Confused by the news? Understanding all this climate change talk
Global Warming. Kyoto Protocol. Cap and Trade. Carbon Footprint. EPA Greenhouse Gases. What do they mean and what are the implications for business?
It is helpful to categorize the various topics to understand what is happening:
- The science
- United Nations
- U.S. legislation
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation
The science is central to any discussion of these issues. Is global warming happening? And, more importantly, are we having a significant influence on climate change? Much of the current research points to carbon-based emissions, such as the CO2 released when burning any fossil fuels, including coal or natural gas, as causing the temperature on earth to increase. The resulting climate change can have negative impacts on humans and the environment.
According to popular belief, the answer to both science questions is, yes. However, the recent hacking into the British climate research center e-mails raises doubts as to whether or not data has been manipulated and contrary research suppressed.
The United Nations hosted its first convention on climate change in 1997 and issued the Kyoto Protocol aimed at combating global warming. Under the protocol, 37 industrialized countries committed to a reduction in greenhouse gases. The United States did not sign this agreement. The UN convention in Copenhagen went much further with attempts to limit greenhouse gases and to add provisions to have industrialized countries provide up to $100 billion to developing countries to aid their emissions control efforts.
It is expected that President Obama will propose a plan for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020 compared to 2005 and by as much as 83% by 2050 and to provide funding.
- Making the commitments may be the easy part, but some of the difficult questions are:
- Do we have a good measure of emissions in the U.S. and around the world?
Can we achieve these goals? - What agency will monitor all of the countries to make sure they also will comply with any U.N. agreement?
The U.S. House passed “Cap and Trade” legislation last summer. The legislation sets a limit or cap on the amount of CO2 that can be emitted in aggregate in the U.S. Companies are then allocated units of CO2 that can be released into the atmosphere. For example, a utility company may be granted 1,000 units of carbon emission. Based on the pollution control equipment in place, they may only be emitting 800 units. The company is then free to sell or trade the additional unused credits. Companies that pollute more than allowed may buy the units from the utility company. The bill passed in the house requires a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 compared to 2005 and 80% by 2050.
There are again questions about the availability of technology to accurately measure carbon emissions. There are definitely issues concerning how the carbon credits will be allocated to all sectors of the economy. It is interesting to note that a British steel company recently shut down operations because they found they would be more profitable selling their carbon units in the market (in Britain cap and trade is operating) than producing and selling steel.
In early December, the Environmental Protection Agency declared CO2 emissions harmful to human health. As a result, the agency is in a position to regulate the amount of CO2 companies can emit. Is this an attempt to force Congress to pass Cap and Trade legislation or will the EPA indirectly force companies to limit emissions regardless of legislation?
There is a great deal of uncertainty regarding all of these issues. However, there are certainly indications of what the impact will be on business.
- Companies will be pressured, if not forced, to limit carbon emissions.
- There will be industry disruptions. The House Cap and Trade legislation provides for up to 156 weeks of income supplement for workers displaced as a result of this legislation.
- There will be tax incentives to conserve energy.
- There will be tax incentives for “green energy” technology development.
- The EPA will set new energy efficiency standards and may set emission standards.
- There will be continuing pressures to develop renewable energy sources.
The question is not if greenhouse gas emission controls will be established, it is a question of when and how stringent. If we start with the basic premise that global warming is occurring and that we must reverse that trend, then I ask you to consider: If the earth is too warm now, what is the right temperature?
David Mielke is dean of Eastern Michigan University’s College of Business and a leader of SPARK East, a start-up business incubator in downtown Ypsilanti. He can be reached at dmielke@emich.edu.
Comments
shepard145
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 5:23 p.m.
This is one of the very few published pieces I've seen that gently questions the 'human controlled global weather' fraud. While he still has the warming part wrong - the earth has now been cooling for a decade, not warming, clearly Mr Mielke is not on the government's payoff list for hundreds of millions of our tax dollars in the form of grants to those who keep the scam alive. Undeterred, obama and his democrat stooges still hope to take control over our livelihoods and personal lives with the biggest political power grab in American history - whether directly or through their warped proxies. The "new EPA" under obama has been handed control of the United States economy - more nice work. The news media, long invested in this nonsense, continues to ignore the truth but at least some rational thought is squeaking past the editor's desk by those who know better (virtually everyone).
Knick
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 3:56 p.m.
No one ever focuses on the relevant science that is not in dispute. Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not. This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn't factored into an analysis of Earth's greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one. Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. By calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution (adjusted by including water vapor) to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The liars in the political/science orchastrated hysteria band know this so they simply exclude water vapor as a "green house gas"
WRTurner
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 2:05 p.m.
Whether you believe in man made global warming or not, the bottom line is all these regulations and carbon trading they wish to impose will, according to the Obama EPA, have virtually no effect. In other words, we will bankrupt our country and it really won't have done a thing to help. Will the rest of the world like us more? No, the rest of the world is mostly run by authoritarian regimes who hate the US because we are a democratic republic and an inspiration to the cause of freedom, rather counter to an authoritarian's wish for continued power. So, what is the benefit of cap and trade style regulations? Good question.
llspier
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 12:02 p.m.
It appears the emails under question were NOT hacked.. this was a whistle-blower who first attempted to get the news media interested in the obvious fact that climate change data had been 'massaged', altered and 'disappeared' to meet the needs of a political agenda. It doesnt take a scientist to understand the implications-several scientists have already explained what data is missing and how all other studies were based on manipulated data. Russia wants an explanation why ALL of the Siberian data is not included.The fact is, much of the financial world is already heavily involved in carbon trading. So are several states. If the truth were known, its a good bet that much of the TARP funds went into this "Huge returns!! - Cant Fail!!" buy-in opportunity. It's a market scam based on charging business and, ultimately the taxpayer-consumer for AIR. With this scam, big business actually gets PAID to off-shore industry and pollute with impunity.. in the third world, not here! This works exactly like the old pollution credits scam where I get to pollute the water HERE if I force the poorer property owner to lose the use of his property upstream to make up for my pollution down here. We are already seeing the effects of this in higher energy costs. I suspect that's why there is absolutely NO effort to encourage any industry other than so-called 'green' industry in this state-to the detriment of any sort of recovery. WE are ALL being injured by this scam!
ChelseaBob
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 9:22 a.m.
First, the science on global warming is not conclusive. In fact, the temperature trend over the last 10 years has been downward (hence the coversion to "climate change"). Whether you believe it or not, however, the net result of all of the olitical efforts will simply be to export pollution (CO2 or otherwise) to developing nations like China and India. There will be no reduction of greenhouse gases worldwide. If you observe what has happened with the heavy polluting industries like mining, refining and chemicals, you will observe that pollution was exported with those industries (along with their jobs) to the developing nations, where there are few or no real pollution controls. Overall pollution has increased, and while you can't see the pollution here in the U.S., our water and air is becoming more and more fouled.
Technojunkie
Sun, Jan 3, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.
Cap and Trade is a scam to enrich Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and various other parasites. If you really buy into this business of CO2 being a pollutant, the simple and honest thing to do would be to pass a carbon tax. That would provide more clarity than Congress is comfortable with though. Letting Congress abdicate their oversight to the EPA would be a foolish breech of the Constitution but hardly unprecedented by that sorry lot. I do highly recommend reading "Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto" by Stewart Brand. Regardless of whether CO2 is a pollutant, and I think it's bunk, replacing coal fired plants with nuclear is a really good idea. The overemphasis on CO2, which is a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, is an unfortunate distraction.