ThePlanetaryGambleWeCan'tAffordtoLose
作者：DrStephenSchneider-ALeadinggreenhouseadvocate
StephenH.Schneider博士为斯坦福大学多学科环境研究、生物科学系教授、美国科学院院士。研究领域涉及：气候变化、全球增温、人类促使的气候变化的生态学和经济影响、气候变化的综合评估、古气候和人类对气候影响的气候模拟、温室效应、不确定性、人类对气候系统的危险干涉、突变性气候变化等。Schneider在哥伦比亚大学接受机械工程的本科和研究生教育，并于1971年在哥伦比亚大学获得机械工程和等离子物理专业的博士学位。
PublishedbyBasicBooks,ADivisionofHarperCollinsPublishersInc.
ISBN0465－07279－8
前言
引言这是一个尺度问题
第一章、有机的与非生命的地球：一种动态的结合
第二章、气候和生命的共同进化
第三章、是什么引起气候变化
第四章、模拟人类引起的全球气候变化
第五章、生物多样性和鸟类的斗争
第六章、对政策选择的综合评估
研究结果与研究方法(ContentwithContext)
整体效应比各部分叠加的更糟(TheWholeMayBeWorseThanTheSumofItsParts)
全球变化潜在的最严重问题之一，是动植物聚居地的分割与气候变化之间的协同作用。人们将动植物天然聚居地分割成农业用地、居住地、矿山或开发作其它用途。如果气候发生变化，各个动植物物种将被迫尽力调整，如同它们在过去的地质时代所做的一样[4]。迁徙是它们的一个典型的反应。大约1万年前末次冰川期消退时，云杉就是这么做的。但从那以后，地貌景观发生了巨大的变化，那些在末次冰川期期间通过迁徙而幸存下来的物种能够逾越21世纪的高速公路、农业区、工业园区、军事基地以及大城市的威胁吗？如何以经济上最合算或政治上最可行的方式来实施我们的生物保护计划，这需要某种科学的指导。全球变化研究就是涉及这类问题的科学。要回答这类问题，我们必须依靠各有关学科并自问：我们拥有什么样的知识？要向各位专家（不管他们是医生还是地球系统科学家）提出的最重要的两个问题是：地球会发生什么？发生的可能性又有多大？地球系统科学家试图将来自各门学科的信息进行创造性综合，以回答各种尺度上的实际问题。我们已经遇到了敌人(WeHaveMettheEnemy)
人们很少会故意制造环境问题。这种做法倾倒有毒废物以及点燃油田只是一些例外情况），然而，大多数的环境问题是全球各地无数小规模和看似微不足道的环境污染行为的总体表现。不管是偶然的还是故意的，其结果同样是有害的，如局部范围的鱼类中毒和全球范围的气候变化。对环境影响来说，动机是无所谓的。只是在处理这种影响带来的恶果时，动机才起作用。无论我们是有意还是无意，我们针对环境采取的大部分行为也是针对地球的一种实验。虽然视而不见或拒绝解决是政治上简单得多的“解决办法”，但我们每个人都有责任对我们无意识行为的潜在后果保持清醒的认识。正如斯坦福大学人口生物学家PaulEhrlich曾经巧妙地指出的那样：“对自然规律的无知绝不是一种借口”。
人类因素(TheHumanDimension)
注释：
[1].S.A.Levin.1992.TheProblemforpatternandscaleinecology.Ecology73:1943-67.
[2].T.L.RootandS.H.Schneider.1995.Ecologyandclimate:Researchstrategiesandimplications.Science269:334-41.Theseauthorsarguethatglobalchangeproblemsarebestaddressedwithmultiscale,multidisciplinary,andmulti-institutionalapproaches.
[3].W.G.Ernst,ed.EarthSystems.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Atextbookexampleofthebreadthofmultidisciplinaryknowledgeneededtoaddressearthsystemsissues.
[4].R.PetersandT.Lovejoy,eds.1992.GlobalWarmingandBiologicalDiversity.Newhaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress.
[5].P.R.EhrlichandJ.P.Holdren.1971.Impactofpopulationgrowth.Science171:1212-17.
[6].R.CantorandS.Rayner.1994.Changingperceptionsofvulnerability.InIndustrialEcologyandGlobalChange.R.Socolow,C.Andrews,F.Berkhout,andV.Thomas,eds.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.69-83.
[7].NationalAcademyofSciences.1991.PolicyImplicationsofGreenhouseWarming.Washington,D.C.:NationalAcademyPress.
第一章有机的与非生命的地球:一种动态的结合
图1.1:AschematicrepresentationbyL.A.Frakesofglobalaveragedsurfacetemperature
放射性测年(radioactivedating)
[1].C.SaganandG.Mullen.1972.EarthandMars:Evolutionofatmospheresandtemperatures.Science17:52-56.
