Sustainability is a goal that nearly everyone agrees on. But capitalism is driven by the exploitation of resources (both natural and human). Globalized capitalism, corporatism, globalization, whatever you call it, is proving to be highly destructive to the environment (both natural and human). Even some of the poorer nations where our jobs moved to that resulted in massive, non-reversible demographic and cultural changes there have experienced economic turmoil, emigration and social conflict (which is also bad for the natural environment). The terrible effects of globalization on the working class of developed nations is finally being appreciated. When the flotsam raft of plastic the size of France in the Pacific makes shore its terrible effects on the environment will also be appreciated.
Deconstructing corporate globalism appears to be a prerequisite for sustainability. If this is the direction we want and need to go, we'll need to be content with living locally and within our means, ie. less importing goods and exporting trash. Carbon taxes could help this. Getting corporate money and lobbying out of politics would help. Here's one that just occurred to me... why not have states with the lowest carbon footprints be the first ones to vote in the nomination process? Think of all the environmental and human damage that has occurred because Iowa - a state that is ready-made for large-scale, nonsustainable agriculture - is first in the election process. Corn syrup, biofuel...
16
Mr. Stephens overall point about ensuring that environmental regulations aren't enacted in a way that harms people's immediate needs is a good one that would be better served by a little less finger-pointing and "told-you-so" invective. I think many would agree that we're still learning how to best prevent environmental catastrophe, and it is certainly worth trying a few different approaches.
That said, his certainty that government-enacted climate policies will inevitably fail seems to ignore some of the big successes in the history of environmentalism, such as the Clean Water Act, the banning of DDT, the Montreal Protocol that led to the ozone layer healing, the Clean Air Act, and many more. Undoubtedly, getting the policy right is tricky and complex, but there are enough bright spots to encourage trying, especially if they can be done so in a way that respects people's needs and livelihoods.
27
Well, you know, I was one of the few that liked the idea of a tax increase on gasoline in France.
I don’t own a car, and I take public transportation for everything. So it was one tax that others would pay, and not me. And it seemed like a good idea.
I was a bit disappointed to see Macron dropped the idea. But I was happy that it should lead to less trouble on the weekends. The trouble was bad for tourism.
And now, looking that this number of 6 $ a gallon, already... I see, I shouldn’t lose any sleep over the suppression of any new taxes on gas. Another 15 or 20 cents would not be much, in regards to what the government gets already.
7
Most economists recommend a carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions, but how to do that and maintain the support of the public?
Since the purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce the production of CO2 and not to increase revenue, the money generated should be given back in the form of a dividend. This would soften the impact for individuals and allow the collected money to be injected back into the economy. This idea is set forth in a newly introduced bill.
HR 7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, would set the rules for CO2 emissions and provides the incentives for business, industry and the public to reduce their emissions. If enacted it would result in a 40% reduction over 12 years.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/giving-revenue-to-people/
We must acknowledge that no single step is a cure all, there are many things that may help including the expansion of nuclear power and the idea of a carbon tax and dividend is compatible with the expansion of nuclear powers as well as other measure that we could take.
We are out of time on this issue and action is required now! Mr. Stephens, if you have a better idea then please advocate for it. If not, then I am asking that you give HR 7173 your support.
2
Thank you, Mr Stephans, for taking a realistic look at the over-politicized climate change debate, such as it is.
Thank you also for mentioning the possibility of nuclear energy. New technologies using liquid salt cooling and Thorium could be easier and cheaper to manufacture, safer and scale-able. See thirdway.ord for an introduction to a truly alternative to fossil fuels.....https://www.thirdway.org/report/the-advanced-nuclear-industry
5
Dear Mr. Stephens. I normally agree with you on most points, but here you are off the mark for three main reasons.
1. France is not about renewable transition, it is about an overtaxed economy with low growth. They are at their limit.
2. With its nuclear penetration France has almost zero power generation emissions - globally the largest source of greenhouse gases - so its savings need to come from road transport, which is globally the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. In the long run they need to shift to electric or less polluting cars (and hence carbon capture not an option for France).
3. You are not up to date on your cost facts. See the attached link https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-120-vfinal.pdf. The costs of renewables, battery storage and other technologies are dropping rapidly and can be done without subsidy in many places. including the US. Nuclear, on the other hand is wildly expensive and is only being done in Europe where subsidies are guaranteed - that is France and the UK. The cost of the new nuke in England is almost twice the price of the current fleet of offshore wind.
I say this as early investors in renewable power, with a 30 year career in the sector. The rapidity of price declines has shocked even me. Many are operating under data and perceptions that are a decade out of date. Do some more research and spend some time with Tom Friedman who really gets this.
Tom Murley
3
Current carbon intensity of the grid, as of 2:45 pm PST:
France 58 gCO2/kWh
California 334 gCO2/kWh
Germany 274 gCO2/kWh
(Lower is better)
Source: electicitymap.org
If you are serious about addressing climate change you support nuclear. Please, for the future of our children, I beg you to consider the preceding statement with an open mind.
5
If you think on geological time scales, we are at an abnormal high temperature . About 4 degree C, or 9F above the long term value. Sooner, rather then later, we will need to return to the global average. Vast regions of N. America, including NYC , will again be covered by a one mile thick of ice - as was 10 000 years ago
The return, on the global scale , is imminent. About 2000 years.
See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
To prevent the return of the next ice age, highly responsible scientists, such as Ernst Nernst, ( known to Chemist as the discoverer of the Nernst equation) advocated to increase
CO2 emissions.
What you think about the impact of climate change depends very much on the time scale you are thinking about
2
Bret is correct on many points. Many inconvenient truths in this column, if you will.
Current carbon intensity of the grid (4:02 pm PST):
California 338 gCO2/kWh
Germany 396 gCO2/kWh
France 50 gCO2/kWh
(source: electricitymap.org)
If you are serious about addressing climate change you support nuclear. Please, for the future of our children, consider the preceding statement with an open mind.
2
I’m a bit confused where Mr. Stephens’ “climate change is real, and if we want to tackle it we should be listening to conservatives for solutions” falls within today’s political discourse. I think the answer is exactly nowhere. Is it at all possible that the unrest in France has more to do with income, wealth, and opportunity inequality and less to do with climate policy, or that after 30 years of the right sowing doubt and peddling denial about the connection between human activity and climate change that increasing gas taxes becomes an easy political target? We shoulder any number of things we don’t like because both sides generally accept their necessity, combatting climate change has not enjoyed that cooperation.
1
Best breakdown of alternative energy foibles and futile efforts to fight climate change I’ve ever read. Even handed and brutally honest.
All the wind farms and solar panels in the world won’t put a dent in the problem until the power can be stored. Nuclear is the only way to go.
If we were serious about curbing the use of fossil fuels we’d focus on eliminating non-essential petroleum based products like plastic bottles and containers. Everything tasted way better when we were using glass and paper anyway. Ketchup and coke were so much more delicious in the 70s.
2
Nuclear, agreed. Clean, safe, scalable and constant. Fear is the only issue to be overcome.
3
Beautifully written and the antithesis in integrity, breadth, and depth of Paul Krugman's two latest sallies.
Until the environmental movement leaves aside the language of religious self-assurance that borders on a jihad against basic logic and commonsense, I and many other reasonable people will cease to listen.
Until the media stops touting fake "hottest year" records that are within the statistical margin of error -- while deliberately suppressing the good news that the last 2 years the world actually saw a precipitous global cooling that wiped out much of the recent warming -- I and many other reasonable people will cease to listen.
Until environmental politics passes beyond being a perquisite of the very rich to wage class warfare on the middle class and poor by sequestering taxpayer money, Musk-like, in green-energy boondoggles or precipitously raising fuel taxes -- I and many other reasonable people will cease to listen.
This is a religious movement, complete with "97%" screeds that don't substantively say what their exponents claim, with climate models that are lucky to be 50% accurate, and with a slew of take-down artists like Bill Nye who jump on any adverse weather event to proselytize their faith the day after sermonizing us for the umpteenth time that "Weather isn't climate."
Serious scientists do not talk in the unhinged cadences of Hockey Mann. They talk in the cautious cadences of Freeman Dyson, Judith Curry, Stephen Koonin, and Bjorn Lomborg.
11
But the French also travel in motorized rollerskates, not the one-person-per-trip mega-hearses that americans worship. Their 6 dollar gallon takes them halfway across the country, our 2.5 dollar gallon takes us to the next gas station.
4
Given that the main strategy of the right has been to ignore facts and deny scientific evidence, you're all out of legs to stand on to make this particular argument, Bret.
3
Here in Ohio, AEP is proposing to build two solar plants. They claim it will save consumers $200 million over 20 years. But they want to impose a $5,000,000 annual rate increase. So AEP needs to increase its electricity rates to save consumers money? How does this make sense?
Like the government in France, AEP must consider the average person to be too stupid to make their own choices and must defer to their betters to decide for them.
3
Yeh. Uh, Bret, nuclear is not safe. Nobody's figured out yet how to dispose of nuclear waste. Nobody. And, markets, . . . please. Capitalism helped to get us here. It won't help us out.
3
"This is not a climate-change policy. It’s a politics of gestures, destined to achieve the opposite of what it intends — at the expense of the people who can least afford it. "
The responsibility for this falls squarely on the shoulders of the Green Party, which build itself on the fearmongering of nuclear power.
Now they push for the immediate elimination of coal. For a change the right thing to do, but will they take the responsibility for the consequences this time?
Fat chance!
3
"Massive government subsidies for wind and solar power? No country has invested more than Germany — an estimated $580 billion by 2025 — yet it will still miss its 2020 carbon emissions goals while energy prices have soared."
That is not the entire picture! There is nothing wrong with the renewable energy investments where Germany is leading the world. That's clearly the way to go.
But what you should report is WHY energy costs have soared: Namely because out of political misguidance, Angela Merkel gave up on nuclear energy, which accounted for 22% of Germany electricity production. By dismantling the nuclear power plants, the energy gap needed to be filled. There are two ways: Buy expensive energy from abroad (from French nuclear plants, of all places!), PAY Poland for accepting surplus wind and solar energy (out of the need to stabilize the grid, the Poles are now being PAID for allowing Germany to offload excess energy!) and then, of course, the need to build - you guessed it - new COAL plants to balance the grid.
I cannot think of a more expensive way to NOT reach the climate goals. Are you really surprised that Angela Merkel has come to the end of the road, with such idiotic policies? It was 7 years overdue!
6
This piece is Exhibit A for the way humans attach themselves emotionally to their beliefs.
Mr. Stephens practically jumps for joy at the difficulties in France. He then assigns to those difficulties a significance out of all proportion to reality.
Mr. Stephens is like the buggy-whip manufacturer who, upon hearing that an early car killed a pedestrian, says “See?? They’ll never work!!”
6
You pooh-pooh previous efforts to address climate change, and denigrate alternatives to fossil fuels, but say nothing about the REAL reason for inaction on climate change: A fossil fuel industry completely unwilling to acknowledge their role in, and subsequently being responsible for the major contributor to climate change. Yes, we're all guilty because we drive monster gas-guzzling machines. I get that. Are you aware, however, of just how many of us would all get in line to do our part if ONLY the industry would do theirs? They don't act because they have world governments in their pockets and willing to bar any serious attempts to address this issue. They also have a sympathetic media that works to keep the public misinformed. Your editorial may be just that, but at least it is evidence of your ignorance of climate science, as well as what appears to be hostility to those you mockingly call the "self-declared do-somethings".
1
New fuel & carbon taxes in France would only serve to fund more government bureaucrats at the expense of those paying them. Ordinary citizens are rightly rejecting this latest wealth transfer scam. When the self-styled elitists like that hypocrite Gore demand only $15 trillion or so over the next couple decades to combat this urgent problem, we know we’re merely being fleeced.
5
Climate change solutions have to be rational. All "hair-on-fire" predictions will not change this. The best way to address climate change is start thinking rationally about all the possible changes, their consequences and benefits. In other words, stop and think.
Too often ideas are rushed into, unexamined, and result in hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted money that could have been more wisely utilized. Obama's green company stimulus is a perfect example. It's not the right thing to do if it does nothing.
6
So your option is to do nothing and let the planet get fried? The real lesson hear is that climate change and income inequality are inextricably linked. As long as all the benefits of globalization are being siphoned off to the 1%, we will have no real constituency for forceful action. But what if a green conversion economy is also a share-the-wealth economy? That means restructuring the economy in a way that puts the cost of rebuilding our infrastructure into the hands of working class people who will be building that infrastructure. Enough of Stephens' vapid can't-do-ism. We can save the planet and share the wealth.
2
Worthy topic. But a few logical flaws. The website he points to as evidence of China and India going backwards in coal doesn't actually do that, especially in case of India (and does slam the USA). He lauds nuclear power as clean--I agree, but he conveniently overlooks that nuclear receives various types of subsidies. And he overlooks the role of government support in the early days of solar, which helped create the economies of scale necessary for the market price per kilowatt falling to its current super low price, and the same effort for storage -- which when solved and paired with solar and wind, will be as clean as nuclear, cheaper. And lets not forget the unsolved nuclear waste problem (remember the piece started off by saying politicians shouldn't force unpopular solutions-and nuke waste disposal is the mother of unpopular issues).
1
Good points. Many of those bleating loudest about the problem have no real idea of a solution. Al Gore comes to mind.
Climate change is a big problem. But our large and still growing human population puts other strains on the environment too. And the billions of people already here want better lives. How to handle that? It's hard.
As Bret Stephens points out, the answers are unlikely to come from the top. They are likely to come from the bottom, from many experiments where people try something to see if it works. That's the Darwinian power of the market.
1
Advanced biofuels will have an impact. Past is not prelude.
I predict that in the end when reality knocks and the costs and damage become enormous, conservatives will blame liberals for not convincing them that something had to be done. “If only that hadn’t politicized it” they will say.
I don’t see conservatives like Stephens really trying to solve the problem. They just take potshots at those who are trying.
4
I still remember when biofuels used to be a thing for couple of years, then it became obvious they were even worse than oil.
We already know that the greenhouse emission to produce, transport, install, maintain,replace and recycle the current solar panels, windmills or electric car batteries are too high to improve anything.
What we need is keep searching for a better solution, instead of replacing something wrong with something not better.
4
"Let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work."
An herein lies the problem. Time and again investment in wind and solar has taken off in the US during time of high gas prices. Then gas prices tumbled and the investment pulled out, leaving these companies to wilt. Intellectual property went to waste, and in the next cycle no-one wanted to invest into those "old" approaches again, because they could not be protected through patents.
Artificially keeping gas prices high in times of bust could stop it.
The energy input into Earth by the sun (part of which is dissipated into wind) is many times higher than all energy requirements of the world. If we harness a small part of it in a carbon neutral way (e.g., hydrogen, acidic acid or other process fuels) we can solve climate change.
In a time of constant misinformation on climate change by parties interested in fossil fuels, the resistance of the populus is not surprising. The world needs leadership.
1
My pet theory is that the love of violent demonstrations, property destruction, and rebelling in France, since not later than the year 1789, has become a heritable and genetically transmittable feature of national character. For a mean length of generation as 30 years, many things might have become hereditary in eight generations -- who knows?
3
A great piece that lays out clearly the best we can do now, and how the future must be plotted. After all, this is almost always the only method for finding the solution.
2
The protesters in France burned a few cars. But no flame was a great as that which Andrew Sullivan ignited last week in an essay that turned to ash everything Stephens has said and says here about climate change. Must have been a tough week for Bret.
1
And then, of course, there's the quarter-century of hysterical "The sky is going to fall! The sky is going to fall!" but which never actually happens. Coastal cities aren't hip-deep in water, you can still ski in North Carolina, palm trees aren't growing in Detroit, etc, etc. Doomcriers can only cry doom for so long before people start asking, "Where's the doom?"
My personal opinion is that AGW is a complete fraud, though in my more charitable moments I might concede that it's just lousy science. Regardless, though, it's certainly become a lousy excuse for all the taxing, spending, lifestyle-diminishing, and Big Governing that the skyfallers keep demanding.
4
@Henry Miller you speak for the vast majority of Americans!
1
On Climate Change (From The Economist)
"Russia has emerged as an agricultural powerhouse"
Quote
"The future also looks bright owing to global trends. Rising temperatures mean longer growing seasons, higher crop yields and wider swathes of arable land in much of Russia. “Everyone is moving north,” says Yuri. His son has started farming in the Belgorod region, closer to Moscow."
Russia is now the worlds leading grain exporter.
Reminds me that Arrhenius , the brilliant scientist that started climate science, 110 years ago, did so in the hope that CO2 emissions from coal powered factories would extent the growing season of Sweden.
He was disappointed that his analysis - correct within a factor 2 - showed that the effect was too small for Sweden to grow more food in Sweden
Climate change is real, but if you live in Russia, you might like it
2
Nonsense! The problem here is that, instead of making this only about climate change, which should have compelled the French government to give the revenues back to the people, they chose to use the proceeds to finance an ill-conceived tax cut for the rich. No wonder people protest. A revenue-neutral carbon fee combined with an equal dividend to each person, would place the largest burden on the highest carbon consumers instead, and these tend to be richer.
Good climate policy is possible, but so is bad policy. This is just bad policy.
4
IF you believe that anthropogenic climate change presents an urgent threat to all humanity, then the only realistic option is a crash program to replace coal-fired power plants around the world with carbon-free, 24/7, 365 nuclear power plants. Even if a nuke melts down here or there, that’s only a local problem, and an acceptable cost if the alternative is actually an urgent threat to all humanity. If you believe that CAGW is an urgent problem but reject nuclear power, then either your belief is insincere or you’re being irrational.
6
Cap and trade IS a market solution but you trash it because there was corruption (another market solution) in its administration. Biofuels-- a catastrophe (tho Nancy Pelosi shamefully supported it.) I'm sure it made sense to plenty of scientists and economists too, and so wasn't it worth trying? It might have ended up being market-based too. Climate change is an all new trouble.
Otherwise there's a plentiful supply of coal.
1
Remember the only nonRepublican quality of Bret Stephens is his dislike of Trump. Everything else about him is as narrow minded as the rest of his cohorts. He sees everything through his grey colored glasses and loves anything that he sees as supporting his climate change denial.
