Burning the Future

It’s quite a job these days to keep track of the missteps of our flail-away president. First, he wants to slap tariffs on Mexican products entering the US because they aren’t doing all he wants to curb illegal immigration.  He proposes to lay a 5 % tariff on all goods from Mexico starting June 10, with a provision that if they don’t then come around as he wants, the tariffs will increase 5% each month up to 25%.  Where he gets the authority to do this is apparently a mystery. The President of Mexico, Andres Lopez Obrador, has replied to Trump by saying "Social problems don't get resolved with duties or coercive measures. I don't believe ... in 'an eye for an eye.'" Not many people think tariffs are a good tool in economic policy. Using them to punish Mexico for matters related to immigration highlights Trump’s infantile psyche. His impulsive notion of how to force Mexico to comply with his wishes is just one more example of his lack of strategic thought as an element in governing.

We have another glimpse into the limits of the President’s understanding of important facts about the world in the comments he made recently in an interview with Piers Morgan on “Good Morning Britain.” Trump signaled that after a 90-minute meeting with climate advocate Charles, Prince of Wales, he’s still unconvinced about the scientific consensus that the climate is warming.  He’s quoted as saying, “I believe that there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways,” Trump said. “Don’t forget it used to be called global warming. That wasn’t working. Then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather because with extreme weather, you can’t miss.” You can see from Trump’s language that he’s not really thinking about the physical realities of global climate change.  Rather, he’s playing word games to jockey himself into a do-nothing position on a matter of grave importance and urgency for the planet.

Trump’s presence in the halls of power will eventually end.  Unfortunately, as the years unfold, we will be faced with the legacy of his actions or lack of them.  We’ll have to live with his failures—our failures, in a sense, for not having forestalled his election in 2016—as we play catchup. The best we can do now is mount vigorous election campaigns in the 2020 elections.  We must push on all fronts, from county commissioners, mayors and city councils to state representatives, US Congressional seats, and of course the presidential race.  Let’s all commit to being active!

Trump’s administration is not alone in moving us toward climate disaster.  Here’s an example from the sector dealing with energy production: It’s common knowledge that we are in the midst of a huge boom in drilling for oil and gas. The United States seems now to be the world’s largest producer of crude oil, having passed Saudi Arabia and Russia.  That would seem to make us the world’s largest oil-based contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Isn’t it frustrating that our President brags about this?  We're headed into climate disaster and the United States is leading the pack!

It turns out that two major factors in the US dominance are the Permian Basin in Texas and the Bakken region in North Dakota and Montana, both rich sources of shale oil deposits.  In addition to crude oil, the wells there produce huge quantities of natural gas, principally methane, which of course is also a fossil fuel.  Therein lies a problem: the amounts of methane and other gaseous pollutants that accompany the crude oil is often more than the markets can deal with in terms of pipeline capacities and storage capacity.  So, why not just vent the excess to the atmosphere? That would not be good; on a molecule-by-molecule basis, methane is about 25 times more powerful as an atmospheric warming gas than carbon dioxide.  So they flare it—burn it, as shown in the figure—creating

carbon dioxide and other pollutants.  Brilliant! Not only are the fossil fuels being wasted, in the process they’re being converted into CO₂! 

Both Texas and New Mexico have statutes that prohibit this waste of natural resources, but until recently there don’t seem to have been any penalties levied. This is not a small thing.  It’s been estimated that the fuel wasted in flaring would be sufficient to power a medium-sized nation.  There’s also the interesting fact that shale oil mining itself is not environmentally friendly.  First, there’s the inevitable leakage of methane occurring at the wells.  Secondly, creating multiple landfills for the cuttings, contaminated soils, muds and other types of oilfield waste produced in the Permian Basin seems to be a pretty big business.

 

I may be a hopeless optimist, but I have the feeling that people are beginning to wonder whether all of this mighty effort to generate boundless quantities of greenhouse gases and other pollutants is in society’s best interests.  There’s an interesting story in Energywire from March 2019, to the effect that the largest energy companies, Shell, BP and Exxon are pressing the EPA to regulate methane emissions.  These same companies fought efforts to impose regulations on methane emissions during the Obama administration, and cheered the Trump administration rollbacks of environmental rules generally. Apparently the people at the top are thinking that they need to pay attention to public sentiment.  The CEO of BP, Bob Dudley, was quoted as saying,  "Around the globe, tens of thousands of young people, maybe even hundreds of thousands, will take part in what is being called a youth-led climate strike. These young people are on the cusp of being able to vote. They're tomorrow's legislators, regulators, jurists, and consumers, of course. There's a rising tide of concern on many fronts about the lack of progress on climate issues, and I would say not just concern, but anger," 

That’s a different song than we were hearing from BP and the other energy giants not long ago. I suppose we should be grateful for whatever change of direction we see, but we can anticipate that industries’ feeble attempts at addressing this colossal issue will be consistent with maintaining corporate profits, not the bold changes in direction and timeliness we need. Rest assured, the oil giants are still planning on remaining the number one source of petroleum on the planet!  The philosophy of profits at any cost works against a long-term vision that could result in a massive rethinking of energy generation and use.  We live in a world of economic models in which success is measured by GDP, not by whether human society will come to terms with the destruction we’ve caused and the dire prospects that face us.  

In a recent critique of neoliberalism, economist Joseph Stiglitz says, “Slow economic growth, rising inequality, financial instability, and environmental degradation are problems born of the market, and thus cannot and will not be overcome by the market on its own. Governments have a duty to limit and shape markets through environmental, health, occupational safety, and other types of regulation.”  So it seems that it all comes down to politics. 

