The World Is Not Going To Meet The Necessary Emission Reductions — Even A Green New Deal Won’t Make A Difference

The Developing World Is Increasing Emissions At Such A Rate That Any Emission Reduction By The Developed World Will Be Offset — It’s Time For A Plan B

Writer H. L. Mencken once said, “… there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” For climate change that well-known but wrong idea is that the world can meaningfully reduce emissions by switching from fossil fuels to renewables in the required timeframe. The Green New Deal is the epitome of this approach. It is an ambitious plan which proposes to spend trillions of dollars to convert our economy to renewables and have the country reach net zero emissions by 2030. It sounds good — it feels good — but if you look at the numbers and the reality of the global situation, it’s simply the wrong approach. And it’s not just that the Green New Deal rejects some more cost effective ways to transition to zero emissions like carbon taxes — the very idea that climate change can be averted by switching to renewables is sadly misguided.

Even if we imagined that the political will could be found in both the United States and the European Union to spend trillions on a Green New Deal, and we made the somewhat generous assumption that these plans would be successful in achieving net zero emissions by 2030, it would really have no meaningful impact on global carbon emissions. The rapidly industrializing developing world is increasing emissions at such a rate that even if the US and the EU achieved zero emissions by 2030, it would be entirely offset.

Spending trillions to limit emissions by transitioning to renewables only makes sense in a scenario where the developing world is also lowering their emissions. Sadly, the developing world has neither the resources for a tremendously expensive Green New Deal type program, or the ability to sacrifice economic growth to limit carbon emissions. In fact, despite the great hype that is given to renewable projects in India and China, the truth is that the developing world has made it clear that they have no plans to reduce emissions. Currently the developing world — led by China and their One Belt One Road Infrastructure program — is doubling down on coal power plants.

This is the reason that a Green New Deal won’t make a difference — in fact it is arguably worse than doing nothing — because although it will take a substantial amount of our limited time and resources even if wildly successful the Green New Deal offers no hope of preventing a rise in cumulative global CO2. In the best-case scenario, the United States would find itself with fewer resources, higher global CO2 levels, and less time to actually reverse climate change. The world needs to face the reality that it would be difficult for the developed world to transition to renewables in the required timeframe, but it is frankly implausible that the developing world can do so. We must spend our resources on a plan that at least attempts to solve the problem.

The Timeframe to Eliminate Emissions

The 2018 IPCC Report makes it abundantly clear that the world is almost out of time to reduce emissions. Senior fellow at the Brookings Institute, Dr. Nathan Hultman, explains the key point of the report:

The study estimates that global emissions of greenhouse gases need to drop by 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030 to stay on a 1.5 degrees path. Given dramatic recent increases in emissions, is equivalent to roughly 60 percent drop from today’s levels, in 12 years.

The IPCC clearly makes the case that time is short and global emissions need to fall dramatically by 2030. The graph below illustrates the massive changes that need to take place in a short time to limit warning to either 1.5C or 2.0 C.

Would a successful Green New Deal offer hope that global emissions will fall 33–60% by 2030 if only we can find the political will to spend the trillions needed to convert our economy to renewables? Sadly, it doesn’t. It wouldn’t even decrease annual global emissions from current levels.

A Global View Of CO2 Emissions

How is that possible? Because while the US per capita carbon footprint is significant, the total US contribution to global emissions is not sufficient to move the needle — and this is true even if we imagined that the European Union simultaneously cut its emissions to zero as well.

This is even more apparent when the trends are taken into account. The US and Europe’s emissions have been fairly stable for almost fifty years relative to emissions by Asia and the Middle East which are quickly industrializing. (If you’re wondering what happened to Europe (other) in 1990 to bring down carbon emissions, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union).

Even if the US and Europe went carbon neutral in the next 10 years — this would be totally offset by increases from the rest of the developing world — mostly in Asia.

If both the United States and the European Union both find the political will to implement aggressive Green New Deal proposals immediately, this would not decrease CO2 emissions by a third on the way to zero global emission by 2070. It would stabilize emissions (at our already high rate globally) for ten years and then emissions would start increasing again once we had reached zero.

