Cato Scholar Comments on Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act
Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies Senate Bill 2191, the "Climate Security Act", sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA) will be debated by the Senate next week. It's going to cost trillions and do nothing measurable about climate change in the foreseeable future. Maybe it should be named the "Economic Insecurity Act" of the 21st Century.Lieberman-Warner mandates that we reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide-the major human "greenhouse" emission-to 2005 levels by the year 2012. They've risen an average of 1% per year since 1990, depending upon the weather (in cold years we use more energy to heat our homes) and our economy. Not surprisingly, the more it grows, the more carbon dioxide is emitted. That's a screaming red flag about what S. 2191 will do for our prosperity. The 2012 target is nothing compared to its long-term goals, which are a 15% reduction below 2005 levels in 2020, growing year-by-year to a 70% reduction in 2050.No one - including Lieberman-Warner's proponents - has a clue how to achieve such a change in our energy system. There simply is no known, workable suite of technologies available. But it could become law. Welcome to Washington. So, what do you get for your trillions? Climatically, nothing. Assume that all the nations of the world fulfill their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol (they won't!), which reduces global emissions about 5% below 1990 levels. That results in a "savings" of global warming of 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050-an amount too small to measure, as global temperatures vary on their own about twice that much from year-to-year.
Now add in Lieberman-Warner. Say the U.S. actually does what the law says, though no one knows how to. The result is an additional 0.013 degrees (C) of "prevented" warming.
Assume that all the Kyoto countries adopt - and fulfill - S 2191. The amount of saved warming in 2050 is around 0.11 degrees C, and about 0.20 in 2100. Too small to measure. The accumulated cost? Probably in excess of 10 trillion dollars. These calculations are based upon a formula generated at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research. They assume that the "sensitivity" of climate to carbon dioxide is that surface temperatures will rise 2.5 degrees as a result of doubling it's concentration. That number is probably too high. There's plenty of recent research demonstrating that, as well as the fact that the planet isn't warming very fast. In fact, it hasn't warmed at all in the last decade. If you assume the sensitivity is, say, a degree lower, than all of the above drop by about 30%. Anyway, that's what you get for your trillions - no measurable reduction in warming for over a half-century. Guess the dollar just isn't worth what it used to be!
Act Now!
Contact Your Members of Congress! |
|
|
Posts
