
References Cited

Friedman, T. Hot, Flat, and Crowded. New York: Picador, 2009. International Energy Agency. "Energy Policies of IEA Countries." (2011). Lomborg, Bjorn. Cool It: the Skeptical Environmentalist's guide to global warming. 1. New York City: Random House, 2007. Metz, B., Davidson, O. "IPCC special report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.." IPCC. (2005). Poterba, James. "Tax Policy to Combat Global Warming." National Bureau of Economic Research. 1. no. 4 (1991). Raupach, M, and C Fields. The global carbon cycle: integrating humans, climate, and the natural world. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2004. U.S. Energy Information Agency. "Independant Statistics and Analysis of Electric Power Generation." 2005.