3
The developing countries of the world will continue to use increasing amounts of fossil fuels because they have no other choice. Wind and solar power are an expensive and foolish farce which will always require subsidies. The seas will rise and we Americans will migrate northward to Canada.
2
@Mike Murray MD
Maybe if the seas rise enough I will have some ocean front property in Nevada, and the socialist republic of California will cease to exist.
Wow wasn't this just like a stereotypical conservatives response. Everyone is corrupt, no one is achieving their goal and the people at the poverty line in France are balking at paying for a gas tax increase. So we should just all throw up our hands.
Had mankind listened to conservatives, we would all still be living naked in caves, shivering and afraid to set out foot into the world.
4
A fuel tax doesn't have to punish the poor. Offsetting income tax credits (both federal and state) can provide relief and make the tax fair. Tax credits can also incentivize the purchase of less fuel consuming cars. If you drive a gas-hog SUV - no credits for you.
1
Stephens' emphasis on market solutions as a holy grail ignores the many privatization schemes that have degraded provision of public goods, and supports the continuing Great Delusion: that the Invisible Hand will invariably resolve not only efficiency issues, but somehow implement diverse cultures' particular moral values. MarketWorld did not bring us the basic technology of either the Internet or smartphones. Does anyone half-awake seriously expect that energy companies with a profound interest in preserving the nominal values of their fossil fuel reserves will invest in developing and implementing sustainable alternatives? Or that they will discontinue their efforts to portray climate change studies as riddled with doubts? Egad.
4
It’s notable that Stephens forgets to acknowledge the large tax cuts the top 15% of France recently got. Tax cuts for some and tax increases for the masses never goes over well.
We have had our own political reaction to Trump’s recent awful corporate and richies’ tax giveaway that will never trickle down to the masses. Please recall the Blue Wave of the midterms. Winter is coming.
3
I’m sadly not surprised that the author suggests the cure may be worse than the disease. Few minds can imagine the pain awaiting the Earth’s inhabitants next century. The time for change was 1970. At this stage we can only slow down the inevitable.
3
@Paul Axford you forget the fact that not even one of the gloom and doom predictions has come true
This is a classic carrot or stick approach to get people to change their ways. Instead of using regressive measures, like a tax on fossil fuels to effect and change the use of energy sources, we should be using a carrot in the form tax reduction for the use of renewable energy sources. We can effectively discourage users away from fossil fuels by encouraging the use of wind/solar for electric power generation and electric and/or hydrogen (fuel cell) powered vehicles by using tax incentives/rebates for switching to these renewable non-polluting sources.
4
Climate change is easy to understand intellectually. The science is still unsettled, so the right course is to wait and see. No meaningful action on CO2 is possible without China and India, and they are nowhere near ready to move.
The linkage between CO2 and climate change is very much up in the air. The big orange man is exactly right in his policy stance. Keep watching and see what happens.
For some reason a certain percentage of the population gets confused between their own mortality and the end of the world. A simple science/engineering matter gets wildly emotional.
7
@Loran Tritter - The science that is settled makes it very, very clear that we are the cause of sea level rise, ocean acidification, changes in weather patterns, and increasing heat in the air and the oceans.
Science shows that in the past, large bursts of greenhouse gas have destabilized the climate, warmed the ocean, lowered oxygen content in the warmer oceans, and had significant impacts on life at each time this kind of buildup happened - to the point where previous large greenhouse events have had corresponding extinction events.
For some reason a certain percentage of the population would stand, chained to the floor of a water tank, with water rising, and when it's nearing their chin they'd be saying "I'll just wait, it might stop".
Scientists have been unemotionally documenting the changes that result when large quantities of greenhouse gases are released, from evidence in the past, from physical and chemical laws, and from observation. Do we listen? Some, like the big orange man, do not.
3
In California, renewable energy coupled with battery storage is now cheaper than new generation fueled by natural gas -- and fast becoming cheaper than EXISTING gas-fired power.
You have to be blind to current clean-energy trends in the marketplace to say that such solutions won't work anytime soon or come at too exorbitant a price.
4
@Peter Stern
In California you have less than 100 MW of battery storage, a very, very small fraction of Cal's energy usage and it was very, very expensive. Bret has this one right.
4
@Peter Stern
Unfortunately you are mistaken.
If solar + batteries were truly competitive with natural gas on price, economic forces would quickly drive their adoption, just like we saw natural gas replace coal when the price dropped.
I understand there are many headlines claiming solar is now cheaper than X (fill in the blank), however these analyses are incredibly misleading. Currently virtually no solar in California is balanced with batteries. Batteries are still way too expensive for large scale grid storage.
At this hour, 3:35pm PST, the California grid is 16% renewable (including hydro). ( http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/supply.aspx ) If you scroll down to the "Supply Trend" graph and change to the previous day you can clearly see that as solar tapers off in the afternoon it's replaced by natural gas and imports, not batteries.
Average power production in California for 2017 was 33,338 MW. ( https://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html ) If you go back to the CAISO website and scroll down to the "Batteries trend" graph you can see that the peak power from batteries is around 68 MW. Considering solar peaked at about 5000 MW on 12/5, we only have 1.36% installed batteries needed to balance solar. If the entire grid was solar we'd currently have 0.20% installed batteries needed to match power output for a few hours. Consider energy storage (vs power) and we'd probably need another 10X batteries on top of that.
5
@Stephen:
"...wind, solar, and storage that are now competing with traditional energy resources on the basis of cost, even without subsidies.
This is borne out in the latest report from the world’s largest independent investment bank, Lazard, in their annual levelized cost of energy (LCOE) analysis.
Lazard’s latest LCOE numbers were released on November 8. They show the continuation of a multi-year trend of falling costs for renewable energy technologies. The mean LCOE of large-scale solar PV came down 13% from last year and has fallen 88% since 2009, putting the average cost between $36 to $44 per MWh, without subsidies. The mean LCOE of onshore wind declined an additional 7% from last year and is down 69% since 2009, putting the average unsubsidized cost between $29 and $56 per MWh. With the cost of coal-fired energy coming in at $60 to $143 per MWh and natural gas combined cycle coming in at $41 to $74 per MWh, the data shows that these renewable energy technologies are competitive resources in today’s marketplace." (from Advanced Energy Perspectives, 12/5/2018)
1
Mr. Stephens is on point about nuclear energy. [I've been active in this industry for nearly forty (40) years.] Nuclear energy should be our transitional fuel until we can engineer solutions associated with producing sufficient quantities of renewable fuels. What most politicians (who are in my considered opinion, science illiterates) do not understand IS THAT YOU CANNOT PHASE OUT FOSSIL FUELS UNLESS THE PRODUCTION CAPACITY OF THE RENEWABLES IS THERE IN QUANTITY FOR SEAMLESS REPLACEMENT.
Our politicians need to level with the lay Public. The facts and the truth should enable to defuse much of the problem that has literally boiled over in France.
8
@dmanuta - I agree. I'm not believing that Mr. Stephen's suggestion that we go forward with nuclear is realistic, but I do believe that well-run existing nuclear should be kept running.
Japan's slowly restoring their fleet to operation so they will slide less back to fossil, and that's good.
Germany's decision to shut theirs down early is unfortunate, as is France's choice to reduce their number, but the dislike of nuclear is hard to counteract, especially since we're decades into the nuclear power age, but exactly one country (not the USA) has begun work on their long-term waste storage facility.
For the developing world, does adding nuclear plants make people feel great? The proliferation and disposal risks are real ones, that are lessened now because most plants are in (relatively) stable countries.
Illinois did a bailout for our plants, since economically they're not really competitive right now. I'm OK with that, but would prefer that a carbon tax carry some of the financial load instead, to encourage preserving the nukes we have, until other systems are in place.
Given the existing technology and the intense R&D on a variety of fronts, I'm not certain that the proposed new technologies will compete in most applications by the time they're ready for large scale production. We'll see.
dmanuta,
Can we store the radioactive waste at your house? For the next 100,000 yrs.?
What is France doing with its waste? Its sitting on it looking for where to put it. The country has about 44,300 cubic meters of the troublesome stuff now, 2,300 of which is high-level waste.They are attempting tunnels to mixed results. 22 of their 58 plants are approaching 40yrs old. Yet they still don't have an acceptable site to dump. So they continue to stockpile a terrorists wet dream.
Once again we are kicking a can that will kill all living things for our eternity down the road.
What could go wrong.
1
Hi, my name is Bret and I'll do anything to not retake my corrupt take on global warming, with which I have defined myself with for a decade or more.
"But a long history of climate policy failures might also cause climate activists and the politicians they support to be more humble about their convictions, more sensitive to the human effects of their policy, and more willing to listen to criticism.
To have a diagnosis is not to have a cure, and bad cures can be worse than the disease. Those who think otherwise are also living in denial."
I guess, as Reagan would say, I'm a glass half full guy, I don't see a long history of failures but a succession of improvements that could've been better but for a lot of obstruction, denialism, and flat out lying about the science and the issues at stake. Bad cures maybe worse than the disease (though a net improvement is an improvement) but doing nothing or even pumping out more CO2 is worse, sans doute as they say in France. Take that religious fervor for judges, tax cuts, and vote suppression and channel it into alternative tech. Then we might start to get somewhere.
4
Bret
There are many practical solutions to this most difficult problem and heaping facile criticism on a selected set to disparage the lot is not helping
Paul Hawkin's Project Drawdown ranks 100 solutions in order of impact on reducing CO2 based on the input of scientists
https://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
Why don't you use your political acumen and prominent voice to contribute positively by ranking them by political sale-ability to the the persuadable right wing and other opponents so something can get done?
For your kids...
Thank you
67
@Paul The author is pointing out the obvious deficiencies and ignorance of the Climate Change Religion - you just don't like hear the truth.
3
"Two years later, they decided to phase out all oil and gas exploration by 2040."
France produces only 1% of its own oil and gas. They don't have any. Phasing out the search is a useless gesture. They could look all they like, it just isn't there to be found.
26
There is far more accurate and short term evidence that Medicare is going to be a massive burden on our children, the economy, our standard of living, etc. It's only about Americans and not some foreign third world country that will plunge into the sea because they can't afford the remediation that may be required.
The solutions to Medicaid are "easy"; the problem could be dramatized to the masses like we do with Climate Change (imagine images of lots of children living in poverty while rich people party). There is no need to involve complicated multi-country unverifiable treaties. Yet until there is a financial crisis, we will do nothing. I suspect that climate change will be the same pattern. Increases in storms is frankly not that readily felt by most and there will be significant gaps in any evidence of climate change when the problem is measured over many decades.
It's time to realize that any agreeable solution will simply not solve the problem. Were the Paris accord enacted, the passengers on the Titantic would have cheered that the bilge pumps were taking care of the problem. The only real solutions are to 1) build remediation strategies to live with climate change over next 50 years 2) fund approaches to technology that could change trajectory quickly 3) continue to press the slow button recognizing it's not going to work but maybe help a little 4) Be open and fund geoengineering projects like that proposed by Cameron Myhrvold. Time to get real
2
The wealthy suck up all the money and spew out all the carbon, a higher income tax on the rich is what is needed to speed up the transition to a sustainable zero carbon economy.
3
Environmentalism has been a solution in search of a problem since the 1960s. A source of virtue-signaling self-aggrandizement for rich white people. They've been telling us every year for decades that the end of the world will be here in ten years. And it never happens. It's all a scam.
7
I'm sure the inhabitants of Florida and Puerto Rico would be very interested to hear this.
2
Joe,
Good thing that Acid Rain isn't affecting your Adirondacks huh. No Mercury in your water, right?!
https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/acid-rain
Rising seas, and flooding isn't affecting NY? Really? Must be a Trumpism. Deny, deny and lie.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/27/world/climate-rising-seas.html
3
Throughout US history, I think it’s fair to say that the states and later federal government always had a few fingers on the scale when it came to supporting innovation. In the end, the argument depends on what you mean by taxes and subsidies. With respect to oil, by way of example, how much of our military force that patrols the various chokepoints of the world to insure the safe passage of oil would you count as a "subsidy" to the oil industry. If the answer is the "it’s in the national interest," then how would that same justification not apply to renewables?
The government need not identify specific companies. It does need to create certain economic incentives that’s would apply to all innovators and let them sort themselves out. On the other hand, as Neil de Grasse Tyson explains in his recent book, many technological innovations are intertwined with military need. The military puts out the specifications for what it needs and dangles a big contract. That may prove to be the case with renewables too.
3
@Charlie in NY - not even the military patrols, and the cost of sending our fleets to the Persian Gulf all the time. Think about how very unlikely the following would have been if petroleum wasn't a global addiction, and think of the cost in lives and money.
- Both Iraq wars
- al Quaeda, September 11, the Afghanistan war
- the export globally of Wahhabism by a well-funded petro-state
- Iran's ability to pay for their own brand of terror and militias in other nations
It goes on. Every time I hear a fossil-funded politician talk about "energy security" I just keep in mind that the sun and wind cover us with more power than we can use, and no other nation could stop it from doing so.
Think of India's considerations as they push aside more and more coal plants, going to cheap solar now instead - do they really want their nations energy security to depend on coal imported over seas with an increasingly assertive Chinese Navy?
A 6.5 cent-per-liter tax increase for people making almost $2k a month is at the "expense of those who can least afford it"?
C'mon! This is ludicrous.
The tax increase is simply the spark for confrontations about inequality in France. Mr. Stephens then almost dishonestly uses this device to spout a lot of conservative dogma -- "markets will save us!"...
I want to throw up.
3
From “The Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer for Critical Thinkers”:
"If you consider all those living in every corner of the world now dependent on fossil fuels,
and you take into account the possibility of unintended consequences, such as the disastrous increase in food prices due to the government imposed turn to biofuels — which incentivized farmers to switch from food production to fuel production;
then you will realize what a complete calamity we’d have on our hands if any attempt were made to drastically cut back on the production of fossil fuels on a worldwide basis. Resistance to such proposals is not limited to the oligarchs controlling the fossil fuel industries, that’s pure rhetoric. Once ordinary people wake up to the sacrifices expected from them by these starry eyed idealists they will revolt. And we’ll have a calamity on our hands every bit as disastrous as anything that might be produced by global warming over the next hundred years. It would be nice if we could do without fossil fuels, but at this point in history, unfortunately we cannot. As I see it, any serious effort along such lines is likely to be the most self-destructive act in the history of humankind."
http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/05/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-6-let.html
http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/05/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-7.html
4
@Victor Grauer - a hundred years ago were you claiming that people were dependent on horse power and thus that switching to tracktors, trucks and automobiles was "self-destructive"?
Cities were choking in solid and liquid horse pollution, flies and ill health were everywhere. When the mass production of automobiles was working well enough, it only took a couple decades to replace nearly all horses in major urban environments, and eventually from most roads everywhere. World War I was the last time they were important for war.
But you could have said in your book: "It would be nice if we could do without horses, but at this point in history, unfortunately we cannot".
But it would be wrong, like your fossil fuel argument is wrong. People depend on -energy- that happens to mostly come from fossil, but the source isn't key, the product is. Here in Illinois, most of our electrons are from nuclear plants, not fossil, and they work just the same.
The electric buses that run downtown from the commuter station get people from point A to point B get people back and forth just like the smelly diesels they replaced.
The transition from fossil fuel is under way and will continue accelerating. People who had been using things powered by fossil fuel will be using things, but not powered by fossil fuel.
Like the collapse of the horse industry, it won't happen immediately. It will take decades. But it's happening and it's the opposite of self-destructive. It's self-preservation.
So if I understand this correctly, those with 99% of the money, will leave said country if their taxes are too high for their taste.
Thus we must rape and pillage the lower
99% that hold 1% of the money to save the world.
Is this about right?!
Patriotism and love of country.
Yeah...not so much.
Mammon and me, me, me.
Too bad about the human species. Such potential, but soo much hubris and selfishness.
Funny, we lasted less time than the giant lizards. Wonder who/what will be next to populate earth.
1
The only person in denial around here, Bret, is you. Thanks for willfully displaying your ignorance once again.
Quick refresher. Climate change left unchecked = possible inability to survive on planet Earth. Yes, we should be doing everything humanly possible - on every front - to avoid that, and if politicians (and companies, and op-ed columnists) are too craven to act, we should vote 'em out, stop buying their products, and stop reading their methane-emitting fact-light musings.
1
The Paris riots weren't about climate change . They were about the far right using an issue to do something they couldn't do in the last election - win!
3
So, sunspots have decreased and it’s getting cooler.
Therefore, we have to rework the world’s economies and transfer a lot of wealth to achieve climate redemption.
Macron is a fool!
3
@Steve MD - which minute was it getting cooler?
Thermometer records since the 1850s show that all the warmest years were since 1998. They show the last four decades have, in order, each been the warmest decade.
The four warmest years are all since 2014, and 2018 is still in progress.
All that heat's melting ice and expanding the warming ocean, too. Cities that were built with full understanding of how high the highest tides rose have to redo a lot of work, now that there's more ocean.
"New Study Finds 143,000 New York Homes Worth $98 Billion will be at Risk from Tidal Flooding"
https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2018/new-study-finds-143000-new-york-homes-at-risk-from-tidal-flooding
That's just tidal flooding, Steve. Not the impact of elevated sea levels on storm surge. That's a different problem.
Just a warning, when you stick your head in the sand, stay well above the high-tide line from now on.
Written like a man who have never run a country.
It is precisely because addressing climate change is not a simple problem that we need inspiring leaders who can move us past our individual weaknesses to achieve, as a society, something greater than any one of us can imagine doing on our own. One of our political parties has actively blocked and belittled even modest efforts to address the issue. Our president is incapable of inspiring anything other than hate and rage, certainly not leading the country through a difficult collective change.
Acting on climate change needs to be a top priority of our next president. It seems unlikely that we will see any leadership on this issue from the Republican party so we are left with only one choice. Are any of the present Democratic contenders bold enough to make climate change a central issue? Is there anyone left in the Republican party who can urge restraint on the part of the party not to pillory with outlandish lies any Democrat who dares suggest that some individual self-sacrifice is necessary for the good of the whole? People need to be inspired, to buy into the idea of participating in a larger cause. And - as Bret points out - we all really need to be participating, even the rich.
