The White House's refusal to consider government caps on greenhouse gas emissions may save the U.S. economy short-term pain, but experts warn unchecked global heat could exact a heavy long-run toll.
WASHINGTON — The White House's refusal to consider government caps on greenhouse gas emissions may save the U.S. economy short-term pain, but experts warn unchecked global heat could exact a heavy long-run toll.
"While there are costs associated with reducing emissions, there are certainly costs associated with not doing anything," said Kevin Forbes, head of Catholic University's economics department. "It would be, in my opinion, folly not to try to do something."
According to Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, earth surface temperatures could be up to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit above 1990 levels by 2100, potentially worsening storms, raising sea levels and eating away ice caps.
After shunning the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, which President Bush said would have "wrecked" the economy, the United States last month joined Japan, Australia, China, India and South Korea in a pact focused on technology-sharing, without set targets.
The world's richest economy is also its biggest carbon dioxide emitter, pushing out 5.8 billion metric tons in 2003. China, in second place, emitted 3.5 billion, with all of Western Europe at 3.9 billion.
U.S. emissions are projected to keep rising, despite plans to lower carbon intensity, or use per unit of economic growth.
The White House wants cuts to be voluntary and resists measures that would impose restrictions on output of such gases as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, seen as culprits behind global warming, saying this would hurt economic growth.
"We oppose policies like mandatory caps on emissions, that would achieve reductions by raising energy costs, slowing the economy, and putting Americans out of work," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
While experts agree new technologies are vital, many see the economic argument as spurious. Higher costs may also be a necessary evil since they spur innovation and companies will act more aggressively if inaction hits where it counts.
John Reilly of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change has examined the economic effects of several proposals.
"When we looked at implementing Kyoto ... we estimated that would be 6/10ths or 1 percent of the economy. We thought that was costly but that's not wrecking the economy," he said.
Still, even those who back government restrictions agree Kyoto isn't the answer for the United States.
They call its targets too tough, its deadline too near and say the absence of developing countries such as India and China could distort the global economic playing field.
What is needed, they say, is a world-spanning deal with fair goals. "You will never be able to solve this problem without all of the major emitters being involved," said Katie Mandes of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
Experts say economic risks could be eased with a Kyoto-like allowance trading system so the regions best able to make affordable cuts can sell their achievement to those less able.
While the United States can't fix the problem alone, Reilly said it should lead the way with meaningful steps.
"I think it's one of the great tragedies of our era that the administration hasn't risen to the occasion on this. It's committing future generations to extraordinary costs and problems," said James Gustave Speth, dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. "In the same breath, I have to say I wish the prior administration had done more itself."
The great unknown is the price of inaction.
"There are real economic costs associated with not taking action, including changes to water supply infrastructure, industrial capital, like pipelines, and with human health," said Janet Peace, senior research fellow, economics at Pew.
"With droughts, there's a cost. With increased flooding, there's a cost (and) with increased hurricanes and tornadoes."
Cap critics say real change would take many Kyotos.
"Scientists who support Kyoto have estimated that emissions cuts equivalent to 30 Kyotos will be needed," said Myron Ebell, director of global warming at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which supports "free enterprise and limited government."
He said costs would rise with each new target since companies make the cheapest cuts first. "I can't imagine that any informed person could claim that the total costs will be anything less than astronomical."
Reilly admitted the ultimate price will be high although solutions can and should include economic safety valves.
"Starting on a path isn't committing to the entire path," he said. "If the cost becomes too great for the economy, we have to reconsider where we go. If the climate effects become more severe, or less severe, then we reconsider as we go."
And a fix may cost less than feared.
"When you turn the genius of the private sector loose on solving the problem, they do things," said Speth.
Chemical giant DuPont has cut emissions by 72 percent, beating both its 65 percent target and its self-imposed 2010 deadline at a cost of $55 million.
Tom Jacobs, DuPont's senior adviser on global affairs, said the company sees caps as inevitable and exploited "unique opportunities" for big, low-cost reductions, though he admits cheap options are not limitless.
Source: Reuters