[2].W.Broecker.1990.HowtoBuildaHabitablePlanet.Palisades:Lamont-DohertyGeologicalObservatoryPress.Agoodsourceforlearningaboutthegeochemicalfundamentalsofourplanet,writtenbyoneofthemostinsightfulearthscientistsofourtime.
[3].J.K.Kasting.1993.Earth’searlyatmosphere.Science259:920-26.Containscitationsandperspectivonearlierworks.
[4].J.E.Lovelock.1995.TheAgesofGaia:ABiographyofOurLivingEarth.NewYork:Norton.JimLovelock’smostrecentupdateandviewpoint.
第二章气候和生命的共同进化
图2.1:由EricBarron和他的同事们重构的古大陆三幅简单印象图。
图2.2.
[1].W.H.Schlesinger.1991.Biogeochemistry:AnAnalysisofGlobalChange.NewYork:AcademicPress.
[2].S.H.Schneider.1994.Detectingclimatechangesignals:Arethereany“fingerprints”Science263:341-347.Reviewsthehistoryoftheaerosol-climatedebateandoffersmanyadditionalreferences.Thispaperlaidoutthereasoningthatallowedsubsequentassessmentstoexpressincreasedconfidenceinthedetectionofglobalwarmingeffectsintheclimaterecord.
[3].IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange[IPCC],1996.ClimateChange1995.TheScienceofClimateChange:ContributionofWorkingGroup1totheSecondAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.J.T.Houghton,L.G.MeiraFilho,B.A.Callander,N.Harris,A.Kattenberg,andK.Maskell,eds.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.SeeChapter10forareviewofoceancarbonchemistry.HereaftercitedasIPCC1996,WGI.
[4].E.J.Barron,P.JFawcett,D.Pollard,andS.L.Thompson.1993.ModelsimulationsofCretaceousClimates：ThephilosophicalTransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyofLondon341:307-16.
[5].L.F.Richardson.1922.WeatherPredictionbyNumericalProcesses.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Theclassicalandversionaryprecursortotheweatherandclimatemodels.
[6].Richardson.WeatherPredictionbyNumericalProcesses,pp219-20.
[7].P.N.Edwards.1996.TheClosedWorld:ComputersandthePoliticsofDiscourseintheColdWarAmerica.Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress.
[8].S.H.SchneiderandR.Londer.1984.TheCoevolutionofClimateandLife.SanFrancisco:SierraClub.Chapter6providesalayerson’soverviewofclimatemodeling.
[9].S.H.Schneider,S.L.Thompson,andE.J.Barron.1985.
第三章是什么引起气候变化
模拟是我们用来预测未来变化或借以解释过去曾经发生过的事件的重要手段。为了检验模拟对于描述实际古气候事件的各种数据的适应性，了解过去曾经发生过的事件的某些重要方面是关键所在。这样的检验，将有助于科学家了解，如何使用来自这些模型的有关信息以及如何去证实他们的预测。我们因此也将能在进入新世纪之际，更好地对面；临的大量公共政策问题进行评价。
遗憾的是，已知的气候模式可能未能包含所有的未来条件，而我们的各种模型尚未能针对迥异于已知气候模式的各种情形进行较好的调整。因此，我们仍需继续寻找进一步检验模式的各种途径。我们所拥有的用以进行这类检验的最好的物理实验室，并不是那种由玻璃和钢材构筑而成的实验室，而是地球本身，特别是我们所掌握的有关地球历史时期的知识。
图3.1.
第四章模拟人类引起的全球气候变化
气候的最适条件(TheClimateOptimum)
第五章生物多样性和鸟类的斗争
中欧和大西洋中部地区冰川期时代的森林主要是云杉树，而不是像今天桉树和枫树这样的硬木树种。很长一段时期，物种群落被认为仅仅是来回发展的。在冰川融化期向北追随冰盖发展，当地球寒冷时回头向南在冰前发展。这种观点自从达尔文时代以来一直非常流行，达尔文相信整个物种群落仅仅是作为整体在随气候变化而迁移。在《物种起源》（TheOriginofSpecies）一书中他写道：
由于北极的物种先向南后折回北方以与变化的气候保持一致，在漫长的迁移过程中，它们将不会经历太大的温度变化；它们是作为一个整体迁移的，因此它们的成熟关系未曾受到很大的干扰。因此，与本书中反复强调的原理相一致，这些物种形式未曾受到很大的改变。
图5.1.