In the meantime, all we can do is order our own lives to make whatever difference we can and push our local officials to make whatever difference they can. 2020 will be here soon. We simply cannot afford to have another President Trump or a President Pence.
1
Stephens forgot about the EU promoting diesel for passenger cars to reduce carbon emissions which has been an unmitigated disaster.
4
Nuclear exists in the US only because liabilities are capped by law at 12B. Without that nuclear is uninsurable and wouldn't exist. The problem of nuclear waste is also unsolvable, since saying that we can store a dangerous substance for 1M years has no engineering precedent to rely upon. Of course Mr. Conservative Pundit can gloss over these details and claim that nuclear is "remarkably safe". Why should a brilliant intellect and writer be bogged down by, say, reality?
2
As Niccolo Machiavelli noted, there is nothing so difficult and dangerous as undertaking a new order of things. Apparently, President Macron's massive electoral mandate for reform was a mandate to reform as long as no one was disturbed.
1
It is time to get IBM's Watson involved in devising solutions to the intersecting problems of population growth, climate change, diminishing resources, and economic viability. These problems are way beyond humanity's resolving power. Think of complexity science applied across multiple domains, and the results of the investigations be binding upon Congress. A person can dream, anyway.
1
What a wimp! Oh, dear! It's a hard problem. Let's give up and let the planet go to ruin for our children and grandchildren.
And, this passes for serious thought? Shame!
4
@Joe P Alas, the ruin set in for France decades ago when they let the colonials move to Paris and squat in ethnic enclaves.
1
This is the problem with the Paris Climate Accords; those nations that, in good conscience try to do something about it will cause their own citizens to suffer ecomonically and put their own leadership in politically suicidal positions . Meanwhile the Indians, Chinese and other developing nations will continue to use massive amounts of coal, no matter what documents they sign. I desperately wish this were not true becasue we MUST do whatever can realistically be done about man caused climate change, but It is worth noting that the PCA's are voluntary with no real punishment attached for non-compliance and are therefore mostly virtue signalling. Again, I wish it weren't so but most unfortunately that is the reality.
4
@Tim
The Paris Accords included voluntary contributions--rather than binding commitments like in prior IPCC agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol--for one reason and one reason only: to get the USA on board.
Obama's negotiators of the Paris Agreement knew two things: (1) that any Agreement containing binding commitments would necessarily be a treaty that would require Senate ratification, and (2) no way was a Republican Senate going to ratify any such treaty.
Thus, they had to use voluntary contributions rather than binding commitments to be able to avoid ratification. Of course, this had a number of downsides--Trump could unilaterally withdraw and no penalties for any country who violates promises--but at least it was a step in the right direction.
So be sure to blame Senate Republicans for the Paris Agreement not having binding commitments.
3
This is a predictable right wing response to the protests in France.
Mr. Stephens says: "So much then for the belief that a cabal of know-nothing pundits and greedy oil barons are the main political obstacle to climate action." We can debate what the "main" obstacle may be, but know-nothing pundits and oil companies are significant obstacles.
That said, the situation in France reflects a problem, namely, regressive taxes, the effects of which need to be mitigated. In that regard, one wonders whether Mr. Stephens even bothered to read the far more perceptive discussion of the protests in today's Times, written by Alissa Rubin and Somini Sengupta.
Mr. Stephens seems to be saying that all the efforts at climate change are futile. We should just go nuclear or simply wait for the miracle of free markets to save us. This strikes me as know-nothing punditry.
5
Macron could easily reinstate the gas tax if there were a serious program to bring the median income in France above 2000 Euros a month. Austerity, not climate progressivism, is the enemy here.
2
@Jason Galbraith And we should significantly raise our gas taxes. If the French can pay $6 per gallon with a median income of $2K per month, surely we could afford to pay, say $5 per gallon with a much higher median income.
To paraphrase the late, great George Carlin, "The planet is fine. It's the people on it who are screwed."
3
The fault DOES lie at the feet of greedy governments and CEO's who perpetuate and enlarge the gap between the rich and the poor. Most people understand and would like to contribute to a solution to climate change, because they care about their grandchildren's future. But they also have to get to work and put food on the table NOW. They shouldn't have to choose between the two.
2
the problem is that bret is 100% correct, and all the critics will vilify him and refuse to listen. guaranteed. the feel-good idiocy of the greens has no patience for reality or the economic well-being of the lower classes. they are too busy buying a tesla. they will instead vilify anyone like bret who notices reality.
the fact that nuclear power is being reduced is the best argument as to the hysteria of the climate people. i mean...if the world is coming to an end in 50-100 years, why in god's name would we not risk more nuclear power to stop it???!!! answer-exact;y! it's pure hysteria.
9
@Ari Weitzner Ari -- you're too smart for most of the commentariat here. We have a situation where there's is a somewhat imaginary issue (the data does not support there having been unusual warming) with consequences we are unsure of even if there has been abnormal warming (ok, hurricanes gain a little more power, how much more real damage will they do per year, controlling for inflation etc. given the quixotic nature of hurricanes). In response, the left screams to get rid of fossil fuels which is impossible and even if everyone in the US significantly reduced fossil fuels immediately it would not make much of a difference in total global emissions. They won't consider nuclear because it might hurt you -- failing to realize that every energy source has its costs and risks -- even though it is the only alternative source we have that could fire our entire electric grid.
And they won't discuss real economic issue of mitigate now at huge economic costs vs adapting & mitigating as we go along. Let's say there will be sea level rise over the next century that will make some housing near the water now unuseable. So, let's bring the entire economy to a screeching halt now, pay whatever it takes to relocate those people -- or if and when and where SLR occurs we let the market work. Housing immediately on the shore now will lose value over time. Housing further inland will gain. Some individuals will lose, but it will be over time. Same as any housing shift.
4
It seems Mr. Stephens misunderstands how to use his column. This is a laundry list of policy choices he considers failures. Where are the ones he considers solutions?
And barring those solutions, where is the appeal to consumers to lead the market and choose less intensive lifestyles?
This reads like a lieutenant general laughing at his higher ups and suggesting surrender. His own party – or did he leave now that Trump showed up? – denies climate change even exists. Here's a solution: Start telling conservative voters the problem is real!
4
Everything in this article -- facts and opinion -- is right on the money.
If the Dems adopt A O-C's Green New Deal, they will suffer massive defeats at the polling booths.
5
This propaganda is funny. We can do many things to solve problems, but if our leaders are owned by large corporations and most specifically the fossil energy industry we will not do the things that will work, because the solutions do not include continuation of fossil energy as our main source of energy. So, Stephens supports fossil energy. We get that. We get that he and the Times fear change and new industries with new owners. Too bad. We will make the changes needed or we will die as a species.
On a side note, it is likely that we will never know if intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe. Life is by it's nature driven to procreate. When you give a life form industry then death is the most likely outcome because even with the new tools the life form cannot stop it's natural evolutionary drives. So, most technological life forms likely destroy themselves. It is my contention that humans, because they are technological, are destined to go extinct. If not this time from global environmental catastrophe due to CO2 emissions then from some other unforeseen disaster created by simpletons who can't adapt.
As they say, the Stone Age didn’t end because people ran out of stones, and the oil age will not end because we run out of oil. You build a better mousetrap. It will happen in time, but you can’t force it.
5
A few numbers on France
1. Natural gas consumption of France, billion of cubic meters
2014 37.9 billion of cubic meters
2015 40.8 billion of cubic meters
2016 44.8 billion of cubic meters
2017 4.49 billion of cubic meters
Note that it the natural gas consumption is increasing
2. Part of the unrest in France was fueled by a 14.8 %
increase in the gas price, prior to the heating season.
3. The cause was unprecedented increase in the consumption of natural gas by China, that is switching from coal fired plants to natural gas fired plants. Prices are set by supply and demand. While good for the climate, it was bad news for the French middle class , stuck at stagnant wages since 2008.
4. Nuclear energy is not yet dead in France. What it is, it is too expensive. The French designed advanced EPR ( construction started in 2007) is now scheduled to go on line in 2020 The estimates project costs at €10.9 billion three times the original cost estimates.
5. France lost its nuclear lead to China in which world’s first European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), started in 2009, went on line China’s Guangdong province went on line this year.
A joint endeavour between China (70%) and France (30%), France's Areva handed out its nuclear knowledge to China, in order to get access to the Chinese market.
-------------
2
Sounds like everyone involved in this was wrong.
Macron's actions really weren't about climate change; they were about socking it to the lower classes (those who actually do real work for a living as opposed to buying and selling money.)
On the other hand, the majority of people are not going to bother to do anything about climate change until their community is permanently underwater (Florida) or on fire (California) and sometimes not even then. Even massively fatal high temperatures (Europe) didn't seem to work.
Unfortunately the only thing that will finally work is massive dislocation and tragedy on a wide scale, frequently repeated. Even then, their "leaders" will try to put the blame somewhere else (Trump, Assad).
There's always something more important until there isn't. At best, people won't accept climate change remedies until ten minutes before it's too late. That's if we're lucky.
1
This is a classic example of "tragedy cf the commons" - users of a common resource only deal with their interest, not the shared interest. History shows that dealing with a global problem of this magnitude is very difficult. Look at how long 3 states _ Georgia, Alabama, Florida, have been litigating over a very visible resource - water - and apply that to a much vaguer problem widely misunderstood. There is not single institution to deal with the issue. An orderly approach would be to look at all sources and mitigations and develop solutions for each country or similar group. You would need all the available options - renewables, deforestation, and focus on developing countries. The US is the highest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide and it will be essential for developing countries to grow in a lower carbon way. R&D to develop new approaches is part of the equation. No easy answers - not as simple as nuclear, carbon tax, or just focus on adaptation. Sorely needs leadership and vision.
3
Yes the EU cap and trade mech has had its big issues ad has made many corrections, but basing one's assessment on where it was in 2011, rather than where it is now is lazy and not very honest...
By the way, the fuel tax hikes were the straw that broke the French camel's back, so don't overplay it. If Macron had not started off by getting rid of wealth and inheritance taxes, the camel would probably still be doing just fine...
2
"To have a diagnosis is not to have a cure, and bad cures can be worse than the disease. Those who think otherwise are also living in denial."
Oh really?
I'd like to hear how a bad cure could be worse than this disease, considering the diagnosis. Unless you think a single-digit drop in GDP would potentially be worse than global mass extinction.
1
There are a lot of constructive ways of phasing out fossil fuels than punishing working class people. Increasing a tax on fossil fuel is a regressive form of taxation. A government can promote alternative energy vehicles and public transportation.
A government could subsidize alternative fuel vehicles with a tax on those with an internal combustion engine. In this way the prices of alternative energy vehicles could be set at a lower range than they are today to make it easier for working class people to contribute to combating Global Warming.
Europe is behind in developing electric and fuel cell vehicles and the subsidizes could also promote the industry and create jobs. Wealthier people could cover the cost of the subsidies by continuing to buy vehicle s with an internal combustion energy if the so desired.
But Bret, you are wrong, it IS a cabal of greedy oil barons who are largely at fault. They pay the politicians. They prevent real science from being mainstream news, they fight it every second. And they know what they are doing. I'm sorry but you are utterly wrong about this...we need a Manhattan Project for renewable energy, 20 years ago.
2
As usual, Brett Stephens picks up the wrong end of the stick. What is happening in France -- where I am now -- is not a revolt against anti-climate change legislation, but a revolt by modest earners about tax breaks for the rich & companies, while the middle classes and below must pick up the slack in direct taxes. His desire to deregulate France's admitted over-regulated economy is perhaps desirable. But why must he do it on the backs of people least able to pay? It's because he is a neoliberal who believes in trickle-down economics he learned at l'ENA (école nationale d'administration where all of France's top bureaucrats are trained -- note, I don't say educated). The French are fed up with l'ENA.
3
THE problem in the eyes of most of my compatriots is the global System - iow the capitalist system gone beserck. Wealthy people & high level management earning outrageous sums of money & all too often doing their outmost to escape the tax man, albeit through légal means & often getting enormous handouts when they are fired for their misdeeds. Leaving the working & middle classes to pay more than their fair share in taxes.
Not to mention too many profits going to dividends, not to the workers for décades now.
Not to mention the GAFAS who are getting away with murder: Small French companies & store owners feel the full brunt.
Of course there is a feeling of injustice.
Another point: each nation is the child of its own history. And French history is the Revolution: Add to that politicians who play deaf for too long.
It is a tragedy that some minor ultra right & left wing groups & anarchists resort to violence during the demonstrations.
I find it infuriating. However I find it equally infuriating that too many people (in the US & the UK for example) meekly accept these injustices in silence.
2
In the countryside of France, there's a popular saying. "There is Paris and then the rest of us." This snarky comment highlights the differences between the city and countryside. Paris is a country unto itself and the moment you step outside Le Périphérique you're in a different land.
From Paris, making nationwide policy decisions on important issues seems like the epitome of Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Unfortunately, these policies disproportionately and negatively affect the France beyond Paris.
Paris is swimming in public transportation, infrastructure investment, and tourism jobs. Rural France survives on a 3-month tourist season. Public transportation is non-existent or scarce, and not being Paris, the countryside is starved for investment. Many villages are inhabited by retirees who dutifully worked their adult lives and now live on 700-900€ monthly. This too is being cut along with social services. Thus the gas tax is a spark set to a pile of combustible grievances.
Like in the US, the backs of rural Frenchmen cannot carry the burden of big government ideas or neglect. President Macron has been deaf to his rural constituents by failing to address their crushing financially needs. Dissatisfied Americans, blinded by hope and eager for change, voted for a man who is incapable of addressing their grievances and never intends to. His supportive constituents are sticking by him and appear unlikely to rise up against his corruption. Or would they?
6
If we are truly honest, we would see that seriously addressing climate change will require all of us, particularly in the developed economies, to change the way we live. In general we will need to consume less and in doing so rely less and less on fossil fuels. Supporting and developing new clean energy sources are essential but even with these we will need to alter our view of what a prosperous life is. It is possible to live with less and still have "more".
4
I've read a lot of stupid articles in my life and this one ranks right up at the top. I mean come on. Here we have a conservative who only recently admitted climate change was even a problem, and who along with most of the rest of conservatives has stood against and tried to weaken every measure to solve the problem. Now he derides those who have tried to do something for not doing enough and then suggests we leave it all to the free market to solve things. I don't know if it's more that he thinks we are all stupid enough to buy this bull pucky or if he is this ideologically stupid himself. The house is burning down and he wants to wait for the free market to develop the fire hose, figure out how to get the water here, then bring it to market to solve the problem. Maybe we could get Exxon or the Koch brothers lead up the effort. After all, they've learned a lot about the topic by trying to hide and distort the problem over the last 50 years.
9
Maybe Mr. Stephens should try being more humble about his understanding of French politics. While a green-tax on gasoline may be the fuel that broke the camel's back, the protests are very much about economics and very little about environmental policy. The French are protesting high taxes, low purchasing power, and high unemployment. Mr. Stephens wants to spin the Gilets Jaunes about being an example of anti-climate change politics, but that's not really on the table as a topic in France, if anything the protestors and their tend more left than right. Nice try, though...
2
I don't believe climate change is a great threat because I believe based on scrutiny and analysis of the actual temp data that the globe isn't abnormally warming.
However, if you believe the climate is actually abnormally warming, then there are a few things you need to do
- become pro nuclear as it is the cleanest and most reliable alternative energy source available
- be willing to discuss the costs of attempting to mitigate the negative effects of climate change now vs waiting until we have concrete problems
-recognize that the US is only 5% of the global population and that our emissions are flat with 1990 while global emissions have increased by 2/3's since that time. In short, our domestic policies on climate won't do much to curb global emissions.
- Reduce your carbon footprint. If you haven't reduced it a significant amount then you have no business yelling at others.
-- Familiarize yourself with the actual data.
6
@Ralphie
You might want to write a paper and have it published in a technical journal. The world will be relieved when they find out what you are saying!
1
@Ralphie
In response to your points:
1. Not the cleanest, but definitely reliable, cheap, and low emissions. We need to reevaluate and reinvest in reactor technologies.
2. Nobody is unwilling to have this conversation (adaptation v. mitigation calculations are present throughout IPCC reports), it's just that these estimates are inherently speculative. How do you accurately estimate these future costs considering various unknowns like economic growth, population growth, technological advancement, etc.? This also sidesteps the moral/ethical issue of whether we have a fundamental duty to prevent future generations from paying our environmental bill.
3. US is ~4.5% of world population but ~15% global emissions. And flat emissions are good, but not a real solution if we agree current GHG emissions are unsustainable. Big collective action problem for sure, but we can't make progress unless we try.
4. This viewpoint is asinine, but it is nonetheless common. Should a person not be able to advocate for better transportation options (bus, train, bike paths) just because they currently drive a car? This is the same as saying a person should not be able to advocate for higher taxes unless they already give the government 100% of their income.
5. Well, you are wrong about the abnormally warming thing, but can't disagree with people gaining knowledge on an issue.
1
@Djt Donny? Is that you? Wow.
Seriously, have you looked a the data? I can almost guarantee you that if James Hansen himself said ooops, my bad, the alarmists would still be alarmed.
Yeah, yeah... We all know this stuff.
Since Republicans have successfully muddied the water (or outright lied and denied) on issues pertaining to climate change for 30 years, it's now too late to do anything about it... This argument is SO 2016.
Bio fuels are disastrous! Who could have foreseen the unintended consequences? I'm sure, however, there would be no unintended "downsides" to nuclear energy. It's completely safe and modern! Let's make a "large sized bet" on that! What could go wrong!?
Climate will be the Boomer's legacy. This is what we will be remembered for: the generation who "fiddled while Rome burned."
To change the subject, since we can't do anything about climate, could you -perhaps- comment on what Republicans are doing in Wisconsin, Michigan and N. Carolina? Something maybe conservatives COULD do something about (or, at least, raise a stink about)?
I would prefer not be the generation known for destroying The Republic as well as the climate.
4
“Let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work.” There will be no corruption there and then. WOW!
2
Macron is "Minnie me" Trump: cutting taxes for the super rich, widening the disparity gap, watering down worker protections.
1
2.9 cents-per-liter tax increase on gasoline? Paris was vandalized because the struggling part of the population has to pay between 1 and 2 Euros more per visit to the gas station?
