Next Generation Energy is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Looking for a global energy-policy strategy? We know very well how to stimulate the innovation and production of new technologies using policy instruments. So strategizing among ourselves about taxes vs. research grants vs. industry subsidies vs. moratoriums vs. caps vs. emissions standards vs. everything else, may not be the most productive use of concerned citizens' time. The truth is that the day the US government decides decisively to tackle the issue, they'll use most of these tools simultaneously in a shotgun strategy (think WW2, the New Deal, the Cold war, going to the moon, the war on terror...). The question is not which policies to use or not use, but whether we're actually going to do anything significant at all.
This is a frequently forgotten point among environmental academics: in a democracy, we are the government. We tend to model government as a second party that interacts with the people, but in reality, the government merely reflects popular views and is far less (if at all) independent. And so, swallowing the hard truth, if democracies around the globe have failed to implement effective energy policies, its because we have collectively chosen not to implement such policies. If the current administration faced a clear majority of the population screaming for action, they would have taken it already. Having failed to observe such actions, we should infer that we haven't been screaming for them appropriately. (I've written a little about this issue in a working paper here). My guess is that frustrated readers of this blog will point to disinformation campaigns as the root of popular inactivity. Such an accusation suggests a solution.
Our global strategy involves implementing policy instruments around the world in some coordinated way. This requires strong leadership from the United States, which requires the prioritization of this issue by our leadership. However, our leadership will not take the issue seriously so long as a sufficient fraction of the American population remains passive on the issue. And passive Americans will likely remain so unless they are provided with accurate information about the consequences of passivity. Our global strategy must begin with teaching Americans what climate change really is, where uncertainty actually lies and what consequences of inaction will foreseeably be. Such an education campaign must be overwhelming in both scale and accuracy of any opposing disinformation campaign. The aim of a such a campaign will be to turn the upcoming presidential contest into a horse race to the top, with both candidates trying to outdo the other in the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of their energy/climate policies. There is little reason to suspect that energy/climate cannot be the number one issue of this election, if the country is informed properly.
Don't think this is possible? Here's three papers from the academic world to chew on.
Schlenker et. al. (2005) debunk the general perception that climate change will have a beneficial effect on American agriculture (and thus the economy of the predominately Republican, central United States). They show that previous work, trying to understand how expected profits are affected by weather, did not account for the fact that western agriculture relies heavily on irrigation and so should be treated differently in statistical analysis. When they adjust for this error, they estimate that climatic changes associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations leads to a net loss of $5 billion to the agriculture industry (with strong statistical significance). They suggest that this loss arises from differences in crop yields associate with how plant metabolism responds to heat and water shortages. Studies like this, if properly publicized, should help motivate support for effective energy-policy action among constituencies that have historically taken limited action, based on poor information. Moreover, reported political suppression of this type of work should point to its political significance. (For more fodder, see Schlenker's website).
Levy et. al. (2005) demonstrate that variations in climate, particularly freshwater supplies, are strong predictors of high-intensity internal civil-conflicts around the world. They combine a number of data sets and analyze the production of conflict in grid-boxes that are 0.25 by 0.25 degrees (latitude and longitude) and find highly-significant dependance on water availability; suggesting that anthropogenic climatic changes may lead to more conflicts. They suggest two explanations that are possibly at work: (1) decreased water and associated income may reduce governments' capacity to maintain control and increase the grievances of the populace, leading to an increased probability of conflict or (2) reductions in farm-associated incomes make it easier for rebel leaders to recruit soldiers, since the benefits of remaining in the peaceful economy have been reduced. This type of work, if properly brought to the public's attention, could produce strong support for energy action. It's clear that civil-conflicts, weak governments and failed states provide the environment needed by terrorist groups (etc.) to recruit, train and operate. The portion of our society deeply concerned about terrorism and national security should also be interested in preventative, peaceful, security measures, such as energy policy. With the proper information, the security-concerned public can help drive a presidential race to the top.
The two studies above (and others like them) may be useful for gaining support for a race to the top among two groups of Americans who are frequently passive on energy issues. The following study suggests that such a race is possible.
Power et. al. (2008) examines how Australian public attitudes towards climate change and energy policy changed rapidly in 2006, so rapidly in fact that they suggest that a "tipping point" was reached. They show that the number of major news stories covering the issue rose rapidly (see plot above), leading to an explosion in the number of hits that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website received, the number of "questions without notice" asked in the legislature on the topic (see plot below), and the number of consumers requesting green energy. It should not be surprising that climate became one of the two hottest topics in the 2007 federal elections, with the opposition Labor leader (Rudd) promising to ratify Kyoto (after a decade of notorious passivity by the incumbent, Howard), winning a broad victory and then making good on that promise.
