Cato
Scholar Comments on Warner-Lieberman
Climate Security Act
Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in
environmental studies
Senate Bill 2191,
the "Climate Security Act", sponsored by
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner
(R-VA) will be debated by the Senate
next week. It's going to cost trillions
and do nothing measurable about climate
change in the foreseeable future. Maybe
it should be named the "Economic
Insecurity Act" of the 21st Century.
Lieberman-Warner
mandates that we reduce our emissions of
carbon dioxide-the major human
"greenhouse" emission-to 2005 levels by
the year 2012. They've risen an average
of 1% per year since 1990, depending
upon the weather (in cold years we use
more energy to heat our homes) and our
economy. Not surprisingly, the more it
grows, the more carbon dioxide is
emitted. That's a screaming red flag
about what S. 2191 will do for our
prosperity.
The 2012 target is
nothing compared to its long-term goals,
which are a 15% reduction below 2005
levels in 2020, growing year-by-year to
a 70% reduction in 2050.
No one - including Lieberman-Warner's
proponents - has a clue how to achieve
such a change in our energy system.
There simply is no known, workable suite
of technologies available. But it could
become law. Welcome to Washington.
So, what do you
get for your trillions? Climatically,
nothing. Assume that all the nations of
the world fulfill their obligations
under the Kyoto Protocol (they won't!),
which reduces global emissions about 5%
below 1990 levels. That results in a
"savings" of global warming of 0.07
degrees Celsius by 2050-an amount too
small to measure, as global temperatures
vary on their own about twice that much
from year-to-year.
Now add in
Lieberman-Warner. Say the U.S. actually
does what the law says, though no one
knows how to. The result is an
additional 0.013 degrees (C) of
"prevented" warming.
Assume that all the Kyoto countries
adopt - and fulfill - S 2191. The amount
of saved warming in 2050 is around 0.11
degrees C, and about 0.20 in 2100. Too
small to measure. The accumulated cost?
Probably in excess of 10 trillion
dollars.
These calculations
are based upon a formula generated at
the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric
Research. They assume that the
"sensitivity" of climate to carbon
dioxide is that surface temperatures
will rise 2.5 degrees as a result of
doubling it's concentration. That number
is probably too high. There's plenty of
recent research demonstrating that, as
well as the fact that the planet isn't
warming very fast. In fact, it hasn't
warmed at all in the last decade. If you
assume the sensitivity is, say, a degree
lower, than all of the above drop by
about 30%.
Anyway, that's
what you get for your trillions - no
measurable reduction in warming for over
a half-century. Guess the dollar just
isn't worth what it used to be!
Act Now!
Contact Your Members of Congress!