1
Bret, this is about as mealy mouthed a column as possible. Are you really placing the rhetorical blame for our nation’s indifference to climate change on the French working class? Listen my friend, the issue is simple: for decades scientists have been warning about climate change, and for just as long they have been countered with rabid denialism from the right. This denialism has come exclusively from conservatives. Oh sure, there are a few conservatives sprinkled in there like you who say climate change may be real, but it’s for corporations to figure out. That may be the correct course of action, but by not actively and forcefully speaking against conservative climate change denialism, conservatives on the whole have abdicated any authority to diagnose the problems or prescribe possible solutions. Conservatism has failed us with regards to global warming. It is time to own up to this and stop blaming the French for the problems within your own house.
5
"Mr. Stephens believes the unpopularity of this tax shows that legislation/taxes addressing climate change are impractical and politically unpopular."
They are, here in the US and around the world as well.
Common sense prevails still. When you start trying to predict doom and gloom 80 years in the future, you start to lose everyone with a brain knows that you cannot predict the future whether it's 8 months or 80 years. Gee I wonder what the prediction for ANYTHING were in 1938.
Jeez.....
2
The writer flippantly dismisses wind and solar power by mentioning Germany is missing carbon emissions goals (!!!) There is so much more being accomplished with wind and solar in so many more places around the globe every year. And it all results in less carbon emissions. Wind and solar power did not cause Germany to miss goals.
3
Here in Quebec we had a quiet revolution 50 years ago and began a relationship with France that was severed as a result of the French Revolution. We were so conservative that France in 1967 was considered very liberal when France is in fact one of the most conservative of all the liberal democracies. Macron would fit comfortably in the pre-Reagan Republican Party.
There was a time when lowering taxes and shrinking government was not the snake oil that cured all ills. Samuel Johnson was the leading English conservative intellectual of the late 18th century and his 1775 letter to the American Congress called Taxation No Tyranny shows that conservatism need not be the knee jerk reaction of today's snake oil cult that calls itself conservative.
https://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html
3
A good essay which helps us better understand what motivates the yellow vest movement in France.
For the past 50 years, we have been hounded with programs intended to protect the environment. Many of these (low-flush toilets, paying for bags at grocery stores) have little direct impact. Their purpose is to make liberals feel holier than thou.
They come at a high political cost.
Yet the simplest policies are never even discussed. The simplest of all is to cut population growth.
World population has doubled since 1970. Other things equal that causes a doubling in energy usage.
But other things are not equal. Population growth causes incredible poverty in the third world, affecting billions of people. This provides pressure to use the cheapest form of energy. In the case of India and China this is coal instead of solar, at least for now.
People in the third world were starving. Paul Ehrlich predicted widespread hunger. To some extent this was averted by more efficient agriculture and better food distribution. But this required more use of hydrocarbons, oil for tractors for example.
We need to control population growth. The population of Guatemala has grown from about 3 million in 1950 to about 17 million now. That is the reason for the migrant caravan.
It is the Democrats even more than the Republicans who are in denial on this issue. They push for amnesty for illegal immigrants. And those who argue for lower population growth are branded as racists.
6
@Jake Wagner
Agree with everything until last paragraph. How do immigration laws impact population growth? More pertinently, how would revoking amnesty and kicking out immigrants currently living here lower population growth?
This regressive tax increase hits working class people and on the face of it, appears to be meant to balance out a tax cut to millionaires. Macron's environment minister resigned less than a month ago because Macron only pays lip service to the environment. Yet the Bret lends legitimacy to Macron's greenwashing and has the temerity to pretend to know what France and the world needs? What we don't need are uninformed opinions from hypocrites.
3
What's wrong with the solution proposed by Citizens' Climate Lobby?
see: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
See the description here of the recently introduced H.R. 7173, a bipartisan bill that proposes a carbon fee, used to fund dividends returned to the public.
1
@jabber
In simple terms it is not going to work in the real world the way you make it seem on paper. People who pay the tax and can least afford it will get their money back but still reduce their use of fossil fuels? How? If they get the money back through a rebate why won't they use it to buy fuels? What you really are proposing is some groups will end up winners, and others will end up losers but on the whole it will be revenue neutral across the economy. Sure, sign me up as long I am in the winners column but somehow I don't think I will be. I will be one of those working class stiffs barely making it to my next paycheck hit with higher fuel bills and someone else, probably not even working or maybe an illegal immigrant, will get the money back that I and others like me pay into the system. You can link to all the studies you want until you explain how a poor person paying the tax and getting a refund won't spend it on fuel your argument holds no water.
2
@GregP
Well, it will be taxed at the source...the producers pay, so less profitability. Combined with subsidizing the right kinds of energy (instead of the wrong kinds, as our govt has long done), and the economic analysis says it will work. Please visit the website for the economic study....
1
Al Gore also claimed that Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa would be 'snow-free' by 2016.
It is 2018, and there is snow on Mount Kilimanjaro.
He predicted that weather in Africa would get 'worse' (whatever that means.)
Did not happen.
He predicted stronger, more frequent hurricane activity in Africa by 2016.
None of this has occurred.
2
@DennisG Enjoy Cape Cod while it's still above sea level!
1
@DennisG
Hah, sure most of their predictions have come true, but not all of them! Got em! Looks like we don't have to worry
"Before accusing the so-called do-nothings of being good-for-nothings, shouldn’t the self-declared do-somethings first propose something serious to do?"
Oh, you mean like the literally hundreds of policies proposed over the past couple decades? Like most types of new policies, some have been successful (CA cap-and-trade; renewable portfolio standards; emission standards), while other's haven't. Maybe we could, you know, try some of those more successful ones on a larger scale? Like, I dunno, maybe a global cap-and-trade? (cough cough Kyoto cough cough)
Of course, Stephens only focuses on the failures, and uses these failures to show why all policies that conflict with his worldview--no to taxes and regulations, yes to market-based solutions except when they "harm" (read: change) the "economy" (read: business profits & the stock market)--are destined for failure.
So no, Mr. Stephens. We are sick and tired of proposing serious solutions just for you Republican hacks to shoot them down. How about you do-nothings do something for once and propose something you would get on board with?
Oh wait, the Republicans did that in late 90s and early 2000s (support for carbon tax) only to reverse course when it came to actually passing legislation.
This column is (pardon the pun) a bunch of hot air. Nobody should believe a word out of Stephens' or the GOP's mouth on this issue until they propose and actually support some serious policies.
3
Someone should point out that all those tire fires and burning cars is really bad for the environment...
1
Any attempt at making great again what -- per our founding framers -- had been squared away for posterity clearly usurps live-for-the-moment quantities to selfishly stay what our of/by&fors have designed to sustain hereafter in the accumulative greater good of qualitative tomorrows.
After all, lest we otherwise perish from the earth, "belonging to the ages" is not for our "better angels" -- yet best! -- to wrest control via MAGA's turned-back clocks. Hence the need to spur innovation whence meaning's better matter literally energizes our higher order -- nuclear, say -- to purposely shun irrelevant quarterlies for far greater returns singularly destined MOVING FORWARD.
Taxing carbon sends a signal to people and the markets and in theory they will respond in time to that signal.
This process may be too slow given the seriousness of the current situation.
Quantitative easing has been used to save the banks.
Quantitative easing can and should be used to help save the world from climate change.
There should be central bank funding for critical transition projects that create the momentum we so desperately need.
The benefit of such an approach would be that costs can be amortised across multiple generations.
It would also be helpful in overcoming ‘chicken and egg’ situations where for example no one will build hydrogen infrastructure because there are few vehicles using the fuel and few people will buy hydrogen cars because there is no fuel infrastructure which in turn makes it harder for manufacturers to gear up for mass production which would lower the unit vehicle prices to consumers.
A carbon tax is not intrinsically regressive. It could be offset by reductions in Social Security taxes. In the Germany of my youth there was a "13th month salary" that my father paid his assistants every December. So one could imagine an IRS christmas bonus to all families below some income. Lots of people would then have a choice how to spend this money. There is an enormous amount of non out-sourceable or automatable work to improve the energey efficiency of the current housing stock. And there must be 1001 other strategies on building the true carbon cost of goods and services into their prices so that consumers can base their behaviour and choices on them. That said, I also agree that nuclear energy is by far the safest source of energy readily available within current technology
I wonder how much it will cost to mitigate rising sea levels? Where will the money come from?
1
One thing we haven't tried is the Republican's Climate Leadership Council's carbon dividend plan, now enshrined in House bill 7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Since there is no net revenue to be gleaned from the carbon tax, with all proceeds to be redistributed to households as dividends, the Act provides individuals a method to actually make money off reducing their carbon footprint. Move closer to work, buy a smaller house, drive a smaller or electric car, take fewer trips by plane, turn the thermostat down in winter and up in summer, and harvest the dividends from doing so. It's probably not enough, but it would, at least, slow climate change down, and hopefully turn back the trend toward McMansions and huge pickup trucks. My son's utilities in Portland, Oregon, offer an all-wind option for electric bills (which costs about $5 more a month from Portland General Electric) and the natural gas company, NW Natural, offers a reduced emissions option for energy recapture from cow patties to supplement natural gas bills. There are lots of innovative ideas out there, if only we provided financial incentive to move in the right direction.
3
I appreciate the window into right wing thinking that Mr Stephens’ columns affords us, though it’s rather depressing to see that they still cling to the defeatist line when it comes to clean energy generation.
While some countries in Europe have struggled to come up with effective strategies, others have pursued simpler approaches that are working well. Scotland took an aggressive line on wind farm installation, and now averages nearly 70% generation from renewables (nuclear is part of this mix). Last month it achieved 98%. This while the UK has cut public subsidies and spending across the board, and the industry now has to largely support itself.
Scotland is small, and usually windswept (though quite pretty all the same), but I’m sure the US must have vast windswept tracts of its own? If only there was the same opportunity for graft and profits in wind farms as there is in the oil and gas business...
1
Government is not the answer, nor are various strategies to tax carbon emissions as the French preident has discovered. Each of us can solve climate change tomorrow by voluntarily cutting back on consumption in all its forms. Energy use always falls during recessions; energy use can also be reduced through voluntary action. Take myself:
I am in the habit of flying to the West Coast from upstate NY two times a year for family visits. I could cut this back to three times in two years.
My wife and I have seven functioning CPUs + two tvs in our home. Don’t use much energy, right? No, wrong. The fantastic costs are all upstream in the excacation of metals and rare earths, and the energy costs of manufacture and transport. I could live the rest of my life without buying another piece of electronics. Will I?
My wife and I usually drive her Prius. Great mileage yep, but not as great as when we don’t get in the car.
The point is neither I nor anyone I know is willing to give up some thing important to them solely for the sake of the environment. The key words are “important to them” and “solely.” Do not blame Trump or the political system. Every one of us could easily cut our energy consumption, both immediate and upstream. We have met the enemy, and he....
3
@William Colgan
So governments shouldn't take action on the issue, and if they did it would be ineffective, because individuals could, but don't, address the issue on their own?
Wow, what a novel approach to policy making! No need for criminal laws or police; if people really wanted to prevent crime they would just stop committing crimes. No need for tax laws; if people really wanted to fund their governments they would voluntarily pay taxes.
Just because we could all revert back to hunter-gatherer societies tomorrow but choose not to doesn't mean that we can't take actions to meaningfully address environmental issues.
2
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for a concise, thoroughly realistic and balanced look at climate change policies, through the lens of the French reaction to higher fuel taxes. Nuclear energy should be resurrected to produce US electricity with minimal carbon impact. The longevity of these plants will buy time for battery development and other new technologies.
Natural gas and oil can be used with efficient and clean combustion technologies for home heating and transportation until practical longer distance autos and inexpensive home solar heating systems become available and affordable.
If the US leverages our free market industrial advantages with minimal command subsidies of nuclear, we can avoid the mistakes of other nations. While we cannot force the other major polluting countries to act responsibly, we can show a measured way that fits our system, as the energy-poor Germans have already done with theirs.
2
Japan built nuclear reactors on the beach in an earthquake zone also subject to tsunamis and hurricanes. It was nuts, and came to the predictable bad end.
France dug deep into granite mountains, like the US did for its NORAD headquarters. France put its reactors safely deep inside those mountains. No earthquakes, no weather risks, and total containment. They've had no incidents. That was predictable too.
Just saying "nuclear" is not the beginning and end of the conversation.
2
@Mark Thomason -- Ihave no idea where you got the claim that French reactors are "dug deep into granite mountains" ... but this is plain wrong. Not a one of them is.
You may be thinking of the Switzerland; they built a pilot plant inside a mountain cavern near Lucens in 1962. It failed in 1969, with a partial core meltdown.
3
It seems Macron had an easy sale and he blew it. If he wanted to tax carbon (i.e. fuel tax) he could have offset it with by cutting a different tax. have the fuels tax, reduce the VAT or the take your pick tax. Et voila! everything is back to where it was before!
Climate change policy, by its nature, can't work on a national level. The taxes imposed by the government were meant to make up for a budget shortfall caused by repealing a wealth tax (ISF). Taxing the poor and working classes to pay for a reduction in taxes on the wealthy is probably not a good way to charm the vast majority of French people into supporting your neoliberal "reforms".
105
@CL California just overwhelmingly approved a gas tax (for the second time — after the original ballot measure passed, Republicans put on a ballot measure to repeal the tax). The tax is regressive. The difference is probably that the proponents were very specific about which projects the tax will go to, primarily ones that improve public transportation.
2
@Mercury S
The difference is that this occurred in California.
6
@CL - climate change policy, by its nature, is to make changes happen in our energy infrastructure, supply, habits, etc. There is nothing that makes that impossible on a national level.
Climate change policy which is actually a tax-shifting scheme, is not climate change policy.
1
So Stephens' position is that nothing can be done, so we should do nothing? He may be right; but future generations would curse us for not even trying to address the problems that will imperil not only their way of life but possibly their lives.
I am weary of the trope that "we can't instantly and painlessly solve climate change, so we should not even try." Let's begin with a carbon tax and by removing the myriad tax subsidies for fossil fuels. Let's commit to reaching meaningful international agreements, rather than backing out of the few that now exist. Let's try ANYthing other than denying the consensus of 97% of climate scientists and whistling past the proverbial graveyard.
170
@J I believe he states we should try nuclear power, and points out how France has hurt itself by reducing its reliance on such power. Also, as stated in various comments, voters overwhelmingly reject carbon taxes.
9
@J He is right. And future generations of humans will work it out, just as they always have. Note the ice age.
3
@J I agree if their was real political and social will we could change things. After all the US got a man on a moon in 10 years and they created a hydrogen bomb in 5. Both started off in theory only. If people really wanted use alternative energy sources we could have it.
8
I'm glad Brett and I are both all for nuclear power.
I just prefer the sun as my source.
The Sun: massive nuclear furnace- so big its powered the planet for a few billion years. Far enough away so we don't have to worry about where the dangerous waste is stored.
That's the source. Plants figured out how to use it a long time ago. We are part-way there.
Marc
PS- we'd be a lot closer if we'd left alone the solar panels Jimmy Carter put on the white house roof 40 YEARS AGO and actually really worked on this back then.
202
@Marc McDermott
We can also leave as much coal, oil, and natural gas in the ground as possible. It's carbon, and it's already sequestered!
16
@Marc McDermott - we are already there. Solar and wind are already the cheapest forms of electricity out there and costs of solar in particular continue to fall. The future isn't nuclear. It isn't magic chinese fusion. It is renewables, storage and grid modernization. All the tools are there despite Bret Stephens ignorance on the subject.
20
@Marc McDermott - "The sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a perpetual furnace…"
If I am making policy for France, I take part of their defense budget and spend it on 5 to 10 million electric cars and trucks and use those to retire older more inefficient and polluting vehicles. Everyone below a certain income level gets a free car and one free year of maintenance. This policy subsidizes the rural and suburban poor to commute to their jobs, makes France the number one electric vehicle manufacturer in the world, and cuts carbon pollution.
3
Mr. Stephens ignores the very clear fact that carbon emissions are being reduced in many places, successfully. Emissions in the EU rose a bit last year, but look at their overall trend downwards since 1990. The EU is emitting over 20% less CO2 now than then.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Greenhouse_gas_emission_statistics
He also doesn't mention the NY Times coverage that makes it clear that the French protests might have been triggered by a new tax, but are not aimed at climate policy, but a feeling of grievance against the same flow of wealth to the top there as we're seeing.
His mention of "regressive tax" is an assumption he wants us to accept. He ignores non-regressive carbon taxes that are revenue neutral, or ones like the Citizens Climate Lobby proposal, by a bipartisan group, that distributes most revenue back to taxpayers. People choosing lower-emission products gain money.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
3
Our average price at the pump may be $2.44 but that is thanks to 100 years of military posture that provides highly favorable terms in the global energy market. How much do we pay per gallon when you factor in the American taxpayer's contribution to the national armor that lets us pay less than everybody else?
3
Mr. Stephens believes the unpopularity of this tax shows that legislation/taxes addressing climate change are impractical and politically unpopular.
Like most Republican hot-takes on climate change issues, this is both factually incorrect and an oversimplification of a complex issue.
The French people are upset that this specific tax increase disproportionately impacts the working class, and that it is coming on the heels of tax cuts for the wealthy. The French people overwhelmingly agree that legislation/taxes should be implemented to address climate change--they just disagree on the specific policy proposals. This is completely normal.
6
3 years ago the US, the world, the economy etc etc etc were all heading in the right direction. What has changed?
@Mike OK......Trump
@Mike OK
If you detest Trump, then obviously things were not headed in the right direction three years ago. Three years ago we were about to elect Trump. That's a fact, we just didn't know that at the time.
TrumpRepublicans
Mr. Stephens minimizes the catastrophic consequences of climate change, pooh-poohs many proposed solutions as ineffective or politically impossible, and ends with a truism that leads us nowhere.
Consider:
1. The recent National Climate Assessment, based on the work of more than 1000 climate scientists, concludes that climate change is an extremely serious threat and that its impacts are already catastrophic.
2. Unless we act strongly to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, future catastrophes will get worse and worse. Our grandchildren may live in a world that is nearly uninhabitable. The world’s poor may live in one that is literally uninhabitable.
