FT columnist Martin Wolf argues, quite persuasively, that Copenhagen follow-through will be essential to end climate change. And by follow-through Wolf means incentives -- big subsidies -- for green technology and new technology.First, Wolf effectively refutes any confidence climate change doubters may have: it's not enough to question the science, because the risks of you being wrong far outweigh the risks if climate change is not occurring. That's because, if the doubters are wrong, there is a climate catastrophe up ahead: a destructive and irreversible climate shift. Conversely, if fossil fuel-based climate change is not occurring, the consequence from cleaner technologies will be the universal use of green energy and renewable energy resources.
And as Wolf also notes, there's no 'repeat the experiment' with the planet. As we say in New York, this is not a case where if you fail the New York State Bar Exam, you can take it again: for now (and, so far as we know, for the foreseeable future), we have only one planet.
That's why Copenhagen must serve as a starting point: real follow-through is the key, and that must involve the tax code, Wolf notes. He's right: Nations must encourage green energy and new technologies by subsidies and tax credits. Solar, wind, nuclear, and other lower-emission/no-emission energy forms cannot gain market share in power generation at a fast enough rate to reduce greenhouse gases without tax code incentives.
Energy Analysis: From an international relations standpoint, climate change is a classic example of one of the most difficult policy reforms on the world stage. Many of my undergraduate students know exactly where to put climate change on the chart: 'long-term consequences, benefits diffuse.' It's very hard to marshal political support for this type of reform: it's much easier to marshal support for 'immediate consequence, I benefit' policy reforms. But reform, the U.S., and the world must, because, as Wolf and the majority of the scientific community have documented -- the risk associated with not implementing reforms and being wrong is unacceptable.
Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?


Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-08-2009 @ 6:36PM
william lindblad said...
Great argument, but as always, there is another side to this coin. I am certainly not in the environmental camp, but I do agree that we are presently in climate change conditions. However, I have a great deal of difficulty in hearing from the alleged scientific community that the change is purely being caused by humans as this rhetoric is similar to evolution/creation. If the reports are correct than this group must also believe that geologic history is all wrong. Ergo, no ice age ever existed, nor did any glaciers ever cover most of North America. If so, I wish that they would explain how most of the East Coast has something called a piedmont area? Piedmont refers to a particular type of soil condition and I sure would like an alternative view on how it was created.
The accepted truth is that it was made by a glacier.
Since this planet has had many climatic changes in it's history, and all before humans and fossil fuel, it is very difficult to believe that the emphasis on this single item of air pollution remains dubious. One large active volcano puts out more atmospheric debris in one single year than all of the coal fired electric plants.
While it is an admirable concept to reduce our emissions it is also wise to admit that we cannot control natural events. In the "little ice age" there were only cows and horses and consequently, a little methane. If one adheres to present thinking - than obviously, that was the cause.
12-08-2009 @ 7:29PM
ernest g. bentsen said...
Nuclear proliferation is a more immediate danger to our planet than global warming, but there is no urgency to deal with this threat. That leads me to believe the climate debate is mostly noise and little or no action. In fact, I think it has taken the place of traditional religion.
Iran`s nuclear program can easily be stopped. All the world needs to do is stop buying Iranian oil. Ironically, China ,especially, refuses to do this because its hunger for fossil fuel.
12-08-2009 @ 10:16PM
Bill said...
Golbal Warming is an Al Gore fraud. The truth about the junk science is coming out. Once it all comes out there should be criminal charges. Wolf's "risk of being wrong" comment can be used in any argument on either side.
12-09-2009 @ 3:45AM
Eric said...
The article states that if we stop global warming and are wrong that there are no negative consequences. What IF we spend trillions to cool the earth, the earth is cooling on
its's own and the earth's orbit takes a cylical shift?
These salesmen can send us into a big, cold, deep freeze.
12-09-2009 @ 5:51AM
MyKisa said...
.....nothing like a centralized, one size fits all federal government
12-09-2009 @ 7:42AM
Stu said...
So the "green" plan is to put profitable coal/oil/gas companies out of business costing thousands of jobs and billions in tax revenue. These will be replaced by "green" companies which will require endless government subsidies and tax credits. Only a liberal could love it.