Australia and the United States had been the two infamous holdouts on Kyoto and initiating energy policy action. Intensive media attention leading to sweeping political change in Australia has left the United States as the last (and most important) free-rider. A global energy strategy needs to begin with American leadership, and with the upcoming election, we should aim for an information-initiated tipping point in popular views (similar to the Australian phenomenon) triggering a race to the top between the candidates.
So get out there and educate others about the physics of the greenhouse effect, the ice-albedo feedback, the water-vapor feedback, the true nature of structural uncertainty in climate models and the possibility of catastrophic destabilization of ice-sheets or methane-clathrates. Then explain to the people usually disinterested how the American heartland farmers will suffer, how national security may deteriorate and how change in Australia happened rapidly. Finally, demand action from our next leader, write op-eds, letters to the editor, protest, or do whatever else it takes to make a comprehensive and effective energy policy the number one issue in the coming election. Make sure to scrutinize the proposals of the candidates and hold the winner accountable for his promises.
The US leadership must lead a global sea-change, but if it does not, it is because we, the "demos" in the world's leading democracy, have failed to do our part. A global strategy begins with holding ourselves accountable.
References
Levy, M. A., Thorkelson, C., Vorosmarty, C., Douglas, E. and Humphreys, M., Freshwater Availability Anomalies and Outbreak of Internal War: Results from a Global Spatial Time Series Analysis, Human Security and Climate Change International Workshop, 2005.
Power, S. Plummer, N., Pearce, K., Walland, D., Edwards, S., Jones, D., Gipton, S., Holper, P. and Whitehead, R., Changes in Australian Attitudes Towrads Global Warming, MeteoWorld, 2008.
Schlenker, W., Hanemann, W. M. and Fischer, A. C., Will U.S. Agriculture Really Benefit from Global Warming? Accounting for Irrigation in the Hedonic Approach, The American Economic Review, 2005.
Comments
Do you seriously believe this? I could point out plenty of policies and actions that run counter to your statement.
Posted by: Tophe | August 11, 2008 12:53 AM
I do believe the government reflects the will of the people, in as much as the people have completely given up their responsibility of government oversight. Much though I am LOATHE to admit it, VP Cheney had a point when his response to 70% of Americans opposing the Iraq war is "So." Yes, he is forgetting his oath of office, and yes, he is at the heart of our problems. But those 70% took the lazy way out - they answered a telephone questions. Do you think that if 70% of Americans were marching in the streets daily protesting against the war, we'd still be in Iraq? We have abdicated our authority, and so all sorts of unsavory characters have rushed in to fill it.
Posted by: Philip H. | August 11, 2008 8:55 AM
"My guess is that frustrated readers of this blog will point to disinformation campaigns as the root of popular inactivity."
Nope, not me. The root problem is that people tend to believe what they want to believe. Faith, not evidence. They don't want to believe there's a problem, because they don't want to make ANY sacrifices to fix it. So they believe whatever makes them feel good.
That's a common problem everywhere, even here. There's a lot of wishful-thinking in solar and wind power. We are a country of faith-based thinkers, it seems. We just believe whatever sounds good. Evidence? Who needs it? And we actually praise people who believe without evidence, who believe just because they WANT to believe. Incredible, isn't it?
And the fact is, this IS the will of the people. We - collectively - are responsible for every terrible, destructive act by Bush and Cheney. Most of us didn't even bother to vote, and those who did re-elected the worst presidential administration in U.S. history - after we already knew how bad they were! And even after they were elected, Congress would have impeached the two of them quickly enough, had there been the kind of uproar there should have been. Yes, this is all OUR fault.
Posted by: WCG | August 11, 2008 9:20 AM
the government merely reflects popular views.
This assumes the rational model of voting, i.e. that voters listen to the candidates stand on the issues, and match their issues as best as they can with the candidates. The problem is that outside a small community of academics, and policy wonk types (most people in sciblogs belong to this set), most political choices are made based upon an emotional assessment of the candidates personalities, not their policy preferences. The result is that the match between public policy perceptions, and who wins the elections is very low. This tendency is exacerbated by the media, who assume (rightly) that in depth policy discussion is boring, and would rather devote coverage to whether a candidates selection of hairstylist is elitist.
Posted by: bigTom | August 11, 2008 6:28 PM
There is no such entity as "the people" nor is there such thing as a "national will" or "national interest", simply a set of diverse and sometimes conflicting, sometimes complimentary interests. The economics of government are such that vested interests will spend exhorbitant amounts of time and money to garner lucrative concessions from the public purse that individually cost the average taxpayer very little. What happens when a politician gets some grand idea to do a sweeping policy change is that the process gets hijacked by special interests (like ADM and the sugar lobby have done with ethanol) and the public gets results that are badly compromised, protect connected players from competition from potentially better solutions, and almost impossible to correct due to the lobbying from these entrenched interests.
Posted by: bwv | August 13, 2008 1:13 AM