Everyone who is working toward transforming to a cleaner energy economy acknowledges that the transition might be painful. However, they also assert that the gain, saving the world from the worst effects of climate change, will justify the pain.
In early December, leaders from around the world met in Paris to come to an agreement to slash global emissions and limit the rise of global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
On December 12, 196 of those countries approved the resulting deal. I believe that our country spent a considerable amount of U.S. political capital around the world to secure the deal.
The resulting deal and the EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) that will be used to achieve the U.S. portion of the goal could have serious consequences for the U.S. economy and our energy prices. As I understand the agreement, I don’t see similar consequences for our main global competitors. In other words, our pain could really be their gain.
The deal sets emissions targets and asks participating countries to re-evaluate their targets every 5 years. Developed countries like the U.S. are expected to slash their emissions in absolute terms; developing nations are simply “encouraged” to do so as their capabilities evolve.
The cost burdens are not necessarily equally shared either. The agreement says that wealthy countries, like ours, will offer financial support to help poor and developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. These are the same countries that are “encouraged” to make and meet their emissions targets.
While no dollar amounts are listed in the agreement, wealthy nations previously pledged at least $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020. These numbers are probably low, the United Nations estimates upward of $1 trillion a year in spending is required to work toward de-carbonizing the global economy.
Those are our tax dollars leaving our economy to fund loosely defined emissions reductions in countries that produce many of the manufacturing goods against which our US businesses compete.
Don’t get me wrong, I think combatting climate change is a worthy goal. And, I think the U.S. needs to continue to support investment in the technological advances that will ultimately transition our energy economy.
However, the Paris Climate Accord isn’t going to do that. Most experts agree that the initial targets will not put the world on a path to meet the long-term temperature goal. Bjorn Lomborg, a world-renowned economist, recently released a peer-reviewed study that shows that even if more than 190 nations implement their pledges, it will result in a reduction in global temperature of just one-sixth of a degree Celsius by 2100.
So, I worry that the U.S. is putting global interests over U.S. interests. This is a potential problem. Could we have better used our political capital toward other issues of national importance? Should we be pledging significant actual capital to transforming energy outside our borders?
Yes, Paris is a world away. Yes, we all have something to gain by a cleaner environment. I simply hope that the U.S. isn’t left standing alone and absorbing all the pain.
I am lucky to be a resident of Michigan. I am lucky to be a citizen of America. I am also a human being on the planet earth. I do not like wasting my hard earned money. I do like to be responsible for my life and doing my part. Besides not liking what has been decided, which appears for wealthy nations carrying more of the financial load, is there another way out of this? Probably not. I am not wealthy. But, I am willing to be a responsible human being and do my part.
If you really think “combatting climate change is a worthy goal,” you would be encouraging Cherryland and all of us to get behind the Paris Agreement on climate change. We can’t afford to wait any longer to finally acknowledge that action is necessary now because, as you say, “we all have something to gain from a cleaner environment.” The US and other developed nations have put our own economies and consumption ahead of the rest of the world since Industrialization began to the detriment of all of us. Tackling climate change now will benefit all of us. The COMMON good should be our goal. Importantly, much of the US pledge to the Green Climate Fund for developing countries has been pledged by major businesses who themselves acknowledge that much can be done to move toward a renewable energy future and away from fossil fuels. We need to address this issue collectively. I would encourage anyone reading your editorial post to research the issues themselves for a balanced view. 196 nations came together with the finest minds in the world to reach this landmark agreement. I think taking the time to learn the facts is the least we can do for our country and our world.
I do believe that anyone using the carbon terms such as “carbon footprint” or “de-carbonize the planet/economy” has a responsibility to at least attempt to show some scientific knowledge on the mechanics of how a trace gas that is less than one tenth of one percent of the atmosphere and yet is touted as the whole reason for any climate changes. There are tens of thousands of scientists that disagree that carbon dioxide is the cause of weather changes. Our politicians in the administration are ignorant of the scientific facts.
The first step in solving any problem is to “get the facts.” I agree with you that most of “climate change” is speculation, and is based on limited information, and unfortunately looks to be tainted by political ambition rather than reality.
You’ve come a long way. Last time I read one of your screeds you were complaining about the mean old environmental folks accosting your poor kids at The Cherry Festival a few years back. At that time you were denying climate change (Science!), but now you’ve adopted the Republican meme of ” sure, there is climate change but there is nothing we can do about it.”
I still find it irritating that you funnel your Chamber of Commerce/GOP views through a cooperative owned email system.
I’m curious, which one of the seriously deranged Republican candidates do you support?
I am going to respectfully disagree with your assessment that I believe there is “nothing we can do about it.” Once again, I will point to Cherryland Electric Cooperative’s record: 1) participant in the first ever commercial wind farm in Michigan; 2) creator of the first ever community solar project in Michigan; 3) one of 5 distribution members of Wolverine Power Cooperative who will have a wholesale portfolio of 30% renewable energy in 2017; yet another first in Michigan. We also have a net metering program that we are not mandated to have and we are working on more community solar. Since I arrived at Cherryland in March of 2003, I have been consistent with my desire to keep electricity as affordable as possible. My concerns about the Paris agreement all revolve around what it will cost our country and whether or not the price will be worth it. Thirteen years ago, Cherryland had rates that were 14% higher than our neighbor, Consumers Energy. Today, our rates are 7% LESS than Consumers Energy. Whoever I ultimately decide to vote for will not change my motivation to provide the best rates possible to every member of our cooperative. In closing, I will also stand by the record of the Traverse City Chamber of Commerce and ask if any other organization can match their accomplishments for our region over the past decade. Thanks for the comments and interest in my column. The opportunity to have this dialogue is appreciated. – Tony
“Tilting against windmills” is an ironic term which means wasting time on trivialities that have no measurable effect on anything important, and the accord in Paris is exactly that. It will do more harm than good. However, tilting against windmills in the reality of the phrase is extremely important. Wind power is expensive, minimally effective, and it kills a lot of birds, besides the fact that they clutter up the landscape, and are claimed to upset people and cows. I’m surprised real environmentalists haven’t caught onto that. I’m against it.
My only problem with your letter is associating clean with lowering carbon dioxide. There is 0 negative health effects to the levels of carbon dioxide levels. The rest is spot on!
Point taken. Thanks for the input. It is appreciated.