与谁在生物群落中有关吗(DoesItMatterWho’sInACommunity)
我们注意到世界各岛屿的动植物显示了岛屿面积与其生存的物种数量之间的一致性关系。岛屿面积越大，物种越多。古巴的鸟类、蛇类、植物和其它生物的种类比Jamaica的要多得多，而Jamaica岛的动植物又比Antigua岛的多。这种关系差不多到处都可见到，从英格兰岛到西印度群岛、Galapagos岛、夏威夷、印度尼西亚群岛和西太平洋，都遵循一个始终如一的算术规则：面积每增加10倍，物种数量（鸟、蛇、草）就接近增1倍。以世界上的陆地鸟为实际例子。一个1000平方千米的岛屿大约有55个种类，而一个1万平方千米的岛屿，则有2倍那么多的种类即100种。更准确地说，物种数量是按面积－物种方程增加的：S=CAz。这里A是面积，S是物种数量，C是常数，指数z是一个二级的取决于生物类群（鸟、蛇、草）的生物学意义上的常数。z的价值还取决于群岛是接近源地（像印度尼西亚群岛那样）还是远离源地（如夏威夷和西太平洋的其它群岛）。
这种关系在该书出版以来的30年中，已被加州大学洛杉矶分校的JaredDiamond等生态学家，针对数十个不同大小的栖息地做过数十次的检验与再检验，发现差不多所有的案例都证明了这个基本公式，只是z值有微小的差异。Wilson和其它的生态学家已经运用物种－面积方程，推测如果未来几十年人类发展引起岛屿森林面积减少，那么可能会丧失（被迫灭绝）的物种的百分比将是多少。Wilson解释道：
在栖息地面积减少时，灭绝的速率就上升，并持续高于原来的基础水平，直到物种数目从一个高的平衡下降到一个低的平衡。要使结果比较明确的粗略方法是，当面积减少为原来大小的十分之一时，物种的数量就最终下降到原来的一半（实际上非常接近在自然界经常遇到的数目）。热带雨林的破坏以现在的速率持续到2022年，那么现有雨林的一半将会消失。这将引起物种灭绝的总量在10％到22％之间。
依据Wilson岛屿生物地理理论推测，每年将有多少物种灭绝呢？为了估计这一点，我们首先必须估计地球上一共有多少物种？今天相对于过去有多少正在灭绝？各种物种在不同的群落中的重要性如何？牛津大学的生态学家（曾经当过英国首相科学顾问的）RobertM．May多年来一直在试图回答这些问题：
协同作用与不确定性(SynergismAndUncertainties)
生物多样性值得保护吗(IsBiodiversityWorthProtecting)
第六章对政策选择的综合评估
过程是我们最重要的结果(ProcessIsOurMostImportantProduct)
Shouldwetakecomfortinthefactthattheaerosolscanoffsetthegreenhousegases
Severalpeoplehavesaid:'Well,isn'titagoodthingthatourindustrialprogresshasproducednotjustcarbondioxidebutsulfuraerosols,whichcoolusbackdown'AndI'vealwayssaidIdidn'tliketheideaofusingacidraintosolveglobalwarming,becausethoseaerosolsarenotonlybadforecosystemswhentheyrainacidsintothelakesandstreamsandsoils,butthey'realsopartoftheairpollutantswhich,whenwebreathe,weknowfromstatisticaltests,leadstoincreasedlungandrespiratorydiseaseandwhatwecallexcessdeaths,whichsoundsveryclinicalunlesssomebodyinyourfamilyhappenstobesusceptibletothatkindofairpollution.
Scientistsdon'thaveaHippocraticoath,butwehavetotellthetruth.Everybody'struthisrelative.Butourtruthmeansawiderangeofpossibilitiesthatwecanimagine.AndIcanimagineso-calledfeedbackprocesses,whereifyouwarmuptheearth,youmeltsnowandice,whichaddsfurtherwarming.Ifyoudothat,itmakesthecloudstaller,whichmakesthemtrapmoreheat,insteadofwider.AndifIconjureupthesefeedbacks,Icanendupexpectingthatwecouldhaveclimatechangethat'scatastrophicinthenextcentury.
Icanalsoconjureupanothersetoffeedbacks:Thecloudsgetwider;itgetsdrierinbetweentheclouds.Thereareanumberoffeedbackswecanconjureup,whichmakesitwarmuponlyadegreeorso,attherelativelymildendofthespectrum.Well,mostscientistswouldarguethattheseverymildandverycatastrophicoutcomesareplausible,maybeevena10percentchanceofeachofthem.Butthebulkofthelikelihoodissomewherebetweentheendoftheworldandthe"goodforyou"scenariosthatyouseeallthetimeinthenewspapersandintheCongressionaldebates.