4. There is a near-consensus about the single best way to limit climate change: put a price on the price of carbon in order to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas. Economists and business leaders, including Republicans like former Secretary of State George Shultz, have endorsed this approach.
5. Putting a price on carbon faces large political obstacles. Indeed, Mr. Stephens focuses on the political blowback against a modest French gasoline tax, and he doesn't mention a price on carbon among his list of potential “solutions.” However, a carbon tax can be made politically palatable by rebating the revenue in the form of a lump-sum payment to each citizen or by making equivalent reductions in income and/or payroll taxes.
Mr. Stephens is a smart person, He can do better than this.
2
Allow me to present "The Republican Response to Climate Change," a tragedy in 3 acts.
Act 1: Attack the Science
-This brief opening act foreshadows the tragedy to come. Best summarized as : "Ya ya, sure maybe your models show something, but the "business community" funds studies that say the opposite, so who's to say which one is right?"
Act 2: Deny The Science and Shoot the Messenger
-This act, the longest of the three, is best known for the consistent denial of global trends and growing scientific consensus, interspersed with occasional bits of humor (Climate change can't be real, just look at this snowball! Winter is here and now its cold; take that science!). Oh, and also smearing scientists.
Act 3: Accept the Science, But Lament that, Alas, There is Nothing to Be Done!
-This part is notable in that Republicans (finally!) accept the science staring them in the face, but then take great pains to point out that any solutions are just too costly--either to "growth," "business," or "ordinary citizens"--so unfortunately we (still) can't do anything.
But believe them, they would totally support solutions to this problem, just as long as said solutions have absolutely no potential downsides. (And pay no attention to the fact that their decades of intransigence is the primary reason solutions are so expensive and difficult to implement. Oh, and also be sure to blame Environmentalists for making imperfect proposals while not making any yourself)
-Fin-
15
To Brett Stephens and others,
Many people die each year in their sleep.
Among then, some may have argued that in their dreams they are awake. But as they are asleep, they lack the tools to recognize the dangers of continuing to dream.
If you have never considered what it would be like to awaken after ten thousand years of sleep, I suggest that now might be a good time.
Consider the possibility that even the best of dreams are meant to vanish.
2
Does anyone really believe that conservatives have anything to offer when it comes to climate change policy? Given their unbroken record of obstruction and denial, it’s more than a little Rich for Mr Stephens to be spouting off.
2
Ah, the sweet smell of easy.
By all means, do nothing hard or inconvenient. Safe bets only. Most importantly: make sure to use even tangential policy failures as an excuse to go slow.
Existential threats are best left to grow unchecked until risk free solutions abound. Pro tip: it makes it easier to sleep at night and look your children in the eye if you deny the scope of the problem or even better, it's very existence.
What could go wrong?
6
Nuclear! This is absolutely the one change that I believe would do the most in the shortest amount of time to lessen climate change.
4
Climate change is going to be sooner than you think, and the effects worse than you think.
4
At last, a clear eyed look at climate change. I've been fuming since Al Gore proposed eliminating CO2 emissions, which is impossible and deadly, and flew off in his private jet to his 30,000 square foot house. And lately I've been angry at the worship of the UN Greenfund, to which Barack Obama fired off a 500 million dollar check just before he left office, with a pledge of billions more of American tax money. Which Donald Trump has not sent. The US needs that money to relocate the residents of forested Northern California; to move highways that flood every afternoon in Florida; to help New York move its essential services and their computers west. So keep it up, please, Mr. Stephens; the world is going to start starving long before any other aspect of global warming becomes a real problem; and I look at some of the pious believers like Mr. Macron and Mr. Gore and wonder if they're just ignorant, or think its time their own people suffered in the name of the global greater good. Not themselves, of course; they'll be too busy attending international diplomatic conferences on how to persuade their own people to live at the protein level of a peasant in southeast Asia.
9
To me this is pretty ill informed, and out of context
But of course does its work to justify current US policy
2
Headline: "Stephens still writes climate opinion like he's a WSJ flunky". The French protests are not about climate policy, though a gas tax triggered them.
You talk about wanting people working on the problem to be "humble in their opinions" yet you advocate nuclear, choosing to ignore the fact that trying to build more nuclear also generates lots of protests.
You say "let markets, not governments" fix the issue, but don't advise what most economists do, a carbon emissions tax, which would help existing nuclear, too.
Then you try to surprise us by saying many startups - like in energy storage - fail. Wow! But you don't mention the industry is booming - Elon Musk's battery gigafactory has lots of competition.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/10-battery-gigafactories-are-now-in-progress-and-musk-may-add-4-more
And you avoid mention of things that have been working. You neglect to tell the readers that four states here now generate over 30% of their electricity through wind power. Texas has two nukes, but wind power supplies more than them since 2014, and is now nearly 15% of total supply.
The federal EnergyStar program could have been mentioned, too. Voluntary to manufacturers, popular, and has saved people billions of dollars (and stopped a lot of emissions).
The history of climate policy failures includes a lot of writing by people in some parts of the press who still think the problem is something better dealt with by kicking it down the road.
This column reminds me of the drivel Mr. Stephens penned in explaining why he wanted the Iran deal to end. In that column, the only specific thing he stated was it was “nuts” to allow continued uranium enrichment. He neglected, of course, to inform readers that the continued production was for far below weapons grade uranium and would be part of the rigorous inspections regime. He couldn't bother to address the prohibitions and enforcement in the deal.
This column also reminds me of Stephens’ fellow reactionary at the paper—Ross Douthat—who in a podcast I listened to yesterday stated the data does not support the view that weather events have increased. The hottest years on record have all taken place in the last decade. How in the world he could possibly state what he did is beyond me.
This column cherry-picks certain “failures” and ignores the biggest developments. How about the birth and growth of the renewable energy industry since 2009 (as a result of the stimulus)? How about the rise of Tesla and other electric cars supported by tax incentives? How about the dreaded Pelosi getting cap and trade passed?
The New York Times needs to reconsider its hiring of John Birch Society types such as Stephens and Douthat. There are opinions and there are bad faith arguments. Stephens and Douthat do not publish opinions.
2
The truth comes out.
Yes, there is no “solving” climate change without dramatically increasing the cost of life and reducing the standard of living.
Also, regulating carbon is a huge opportunity for the abuse of power.
That’s why the greenies are all wasting their time. Even the Democrats are not foolish enough to seriously do what the climate scientists say needs to be done.
4
If you want to do something useful, Stevens, do some reporting and find out how much the French protests are being astroturfed by oil money, as the Tea Party was.
3
@gVOR08
I thought it was the Russians.
1
There was a lot of unrest in France even before the gas tax hike. Here is a great analysis showing how globalization has affected France: https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html
1
It is sad that it took rioting from poor working people for the New York Times to publish such an accurate critique of climate change action. The truth has always been that the cost of fighting global warming were so high that popular opinion would have opposed them everywhere, even by left leaning environmentalists.
When costs of $15 Trillion dollars are tossed around, people's eyes glaze over at the high figures. But when put in context, 1/5 of the world's economic output, that would mean a cost of $12,000 for every working American (and every other working person in the world) it hits home. Most working people can't make ends meet month to month, I doubt there would be much appetite to lose that much money to dubious solutions. Global warming has always been a project of the rich and comfortable; the rioting in France is a wake up call to this insular elite.
If asked: "Your car or a 2 degree warmer world"; without doubt, 99% of Americans would chose to keep their cars and live with a world that is incrementally warmer.
3
@Ayaz
What if the choice was pickup truck or Prius?
If they have so much following they needn't have to go violent.let alone in one of the most beautiful cities in the World like Pari even else where burning cars is an ugly and unwise tactic, it pollutes the vicinity with its strong pungent odor.the protesters they should clearly state their complaints.Not every demand is realistic or productive and not all those who are protesting are genuine life improvement seekers..Pres Macron is a capable and world statesman, so a person the protesters,through their Reps, can sit down reason with and hammer out a mutually acceptable middle ground solution.The Pres have to juggle several contending interests : available revenues,costs,France's commitment to guaranteeing stabilitys that affect its National interest ( what goes on at a far away land can have domestic repercussions).Individual protester may be trapped and get concerned about personal or family needs alone and it is easy for the person to place any demand she or he has an urge for.A vital Nation's interests shouldn't be taken hostage to parochial ends.The masses have to find a way of condensing and articulating their demands,then listen and find out what they can realistically and reasonably expect and for that they need Pres Macron not corner him by brute force and just make him look bad.Mainly, Mob driven protests they tend to be emotional and in an effort to secure short term gains they end up hurting their lasting interests: have witnessed a mob do that in Afri.+M.E..TMD
1
Markets might be able to nourish and stimulate promising new technologies and business models for alternative energy, but markets are unable to ensure scalability and affordability for the best bets. Actually, we already kind of know what green technologies can get us to our goals, and they are gaining some traction in the market. Subsidies and other government incentives can and should get the right green technologies into the market as financially viable alternatives to carbon-based fuels and technologies. Bret is blinded on this score by ideological free-market dogma. Furthermore, the oil industry itself has benefited from government favors while its advocates parrot free market ideals.
1
"Let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work." In the first half of the 20th century, government support for fossil fuels was massive (indeed, many argue that that support is still massive). In the second half: nuclear got trillions of dollars in government support. Government supported fracking technology for a quarter-century before the private sector could take it over, and the fracking industry currently develops a debt of $38 billion a year: its never made a profit.
Now, along comes renewable energy and other climate solutions, and suddenly its supposed to go begging to the Wolves of Wallstreet for funding, because 'government can't do anything right' (U.S. military notwithstanding). Sounds like a recipe for inaction. Stephens needs to keep in mind: NYC will drown later, but the level of drowning is a die that is being cast today. Action is needed now, right this minute, or the consequences will be horrible later. His advice on nuclear power is a good one.
4
@Phil -- Stephens doesn't really believe that climate change is a problem. So he burbles about "the markets" while ignoring how they work, and how incumbents will strenuously fight upstarts, and often enlist their customers in that fight. He ignores the fact that industries on their way out, especially when their products are shown to be damaging, will sponsor think tanks, and enlist friendly media to spread distortions.
Bret used to be an opinion writer at the Wall Street Journal - read their reporting on climate change and it's solid. Read their opinion writing on climate change is an entirely different world.
If he was serious about tackling climate change he wouldn't have an opinion piece urging "the market" to solve the problem, and in the same piece suggest that the realistic solution is nuclear - which is uncompetitive in the market when facing natural gas and renewables.
This column pretends the Yellow Vest protests are related to climate policy. They're not, as the NY Times has documented.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/world/europe/yellow-vests-france.html
Stephens mentions that Obama rejected a gas-tax hike, but the US hasn't even raised the federal fuel tax for supporting our national highways since 1997. So the problem isn't climate policy, some of it in the US is a toxic "all taxes are bad" movement typified by nearly every Republican signing a pledge from Grover Norquist - to put anti-tax ideology above oath of office.
So, Bret, what HAS been working - here's an example for you. It's not perfect, since this is reality, but it's been effective.
Germany is still the third-largest manufacturing economy in the world, the fourth-largest national economy, and with a high standard of living. They're also aggressively taking the carbon out of their energy systems, through an extensive, government-driven program, the Energiewende.
Their CO2 emissions in current years are lower than they were in the late 1960s. This is success, and they did it before much of the technology, or deployment capabilities, were fully ready.
They've made it harder to accomplish by also deciding to retire their nuclear fleet, many of the plants far earlier than their expected lifetimes, but nuclear is politically toxic - which Bret ignores in his "humble" suggestions.
They buried much of their transmission lines, too. Costly, but boosts reliability.
6
People will sell their grandmother or go to war with alacrity before giving up the illusory freedom of driving anywhere they want, anytime they want to, and until that changes emissions will continue to increase. By the way, Bret, there are other countries that are meeting their targets than the two you named, Nicaragua being a sterling exemplar. They are just omitted from the chart for whatever reason.
1
The carbon tax would have worked just fine 30 years ago but I seem to recall that "conservatives" were busy denying that there was a problem.
A Green New Deal would work now and, if investments were targeted for rural areas, natural opponents could be brought around. Macron's belief in austerity and economic power for financial markets will prevent him from doing the smart thing. But I would hardly expect you to see this or to come up with any positive solutions.
3
As I Francophile, I have long admired France's vitality and cultural traditions, but France's social model is now one of the most vulnerable to global forces. The expectations the French have had of their government for generations require more and more resources to sustain--and their tax burden is the second highest among developed nations (only slightly behind Denmark). Most of them aren't used to, nor do they want, the messier American-style system with a higher degree of personal risk and responsibility. Macron is correct that the country's system needs more flexibility for growth. But the biggest challenge for him or any future leaders will be managing expectations and perceptions.
1
@MSB You don't know the repartition of the French tax system.There are social benefits that need to be paid for and they don't exist anywhere else. The problem is also their distribution that is also today corrupted ,being the privilege of the rich ...who don't pay taxes.The poor pay and don't get anything. That is the reality of France.Contrary to the lies being told. The numbers ,themselves are stubborn to indicate something else. And the numbers are today in the streets.
1
To effectively limit carbon consumption, you need to tax carbon consumption. Taxes in this instance are a form of price control and thereby quantity control. Remember, consumption equals production and price is the independent variable.
You can put caps on carbon emissions but you're essentially accomplishing the same thing backwards. The cost of carbon emission penalties will get passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices for consumer goods.
Either way, you'll get the Yellow Vest reaction. One approach starts at the oil refinery while the other approach starts at the pump. Both approaches are inherently regressive for a homogeneous good like petrol.
You're causing general inflation because everything is tied to petrol in some manner unless you have a proper substitution. We don't. People with limited means obviously suffer disproportionately from general inflation.
The policy is therefore poorly designed. You can't just pass a gas tax and magically expect carbon emissions to go down. Macron skipped a giant step in the incentives process. You can't devalue real incomes without counter balancing the policy.
If Macron's real goal is carbon reduction, he needs to make the gas tax net-neutral on family budgets. Use less gas and we'll give you more of something else. He didn't. That's why workers are rioting in Paris.
10
If you make the carbon tax tax-neutral, you will not change behavior. People supporting climate change actions have to be upfront about the pain. It has to force literally billions of people to change their ways of life. Limiting driving by 1 million rich households while 99 million middle and lower income households keep or increase driving will not do anything. The PPM metric does not care about the wealth of the driver.
Until they start talking in terms of X severe pain from change for the correction, 5X severe pain if nothing gets done, then activists won’t get anything done. If we need to fight a war, then talk that way. People know how to fight wars, if need be. Covering it up with mealy mouth agreements won’t do anything. My guess is they won’t and nothing will happen.
@Michael Blazin
The carbon tax doesn't need to be neutral. Tax the ever loving daylights out of carbon. The overall policy needs to be income neutral.
As an example, you pay more at the pump but less at the grocery store. Reduce the sales tax? Reduce the property tax? Whatever. You can offset the gas tax by reducing the tax burden elsewhere. People will have an incentive to drive less without sacrificing their current quality of life.
In France's case, I would suggest making the carbon tax net-income positive. Sounds like citizens could use a helping hand anyway.
People will be smart enough to keep driving cars, maybe increasing driving, if overall money is same. They want to drive and feel they need to drive. If you are going to blamed for pain, it may as well be effective pain.
The carbon tax would be accepted if it was matched by a reduction in taxes elsewhere so it would change behavior but not hurt the consumer.
3
Its easy to point out the failures, but there have also been successes. There are countries that are making respectable progress at least. If Bret really agrees that this is a serious problem, then he has a responsibility as a public commentator to actually support one of the options.
Nuclear might be a reasonable take, but then we first need to solve the problem of the existing nuclear waste that no one wants to accept. If no state/county is willing to take it, then the fee paid for waste disposal needs to increase until the locals actually are willing to take the risk. Then Nuclear might not seem so cheap?
What is galling about Bret's stalling here, is that economists are pretty much unanimous that the appropriate response is what would have been the conservative answer in years past - a revenue neutral carbon tax. Don't increase the tax burden, but shift if to things that we actually want to discourage. If its effects are regressive, then we can compensate by reducing sales tax on non-luxury items, or increase the earned income tax credit or giving every person in the country $X each month (nominally for energy expenses, but if they can conserve, they keep the remainder).
4
People are not against Climate Control. They are fed up with what is perceived to be unfair treatment. If you tax some one for using fuel, but don't provide a means for them to travel to work or wherever they feel compelled to go the they get angry. If they are out of work 'eating cake' while others are eating steak they get angry. If the people keep feeling angry because of unequal treatment ultimately they will get even or at least attempt to. We need to address those fundamental life support issues to make life worth living, before we doing anything else.
The governments of the world are losing because the people believe they have been disregarded for and by the wealthy.
4
This article assumes that doing something about it makes it a good idea to raise the price of gasoline that is already over $6 gallon.
That could be not the right way to do it, hitting the wrong people in the wrong way.
The rediculousness of Stephens argument is underscored by how the tax is marginal and insignificant - the French are revolting for reasons other than gasoline prices. Gasoline prices are just how the tools are brought on board...making that a revolt against climate policy shows the vapidness of the ideological premises that Stephens has on the subject.
1
Nuclear power is safe? That's what the industry says to the public. To Congress, they say: "The Industry can't survive without the Price-Anderson Act," which takes liability off them and puts it on . . . us.
If the unfettered market were allowed to decide about nuclear power? The industry would be doomed: this "too safe to fail" tech is (by its own admission and with the concurrence of the insurance companies) uninsurable--and therefore unsustainable.
2
It was not too many years ago the French government encouraged its people to switch to diesel for economic and environmental reasons. Now it wants to tax them for same. Go figure why there are riots.
Where are the political elites when you need them down on the streets helping out the police?
2
The only form of carbon tax that is equitable is a "tax and dividend" approach requiring all tax revenues be returned to the citizenry as monthly dividends. Citizens may grumble at the higher costs of fuels resulting from the tax, but each month they will receive a check to ease the pain. Further, the size of the check depends on each consumer. If she/he drives fewer miles or buys a more efficient vehicle, or installs energy efficiency measure at home that reduce electricity bills, each month's check will be bigger. That gives each citizen a stake in the fight against climate change. Unfortunately, a tax alone will not solve global warming. We need aggressive action in deploying non-emitting energy technologies such as wind and solar. As for Mr. Stephens' beloved nuclear, I'm all for it if utilities can demonstrate they can build them without massive cost overruns. The cost of the Vogtle plant under construction in Georgia--the only nuclear plant being built in the United States--has doubled from $14 billion in 2014 to $28 billion as of August. These plants are dizzyingly complex, take years to build and must be coddled relentlessly. A vast network of distributed generation supplying equivalent energy can be built far more cheaply. That's why wind and solar are the overwhelming first choice for new generation by most utilities.
