Cover Story

The
Economic Freedom
Network

The Top Three Problems with Signing a Treaty
to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Laura Jones

Global Warming is currently the environmental issue. As we approach the international conference that will discuss binding emissions targets, to be held this December in Kyoto, Japan, the political consensus endorsing developed countries' intention to sign such a treaty continues to grow. The media have been so successful in promoting apocalyptic global warming scenarios that many people remain unaware just how much bad scientific reporting, bad economics, and bad judgement would be involved in any commitment to "cure" global warming.

The proposals likely to be discussed at Kyoto can be criticized on three different levels. First, it is not clear whether carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that the treaty will attempt to reduce, is causing global warming. Second, even if human additions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing some warming, this may not be a problem of sufficient magnitude to merit the kind of global policy currently being considered. Finally, even if the hypothesis that global warming is occurring as a result of human additions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is correct, and it is a serious enough threat to require global action, the proposals currently under consideration are not viable solutions. These proposals will be extremely costly to implement, and will not significantly reduce emissions, since developing countries, soon to become the main polluters, are not planning to agree to reductions.

Problem 1: scientific uncertainty and bad scientific reporting

The fundamental question that is being ignored in the public discussion of greenhouse gas emissions is: do they really need controlling? It is true that ground-level temperature measurements indicate that the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius in the last century. It is also true that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased in the last century and a half, largely as a result of human use of fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and gasoline.[Robert Balling, "Global Warming: Messy Models, Decent Data, and Pointless Policy," The True State of the Planet, Washington: The Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1995, p. 86.] This has lead some scientists and others to conclude that the earth is warming as a result of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If these trends continue, as is projected by computer models, the concern is that the resulting warming could raise sea levels, cause droughts, kill trees, increase storm activity, and possibly increase the outbreak of tropical disease.

Some of the doomsayers have painted a very bleak picture indeed. According to a book by environmentalists Anita Gordon and David Suzuki, forests will disappear, fisheries will be adversely affected, and there will be widespread starvation as agricultural productivity declines. In addition, as sea waters rise, coastal towns will be destroyed. For Canada? By the year 2040 they predict that as a direct result of global warming, "The three largest cities—Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal —[will have] populations of well over 10 million each, the majority living in shanty-town slums on the outskirts or in the decayed inner-city cores. But in addition there [will be] refugee tent cities in various parts of the country, and an estimated two million or three million people [will be] roaming the country, searching for food and shelter."[Anita Gordon and David Suzuki, It's a matter of Survival, Stoddart: 1990, pp. 20-21.]

In contrast to these frightening fantasies, much of the serious evidence on climate change is quite boring. It suggests that humans are not dramatically affecting climate, and that the minor changes that are occurring are benign and may be even beneficial.

The science of global warming offers three powerful lines of attack on the apocalyptic theories. These lines of attack include the inadequacy of the computer models being used to forecast future temperatures, the evidence from actual temperature records, and the strength of competing hypotheses (currently under-reported and insufficiently considered by policy makers) to explain warming.

The inadequacy of the computer models

It is important to realize that current global warming projections and policy recommendations are based on computer models that try to forecast future temperatures based on a number of assumptions. At the present time, these computer models are incapable of fully modelling the atmospheric system. Large gaps in understanding about the way important variables—such as oceans and clouds—affect climate, and change with additions of carbon dioxide make the predictions of these models unreliable.

In fact, the computer models cannot even replicate what has already actually happened to temperatures. For example, according to the model used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the northern hemisphere should have warmed between 1.3o and 2.3o Celsius since the beginning of the century. It has not. For the northern hemisphere, the warming measured at ground based stations is about 0.6 degrees Celsius. This is less than one-third of the warming that was predicted to occur. [See the article by Patrick Michaels in this issue of Fraser Forum for a more detailed explanation.]

Evidence from temperature records

The second major criticism of the theory that temperatures are likely to rise as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions and cause dramatic damage to the environment is that temperature records do not support a strong link between carbon dioxide emissions and warming. According to ground level temperature records, there has indeed been an increase in temperature over the past 100 years, but most of this increase occurred before 1940. In other words, most of the increase in temperature occurred before the main contribution of human-caused CO2 emissions. In addition, the satellites that have been measuring temperatures in space since 1979 do not support the hypothesis that the earth is warming. While the computer climate models predict that there should have been some warming over the past 18 years, the satellite data show a slight global cooling. Thus, the evidence does not support the predictions of the models. When evidence contradicts theory, this is considered a problem in any discipline, and should lead to a re-evaluation of the models being used.

Other explanations for temperature change

There are other viable explanations for why temperatures have changed that have nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions. These explanations have not received widespread media attention. For example, some scientists hypothesize that much of the temperature fluctuation can be explained by changes in the brightness of the sun—something that is obviously beyond human control.

As Sallie Baliunas, a scientist at the Harvard Center for Astrophysics, explains, "Most of the warming early in this century must have been due to natural causes of climate change. These natural causes must be understood in order to make an accurate assessment of the effect of any human climate influences added to the natural changes. One possible cause of natural climate change is variations in the brightness of the sun." She goes on to explain, "The processes of "fingerprinting" [or pinpointing] various mechanisms of climate change and projecting climate change requires knowing all the relevant factors, both natural and human, and considering them simultaneously in a model. Once such a model is verified, then each mechanism can be identified. Since the mechanisms of climate change are not fully known (e.g., the case here of the sun is unresolved) nor are the models verified, fingerprinting is not yet possible." [Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon, "Solar Variability and Global Climate Change," Global Warming: The Science and the Politics, The Fraser Institute, forthcoming.]