Thebulkofscientistsareprettystraightaboutsayingthisisaprobabilitydistribution.Andrightnowourbestguessisthatwe'reexpectingwarmingontheorderofafewdegreesinthenextcentury.It'sourbestguess.Wedonotruleoutthecatastrophic5degreesorthemildhalforonedegree.Andthespecialinterests,.....fromdeepecologygroupsgrabbingthe5degreesasifit'sthetruth,orthecoalindustrygrabbingthehalfdegreeandsaying,"Oh,we'regoingtoendupwithnegligiblechangeandCO2'safertilizer,"andthenspinningthatasifthat'sthewholestory--that'sthedifferencebetweenwhatgoesoninthescientificcommunityandwhatgoesoninthepublicdebate.Let'ssayyou'veconvincedeverybodythattheprobableclimatechangefordoublingwouldbeontheorderofafewdegrees,inthemiddle.Thenthequestionwillbeasked:WhyshouldthatmattertomeWhyshouldIbotheraboutthat
Well,formanyyears,whenwetalkaboutafewdegreeswarming,mostpeoplesay,"AfewdegreesSowhatIfIchangemythermostatafewdegrees,I'lllivefine.Thetreesoverthereonthenorthsideoftheslopearealready5degreescoolerthanthetreesonthesouthsideoftheslope."Ofcourse,ifyoulookcarefully,youfindtheyhavedifferenttreesonthenorthsideandthesouthside.Sothepointisthatoneortwodegreesisabouttheexperiencethatwehavehadinthelast10,000years,theeraofhumancivilization.Therehaven'tbeen--globallyaveraged,we'retalking--fluctuationsofmorethanadegreeorso.Sowe'reactuallygettingintounchartedterritoryfromthepointofviewoftherelativelybenignclimateofthelast10,000years,ifwewarmupmorethanadegreeortwo.Soyou'resayingthatgloballyaveraged,thereisasignificantdifferenceinthisshiftindegreesupward
Globallyaveraged,morethanafewdegreesissignificant.Afterall,whenicesheetscamedowntoManhattanIsland(youcanfindthescratchesfromtheicestillinCentralParkontherocks),thatwas20,000yearsago.Ittookabout10,000yearsfornature--notus--towarmtheearthup.Well,itwarmedup5to7degreesCelsius,somethinglike10Fahrenheit.Itdidthatin5,000to10,000years.Theaveragerateofchangeisonedegreeorsoperthousandyears.Now,whathappenedThetreesthatarenowinCanada(thesprucetreesandthearborealforest)andtheoaksthatwenowhaveinthemiddleAtlanticstates,forexample,theywereallcompressedfartothesouth,in-inthecurrentUSsoutheast,20,000yearsago.Theymovedoverthe10,000yeartransitiontowheretheynoware.Intheirprocessofmoving,giantspecieslikethesabertoothcatsandthemammothswentextinct,notjustduetoclimatechange,butthatwasapieceofthestory.
It'scertainlynotfeasiblethatwe'regoingtosolvetheunderlyingcauseofgreenhousegasbuildupintheatmosphereinadecade,oreventwo.HowdidweinthewesterncountriesgetrichWehadaVictorianIndustrialRevolution.Wehadsweatshop,pollutedcities,coal-burningpowerplants,andindustryandsoforth.Thenwegottiredofthelossofqualityoflifeassociatedwiththatkindofcrowding,socialinequity,andpollution.Andthroughsetsofrulesandthroughinventivetechnology,weinventedabettersystem.We'restillhookedonit,butwe'remoreefficientthanwewere.NowwetalktoChinaandIndiaandotherdevelopingcountries.Andwe'retalkingaboutglobalwarming.They'resaying,"Waitaminute.YouguysusedtheVictorianIndustrialRevolutiontogetrich.Nowyou'retellingusthere'sareasonwecan'tdothesamething."
Soit'sverydifficulttoexpectthattheworldisgoingtoautomaticallyovernightturnoffitsaddictiontocarbon-basedenergy.We'regoingtobeonitforawhile.Butthatdoesn'tmeanthatwecan'tbeginrightnow(infact,weshouldhavebegunthreedecadesago)developingthekindsoftechnologiesthatweneedoverthenextseveraldecadestoreplacethemorepollutingVictorianindustrialtechnologies.Imean,afterall,whatistheinternalcombustionenginethatwealllovetodrivearoundinIt'saVictoriantechnology.Thenextphaseupiswhatwecallhybridcars,withamixofelectricbatteriesandsoforth.Andthephaseafterthatisfuelcells.They'rethreeorfourtimesmoreefficient.Theydon'tproducenearlyasmanypollutants.Theydon'trequirealargebalanceofpaymentsdeficitforoil-importingcountries.Well,they'recoming.Thequestionis:Arewegoingtoletthemcomeattheslowratethatthey'llhappennaturallyOrshouldwesaywecanprotecttheclimateatthesametimethatwecanhaveindustrialdevelopment
Whatwereallyneedisaglobaltechnologypolicytotrytoacceleratetherateofdevelopmentofcleantechnologies,andtohelpespeciallythedevelopedworldnotjustdevelopbyoldtechnologies,buttoliterallyleapfrogovertheVictorianIndustrialRevolutionrighttohightech,savingthemselvesairpollutedcitiesatthesametimethattheymovetomoreefficientsystems.Butitwon'thappenautomaticallyinlessthanahalfacentury.Weneedplanetary-scalepolicyifwe'regoingtoaccelerateitsothatithappensindecades,notinacentury,andifwe'regoingtopreventdoublingortriplingofCO2alongtheway.Butthesetechnologies,eventhoughthey'remoreefficient,theystillbasicallyusefossilfuels.Afuelcellwillstillusemethanolasthefeedstockforhydrogen.Youstillhavetheproblemthatevenifeverythingismoreefficientbyquiteabigfactor,andyouhaveagrowingpopulationinIndiaandChinawithagrowingstandardofliving,avastlyincreasedenergyresource,thatthat'sfightingagainstanyefficienciesyoumake.Doyouhavetobasicallyattacktheissueofwhereyourenergycomesfrom
Thoseofuswhoarguethatweshouldhaveatleastaninitialtechnologystrategytotrytogotomoreefficienttechnologies(fuelcells,switchingfromcoaltogas),werecognizethatthosestillproduceCO2.ButI'dmuchratherseeCO2doublein2150thanin2050.Becausetherateatwhichclimatechangesisdramaticallyimportantforhowmuchdamageitdoes,becauseitaffectsourcapacitytoadapt,anditespeciallyaffectsnature'scapacitytoadapt.