What this means from the larger global perspective, is that the amount of accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere under a Green New Deal is almost entirely unchanged.

The Current Global Response

For a plan to be meaningful on a global scale, the increases from rapidly industrializing Asia need to be addressed in a meaningful way. Admittedly, the projections used in the preceding graphs for the rest of the world’s future emissions are merely linear extrapolations. But looking at the Paris Agreement pledges from China, India, and Russia they, like the other developing countries, have only proposed continuing a linear increase in their annual emissions. In fact, their pledged future emission levels are typically above where emissions would be without making any changes.

At Paris all the developing nations essentially promised to only increase emissions at the same rate they had been increasing before.

And China only pledged to continue expanding at the expected rate within China. Since 2013, as part of China’s One Belt One Road (OBR) infrastructure plan, China has begun building hundreds of coal power plants across Eurasia. If anything, all the Chinese money pouring into infrastructure projects are likely to speed industrialization and emissions in Africa and the rest of Eurasia well above projections. The New York Times reported on the massive scale of China’s in-progress expansion of coal plants:

Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries… The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord, which aims to keep the increase in global temperatures from preindustrial levels below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. (emphasis added)

Even in the developed world, none of the major industrialized nations are implementing the policies they had envisioned and not have met their pledged emission reduction targets. But crucially even if they had the sum of all member pledges would not keep global temperature rise below 2°C.

Realistically it impossible for the developing world to go carbon neutral with a Green New Deal type plan in the foreseeable future. Certainly not in any timeframe that would make a difference. Countries like India and China need to maintain strong economic growth and rising standards of living to maintain political stability. While the west could perhaps tighten our belts and accept the tradeoff of a weaker economy to reduce carbon emissions, such policies would be political suicide in the developing world. Authoritarian China might seem uniquely capable of enacting such a plan, but in reality China is forced to maintain economic growth to retain political legitimacy. Even in the West, efforts like Trudeau’s carbon tax has faced massive political backlash. Macron’s attempt in France to raise the cost of fuel to limit emissions was met by (still ongoing) protests with the chant “you care about the end of the world, we care about the end of the month”. And this is in the relatively well-off developed world.

Regardless of the costs from higher temperatures these countries might save in the future by acting now, in the developing world actions that lower economic growth come with a body count. It is simply inconceivable that developing countries like India and China — where many are still desperately impoverished — would or even could spend trillions and trillions of dollars and slow their economic growth to industrialize in a green way.

The Current State of Renewables

The cost of renewable technology has fallen significantly over the decades. In some areas with favorable local conditions renewables can already be cost effective. This is an amazing achievement. But, not all areas have favorable conditions, and as solar or wind become an increasing part of the energy supply the need for energy storage to balance the supply means that increasingly the cost of renewables with energy storage needs to be cost effective for the developing world to transition. A goal which is impossible in the timeframe required — remember that emissions need to fall drastically by 2030 (ten years from now) and that it takes years to build infrastructure projects a fraction of the scale of what would be needed.

And while fossil fuels have negative externalities, they are substantially cheaper than renewables. When you hear about the growth of renewables or the falling costs of solar — it’s all technically true. But it masks how small of a part of the world energy production they really are, and how often total energy production is often rising faster than renewable energy production.

Time For Plan B

The bottom line is that even in the developed world which could hypothetically bear the cost, it is unlikely that we could find the political will to do so in the required timeframe.

Even if a candidate who fervently supports the Green New Deal wins the general election, and in a more unlikely turn of events, the Democrats narrowly take the senate (possible but very unlikely because of which seats are up for reelection this year) it would be a miracle if something like a Green New Deal could pass the narrowly held senate in the United States. Remember again that these changes need to be finished in 10 years, not begun in 10 years.

And while Europe has some aggressive plans to cut emissions as part of the Paris Accord, they do not plan to cut to zero. Besides, they are not on track to meet their existing goals. In fact, the continent’s decision to shut down existing nuclear plants will make it very difficult for Europe moving forward.