4
Bret Stephens, beings an economic conservative believes that any attempt by any government to lessen Global Warming is a left wing plot to destroy capitalism.
The problems in France are a lot more complex that Stevens either admits or understands. While the price of gas is significantly higher in France than in the US, The average gas mileage is also significantly higher in France. I've driven extensively in France and per mile, I paid maybe 10% more for gas. What Stevens also doesn't explain is that France has to import all of its oil and gas as it has no oil fields. That is another reason gas is more expensive in France. The real issues behind the strikes is that the average French wages has gone down while the Bosses' wages have gone up. Just like in America.
7
1. "Greenwashing (a compound word modelled on "whitewash"), also called "green sheen",[1][2] is a form of spin in which green PRor green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization's products, aims or policies are environmentally friendly."
2. "In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause"
2
Good Goddess, people! We WASTE more than half of the energy we produce here in the Good Ole' USA: .
If we care enough (questionable premise, I realize), there are plenty of simple actions we each could take that, collectively, would take us a huge step toward addressing our own self-created climate problems, save us money and improve national security.
Transportation = 40% of energy use/75% wasted (Yikes!).
Actions: Stay home, minimize idling, combine vehicle trips, carpool, walk, ride a bike or a bus, drive slower, buy energy-efficient vehicles, inflate your tires…
Residential/Commercial = 28% of energy use/20% wasted.
Actions: Turn off lights/TV/computer when not in use, use powerstrips, install LEDs, don't overheat/cool, seal leaks, insulate, build smaller, close off unused rooms, install solar…
Industrial = 32% of energy use/20% wasted.
Action: Research companies that focus on energy efficiency and buy accordingly (Google "energy efficient US companies").
Alternatively -
* Wait for - Congress Critters, the Chinese/Indians, oil companies, the neighbors - to act, continue to wait, wait…
* Bend over, put your head between your legs, yada, yada…
4
This column might have been relevant ten years ago. Today the situation is completely changed. The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the political classes in the so-called advanced nations has been exposed. We have on one hand a demagogue like Trump who believes in transactional politics (absent reason and strategy) or we have a Macron who believes in hyper-rationality and technical fixes. However the game is up gents! The yellow vests are post-political and pro-rage...neither left nor right...just mad as hell. The same rage that people express over gas price hikes will soon be expressed over climate change denial once the effects start really kicking in. The question of how the elites will respond is a given...they will do whatever it takes to maintain their hold on power. It's how the rest respond which is the great pending question. If history is any guide things are set to get pretty ugly. (and just a footnote...the greatest contributors to climate change are people....instead of that third (or even second) child maybe you should consider a dog.
3
Fine and nuanced thoughts, Bret, and obviously it'll be necessary to approach would-be solutions with an eye to other concerns rather than just hammering them into place whether they fit or not.
One thing I will say: your "markets, not governments" approach to evaluating solutions set my teeth right on edge. Corporations do not serve the commonweal; they serve their investors. Any public good coming out of a for-profit enterprise is a happy accident, more often than not, and the role of coal and oil merchants in getting us into our present terrible fix of a situation is as clear as it is repugnant.
Governments have at least the merit of theoretically serving their people. Why the hell would we trust the markets when demand for oil and outpouring of carbon are surging while the planet burns?
2
I suspect you are veering philosophical at a younger age than usual. Be that as it may, I trust you agree that 'climate change' (warming) is upon us already, and at least co-responsible for the increased frequency and severity of natural disasters, a mighty expense as well, other than increasing our health problems and the loss of a rightful enjoyment of a by-force short stay on Mother Earth (in the living department, as no promises of eternal bliss are available, unless you think our own creation of gods, so to escape death, is real). You may also agree that, however imperfect and flawed, we owe it to ourselves to be worried about our screwing a planet we live and depend on, and that our profligacy in spending what we haven't got be patable by our grand kids...and poorer nations unable to cope as well as rich countries can. And if truly worried, unlike frogs in slowly warming and eventually boiling water unable to escape on time, we ought to get together, and plan judiciously to at least delay a working environmental catastrophe 'a la frog'. We have a diagnosis already, and preventive measures seem beyond help; so, we need to find a suitable treatment that, without killing the patiernt, is effective and efficient...and with the least side effects. This, in concurrence with the need of humility in our ignorance of what we know...compared to what is out there waiting to be discovered. But not moving forward to find out, we are doomed.
1
The problem with columns like this, which are really just a form of concern trolling, is that the physical process in place do not care about politics.
They don't care what they say on Fox Five. They don't care in whether you believe in them or not.
They do not care about whether policies are "realistic" or not.
It is this central fact that people like Stephens do not understand.
And why columns like this are so contemptible.
5
If only the U.S. would lead. But our Christians don't want that. If only the U.S. would lead the world in promoting morality and peace and justice. But Christians won't let it happen. They vote Republican.
2
Bret, since you favor nuclear, and I am not saying you are wrong, would you enlighten the masses (us) please by talking more about this. Thorium reactors? Safe, not suitable for weaponizing, and no toxic waste? Retooling expensive, sure. But so what. We spend billions on a wall we don't need. And/or are there other tech advances that make nuclear a good option. Say more please. I am all ears.
1
amusing or distressing? Both the article and the comments. Bret manages to admit climate change and come down in favor of doing nothing except build Nuclear plants. Ridiculous
2
An article in today's Le parisien reports that "giletsjaunes.com" was registered in Denver when Macron was first elected. The article goes on to point to Steve Bannon -- which means that there may be active Putin bots as well stoking the supposedly "grass-roots" movement. Yes, it is not all right-wing -- but the right-wing is deeply involved.
4
There is something flawed about Bret Stephens' thinking on the subject of climate change. Just go back to his very first nytimes column...which displayed some of those very flaws.
1
We can now see the devastating impacts on the world as a result of the misguided policies of Obama, Merkel and now Macron regarding immigration & dystopian climate change policy. Europe is splintering. Merkel & Macron & Obama are political history. Right wing parties are winning all across Europe & Britain has chosen Brexit. The people in the streets are marching and the peasants have brought their pitchforks. Time for the Globalists & Elites to honker down in their plush security bunkers before we begin to see the excesses of the French Revolution.
What a disaster. Until Super Tuesday of 2016 everything was in place to cross the threshold of Globalist Nirvana. Traditional redoubts had been crushed by the LBGTQ regime, the UN/EU/2Coast troika had a stranglehold on world affairs, the Pope was on board, Hillary to keep the lid on the US Heartland-- when in the blink of an eye, the bricks began raining down on this latest Babel. Bolsonaro is about to convert the jungle to feed his hungry peasants. What happened? The Left is seen as little more than a jet-setting scourge enjoying 5-star perks on the backs of the poor (currently in Poland)--a horde of semi-government minions whose only work is devising new ways to intrude on the lives of the working man. The revolutionary peasant wants nothing to do with LGBTQ, he could care less about 1.5 degrees a century from now, and he's had it with the smug sanctimonious of these modern Pharisees.
“ and bad cures can be worse than the disease “. Only when the cure can cause death. The Planet is Dying, Sir. Take two aspirin or Nuclear Power Plants and call me in the morning will NOT suffice. Hiding your head under a cashmere blanket works for you. Many, many others are suffering, and dying. NOW.
2
It's not a carbon tax. It's only climate policy to those who fit that category of person characterised by the expression popularly attributed to Lenin : "In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as a propagandist for a cause of whose goals they are not fully aware and who is used cynically by the leaders of the cause."
.
France already has the smallest carbon footprint of all wealthy nations, and the taxes bringing it to $7/gallon already ensure people don't make pointless trips. I
Call it what it is : cynical greenwashing to cover a tax hike imposed on the poor to pay for a tax cut to the rich. And this cynical move is latched onto by cynical right wing liars to discredit carbon taxes. Right Bret?
3
Unlike Stephens, the majority of yellow vest protesters are not climate change skeptics. They just oppose the horribly regressive way in which the French government is seeking to bring about its climate goals. A gas tax falls hardest of people in rural areas and on the outskirts of cities--in France, the poorest people. It has the least consequences for people who live in city centers--even if they have cars, they rely on them less, and have many alternatives to them. So it falls hardest on the poorest people in society.
If Macron were seeking to pursue his climate goals by improving mass transit, or increasing medical services in rural areas so people don't have to drive long journeys to see a doctor, or providing subsidies for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars, the yellow vests would not be protesting. But doing those things might make it hard for him to get rid of the wealth tax and other taxes that rich people don't like.
4
Solar power isn't a failure, but it's designed for small household uses, occasionally even producing some extra. Not sure that electric cars will reduce the carbon footprint, or merely switch it from fossil fuels at the pump to fossil fuels via generator.
Nonetheless, that is only a small part of what angers many Frenchmen. Poor housing is a major concern for loads of city dwellers, and most large cities across the world are guilty of building for the wealthy, ignoring decent, attractive housing needs for middle class families. NYC is the classic case. How far out can people move but still commute to their $15-20 per hour jobs?
The tax revenues that higher priced condos generates entices cities to forget the middle class, never mind the really poor. Are the French more guilty than the US?
A carbon tax SOUNDS good on paper, but in fact, unless we have the infrastructure in place that allows the majority of people to avoid driving or to heat their homes without fossil fuels, such taxes will harm the poor and not affect the rich at all.
Evidently, this is the last straw for the working poor of France, who have better public transit and intercity rail than the working poor of the U.S. and better access to non-fossil fuel ways of heating and lighting their homes.
It would be worse in the U.S., where most of the working poor outside major metro areas, and even within some areas, require cars to get to their jobs. Few things arouse indignation in the U.S. more than rising prices for gasoline.
How about levying carbon taxes on the kinds of wasteful consumption that only the affluent indulge in, such as houses that have more than one bedroom per inhabitant or giant, fuel-guzzling cars like the Hummer?
What about requiring developers who build exurban single-family housing to pay such a hefty carbon tax (since the inhabitants will have to drive everywhere) that it becomes unprofitable to build there and they are motivated to concentrate on in-fill development?
What about a tax on private jets?
What about dialing "defense" expenditures (and the fuel-gulping and polluting vehicles and planes involved) down to actual defensive needs, as opposed to meddling in other countries--a bipartisan addiction-- and using the savings to build a green infrastructure?
1
"let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work"
That's a double-edged sword. It might be a good way to vet new products, keep costs down, etc. but the flip side is energy giants like Exxon and the automobile industry will do whatever they can to slow our move away from fossil fuels. In addition to the market, there needs to be regulation, incentivizing and boosterism from our political leadership.
9
Nope. I disagree with all of your points, Bret!
Nuclear may be good for some but, for one argument, seismically active area are suicidal if they rely on this.
It's the markets that have been fighting the success of alternate fuel sources and, by the way, the auto industry is extremely irresponsible by regressing to production of big vehicles that are less fuel efficient.
The public needs to be led in the right direction in their purchasing habits and use.
Wind and solar have caught on quite a bit and costs have gone down. It's still the resistance by the fossil fuel industry and the politicians who are beholden to them that has prevented further spread of great solutions as well as the jobs they produce.
Yes, the whole biofuel thing seemed to get taken over by greed and was not well thought out as to how it would affect the environment.
Any subsidies for alternative energy sources are constantly threatened and seem to revert to the old polluters.
With China trying to do better and hopefully India getting on board, the change can come.
Perhaps France has more to work out before placing this additional burden on their countrymen but Europe has certainly done its share of trying with their high taxes on petrol for many years.
The alarm bells are sounding loudly. Please come together world and fix this!
3
@HBD
The auto industry regressed to production of bigger vehicles because the people who would have bought smaller vehicles are buying fewer vehicles. This trend needs to continue until we arrive at the point that politicians can impose a carbon tax without fearing that they will lose their jobs for doing so.
Nuclear power still hasn't the solved storage problem. The half-life of a nuclear isotope is roughly 24,000 years. You would need to build a nuclear waste facility during the last ice age in order to render the contents harmless today. The math is not especially reassuring.
Some nuclear advocates support recycling nuclear waste. However, the process is massively expensive and difficult and you still have a storage problem anyway. You can't convert nuclear waste into viable nuclear energy on a short enough time scale. There's really no way to technology your way around basic elemental physics.
Moreover, nuclear is carbon neutral. However, uranium is still a finite resource. We can say with much greater accuracy than oil or coal exactly how long uranium will last. With today's technology and energy consumption, Earth's uranium deposits will be depleted in approximately 320 years. Give or take.
We also don't understand what impact removing that much uranium from the Earth's surface will have geology or climate. Nuclear power has the potential to save humanity from one climate crisis only to create another. The substance plays a role in our geological equilibrium. I doubt any scientist can fully explain that role at present.
We should investigate nuclear as a carbon alternative. However, nuclear is no panacea. You're out of the firing pan and into the fire.
2
@Andy - A Thorium powered reactor would produce 90% less hazardous waste and that would need to be stored only 300 years. We had a liquid metal Thorium reactor running in the USA for over 10 years, in the 1960's & 70's with no problems. BTW if power is lost it will cool down passively with no meltdown or gas emissions. We also have dozens of new reactors under development that are 'power loss safe' and also reduce hazardous waste by several orders of magnitude. China, India & Canada are moving forward with design/development plans and the US needs to get with it or lose out on the best low carbon, 24/7/365 electrical power available today.
1
@Wayne; Thanks Wayne, the US is dropping the ball big time on this.
Bret your third paragraph from the bottom is a cop out. After setting out how there’s no viable large scale alternative to fossil fuels on the horizon you try to end with that poppycock about “let thousands of climate start up bloom.” You pointed out how many have gone bankrupt on pursuing long-term battery storage and other technologies not mature enough for commercialization. What beyond government help in the form of subsidies will motivate investors to fund these startups?
You know, folks, not every phenomenon in the universa is designed to test our metal and worth as a species. Some problems are intractable. I know evolution is fun when we lord it over creationists to show off our smarts. But maybe, just maybe, climate change is how we become extinct or at least come close to it. In our strength lies our weakness. What a poetic way to go. Our ingenuity and creativity making life more comfortable for most while ultimately making the planet uninhabitable for our species. If you accept evolution, you must accept extinction. And to me, climate change is a better way to go than a massive meteorite.
2
Macron wants to fix a huge problem using the tools and methods of the system that caused the problem. That's always been his problem.
1
First things first, if you reduce taxes on the rich followed by increasing taxes that hurts the middle class and then not expect a revolution - and that too in France - then you are drinking a lot of quality calvados.
Marcon is following the economics that was taught to him. Yes, in an “pure economic world” increasing price reduces consumption. But reality is different. If I have to drive 20km to work and then the gas prices are raised then I am not going to look for work to reduce driving distance. Pure economics teaches you that one would strive to reduce consumption. Reality is different!!
If you really want to solve climate change then put back the taxes on the rich and use that money in researching on solving problems e.g. good electric cars (and their supply chain). France has virtually all Nuclear electricity, fast electric trains, super-excellent public transportation etc. To begin, they need are cheap electric cars and fast charging stations.
1
@Deep Thought
"If I have to drive 20km to work and then the gas prices are raised then I am not going to look for work to reduce driving distance"
Why not? You might also consider moving closer to your work or to a place where you have access to mass transit.
@Robert
Assuming pay is equal and the job satisfaction/security is the same. The problem is finding one.
The similar goes for residence, assuming I have the money ....
Again, the reality is different :-)
Horrible how you decide to characterize (spin?) this story. Let's have a few facts.
The French are extremely concerned by climate change. And they are vociferous and active. No accident that according to a 2015 study, France's share of global CO2 emissions are at 1%. Can they do better? Perhaps. But it's far less than the US's 15%.
You said that France pays a bit more than $6 per gallon. Well, sir, at $6.97 - can we agree that they pay a bit less than $7 per gallon? And this tax would have put them over that mark. Only 3 other countries pay more. The French citizenry is fed up of shouldering the burden. Of course they believe in taking action to curb climate change. Clearly, the average citizen has done their financial part. They feel that now it is time for corporations that make record profits year after year - many of whose profits are at the expense of the environment -to pay their fair share. Of course Macron, siding with CEO's, stock holders and the like tried to pass the cost to the consumers - again. That's why they call him the President of the Rich.
Mr. Stephens you give the impression of pushing an agenda when you obfuscate. It would be nice if you told things as they are and stopped acting like the average person lacks conviction to do what must be done.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/221368/gas-prices-around-the-world/
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.XAk_PC3Mw1I
2
@Mike Bonnell
You seem to assume that the purpose of the tax increase is to raise revenue not to change behavior. I would think it's both.
What would have been better is for the rich to pay more while the less affluent would pay more for fuel while getting tax relief in some other way. This would serve to change behavior fairly.
1
@Robert
Maybe you ought to read me again - the French have already done more than enough to change their habits. It's like asking a person that is already 20lbs UNDERWEIGHT to go on a diet. The folks that need to change their habits are the large corporations. The French already walk a lot more than most Americans (as an example), drive small cars rather than SUV's and use mass transit.
This tax was planned to raise revenue in order to offset the decrease in taxes to large corporations in order to offset the greater carbon tax they will need to pay. Which in and of itself, guarantees that they won't reduce their emissions by much.
Mr. Stephens needs to read today's headline: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Accelerate Like a ‘Speeding Freight Train’
This train is heading for all us and ranting on about how none of the solutions work is not a solution. If people think they are inconvenienced now, just wait 50 years.
1
Fine, Mr. Stephens. You find fault with everything that's been tried. You pick at others' solutions and revel in their failure.
But what would YOU do? How would YOU solve the problem? Do YOU acknowledge there is a problem? What magnitude of problem do you believe this is?
You have cultivated an artful cynicism. Now would you please come forward with a straightforward path to solution.