Atthesametime,ifwehadapriceoncarbon,ifweweren'tallallowedtousetheatmosphereasafreesewer,thentheinventivegeniusofourindustrialfolks(andthey'rereallyquiteclever;theyjustneedincentives)toinventnon-carbon-basedalternativeswouldbestimulated.Aslongasthepriceofenergyremainssothatabottleofmineralwaterinthestorecoststhreetimesmorepergallonthangasolineatthepump,wehaven'tgotincentivesforthatkindofdevelopment.
SoIthinkthatyes,intheshortrun,wegotowardefficiency.Inthelongrun,wehavetodealwiththeoverallsizeandscaleofthehumanpopulation.Ithastostarttostabilize.Andwehavetobegintodevelopthosetechnologiesthathavemuchlessimpact.Butintheend,wecan'tkeepgrowingindefinitely,becausewewillrunoutofroomandwe'llrunoutofatmosphericcapacitytocontinuouslyabsorbourwastes.
ThereareU.S.Congressmenwhowouldsaythatit'snotfairbecauseitonlyinvolvesdevelopedcountriesandnotthedevelopingcountries;andsincethesecountrieswillbecomethemajoremittersinthenext20years,itdoesn'tmakesense.
ThecriticismI'veheardofKyotois,"It'snotfairtocountriesliketheU.S.orJapanbecausethedevelopingworldisleftout."Buttherearetwobigfactstoremember.Numberone,ifyoulookatallthecarbondioxidethat'sbeenemittedintotheatmosphereinthelast100years,80percentofitcamefromtherichcountries,only20percentfromthosepoorcountries.Andwehaveafactorof10ormorepercapitauseofthosefossilfuels.Sohowdareusaskthosegroups,whichhavehadaminorityshareintheproblem,toallofasuddenhaveanequalshareinthesolutionwhenthey'rerelativelyimpoverished,andweusethatverypollutiontogetrichWeobviouslyhavetotakethefirststeps--inanyworld,inanyethics,atleastthatIpersonallyshare.
Ontheotherhand,thathavingbeensaid,wecan'tleavethedevelopingworldoutverylong,becauseifonlytherichcountriesparticipate,thenwecan'tmakeaverybigdifference.Becausethebignumbersintermsofhowmuchjunkwe'regoingtothrowintheaircolumn,whenthenowdevelopingcountrieswithlargepopulationstartemittingatanywheresnearpercapitaratesthatwehave,wecan'tletthathappenunlesswe'relookingataquadruplingofCO2overthenextcenturyortwo,whichtomeisunacceptable.
Sowhatthatmeansis,wehavetobeginallowingthedevelopingworldtoleapfrogpasttheVictorianIndustrialRevolutiontonewtechnologies.Andthat'sgoingtoinvolvehavingtheminthegame.Butthey'renotevengoingtolistenunlesswehavetenyearstoshowthemthatwe'reserious,bytakingthefirststep.Andhowcansomebodywhocreated80percentoftheproblemnotberesponsiblefortakingthefirststepSothedevelopedworldhastopayforthis,you'resaying,initially
Thedevelopedworld(a)createdthebulkoftheproblem,and(b)hasthebulkoftheresourcestofixit.Obviously,ithastopayforitinitially.Andwe'regoingtobeinheritingthepollutionthatcomesfromChinaandIndiaandIndonesiaandsoforth,overthenextcentury.Soit'sinourintereststohelpthempickadevelopmentpaththat'sdifferentthantheonethatweused100yearsagotogettoourstatus,andnamelythat'sswitchingtowardmorehightechnologyandlesspollutingenergysystemsastheydevelop.TheotherargumentyouhearfromindustryisthattheU.S.economyistheeconomywhichdrivestheworld.It'sonethirdoftheworldeconomy.It'sthemainreasoneverything'sworking.AndifyouputataxonenergyoryoutryandtransferwealthfromtheUStodevelopingcountries,youthreatenthis.