Problem 2: assuming that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting climate,
is this a serious problem and should we take action?

If one accepts the hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions are affecting climate, the next logical question becomes: is this a serious problem? In contrast to the doomsayers, a minority of scientists and social scientists argue that global warming could be beneficial. Warmer weather would increase growing seasons and rainfall and mean fewer and less violent storms. According to Thomas Gale Moore, an economist with the Hoover Institution at Stanford, if warming does occur, most people will be better off. He cites some of the benefits of a warmer climate: "A warmer climate will lower transportation costs: less snow and ice will [be around to] torment truckers and automobile drivers; fewer winter storms—bad weather in the summer has less disruptive effects and is over quickly—will disrupt air travel; a lower incidence of storms and less fog will make water transport less risky." [Thomas Moore, "Warmer Is Better," Global Warming: The Science and the Politics, The Fraser Institute, forthcoming.]

Some biologists are also optimistic about the affects of global warming. For example, Sherwood Idso, a biologist at Arizona State University, explains that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 stimulate the growth and development of plants while increasing their efficient use of water. He also explains why carbon dioxide should not be considered a pollutant: "the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content is enhancing agricultural productivity the world over at the same time as it helps to sustain the biodiversity of the planet's natural ecosystems." [Sherwood Idso, "Biological Consequences of Increased Concentrations of Atmospheric CO2," Global Warming: The Science and the Politics, The Fraser Institute, forthcoming.]

But if these biologists and social scientists are wrong, and global warming would impose more costs than benefits, the relevant question then becomes, which costs more: taking action or doing nothing?

If you take the worst case scenario, the costs of the predicted havoc from global warming may be as high as 1.5 percent of GDP at the end of the next century. [Thomas Moore, ibid.] But by most estimates, the costs of trying to control CO2 emissions in order to prevent global warming would be much higher than this. [For example one DRI/McGraw Hill study estimates just keeping CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 would require a carbon tax of US $16 per barrel of oil, or 40 cents per gallon of gasoline. According to the same study, a tax such as this would reduce GDP by at least 2.3 percent per year and cost the average North American family around $900 per year. Some economists predict that the taxes required to hold emissions at 1990 levels would be like living through the 1970s oil shocks again. See "Rush to Judgement: Understanding Global Climate Change," The Business Roundtable, April 1997.] Assuming no huge technological breakthroughs in the near future, the reductions that are being suggested as targets to be considered at Kyoto will be incredibly costly to achieve because any reduction in fossil fuel use necessarily affects the entire economy. The prices of everything from oranges in the grocery store to heating a home through the winter will increase. This translates to lower standards of living and the loss of jobs. Moore indicates that the costs of holding CO2 to 1990 levels would be twice the gain from preventing climate change. [Thomas Moore, ibid.]

The potential costs of signing a treaty at Kyoto are not just economic. As achieving agreed targets will come at the expense of economic growth, they will also come at the expense of other environmental goals. Growth is important not just for achieving improvements in standard of living, which in our century has meant huge improvements in sanitation, nutrition, public health, and longevity, but also in terms of improving environmental quality. As a country moves beyond the stage in its development where people are only meeting their basic needs for food and shelter, an improved environment starts to become a priority. As incomes rise, so does the demand for environmental amenities. According to the World Bank, pollution rates for particulate matter and sulphur dioxide (some of the dirtiest pollutants) begin to fall at per capita incomes of US$3,280 and US$1,375 respectively. [I. Goklany, "Richer is Cleaner," The True State of the Planet, Washington: Competitive Enterprise Institute, 1995, p. 342.] Access to safe drinking water and the availability of sanitation improve almost immediately as incomes rise. Another study done by economists Gene Grossman and Alan Krueger finds that most indicators of pollution start to fall before a country reaches a per capita income of $8,000 (1985 $US). [G. Grossman and A. Krueger, "Economic Growth and the Environment," Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 1995, p. 370.]

As a result, instead of restricting our consumption and our economic growth, those concerned about the environment should be focusing on how to raise incomes around the world. Any treaty signed at Kyoto is not just an attack on the economy, it is an attack on other, potentially more serious, environmental concerns.

Problem 3: if global warming is occurring and this is a serious threat, will Kyoto provide the answers?

The final problem with the treaty proposals being considered is that they are unlikely to have a significant effect on emissions. Even if developed countries meet their own targets, the carbon dioxide emissions of developing countries, who are unlikely to sign a treaty, are projected to continue increasing. The IPCC estimates that by the year 2100, these nations will contribute about two-thirds of world's carbon dioxide emissions. Other estimates suggest that they could contribute two-thirds by the year 2025. Thus, any strategy to limit CO2 emissions will be ineffective without the participation of these countries. In addition, these countries' exemption from emissions standards could mean that industries in developed countries will shift their production to these countries, possibly increasing total emissions (as developed countries' technology tends to be less energy efficient) and thus certainly not solving the supposed greenhouse gas crisis.

Conclusion

It is clear that a lot of uncertainty surrounds the issue of climate change. Many important questions remain unanswered. Are we experiencing a global warming trend? Do humans contribute to the trend through their emission of greenhouse gases? How significant is the human contribution? Would global warming cause widespread problems?

Some argue that we must take drastic action to control greenhouse gases without delay. However, in light of the uncertainty and the unanswered questions, this a simplistic approach to policy. In fact, we cannot afford to take action until we are reasonably certain that we have a problem because taking drastic measures to control greenhouse gases will come at the expense of other social objectives.

info@fraserinstitute.ca

You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.