3
The real question is not how to solve the issue of adding a few cents to the price of gasoline - it's Why Are the French So Upset About a Few Cents? Could it be it's because their economy is moribund and everyone is Dead Broke? And Why is that? It surely can't be because they enjoy a lifestyle that's the envy of the world (free healthcare, education, generous employment benefits, years of unemployment and job training programs and generous paid family leave)? A lifestyle THEY CAN'T AFFORD! Is it because they've been so coddled by vote-seeking politicians that they in tears at the slightest "nick" to their cushy lifestyle? Wow - "Brave New World" was a Satire. Who knew?
2
Apparently Mr. Stephens, while working for the times doesn't read it–even today's:
Increased carbon emissions due to:"AN UNEXPECTED SURGE IN THE APPETITE FOR OIL" So much for letting the "markets to decide"!
So he should be happy, we are doing something, we're polluting at an unprecedented rate. Fantastic! Free market theories doing their thing for the benefit of what?
So, yes, the market is deciding,deciding to kill us all.
1
We need a carbon tax that is rebated uniformly per-capita (to all adult American citizens and greencard holders living in the USA).
There are many advantages of a rebated carbon tax, but among the most important is that the uniform rebate makes it progressive; those at the bottom will gain rather than lose from it, and they will gain more if the tax rate increases.
Another major advantage is that the full rebate makes it revenue-neutral, and not a political moral hazard as a tax cash cow for legislators.
Almost all economists are for a broad carbon tax (or a cap & trade with no grandfathering) as the most efficient and equitable means to deal with controlling CO2. This includes a wide spectrum of notably-conservative economists.
Even Arthur Laffer, guru of supply-side economics, stated in a Dec. 28, 2008 op-ed in The New York Times (co-authored with then-U.S. Representative Bob Inglis (R-SC)):
"We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities. [B]oth Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut. "
You can read more here:
https://www.carbontax.org/scientists-economists/
2
Why should the people of France pay a high price for climate change when half of the world's population in China and India are polluting at such a rate to make French suffering a worthless sacrifice? Unless the major carbon polluters(including the USA) take the lead on carbon reduction, the actions of one small nation are heroically meaningless. Greatness is an idea simply predicated on making the correct moral choices. No greater moral dilemma confronts us than our inherent inclination for self-destruction.
@dudley thompson
India's per capita CO2 emissions are much lower than France's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
The high-consumption lifestyles of the more affluent countries is visible to all and puts political pressure on the leaders of poorer, more populous countries to allow their citizens to adopt higher-consumption lifestyles.
1
“...Well, nuclear power. The technology is mature, efficient, carbon-free, and, compared to other sources, remarkably safe...
Bret, beyond kudos – outstanding...
For completeness, would add two points...
1. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/France-details-nuclear-waste-inventory
“...High-level waste (HLW), accounting for just 0.2% of the total waste volume in 2010 (2700 m3)...
To put things in perspective, 2700 m3 about the same size as the concrete footing for a single large wind turbine...
2. Nuclear-powered electricity generation is a key enabler for electric-powered rail systems – and would so be for large-scale usage of electric road vehicles
Beyond these two points – once the dogmatic nonsense ceases – industry lets it be known that they can’t be reliably powered by systems over-dependent on renewable production...
For clarity, this isn’t people being Luddites – Taiwan has some of the highest-tech industry anywhere...
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/meet-engineering-professor-who-got-taiwanese-voters-support-nuclear-power
PS
To anyone who thinks putting one part each of sunlight and equality into a magic melting pot and stirring will pop out a soufflé that solves all global-scale problems – that lump of coal in your stocking this holiday isn’t from me...
It’s courtesy of the top 5 energy-consuming signatories to the Paris Accord...
2
This is a terrible piece of misinformation. First, while the tax was perhaps a trigger for the protests, it is not the reason some French are protesting (the rioting was started by the fringes that never pass an opportunity for chaos and physical destruction). The protests have to do with larger inequities that have nothing to do with climate policy, action towards which an overwhelming majority of French support. Second, public "opinion" in this country is shaped by the outspending by the oil & gas industry, which in the case of Washington state's 1631 carbon fee initiative outspent proponents by over 2 to 1. You can't ignore the shaping of public sentiments by the massive carbon lobby - which perhaps shaped Bret's attitude too? Bret has a well-known reputation as a climate sceptic and misinformation spreader, helping sow doubt and lobby for business as usual, like in his maddening first column in the NYT - https://nyti.ms/2qfZ0ds - so his credibility on this issue is nil.
3
Notably missing are comments from individuals who actually plow furrrows, dig ditches, lift bales or tote barges. My guess is that all the college professors in the world are not up to the task of taking the internal combustion machine from people who have to actually “work”.
The situation in France is the problem you get when you face historic levels of economic inequality coupled with very real environmental, civic, and social needs.
The wealthy are raking in the cash, day-by-day, the middle class are living paycheck to paycheck, with little or no savings, and the poor are working 3 jobs just to make ends meet.
So when you offer across-the-board style tax hikes on things like gasoline, 99% of the people simply can't afford it.
There is no chance for civilization in a world owned by the 1%.
We will continue to slide back into Middle Age era feudal states, unless the rich return copious amounts of their ridiculous wealth to our infrastructures and common good—via significant taxes aimed SPECIFICALLY at them.
1
Finally a rational look at what's going on with the bureaucracy attempting to control the world's energy policy. Conservation is wise but if it's something the only the wealthy can afford. I'm not about to take out a 2nd mortgage for solar panels and storage batteries to be green. There's a billion cars on the road and more are coming. There's a thousand coal fired slated for construction. Where is cheap electricity going to come from? Have you ever been to the doctor and were told to lose weight, stop drinking and smoking, give up meat and exercise? Did you ask for a "Plan B".
The problem is there are many "Plan B's" out there but they are not being discussed. Prevention isn't going to work but mitigation is considered crazy and evil to the Green mindset. Look up Russian plans for reversing Siberian rivers to provide water to the Middle East and China. It's bad for the fish. Count how many times crazy is mentioned in the article. Crazy like nuclear power and GMO's. Read the exeptional biased article in the nytimes about India's plans for the Himalaya's. See what I mean.
Thank you, Bret Stephens, for an objective analysis of the energy connection in the goings on in France.
France as a nation continuously and sanctimoniously gets on the high horse and preaches against the US on climate change, global warming, greenhouse gas emission and other catch causes that trigger passion among the climate-guilt-driven populace.
Thank you for pointing out that 75% of electric power in France is generated by nuclear power plants and so it can afford to preach. Nuclear power plants are superior for not only in not contaminating the environment around them but also for their high capacity factor. These plants are reliable work horses, producing power 24/7 with little downtime.
US is retreating from nuclear power for the detriment of our nation. San Onofre in California nuclear plant was shut down due partly to the loud Orange County NIMBY crowd. Now OC needs to depend on nuclear power generated by Palo Verde nuclear plant some 600 miles away in Arizona. Transmitting electricity over long distances is costly and ecologically irresponsible but the climate rabble-rousers do not care.
The best revenge against MbS or Iran is to make their singular cashable resource irrelevant to the US by fierce embrace of nuclear power.
If the US ever rises to the French levels in adopting nuclear technology, the dismemberment of hallowed journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the misery meted out to 52 Americans over 444 days by Iran will be amply avenged forever.
1
There are a lot of good points here, but also two massive fallacies.
1 - Nuclear power can be quickly ramped up to deal with current carbon issues.
2 - Battery/storage is not yet able to solve renewable supply intermittency.
1 - Rubbish, you'll never get the political will to build a load more nuclear plants, also it takes too long, also it's extremely expensive, also what to do with the waste.
2 - Battery is here. See Tesla in South Australia. Storage - See repumping hydro (particularly UK to Norway connector).
Germany: The German green energy project was going well until they shut down all the Nuclear Power plants after Fukushima. Politics got in the way. But the project was sound and continues to progress well. 36% of Germany's power supply came from renewables in 2017.
A huge part of the problem is journalists issuing erroneous, out of date, information about what is and isn't possible.
Do some research!! Your economics knowledge is great, your writing is beautiful, but keep up on the tech!!
2
Paul Krugmans column from Monday. There is very little stomach for ANY short term real pain to combat global warming. No taxes no costs nothing
Stephens, loyal to the Republican Party as always, declines to admit that it is Republicans who have fought long and hard to keep oil, gas and coal as the centerpieces of American energy production. The reason we are not farther along in the development of alternative energy sources and battery technology is down to Republicans sabotaging them at every turn in exchange for money. One of Reagan’s first acts in office was to dismantle Carter’s alternative energy and battery technology programs in exchange for money from the fossil fuels industry.
As for Stephens’ predictable suggestion that the fictitious free market should develop new energy production and storage methods, I have to ask precisely when he wishes to withdraw the massive taxpayer-funded subsidies for coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy companies. The billions saved annually could be invested in less polluting means of energy production. And if he is the one person in the world who knows how to safely store nuclear waste for tens of thoisands of years, why hasn’t he divulged his knowledge?
Stephens’ column is just more right-wing obfuscation of the realities of developing alternatives to the products of the entrenched, wealthy, subsidy-sucking and politically powerful fossil fuels oligarchy.
2
After much hand wringing and pooh-poohing all attempts so far, Brett says: “None of this is to say that the world should give up. [...] Let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work.”
C’mon Brett: let’s just “figure it out”?? We can spend trillions and.kill thousands in the Middle East to accomplish nothing, but we can’t (for example) switch to electric or fuel cell cars? No, let the “market” do it.
We know how the market works - lobby, merge, propagandize, pay off Congress. The market ain’t working because government is run by billionaires heliporting between skyscraper penthouses. . Let the “market” fix that problem.
3
It's heartening to see that Bret Stephens has at least transitioned from a climate denier to a mitigation obstructionist. It's a step in the right direction.
As for allowing the "free market" to make the decision(s) for us, that's precisely what we've been doing all along that has brought us to this juncture, isn't it?
A true free market conservative would be calling for an end to fossil fuel cartels and subsidies. More importantly, a true free market conservative would demand that industries internalize their costs rather than passing them along to the public at large. True free marketeers believe that polluters should pay, and they recognize that CO2 now qualifies as a pollutant.
True free market conservatives would be calling for a carbon tax. For example: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/opinion/climate-change-fee-carbon-dioxide.html.
4
Interesting how the theme of this op-ed is France's Combustible Climate Politics. I have commented on other articles on this topic, noting how if the revolt of the Yellow Vests has to do with a climate change tax on fuel, to which may replied that the rebellion has nothing to do with that all. Are we living in alternative universes?
1
I wholly disagree with Mr. Stephens' prescriptions, but it got me thinking. Is there a mechanism with which gas taxes could be tied to public transportation availability? So in Paris, the gas tax would be astronomical because alternatives to driving are plentiful. In rural areas, the gas tax could remain the same or even decrease. In mid-level cities, there would be an incentive for the federal government to invest in public transportation because they would eventually recoup the money.
I understand that this would upset people in large cities, but the developed world needs to understand that inconvenient does not equal impossible. The relatively small change to your morning routine is saving the world.
Let me know if this idea already exists and where I can read about it.
3
So Bret says he supports the free market and nuclear power. Nuclear power is so uneconomical that there's been virtually no building in the US for >20 years. And that's with a really massive subsidy- free liability insurance thanks to Uncle Sam! If power companies that own nuclear power plants had to pay for adequate liability insurance today every plant would be closed in a month.
I'm not against new nuclear power, but let's not pretend building them won't require massive direct and indirect subsidies from the gov't to make that happen.
As for biofuels, it sure seems the primary reason we're still subsidizing is to buy the votes of republicans in midwestern Ag states. There are much better ways forward- much better to continue to subsidize solar and wind (which is often found in those same midwestern farm fields).
3
The French Let's-Tax-You-More-To-Stop-Climate Change, Hooray-For-The-Environment! policy is reminiscent of some of misguided initiatives imposed by the superior classes in the US that fizzled. Many of the educated elite are still shocked, shocked that blue collar voters in the Midwest did not meekly submit to their fates as obsolete worker bees bound for community college reeducation to get solar/wind/organic farming certifications. These blue collar voters were so angry they voted for Trump. Similarly, a regular rite of spring in many communities is the door to door visitation of enthused high school or college sales interns promoting solar panel systems to homeowners. Somehow the policy savants cannot understand why homeowners are not excited about the chance to assume more debt by borrowing 30k - 75k for a solar array, when monthly electric bills for many are still well under $100. That such semi-daffy social engineering ideas are coming from the fruit of our educational/class system should cause us to wonder what that system is teaching them.
Lost in all the details is the underlying basis of all economies - they currently depend on a large class of have-nots in order to define success and prosperity for the haves. Hoarding of resources both political and financial by individuals and corporations results in the wage stagnation of the masses. Had those protestors a fairer share of national prosperity, the increased taxes would be less burdensome. If nations embraced population controls and provided guidance in reducing human impact, now, the future would become more assured. However, it is at the individual level we find a great deal of resistance to the idea of sacrificing continuation of the genes, which results in an increasing total that cannot reduce output regardless of motivation. In short, as long as we keep making more people at the rate we do now, we will not solve, reverse, or even mitigate climate change driven by the activity of mankind. This exponential rise in population was predicted accurately decades ago, along with estimates of how many the planet could support comfortably. We hit that limit in just about another twenty years, barring catastrophic occurrences such as war, pestilence and famine. While I appreciate the pseudo-serious hand waving done by those concerned, I do not expect good results. We don’t have a very inspiring history when it comes to our own best interests.
1
Exactly what "medium-sized bets" that we "need to be placing" is the author talking about? He's already argued that every government-led initiative is flawed, and neither investors nor consumers want any part of it. Seems he doesn't have any proposal more "serious" than those who he castigates.
2
One of the biggest contributors to climate change is animal agriculture. Just imagine the positive benefit if everyone adopted a vegetarian or vegan diet. But where are all the progressives on this? It's rarely even mentioned! Why?
@dc
It comes up all the time here in VT even though we have plenty of animals, though we're greenie wackos up here. Lots of progressives recommend reductions in meat consumption. It's a difficult sell politically.
Why would anyone trust the judgement of someone who, until recently (as in this week, apparently), believed that climate change was no big deal and would, you know, work itself out in the market.
I guess in the era of trump, good judgement and integrity are not things that have any street value.
While decrying market intervention to promote wind, solar and other more distributed solutions, he is now advocating MASSIVE government intervention on behalf of nuclear power (insurance guarantees, loans, price guarantees, all REQUIRED for nuclear). He conveniently neglects to mention this market distortion.
6
Mr. Stephens, given your past skepticism about climate change, you have camouflaged your acceptance of it in partisan schadenfreude. It's quite a jump from not believing in climate change to saying that methods to combat it are not working.
Your unoriginal solution is to "let markets, not governments, figure out which ones [solutions] work." Like that has worked brilliantly in the past?. Why does everything have to be one or the other? Why not a combination of both?
As a country we seem to stick to solutions only advanced by our political parties. Most solutions to problems come from a variety of sources. Every field of learning is enriched by an open flow of ideas so why do we bind knowledge in a partisan mold where everything that does not fit is discarded?
Surprise us with a position that might actually work, instead of pushing the tired, republican party line.
Lastly, if Morocco and Gambia can do it, surely we can too.
Here's a radical idea for the GOP politicians in power: let's ask Morocco and Gambia how they did it. Maybe we could learn something from them even if everything that works for them may not work for our much larger country; t least it would be a start in trying to solve a problem that affects us all.
3
This all underscores the difficulty of fighting climate change, but does not diminish the urgency of the problem. All the more reason to start soon and try harder, discard the things that don't work and keep the ones that do. More years of patiently sitting on our hands while not disrupting "bidness" will only make it worse, more urgent, and more impossible to mitigate.
4
The Kyoto Protocol was unanimously rejected because of concerns about... the U.S. economy.
Cap and trade has always been an attempt to fight climate change by using... the economy, because that was the only way to get conservatives on board.
Biofuels are notoriously linked less to climate change and more to agricultural... economies. (Try asking Iowa, Minnesota, or Nebraska to reduce ethanol production; the environmental groups will be largely silent, while conservatives will be furious).
Mr. Stephens' arguments showing that Germany's wind energy production is not the answer is linked to... the economy - price price price!
The third-world push-back on environmental restrictions are based on their frustration over the relative size of... economies.
Paris is based not just off the fuel tax itself, but the impact the fuel tax has on rural citizens because of the unhealthy French... economy.
The problem is not the proposed cures. It's that nations care more about their economies and their growth than we do our resources - including a stable and healthy climate. It's that most people care more about present quality of living than future surety - just ask any retirement adviser. It's the issue of ignoring the plight of the poor - we can't fight climate change with food riots outside.
The cure depends on psycho-social acceptance, just like any medical treatment. We have to be willing to take our medicine - and, sadly, collectively we aren't there yet.
5
There are legions of non-experts who say: "we must do something about climate change." But what should be said is: "we must do something about climate change, something that works." The differences between these articulations are huge.
Sober analysis by experts indicates that things that actually work will be costly and disruptive for much of mankind. A recent UN report concludes that we will have to remove 10 billion ton per year of carbon dioxide already in the air in addition to reducing new industrial emissions—a “frightfully difficult endeavor” that we have yet to figure out how to do economically at sufficient scale.
Many non-experts and their governments make recommendations that will hardly make a difference, them ducking the need for draconian efforts. They rationalize this with the feeling that we must try anything because the consequences of not trying everything, however unrealistic, will lead to the worst imaginable cataclysm for mankind.
No, there is an even worse possible scenario than trying everything to combat climate change. The worst scenario is to make large wasted, disruptive efforts that do not work causing significantly reduced standards of living. The most cataclysmic scenario is being unrealistic about what it will take to combat climate change, making costly but ineffective gestures that lead to privation, blame-laying between classes of people, rebellion and abandonment of the efforts while still suffering the effects of climate change.
This op-ed only proves how irresponsible the Republican party and the conservative movement are on climate change. Maybe there are flaws in the Democractic/liberal. Maybe there are solutions that we're not looking at that could help. BUT, none of the possible solutions work if there isn't dialogue, if there's isn't a discussion. If you listen to the President and the GOP - there is no climate change problem or there's nothing we can do about it. If you read the Wall Street Journal, you'd think climate change didn't exist. Why has it taken Stephens so looooong to even admit there's a problem. Why does it take the political opportunism of criticizing the French government when things go don't go smoothly? Perhaps Mr. Stephens could acknowledge his own headline - climate change is about solving problems. It's not about salving his own conscience that he's been absent on this top priority issues for so long.