Well,there'sbeenalotofspeciousnonsenseintheclimatechangedebate.AndoneoftheworstexaggerationsarethosepeoplewhosaythatKyotoprotocolandanyclimatepolicyisgoingtobankruptthewesterncountries.IactuallysawsomebodyhavethenerveinaDetroitnewspapertosaytheyweregoingtolose68,500jobs,whichisbelowthenoiselevelofhowmanyjobswillbecreatedthenextfewdecades.Thisispseudo-precisionifevertherewasany.Wehaven'tgotacluethatthat'sgoingtohappenatall.Theycompletelyneglectedthefactthatintheprocessofincreasingthepriceofconventionalenergy,thissendssignals,marketsignals,towholenewindustrieswhichspringuptodealwithefficiency.
Sowhatwe'rereallytalkingaboutisnotathreattotheeconomyatall.We'retalkingaboutathreattocertainindustriesandinterests.Andthat'sreal.IfIwereacoalminer,I'dbeveryworriedaboutclimatepolicy.Andthat'slegitimate.AndIthinkweasadecentsocietyhavetothinkabouttransitionstohelppeopleinthosepositions.Butthatdoesn'tmeanthattheoveralleconomyisgoingtobedamaged.
Theotherfactoris:Thisstuffcitedallthetimeabouthowexpensiveitis,forgetsthefactthatwe'renotgoingtohavetosolvetheproblemaloneintheU.S.orJapan;thatwecanlookaroundtheworldandfindthecheapestplacetoabatecarbon,anddothat;orwedon'thavetoabatecarbonbyjustdroppingfossilfuelinjectedCO2.Wecanreducemethaneornitrousoxide,whichwecandothroughagriculture.Andalotoftheinitialstepscanbedoneforfree.Infact,wecanmakemoneydoingit.
Andourowneconomiesarenotperfectlyefficient.Thisiswhat'scalledthe"noregretsmarketfailure".That'sthefancylingo,whichbasicallysayswedon'tallhavethebestmotors,thebestlightbulbs,themostefficientcarsandindustrialprocesses.We'renotperfect.Thattheindustrystandardiswayaheadoftheindustrypractice.Andtherefore,ifclimatepolicyforcedustobemoreefficient,weactuallywouldbereplacinginefficienttechnologieswithmoreefficientonesthatwouldcostuslessmoneytobuythemthanthemoneywe'resavinginfuels.
Sothereforeit'sutternonsensetoarguethatthere'ssomebankruptcyfromthewesterneconomiesfromtheKyotopolicies,becauseitmakesunrealisticassumptionsthatspecialinterestsjustkeeppushing,becausetheydon'twanttoseetheirindividualclientshurt.Andtherewillbeindividualclientsthatwillbehurt.Theotherthingtheysayisthatitwouldn'tmakeanydifferenceanyway.It'ssuchatrivialcontributiontothecarbonproblemthatitwouldbeoffsetinafewyears.
IfKyotoistheonlythingthathappens,itonlymakesa5ora10percentdifferenceonthetimeframeofacentury.NobodyrationalisarguingthatKyoto'stheonlythingthatshouldhappen.It'sstepone.Now,whathappensis,thedevelopedcountriesthatcreatedtheproblemtakesteponeandshowthatthey'reseriousandthey'rewillingtodosomethingaboutwhatthey'vecreated,andthatthey'resendingtherightsignaltothedevelopingworld.Nowsteptwoinvolvesgettingthedevelopingworldinandhelpingtosetupaninternationalsetofpartnershipsfortechnologytransferanddevelopment.That'sveryimportant.Andstepthreeis,intheprocessofdevelopingthesealternativetechnologies,whatyouthendois,youmakethefuturecheaper.
HowdoesthatworkWe'reexpectingtorunoutofoileventually.RightWe'vebeengoingup,up,up.TheU.S.hasalreadygoneoverthetopandimportsagoodfractionofitsoil.Well,thesamething'sgoingtohappenintheworld.We'regoingtogotothemaximumproductionsometimeshortlyaftertheturnofthecentury.Inthatcase,pricesaregoingtogoup.We'llhavetoswitchtoalternatives.Soifclimatepolicypushesusinthatdirectionanyway,itmeansthosealternatives,whentheycomeonline10-20-30yearsdowntheline,willcomeonlinecheaperthanifwewaittillthentoneedthem,becausewe'llhaveputtheresearcheffortnow.Sowhatthatmeansisthatwemakethefuturecheaperinthelongrunandhavelessdisruptionthen,bythesekindsofpolicies.
