|
Among the Democratic presidential candidates the climate “crisis” is all the rage, and the source of much rage toward President Trump narrowly and the dissenter camp more generally. Precisely what it is that the dissenters are “denying” has never been made very clear; virtually no one argues that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) are having no effects at all. In any event, notwithstanding ubiquitous assertions that the science is settled (it is not and cannot be), that the evidence is clear (it is not), and that draconian policies now are needed to protect the interests of future generations (deeply dubious), the policy questions to be derived from the scientific ones are serious, and incorporate tradeoffs and value judgments not easily captured by sloganeering. Herewith, some relevant questions that usefully would be directed to the Democratic candidates in the next debate.
Candidate A, you have argued that there now is available substantial evidence of a looming climate crisis. , the , and the report substantial data on cyclones, tornadoes, sea levels, droughts, flooding, and many other parameters that are not consistent with the “crisis” argument. Have you seen other evidence that is?
Candidate B, you have endorsed the Obama administration , the for international reductions in GHG emissions, and the . Analysis of those policy proposals using the EPA climate model indicates that the respective temperature effects in 2100 would be 0.015° C, 0.17° C, and 0.08-0.17° C, at costs ranging from 1% to 25% of GDP annually. How do you justify those policies?
Candidate C, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that there has occurred over the last four decades a substantial “greening” of the earth — a large increase in biomass yielding much more food for insects, birds, animals, and sea life — and the peer-reviewed literature that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are responsible for 70% of that effect, with deserts shrinking and rain forests either expanding or declining more slowly. Should climate policies take such beneficial effects into account?
Candidate D, you have argued that climate change is wholly the result of increasing GHG concentrations. Is it not true that temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age, and that the that mankind is responsible for about 0.5° C of the 1.5° C global temperature increase since around 1850? How do you know that none of the recent temperature trend is natural?
Candidate E, you have asserted that climate change threatens the world’s food supply. The United Nations that global food production per capita has increased by about a third over the last 25 years, and that the proportion of the global population that is undernourished has declined also by about a third. Is the UN wrong?
Candidate F, political leaders in Australia, Canada, and much of western Europe have been in terms of political support after having endorsed and implemented policies increasing the cost of conventional energy. Is there a reason to believe that the political outcome in the US would prove different?
Candidate G, it is roughly the case that Republican states depend more heavily on fossil fuels, particularly for electricity generation, than hydroelectricity and other renewables than is the case for Democratic states. Policies to reduce GHG emissions would increase energy costs in Republican states disproportionately, reducing their competitiveness; this would have the effect, again roughly, of transferring wealth from Republican states to Democratic states. Why is that appropriate? Would you support policies to reduce GHG emissions if it were Democratic states affected disproportionately?
Candidate H, you have argued that wind and solar power now are cost-competitive with coal- and gas-fired electricity generation. The Energy Information Administration that the subsides per unit of power generation for wind and solar electricity are many times greater than those for conventional electricity. If wind and solar power now are cost-competitive, would you support eliminating the wind production tax credit and the solar investment tax credit?
Candidate I, you have argued that America must transition to a zero-emissions electricity system. Do you support or oppose nuclear power generation as one part of achieving that goal?
Candidate J, you have endorsed an all-renewable power system for the US. The electrical engineering tells us that because of the intermittent nature of wind and sunlight, the reliability of the power grid would be reduced substantially, threatening frequent and widespread blackouts. Do you believe that to be acceptable for the American economy, or would you endorse the installation of substantial fossil-fuel backup electricity to stabilize the grid?
Candidate K, you have endorsed the Green New Deal and the argument from a few economists that under “Modern Monetary Theory” the Green New Deal could be financed easily by printing money. Two questions: First, is that not an admission that the Green New deal would be very expensive? And do you endorse the implicit argument that the Green New Deal would be a free lunch?
Candidate L, you have argued that strong climate policies are necessary to protect the environment in the interests of future generations. Given the high costs of such policies, do you believe that future generations would be made better off if the current generation makes itself poorer? Do future generations care only about the environment, or do they care more fundamentally about the value of the entire capital stock to be bequeathed to them, of which environmental quality is one important dimension among many subject to complex tradeoffs?
Candidate M, you have described climate policies as “insurance” against the small likelihood that increasing GHG concentrations might prove catastrophic. Given that there is a long list of low-probability catastrophes — asteroid impacts, mass volcanic eruptions, powerful earthquakes, tsunamis, mass contagion, terrorist use of bioweaponry, nuclear war, gamma ray storms, massive crops failures, and on and on — do you believe that America should spend, say, 1% of GDP every year on each of them? If not, why is climate change different?
Candidates N through Z: Do you endorse the ongoing efforts of the American and international climate policy communities to dissenting voices from the debate over climate science and policy? If so, are there other areas of public policy debate from which those who disagree with you should be excluded? If not, do you endorse the efforts of some in the Trump White House to institute a “blue team/red team” system of debate and criticism in the context of climate science and policy?
This would be must-see TV. I can dream, can I not?
Herewith, some relevant climate policy questions that usefully would be directed to the Democratic candidates in the next debate.
|
|
