Peak Indifference

Writer Cory Doctorow coined the term "peak indifference" for the moment where activists no longer have to convince others of the reality of a problem and need to switch over to convincing people it's not to late to do anything about it.  Friend and fellow writer Clive Thompson in Wired writes that we are at that point with climate change given the recent polling data due concern about weather related disasters.

As a society, we tend to be indifferent to slow growing problems, but wake up when they perceive it as a current crisis.  The indifference reached its peak and panic begins to replace it.  The big problem becomes the negativity that can quickly set in after such a long period of indifference -- It’s too late. We missed our chance to take action.   This is the despair I wrote about in my post Stop Self Shaming; Don't Despair; Fight Instead.

Clive Thompson elaborates:

That means the current political moment is incredibly interesting. Anyone who wants to deal with climate change may have only a brief window to sell the public on a plan. In his new book The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming, the writer David Wallace-­Wells talks about the value of panic to pushing collective action; Doctorow says it’s the point “where you divert your energy from convincing people there’s a problem to convincing them there’s a solution.”

This is the reason for the Hot Green Carrots blog, to convince the public there are solutions to global warming now at hand, we only need to help.  But the time is critical and the message needs to be clear, as Thompson notes (emphasis mine):

...the Yale survey question about the Green New Deal was vague and upbeat, and didn’t pose the tough-to-sell policy specifics ... or financial costs that the public might dislike. And even people terrified about climate change don’t always agree on what policies to pursue. But the Sunrise activists, and all of us who want action on this, have to push hard now. It’s only when you reach the peak that you can see where you need to go.

This was the message I conveyed in a different way in the post The New Debate.   It is fortuitous that the new upsurge in public concern is happening at a time when solutions are starting to take shape, tangible solutions we can show people, ones that they will agree to.

What worries me most is psychology, the human brain's often irrational behavior.  I fear taking advantage of "panic,"  of overstating the current disasters, of pushing peoples' crisis buttons too hard.  The other side can find other buttons to push.   It happens all too often in politics.

Global Warming Discussion

This week I held my first global warming discussion group meeting.  It came off pretty much as I expected.  We agreed on much and disagreed on other things. We have much to learn and much to share.  We managed to learn a lot from each other, and I got plenty of ideas for future blog posts.  All in all, it was a highly successful discussion.

Common ground included the belief that action is urgently needed.  What forms the action should take and how the methods get started are still vague in our minds, particularly how to convince the vast majority in the middle (80% of the population?) that action is needed now.  Questions abound as to what to do.  How much do we have to convince individuals to change their ways and how much do we need to focus on electing the right leaders?  How much can individuals acting alone to reduce their personal carbon footprint?  Is the cost worth it when others don't follow suit?  How do we get industry to do their part without government regulation?  There are no easy answers, of course, which means we have lots of work to do, so much to discuss.

Details, details, details. In any discussion it is easy to get sidetracked and bogged down in the minor details and peripheral issues. Global warming and its solutions are no exceptions.  Whole books are written which only scratch the surface, leaving out tons of detail information.  A face-to-face discussion doesn't have a book's relative luxury of depth.  Although often interesting, the excursions into more minor points should be kept from overwhelming the big picture when having a discussion.

Quite often I hear an interview where the word "conversation" is used.  Some social topic is often framed with something like, "We need to have a conversation about ....."   Global warming is a social issue.  It needs more conversation.

Such discussions, if carried out throughout the country, could be a starting point of a grass roots movement toward the economic and social policies needed to avert disaster. Consider starting your own periodic discussion group.

Carbon Price Tag

How should we price carbon dioxide emissions?

Americans emit 6 gigatons of CO2 each year, about 20 tons¹ per person.  Most of that is from the energy industry, which accounts for about $1 trillion a year, or about 5% of GDP.  If we spent just 20% of that amount, $200 billion a year, for carbon emission reduction, would that be acceptable?  Would the average person pay $625 per year?

$625 per year would be $31.25 per year per ton of CO2.  That value is roughly in the middle of most carbon taxes and carbon offset programs.  Cap and trade² numbers come in a bit lower.

In terms of gasoline, that $31.25/ton would be about 28 cents per gallon.  Not very much, not enough to make people stop driving.  But what it could do is generate revenue to fund carbon emission projects like wind and solar farms, subsidize hybrid and electric vehicles, and cut costs of energy efficient products.

The social cost of carbon (SCC), the additional cost to the economy of an extra ton of CO2 in the atmosphere if the "business as usual" (BAU) path is followed, is another measure of the price of carbon.  One estimate in 2015 put the cost at $31.20/tCO2. Another study, in 2019, put the average cost of multiple studies at $54.70. The idea behind SCC is that it is better to spend the money to avoid warming than to build a pool of money to pay for damages.  Naturally, it does not include the incalculable costs of the loss of human life, lower quality of life, and the extinction of species.

