Reader Michael Swanson sends along this interview with Chomsky post-election, which contains some useful perspective. However, I think he's wrong in treating climate change as the main issue; the sad truth is that most of the disastrous effects of climate change are already locked in, the only questions now are ones of timing and perhaps some of degree. Will four years of inaction or reverse action by the U.S. on climate change matter? I asked a colleague who is expert on climate change, and he gave me permission to share his take:
So after spending most of Wednesday in a fetal position, trying not to either vomit or cry, I am now going to be as optimistic as I think I can justify. So, with the possibility that I am whistling past a graveyard, here is the potential story, and I think this one is not that far off.
US emissions reductions in the electricity sector have not gone down because of federal actions. Instead, they have come down because (1) fracking has pushed gas prices so low that coal is not competitive – nobody builds a new coal plant now – and (2) state level renewable portfolio standards mandate wind and other renewables. Neither of those will change with the new administration and in fact, if Trump pushes fracking on federal lands, gas prices may go even lower. For this reason, repealing the CPP ["Clean Power Plan"] may have little or no effect on electric sector emissions. The biggest impact I see from repealing CPP is that some old coal plants stay open longer. Plus (and here I have no information), Trump might push nuclear which would be fantastic for emissions, particularly because we need nuclear as a base load if we are to ramp up wind and solar.
Transportation emissions are the other big sector that Obama regulated. He did this through the fleet MPG [miles pre gallon] standards. There may be some push to roll these back but we will see. Regardless, MPG continues to go up and the auto industry will likely continue to make internal combustion engines more efficient. Other transportation fuels such as electricity are a niche product. They will repeal the tax credit for electric cars, but I don’t see that as mattering very much in the short run. So maybe transportation emissions will stay flat.
This means that the US emissions profile may look pretty much the same under Trump as it would have under Clinton (leaving aside that she may have enacted new laws). Climate change is a very long term problem and modest changes in emissions in any four year period do not matter very much. It is the stock not the flow of carbon dioxide that determines the extent of climate change. Delaying reductions, however, will make it more expensive in the future to achieve the necessary reductions.
Two other, maybe more important pieces. One is energy innovation. Congress and Trump will probably want to repeal clean energy subsidies, which to some extent drove innovation. This is bad because long term, we need to replace our fossil fuel system with a new system and that will require innovation. The optimistic story is that the product cycle here is very long, so maybe innovations will be able to find funding for a 4 year hiatus. Plus wind is already cheaper than coal in many places, so wind installations may continue. I expect research into electric and hydrogen vehicles will continue. The federal government funds battery research. Who knows if that will be cut? And, innovation may occur in the rest of the world and it doesn’t much matter where innovation occurs (other than it would be nice if it were us).
Finally, what about Paris? Hard to know what happens here but the optimistic story is that most other nations will continue without us. Two or three reasons. One is that we may comply with our obligations for the reasons just mentioned – a 4 year flat emissions profile plus reductions after that would put us on track. Obnoxious noises from Trump would be just that. Another is that everyone understands that emissions have to go down so they may just act without us, in the hope that in a short time we will regain our senses. Finally, maybe China will see this as a chance to be a global leader as we abdicate our responsibility.
Oh, one last thing which really worries me: they will likely defund climate science research, possibly destroying the most important climate science community in the world. They may also seek to prosecute climate scientists. I don’t have an optimistic way to tell myself this won’t be bad. It is very troubling and, because I have many good friends in that community, deeply sad for me. We will probably make donations to the AAAS and also a fund to defend climate scientists (sadly, this already exists).
Overall, having a climate denier as President and many deniers in control of Congress is not a good thing, but the question is how much damage can they do in four years and in what way? I think that the “end of the world folks” are probably pretty far off base. Am I happy? No. But the optimistic story is that we’ll just be on a 4 year hiatus.
Recent Comments