Sowhatwearedoingis,we'respendingalittlebitofapremiumupfrontinordertohaveenvironmentalpollutionreducedandinordertohaveasafer,moreviableandsustainablesetoftechnologiesinthefuture.Thequestionis:IsthisgenerationwillingtomakeaninvestmentinthefutureAndIthinktheanswerisyes,butonlywhenpeoplearen'tconfusedbythatbafflingdebatewherethe"endoftheworld"andthe"goodforyou"typesareconstantlygettingattentiononandoffinthepoliticalandthemediadebate.Youtalkaboutspeciousnonsensefromindustry.Onthegreenside,I'veinterviewedpeoplefromenvironmentalgroupswho'vesaidtheydon'tlikecoal,theydon'tmuchlikegas,theydon'tlikeoil,theydon'tlikenuclear,theydon'tlikehydro.Andwithastraightface,they'llsaytheworld'senergycanbesuppliedfromsolarandwindandbiomass.
Theworld'senergysystemisgoingtohavetobemixed.Wecan'tjusthaveonekind.TherewasareportalongtimeagocalledATimeToChoose.Well,wedon'twanttochooseone.Wewanttochoosealot.There'saconceptineconomicscalledthemarginaldollar.WheredoIinvestmynextmarginaldollarWell,thefirstthingIdois,IsplititintosmallchangeandIinvestinalotofthings,becauseit'snotclearwhatthepriceofallthesealternativesaregoingtobeuntilwestartinventingthem.Whatwasthepriceofcomputersandtheirabilitywhenwefirststarteddistributingthemwidely,20yearsagoPriceswerehigh.Capabilitywaslow.Nowthepricesareinfinitesimalintermsofthecapability,relativetowhatwehadbefore.
Thesamekindofthingcouldbeexpectedtohappeninenergyandinotherkindsofindustries.Butyouhavetohaveexperience.Theeconomistscallitlearningbydoing.Now,howdoyoulearnbydoingYougottodo.Andyou'renotgoingtodoifthere'snotanincentivetostart.Sothat'stheroleofgovernment:tohelpprovidethoseincentives,togetthesefledglingandalternativetechnologiesthepracticeandexperiencesothatwecanbegintogetthepricesdown,getthebugsworkedout,ratherthantowaittillwehaveanabsolutecertaincrisis,andthenwegointocrisismodeandwehaveterribledislocation.
BestanalogyIhaveis:WhenOPEC(forpoliticalreasons,notforenvironmentalreasons)dramaticallyraisedthepriceofoilin1973,well,thiswasverydisruptivetotheworldeconomy.PeopleliterallydiedinIndiaandPakistanbecauseitcoincidedwiththedrought,andthepriceoffertilizerskyrocketedatthesametimethedroughtsoccurred.Whatwelearnedinthatwastwothings.Oneis,youcan'thaveradicalpricerisesinashortperiodoftime.Thatreallydoeshurttheeconomy.It'sthesteepness.Thesecondthingwelearnedisthatoverthenexttenyearstherateofenergyefficiencyimprovement,insteadofcreepingalongat1percentefficiencyimprovementperyear,tookadramaticjump,wentupafactorofseveralabovethat,becausethepricewashighandpeoplehadanincentivetoinventmoreefficienttechnologies.
Soifwecontinuetohaveanartificiallydepressedpriceofenergy(whichisespeciallytrueinChina,it'strueintheU.S.andinotherplaceswheretheydon'tchargethefullpriceforthedamagesthatourcurrentenergycreate),thenwedon'thavetheincentivestodevelopthealternatives.Andwithoutincentives,howcanweexpectindustriestogetthe"learningbydoing"experiencethatweneedinordertohavethesetechnologiescomeonlinecheaperandmoreefficientlyoverthenextfewdecadesClearly,newtechnologiesareboundedbythelawsofphysics.ManyenergypeopleI'vespokentocanneverimaginetheso-callednewrenewablesbeingabigplayers.Aswegoforward,wehavethesituationwhereitseemstogetlesslikelythatKyotoisratified.Andsomethingsarehappening,liketheshuttingdownofnuclearplantsandlargehydroplants,whichseemtoindicategoingbackwards.Whatareyourviewsonthis
Thefirstmajorthingtodoistogetefficiencyimproved.Wearenotanywheresnearasefficientaswecouldbe.Theengineeringcapabilitiesarewayaheadofthestateoftheart.That'sstepone.Steptwoistoseetoitthatthedevelopingworlddoesn'tpickthewrongbranchpoint.Chinadoesn'thavetopickthecoalbranch.Itcangogas.AndtheefficiencyinChina,India,placeslikethat,arevastlylowerthanitishere,andwe'realreadyafactoroftwolowerthanJapan.ButChinawouldhavetoimportgasifitusedgas,andsowouldIndia,whichwouldbeexpensiveforthem.Itwouldcutbacktheirchanceofdeveloping.