Of course, how that dollar amount per ton is spent toward abatement, that is what it goes toward, determines the true cost for a given ton.  In other words, not all tons are equal.  For example, replacing regular light bulbs with LED bulbs saves the consumer money over the life of the bulb -- the emissions reduction has a negative cost.  On the other hand, carbon capture and sequestration (CSS) schemes are very expensive.  The chart below shows the marginal cost of many of the actions to reduce emissions, sorted by price. Width of individual bars shows total gigatons saved.

Source: McKinsey & Company

Notice in the chart that the "no brainer" measures total less than 20 Gt of CO2. One can expect this low hanging fruit to be among the first actions to be taken.  As 2030 comes and we proceed further, the focus will turn to the more expensive abatement efforts, ones that come with fewer options.   We can hope that the global warming science will be more convincing by then and the political will to spend money will come easier.

We've briefly explored what is a reasonably painless expenditure, the cost of doing business as usual, and the actual cost of various emission mitigation measures.  We could dig deeper to come up with a definitive single value for the carbon price tag, but the many uncertainties and estimations would still leave large room for error.

So how do we use a number like $32.50 per ton of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere?  How can we apply it to our personal expenditures and societies expenditures in the fight against global warming?  Here's the best answer I can come up with, from the World Bank:

The World Bank Group, together with the OECD and with input from the IMF, set up the FASTER Principles. The FASTER principles are: F for fairness, A for alignment of policies and objectives, S for stability and predictability, T for transparency, E for efficiency and cost-effectiveness, and R for reliability and environmental integrity. The research draws on over a decade of experiences with carbon pricing initiatives around the world. It points to what has been learned to date: a well-designed carbon pricing initiative is a powerful and flexible tool that can cut GHG emissions, and if adequately designed and implemented, it can play a key role in enhancing innovation and smoothing the transition to a prosperous, low-carbon global economy.  -- link

I will continue to explore the cost of carbon in future posts.  The economics of preventing global warming is the heart of the debate.  It's not a fixed cost or one easily determined.  There will much disagreement on both sides.  Coming to a compromise on the price to be paid is the essence of the politics of global warming.

Stop Self Shaming; Don't Despair; Fight Instead

There's no denying it.  Unless you are a native living deep in the Amazon jungle, your carbon footprint is probably pretty large.  Too large.  Everything you buy, eat, wear, or travel on involves a lot of carbon dioxide producing fossil fuels.  But it's not your fault, at least not as an individual.

It is a guilt that is misplaced.  This guilt drives some to reduce their carbon footprint, expending large sums of personal time, money, and emotional energy.   Some of those valuable resources are best channeled elsewhere.

Mary Annaise Heglar, writing in Vox, says:

The belief that this enormous, existential problem could have been fixed if all of us had just tweaked our consumptive habits is not only preposterous; it’s dangerous. It turns environmentalism into an individual choice defined as sin or virtue, convicting those who don’t or can’t uphold these ethics. When you consider that the same IPCC report outlined that the vast majority of global greenhouse gas emissions come from just a handful of corporations — aided and abetted by the world’s most powerful governments, including the US — it’s victim blaming, plain and simple.

When people come to me and confess their green sins, as if I were some sort of eco-nun, I want to tell them they are carrying the guilt of the oil and gas industry’s crimes. That the weight of our sickly planet is too much for any one person to shoulder. And that that blame paves the road to apathy, which can really seal our doom.

She goes on to say consumer actions aren't enough, that people need to fight the corporations and elect the right leaders then hold their feet to the fire. "[T]he more we focus on individual action and neglect systemic change, the more we’re just sweeping leaves on a windy day. So while personal actions can be meaningful starting points, they can also be dangerous stopping points."

You can take yourself off the streets and highways and take the bus.  Your personal carbon footprint will go down a bit.  Good for you!  But someone else may decide the bus is too full and take your place driving the road.  It's a zero sum game. It's the tragedy of the commons at play.

You may take solace that you are contributing tons less of carbon dioxide each year.  Satisfied you did your part, that's the end of your efforts.  Meanwhile, the bus still runs on diesel oil, your electrical utility still burns coal and natural gas, and the factories, farms, and delivery trucks that give you the products you buy are still using fossil fuels.

You may despair that it looks like so few of your fellow citizens are following your admirable example.  You are correct that few are following, but wrong to despair.  You need to join the bigger fight, the one against the bigger picture.

We need to fight the causes, not treat the symptoms.  The IPPC has said we really must be on the path to a carbon-free economy by 2030.  Systemic changes need to happen quickly, not wait for consumers to slowly "send a message."   We need to elect officials that are willing to enact legislation, regulations, and rules to switch us away from the causes of increasing atmospheric CO2.  Let them know if they do not come up with the new laws every session, every year, that you will vote for someone who will.   Write them.  And while you are at it, write to corporations and tell them what they should do, how you plan to spend your money.  Join a protest march.  If you have money you want to spend to reduce emissions, contribute to where it will do the most good.   It could could go to an activist organization, to a new hybrid or plug-in electric car, to solar panels on your roof, or to buy good carbon offsets.  Do your homework, do the math, make your money do the most good.