And of course, as we have shown, even if through a miracle the United States and Europe both reached zero emissions by 2030 it would be entirely offset by increases from the rest of the developing world. Coal plants and coal mines are currently under construction that will offset any possible emission reductions from the developed world.

If you agree with the IPCC that 33–60% emission reductions are needed by 2030, then it is clear that a Plan B is now desperately needed.

This fact is becoming clear — as is the only alternative Plan B. The Los Angeles Times reported a few months ago that:

Research suggests that it may already be too late to meet the goals of the Paris climate accord — limiting warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures — solely by cutting emissions. There are various approaches that could help, each with its own risks and benefits, and they fall into two distinct categories: removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reducing how much energy the Earth absorbs from the sun.

We have now reached the point that geoengineering is the only method that can buy us the time needed for renewables to become cost effective enough that the developing world can and will transition to them willingly.

Even the 2018 IPCC report acknowledges the potential need for such geoengineering:

“If mitigation efforts do not keep global mean temperature below 1.5C, solar radiation modification can potentially reduce the climate impacts of a temporary temperature overshoot, in particular extreme temperatures, rate of sea level rise and intensity of tropical cyclones, alongside intense mitigation and adaptation efforts,” the report observes.

And while you might think that geoengineering is only pushed by those who want to avoid transitioning to renewables, as it has become more and more apparent that the world has run out of time, some of the world’s top climate scientists have embraced geoengineering. With the failure of the Paris Accords to make any meaningful pledges, some top scientists have made the case that geoengineering is now the only possible way forward (and this was even before the U.S left the Paris Accord). As reported in The Independent:

In a joint letter to The Independent, some of the world’s top climate scientists launch a blistering attack on the deal [The Paris Accord], warning that it offers “false hope” that could ultimately prove to be counterproductive in the battle to curb global warming. The scientists, who also include University of California professor James Kennett, argues that “deadly flaws” in the deal struck in the French capital last month mean it gives the impression that global warming is now being properly addressed when in fact the measures fall woefully short of what is needed to avoid runaway climate change. Because of the Paris failure, the academics say the world’s only chance of saving itself from rampant global warming is a giant push into controversial and largely untested geo-engineering technologies that seek to cool the planet by manipulating the Earth’s climate system. (emphasis added)

The Good News

There is some good news though. Geoengineering is cheap (really cheap), practical (The global shipping industry has been unwittingly been doing geoengineering for decades which has offset a substantial amount of emissions), and geoengineering doesn’t require global buy-in to be successful.

Moreover, if you’re lamenting that the world has been unable to find the political will to make the transition to renewables — think of the great human cost that geoengineering saves. Billions have been pulled out of abject poverty through the industrialization of the developed world. If some climate accord had been successful in getting the developing world to limit emissions, it would have had a tremendous human cost because it would have slowed that industrialization. Using geoengineering to buy time for renewables to be transitioned to as they become cost effective is perhaps more risky than hypothetical emission reductions — but it is the only way that wouldn’t have impoverished billions and starved millions.

Conclusion

Renewables are getting cheaper and cheaper — but it is clear that they will not be cost effective within the timeframes required. And while the developed world like the United States and the EU could attempt to reduce emissions through some tremendously expensive Green New Deal, the toothless Paris Accords and the Chinese One Belt One Road infrastructure plan make it clear that the developing world is certainly unwilling, and arguably unable to bear what would be a staggering economic and human cost to limit emissions with the current state of renewable technology.

Rather than wasting an incredible amount of time and resources to transition to renewables in the developed world — which will be offset by growth in the developing world — resources should be put in the research and development of battery technology, carbon capture technology, and geoengineering. It is time that we recognize how inconceivable it is to continue to argue that China, India, and the rest of the developing world is about (literally in the next decade) to sacrifice economic growth to transition to renewables which are not yet cost effective. Frankly, anyone who believes otherwise is a reality denier.