We must change the focus on climate change

The discussions among scientific experts regarding the prospects for sea level rise provide insights into how science works in its relationship to issues of broad public interest.   In 2014, only five years ago, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that the worst case warming scenario would raise sea levels by 1.7 feet to 3.2 feet by 2100.  Now, a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reports that the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica might be melting faster than once predicted.  The authors write that if emissions proceed unchecked, sea levels could plausibly rise 6.5 feet by 2100.  They came to that conclusion after coordinating the judgments of 22 experts on sea level rise and ice sheet dynamics as to how much rise there might be if global warming proceeds on a business-as-usual basis.  That is, assuming that global society fails to rein in greenhouse gas emissions as the global population increases.  

It’s tempting to consider the different conclusions of these two studies as disagreement. But we’re talking here about massive processes at different places on the planet that are not amenable to quantitative measurements. Further, we can’t be sure how much progress will be made in slowing greenhouse gas emissions.  Science must often proceed in light of such uncertainties in arriving at conclusions that can be drawn about complex systems. The 6.5 feet is an upper limit, predicted to have about a 5 percent likelihood of occurring; the lower estimate of somewhere between 1.7 feet to 3.2 feet is a near certainty. 

 Unfortunately most of the public can't imagine the consequences of either the high or low estimates.  The lead author of the new report, Jonathan Bamber of the University of Bristol is quoted as saying that the larger rise could spell disaster for some of the world’s largest coastal cities including New York, Miami, Shanghai, Jakarta, Osaka, and Rio de Janeiro, as well as many small Pacific island nations like the Maldives and the Marshall Islands. But it might be helpful to think of it this way: What would it mean if the subways and underground utility tunnels in New York were flooded, if the workings of major cities were impeded to the extent that they couldn’t function?  How would a society that depends on New York, Miami and dozens of other coastal cities continue?  

If we lived in a logical, well-functioning global society, studies of sea level rise would inform government planning on a worldwide scale; measures would be undertaken to control sea level rise, and the building of infrastructure to limit future damages would be undertaken. But that’s not happening, in large measure because there’s not a general sense of urgency. Even for those who consider themselves to be farsighted, 2100 seems a long way off. Eighty years from now, my spouse and I, our children and grandchildren will be gone.  Probably also all of our great-grandchildren, though some yet to be born could be around.  Should I have to worry about anything that far out? By then science and technology will be so advanced they’ll have figured out how to deal with the challenges.  Right? Yeah, that’s right.
The Dutch, who face immediate threats, as the opening picture shows, know that they can't afford to postpone taking action.  We should look to their example.

Thinking about forecasting the future  puts me in mind of Julian Simon, a colorful, stimulating friend with whom I associated in the 1970’s  He was a professor of Economics at the University of Illinois, and I was a Professor of Chemistry.  We were drawn together by the game of Squash.  I was a middling player, Julian was better.  For some time we pretty regularly played squash late on Friday afternoons. He almost always beat me; I was just good enough to make him work hard to win and to occasionally take a game.   He told me he liked to play with me on Fridays because it gave him a boost as he entered into observing the Sabbath. Julian's rather left-handed compliment didn't offend me; we were friends, and I sensed that he suffered from bouts of depression--perhaps I was part of his therapy. 

Julian was becoming famous at around that time for his economic writing. He argued that talk about the imminent dangers of population explosion and impending shortages of the materials needed for society’s continuance were misplaced.  He had highly public disagreements with many of his Illinois faculty colleagues, and even more visible ones with people such as Paul Ehrlich, author of a widely read book, The Population Bomb.  I served as a sounding board for some of Julian’s ideas; we frequently found ourselves sitting on the floor in the squash court arguing. I enjoyed our conversations, though I saw little evidence that my arguments had made much of a dent in the positions he spelled out in his best-known work, The Ultimate Resource.   Our relationship ended when he left The University of Illinois and moved to Maryland. He died in 1998 at age 65.  The Times obituary referred to him as the “optimistic economist”.  Julian was profiled in an article in Wired not long before he died.  Ed Regis nailed his man pretty well; Julian could wield data with an expert hand. In the face of a lot of pessimism, he insisted on optimism, even when he had to deny trends suggesting that society was on an unsustainable course. He believed that we needn’t concern ourselves with overpopulation or impending shortages of rare metals, nor should we be concerned about climate warming, which was beginning to receive increased attention.  In his largely sympathetic profile, Regis caught Julian’s irrepressible urge to challenge conventional wisdom. 

Julian Simon’s faith in human ingenuity and adaptability is exemplary of the approach many people take to coping with climate change.  The economic system on which much of the world runs is grounded in the notion of continual expansion, a conviction that GDP tells us all we need to know about how well we’re doing.  But it’s becoming increasingly clear that GDP is a faulty index in seeking human welfare generally. On the contrary, measuring our success in terms of GDP is a road to disaster.  Julian Simon was actually right in many of his short term analyses and predictions.  He embarrassed people like Paul Ehrlich, who overestimated their own short term predictive prowess.  In this instance, the key feature in predicting the economic and social health of society is the time scale.  Julian was often right in the short term, but he is inevitably wrong in the long term.  Joseph Stiglitz has it right: we need to change our focus. 

It will not be easy to persuade most people that we should change direction, but there are glimmers of hope.  The Washington Post recently ran a story on how the Green New Deal, or some variant of it, is finding audiences across the country.  The nation’s two largest cities, New York and Los Angeles, are moving ahead with ambitious plans, as are many progressive communities small and large.  But change doesn’t come easily. Just wishing for change will not get us to where we need to be. Understandably, people are wary of change that could negatively impact their social and economic prospects. It will take imaginative, open-hearted arguments to convince people that their interests will be protected. The powerful corporations and oligarchs who now hold so many levers of power will not willingly cede their control.  There will be much more to tell in this story. I hope to explore some of the themes in future blogs.  Please share the blog with your friends, and let me know your thoughts.