Partoftheproblemwehaveisgeopolitics.There'smorethanenoughgasinRussiatodealwithlotsofneedsforChina.ButifIwereChinese,wouldItrusttheRussianswithmyindustrialjugular,havingthegaspipelineProbablyonlyiftherewereinternationalguaranteesinthepipeline.Sonowwe'relookingatasituationwhereweendup,becauseofhistoricalanimositiesanddistrusts,pickingsub-optimalstrategiesforenergybecausewehaven'tgotagoodglobalgeopoliticalstrategy.Andwhatthatmeansisthatweneedtosetupinternationalguarantees,justlikewehavepeacekeepingforces.
PresidentCarteroncesaidthatenergywasthemoralequivalentofwar.Well,hewasprovedrightinthePersianGulfWarmanyyearslater.AndIthinkthatwe'llagainbeseeingthat.Andoneofthethingsthatwecoulddois,wecansetupinternationalguaranteesfortrade,sothatRussia,whocouldsureusetheforeignexchange,couldsellgastoChina,whowouldcertainlyliketocuttheairpollutioninBeijing.Andthere'saperfectbargainwaitingtomade,ifonlysomebodycouldwatchthepipelineandhaveeverybodyassuredthatitwouldbeaviablealternative.
Sowhilethetechnologiesthatwe'regoingtoseeintheforeseeablefuturearenotgoingtostopusfromprobablydoublingCO2,whynotdelayittillatleasttheendofthenextcenturyAndlet'sholdittoadoublingandnotgotothequadruplingthatwe'regoingtoseebythemiddleofthecenturyafterthat,withbusinessasusual.Wecan'tpreventsomeclimatechange,somedamages,butwesurecanslowtheamountandtherate.Andthat'sveryimportant.Butintheend,ifwedon'tcontrolthenumberofpeopleintheworldandstartbecomingsatisfiedwithstandardoflivingthatwillbehigherthannowbutnotgrowingveryrapidly,thenwewillnotbeabletogoonindefinitelywithouthavingclimaticorotherconsequencestodealwithinthelong-termfuture.WhathappensifKyotoisn'tratifiedAreyoustilloptimistic
Kyotohadtwocriticalelements,whichwillbetrueinanyagreement,whetherKyotoisratifiedornot.ElementA:Youcan'tsolveaproblem[oftheglobalcommons]byyourself.Individuals,firms,andcountriescan'tdoit.Ittakescountriesworkingtogether.Ittakesaninternationalrule.That'snotatrivialaccomplishment.
Thesecondaccomplishmentisthatthepeoplewhodidmostofthedamageandhavemostofthewealthhavetotaketheinitialsteps.Sowe'redealingwithacombination.Foreffectiveness,youneedtohaveaplanetaryscaleoperation.Andforequityandfairness,youneedtohavedifferentiated(astheycallit)responsibilitiesastowhopays.Ithinkthosearegoingtobetheprinciplesofanyagreementthattakesplaceinthefuture.
AndifKyotodoesn'thappennow,severalyearsfromnowastheclimatecontinuestodriftup,asthesuper-hurricaneshappen,aspeople'spoliticschanges,asspeciesextinctionsbecomemoreandmoreinthenewsandpeoplebecomeawareofthem,therewillagainbedemandsforinternationalregimes,andwewon'thavetore-inventthem.We'llbeabletobuildfromKyoto.Soevenifitgoesdown,it'sdoneitsjobofgettingtwoimportantprinciplesoutinfrontoftheglobalcommunityandacceptedbythevastbulkofthenationsoftheworld.Whyaren'tCongressmenmorereceptivetothisnow
Congressoperatesonthebasisofshort-terminterests.Theyworryaboutconstituentsbackhome.Andthere'samythologyinAmericathatwe'reentitledtoabsolutelycheapenergyfortheindefinitefuture.Andthat'sgottenusinalotofproblems:airpollution,acidrain,balanceofpaymentsdeficits,andnowclimatechange.Andinordertogetunhookedfromouraddictiontothiskindofcheapenergy,willinvolvetransitions.Andthosetransitionscanhavesomepain.Now,whatpoliticianeverwantspainnow,ifthatpaincangetstalleduntilthenextelectedpersoninthefutureAndtherearesomepoliticianslikethat,buttherearen'ttoomany.Andasaresultofthat,it'sveryeasyandconvenienttosay,"Oh,well,nonewtaxes."
ButwhenyoureadthepollsintheUS,mostpeoplebelievethattheywanttohaveeducatedpopulace,theybelievetheywanttohaveacleanenvironment,andthey'rewillingtopayforit.Ithinkthepoliticiansareover-estimatingthebacklashtheythinkthey'regoingtogetfrompeople.Ithinkthebacklashisgoingtobebiggerwhentheproblemsdescendonusinthefutureandtheysay,"Whydidn'tyoufixitwhenyouknewyouhadtime"