By Institute for Energy Research —— Bio and Archives August 11, 2014
Comments | Print This | Subscribe | Email Us
“I think we have to begin by recognizing the reality and severity of this threat to our economies, both United States and globally, and really to life on earth more broadly as we know it. We also have to recognize that this problem needs to be dealt with now. We cannot wait because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, once they’re there, remain there for centuries so that every year is greater and more severe in terms of greenhouse gas emissions cumulatively than had been the case the year before.” – Risk Committee member Robert E. RubinRubin is here clearly referring to the (alleged) crisis of continued greenhouse gas emissions, and how humanity must take immediate steps to severely reduce such emissions in order to avoid impending catastrophe. He actually describes it as a threat to “life on earth…as we know it.” This isn’t an issue of some Floridians having to water-proof their beach houses. So in light of Rubin’s quotation—and the fact that it takes up the whole top half of page 44 in the report, because it is displayed in such large font—the reader must think that the “Risky Business” report is advocating a carbon tax or similar policy implemented by governments around the world. Yet on the contrary, the “Risky Business” report is very coy. It claims not to offer any particular recommendations. It actually lulls the reader into thinking that it is mostly equipping business leaders and regional government officials with the information they need to make on-the-ground decisions. For example, on the very next page (p. 45) of the report, the section is headed with the following quotation from another Risk Committee member, former Senator Olympia Snowe:
“If we were told—in any sphere—that we had at least a 90% chance of averting a disaster through changes we ourselves could make, wouldn’t we take action?” – Risky Business Committee member Olympia SnoweThus we see the fundamental flip-flop: Rubin’s long quotation from page 44 can only make sense if the Report is urging a globally-coordinated government crackdown on carbon emissions. Yet on the very next page, Snowe claims that “we” (which presumably means the Americans reading the report, which focuses on regional U.S. impacts) have the power to avert this catastrophe. These two claims do not fit together. Even if policymakers took Rubin’s advice to “act now” and immediately halted all further U.S. carbon dioxide emissions forever, this draconian move would only make global temperatures one-tenth of a degree Celsius cooler in the year 2100 than they would otherwise be, if the U.S. government took no action. Thus we see the contradiction between the prominent quotations from Robert Rubin (p. 44) and Olympia Snowe (p. 45). When Rubin says that “this problem needs to be dealt with now,” he is referring to curbs on emissions, if we are to have any hope of rescuing “life on earth…as we know it.” Policies designed to curb emissions are known as mitigation in the technical literature. Yet on the next page when Snowe claims that “we ourselves” can make the changes necessary to produce at least a “90% chance of averting a disaster,” then she obviously must be referring to steps that U.S. government and business leaders can take to prepare for coming climate changes. Such an approach is called adaptation in the technical literature.
“People in Florida really have thought through some of the consequences…to the extent that they can do some things themselves through their local governments, through the state, they certainly have stepped up to do many of those things…but it’s not enough. This is going to take a national investment.” – Donna Shalala, “Risky Business,” p. 46Well isn’t that magnanimous of Ms. Shalala—she concedes that people in Florida “really have thought through some of the consequences.” It’s almost as if the owners of billions of dollars of coastal real estate might care as much about their property as Donna Shalala does. When it comes to adapting to potential climate change—by considering sea level rise when building new hotels, or wondering how long the winters will be over the next few decades before building a new ski lodge—private business owners have the proper incentives to get their forecasts correct. If they guess wrong, they will lose their own money. In contrast, if Robert Rubin, Olympia Snowe, and Donna Shalala turn out to be wrong in their warnings to the public, nothing bad will happen to them.
The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.