10
It is important to know the economic ratio that defines general economy . And the difference between capitalist USA and the so called " socialist " France . USA : 70 % revenue of Production / 30 % revenue of Capital . France : 60 % revenue of Production / 40 % revenue of Capital. France is a more capitalist economy than the USA . Tax ? Income tax in France represents only 20 % of the budget , VAT is 40 % ( paid by all ,in majority by the poor and middle class ),even VAT on food which does not exist in the USA , then almost all the rest ,nearly 40 % is CSG ,general contribution to social security also largely paid by the poor and middle class. All this when the French elite maintains that they pay all the taxes in France. A national lie ! And they cheat. Well, the USA cheat in France too, Apple, Google, Starbucks,Mc Donald , etc... manage to pay zero tax .And invade the market , destroying the French economy.
2
A carbon tax with a rebate to low income individuals would help lower CO2 emissions and not penalize those who cannot afford it.
3
@John Debs
How?
Mr Stephens is right in the logic of his analysis. The facts are there. The issue, as always, is what to do about it.
If we had statesmen and women running the world, they'd find pragmatic ways to compromise.
If we had a UN that was something more than a social club for bureaucrats, they'd find pragmatic ways to propose win-win approaches.
Since we don't, let's blue sky this.
1. The key issue is to balance the economic impacts and ambitions of nations against the climate health of the world. Some nations, former colonies in particular, are playing catch-up to the west in particular. Economic interests must be met as part of any compromise.
2. The conflict of to providing increased resources and funding to improve the climate trend are social welfare and military spending.
3. Only the great powers have the intellectual, financial and social capital to make the funding and resource trade-offs to favor improved climate science solutions. For them to make the trade-offs, Machiavellian agreements on spheres of interest, non-interference in domestic policies, trade, and respect for each others' capital in all of its forms must be established.
4. Nuclear technology must be the province of the great powers only. The technology can be used productively or destructively. Obviously, they must use their power to deny the choice to those outside the circle. Also, they must use their economic power to reduce the use of carbon fuels.
Otherwise, things won't change.
2
Climate activists and politicians should "be more . . . sensitive to the human effects of their policy"? Really, Mr. Stephens? The human effects of not taking painful steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will someday make the pain of this proposed increase in the cost of a gallon/litre of gas seem like the touch of a feather to the back of one's hand. The problem isn't the policies (although there is real fault in their wanness); it lies in the failure of leaders and the media to make clear to inhabitants of this imperiled planet the truly deadly, civilization-destroying threat of continuing to burn fossil fuels with impunity.
12
Let me offer an example of something that has been done, effectively, here in the US, to make the transition to carbon free energy: 4 years ago, I had solar panels installed on my house that meet all my electricity needs at a cost per kilowatt hour approximately equal to the price of utility company electricity. And my price is guaranteed to be stable for the next 20 years. This year, I bought an electric car that is also powered by my solar panels. Now I have both my house and my transportation powered by non-fossil energy. And the cost for the electricity to power my car is 1/3 the cost of gas! Both of these purchases were helped by government programs in the form of tax breaks. While I am generally libertarian, I recognize that some crises justify government intervention on behalf of everyone's benefit. Government provides massive tax breaks for many inefficient market-distorting reasons (Wisconsin's $4.8 B bribe to foreign firm Foxconn?). I am grateful for these programs that reduced my carbon footprint and supported American workers and industry. It's not so hard to imagine an expansion of this strategy that made my transition possible, today, with existing industry and technology.
32
@Erik Although I'm a climate skeptic, nothing wrong with putting solar panels on your house. Under any circumstances we need to prolong the life of fossil fuels for essential uses as they are finite. How long though, does it take to charge your car?
As you know, in CT the state has built FREE solar charging stations (FREE in the sense that tax payers are paying for it). There is one near my house that the cars seem to sit forever charging. Any comment?
1
@Ralphie:
I was thinking of investing in a Tesla but it's so inconvenient for me to have it charge while I'm asleep.
4
@Erik
Solar energy is NOT cost-effective without heavy tax subsidies. The electrical energy needed to power your car needs to be produced somewhere. I, along with other tax payers, support your hobbies with solar resources.
None of these are viable technologies. You may want to do some research on solar power. The magazine 'Spectrum,' the general publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) has an excellent article about the myth of solar energy. You may want to research articles by informed electrical engineers.
2
The only realistic answer to climate chaos is abandoning capitalism. This is the only way to transcend the patriarchal model of interpersonal behavior -- how we humans interact with each other -- which guarantees more of everything: more shouting, more anger, more competition, more aggression, more "scientific advances," more toxic chemicals spewing into the air and water and into our bodies, more wars, more cruelty to our fellow humans on a mass scale, more pointless devices to which we become more deeply addicted as time goes on. Otherwise forget it. Because human nature itself has been compromised by the capitalist model. So it's no wonder those scrambling to keep out of poverty rebel against turning climate change around if it effects their bottom line. And it's no wonder those at the other end of the spectrum, the wealthy and powerful, will do whatever it takes to keep raking in obscene profits no matter the price we all pay. It's either greenback dollar bills or a green planet. Take your choice.
1
@free range
I’d like to believe this but there’s a lot to the idea that capitalism IS human nature as well. Hence an endless struggle for the good.
@JMcF
JMcF,
Capitalism is NOT human nature. Please look into the ancient past -- the truly ancient past of so-called hunter-gatherers who populated this planet for hundreds of thousands of years before what the very recent shift to agriculture, livestock, riches and the need to defend them with wanton cruelty. Before all of that, only six to eight thousand years ago, a different kind of "human nature" prevailed. Please open your perspective...
I'll be on board with capitalism solving climate change as long as it's real capitalism - that is, I want things to cost what they really cost. The cost of cleaning up the atmosphere and waterways should be factored into the production of plastics, beef, chicken and energy extraction.
Let's pay the true cost of single use plastics, coal and animal waste from factory farming. Because we either pay for it economically, or we pay for it with the planet. Either way, we pay.
52
As much as I have strenuously disagreed with some of Bret Stephens' columns since he pulled up chocks and moved to the New York Times, he is on the money here.
Any effort to 'solve' climate change without a rebirth and expansion of nuclear power will be fruitless. Tax policy is not the way forward. International economic redistribution schemes are also 'conscience salvers' and not problem solvers.
Technology is, but technology focused on expanding less carbon-intensive power protection, focused on nuclear power. Atmospheric CO2 removal schemes are another technology that need to be pushed.
A great summary of lousy efforts undertaken thus far. And the Paris Climate Change Treaty is prominent on this list.
3
@rcrigazio nuclear energy is very limited. If you replaced all petroleum with nuclear you would run out of uranium in 5 years. Best case scenario is 1TW, the world uses 15TW per year. You would also need 15,000 reactor stations which means having one in just about everybody's back yard. Nuclear power is a dead end.
2
Republicans will go down with the ship rather than admit that regulation and incentives (basically anything other than the free market) might be part of the solution. Unfortunately, there is only one ship here.
9
Our cost of gasoline and diesel fuel has swung over 70 cents in the last few months, and will swing back again in the spring when the companies know we will be driving more again in the good weather and can, therefore, gouge us. It’s amazing then that an 11.6 to 24 cent price increase per gallon (4 liters) caused this protest in France. Tipping points are unpredictable things. What will ours be in Rural America? When, come next fall, there is nowhere to store the excess soybeans, etc. because this year’s are already piled high, taking up all the space?
@ Wende
Soybeans are an international market, like oil. So the American beans will go to fill the deficit in other countries caused by the Chinese buying their beans there. Only if the Chinese can stop other countries from buying our soybeans will ours pile up and rot. That is what the USA did with Iran oil - they got many countries to stop buying Iranian oil.
"Bad cures can be worse than the disease" says Stephens.
Not likely, when it comes to climate change. People paying more at the pump is not worse than what will happen with climate change. Angry people overthrowing the government
or not re-electing Macron because of the environmental tax is not worse than what will happen to us because of climate change (even for Macron).
I do agree with Stephens that nuclear needs to be a major part of our response to climate change.
By the way, 72% of French people support the protesters, not 82%. (82% were against the violence and destruction by some of the protesters).
This is maybe the worst column I have ever read by a New York Times columnist. Bret's bottom line is that climate change is no big deal, and we should just take it easy with carbon pricing. I'm ashamed of myself for reading the newspaper that hired this man.
22
Take your marbles and go home then
Let me see if I got the gist of this column is right. Human civilization is facing a potentially existential threat from global warming and Mr. Stephens thinks governments should step aside and let the markets save us. Never mind the subsidies we gave to oil and coal companies for decades, never mind consuming ~25% of world's energy despite constituting 5% of the world population, never mind rational thinking. Just cherry pick some statistics to confirm your bias against government interventions and pray to market gods to work their magic. Mr. Stephens, please forgive us but we do not have time for magical thinking anymore.
52
It's easy to characterize the 'yellow vest' revolt as a tantrum about a modest fuel tax. But a closer look reveals that this is a much deeper struggle that was ignited by the tax, but isn't by any means the sole cause of it.
France's working class has been under attack for the last two decades. Each successive government has tried to undermine the various protections that French unions have won over the years from workplace rules to guaranteed vacations.
Critics, including the entire editorial board of the New York Times has weighed in on the government side and only reminds us of how backward, economically unfeasible and unproductive the French worker is.
But what lies at the heart of these struggles are radically different versions of work, of how people want to live and how they see government serving their vision.
Macron is only in power because what once was the Socialist Party in France shifted to the right and became their version of the DLC. Macron, a former investment banker may be concerned about global warming, but sees the issue was a means to discipline French workers and pull them in line.
Sadly, global warming is real and catastrophic. We don't need to play out the class struggle on an issue where we all may loose. But make no mistake, this struggle is class struggle, not just a tiff over taxes.
94
@drspock - My liberal French friends say that Mitterand's policies have been terrible for France. While a 35 hour work week sounds like a great idea, it has unintended consequences such as impeding productivity and the ability to get things done. For example, getting an appointment at the doctor's office is much harder, because they're only open four days a week. And in genral, The French economy has been stagnet for decades because it's almost impossible to fire anyone.
Opening a restaurant takes the paitence of a saint due to burdensome regulations, resulting in an exodus of chefs who found London more welcoming.
2
Seriously, are you suggesting that the French body politic should serve as some kind of inspiration for the development of rational and democratic public policy? @drspock
1
@drspock I would like to hear and read your definition of the word "modest".
Although the French government has rescinded the January increase in fuel tax that woud have favoured gasoline over diesel, this does not mean that France will cease to promote cleaner vehicles. They have long had a system called Bonus/Malus that is applied at the point of sale of new cars. It subsidizes clean and fuel-efficient vehicles by up to €10 000, and this is wholly funded by a surcharge on polluting and inefficient vehicles. This is not a tax - it generates no revenue for the government - and it strongly influences the choice of a new vehicle. Nobody is protesting Bonus/Malus, as it affects only those who can afford to buy new cars, and it does have a powerful effect that is in the right direction. Macron's mistake was to add to this a differential fuel tax that can only have an effect if people can afford to avoid it by replacing their present vehicles. The Gilets Jaunes say they cannot and that even the fuel tax increase of 7c that Macron no doubt considered derisory will make it too expensive for them to get to work in their old cars. Fair comment, surely?
The problem with Bret's column is that it's talking politics, not science or environment. As such, it should mention a few French political facts:
- French protesters routinely take to the streets, often to riot. More often than not, they're farmers or truckers who own their own vehicles. This is an annual event.
- There is an urban-rural divide. The cities don't ride cars; also, the cities have the smog, the countryside doesn't. Get it? The evidence of pollution and climate degradation is present in Paris; it's non-existent in the smaller towns.
- Nobody yet knows what Gilet Jaune represents politically; however, Macron is NOT a traditional politician, he's a loner who rescued the center-right from being overrun by the extreme right. This means that the ideological silos that normally regulate French politics are broken apart. This unrest is real enough; however, it could all be due to the latest European tour of one Steven Bannon.
2
At this point, we better start working on carbon sequestration tech, because the majority of the world isn't giving up fossil fuels anytime soon.
Solar and wind will, and in some cases already have, start to out-compete oil and gas in the developed world for some applications, but not all.
Carbon sequestration will be the solution, because we're already too far gone when it comes to changing our energy production.
That's rich Bret, "... living in denial". Yes the answer to the climate catastrophe created by capitalism is more capitalism!
See this is why conservatives are romantics living in their "thousand points of light" ( or in this case "thousands of climate-startups") fantasy world, trying everything possible to ignore the FACTS!
3
Question, Mr. Stephens: Have you now been persuaded that climate change is a threat to the planet? You have had to forego your position of climate change denier, and shift to the position that it's a reality but not a threat. Now, this article seems to indicate that you have indeed shifted again, but still will not accept that it is the fossil fuel industry that has stultified and retarded all efforts to wean the world of dependence on its products.
Macron's particular effort might have been ill advised, or insufficiently designed, so the already wounded were further harmed--but that does not mean that nothing can be done. Your belief--or is it really only a stance--that, the only thing worse than doing nothing is doing something, is cynical defeatist propaganda. The relationship of the French to oil and gas is not comparable to the USA's relationship. One virtue of the long standing high gas prices in France is that it has kept unnecessarily large vehicles from becoming the norm there and forced an environmentally friendly frugality.
Here in the US gas taxes are so ridiculously low they are a virtual subsidy to the oil industry. No matter what good points you make seem tainted by your unsustainable previous positions as a climate change denier. Concern over the issue which you have in the past thought to be unwarranted, even hysterical, is now running main stream, and your position among the cabal of do nothing pundits is unsustainable.
3
So instead of just pointing fingers and adding to the partisan blame game, why don’t YOU suggest policies that can provide solutions to this crisis situation - that can accommodate the difficult balancing act of competeing interests. Not doing so shows that you really don’t care about climate change. Partisanship above all else is what matters in your value system.
3
Bret, even though your comment is nominally about climate change, I think, that’s not what the riots in France are about, nor are they about the gas tax, that was a pretext to demonstrate against Macron and his attempts to play Sarkozy II, turn France into an American Poodle by taking away the rights of labor, diminish the working class right to a decent life, immigration to aide in this calculated program to force down the relevance and cost of labor. That’s why so much of France is behind the yellow jackets, they know as the saying goes, labor today, us tomorrow, in the march to total domination by the 1%. Viva La France!
9
Yes, like Mr. Stephens, I think we should build lots of nuclear power plants. But I think we should build them in close proximity to his home and his kids' schools. Let's see if h favors nuclear power plants if his real estate values are adversely affected by them and his kids would be adversely affected by them when (not if) there is an "incident" -- as there likely will be since the Trump NRC is giving carte blance to the industry.
By the way, Mr. Stephens, since you favor free markets, I assume you are against the Price-Anderson Act which only requires the industry to insure for a token amount in the event of an "incident." And you favor Trump's proposal to subsidize the coal and nuclear industry to the tune of $100 billion.
6
@Bob
So as far as I can tell from the comments, Bob and others, think that we should throw out both capitalism and nuclear power. We should live then, I assume, in a "state of nature." Go back and read Thomas Hobbes. A "state of nature" is not a pretty sight, and I certainly don't want to live there.
1
A BLACK SWAN strategy can replace fossil fuels without increasing taxes on fuel or anything else in France or elsewhere.
BLACK SWANS are Highly Improbable breakthrough technologies. See aesopinstitute.org for a few hard to believe examples.
Combustion engines can soon cheaply and easily be modified to replace gas, diesel & jet fuel with water. And it can be extracted from the air, ending the need to refuel.
Fuel-free piston engines and turbines are in development. Fuel-free micro-turbines will give electric vehicles unlimited range and turn them into power plants when suitably parked, selling electricity or providing it to buildings.
A Heat Pump air conditioner has been invented that needs no refrigerants and merely 1/3 the power of current units.
This is an unrecognized revolution - attacked by Trolls who lie and twist facts to deter support.
Imagine the implications of rapid commercialization.
Wisdom demands radical, unexpected innovations such as these. They reflect new science, which is not yet accepted, as it challenges textbook dogma.
Positive BLACK SWANS are the missing tools needed to swiftly supersede coal, oil & gas all across the planet.
1
The conservatives blind faith in "the market" at this point is just ridiculous stupidity. Time after time we have seen that "the market" is good for just one thing: maximizing profits for the owner class. That is why it is called capitalism people - its foundational principle is increasing capital. Also, it is flat out hypocritical to argue against subsidies for fledgling industries when the real subsidies and tax-breaks are flowing like never before in history to established industries, huge corporations and the super wealthy. The truth is we need to have a balance between capitalism and socialism. For example, capitalism is great at creating phones for people to waste money on - people can shop around and are free to choose the phone that suits their budget and needs - ie the market works in this case. On the other hand, the market is a miserable failure at providing health care - people can not easily shop around and they are not operating freely when they are desperate and their lives are at risk. Other market failures: long term planning (like retirement) and, yes, the environment (because it is easy to pass the cost of pollution on to future generations distorting the market). When the market fails, we should not be afraid to use socialism to achieve our goals. It isn't an evil bogeyman (except to the super wealthy who will be asked to pay for these programs), it is just another tool we can use as society to benefit all of us.
11
The French mentality (anti-"bosses " and "the rich", pro-state and regulation) is sour demagoguery and economic bigotry and should be a warning to budding so-called democratic socialists in America. America doesn't want to be more like France, nor Britain in the 70's. Nor Venezuela or Greece.
2
You left compelling people to have fewer children off you list.
4
We are going to get every drop, every ounce, every liter of fossil fuels out of the ground. There's trillions of dollars sitting beneath the earth's surface waiting to be mined. There's nothing you, or I, or Bernie Sanders yelling from the top of a mountain can do to stop it. For example China has been by far the biggest coal producing country over the last three decades. The country accounting for over 47% of the world’s total coal output. About half of China’s coal is used for power generation, which accounts for over 80% of the country’s electricity output. And they're building more coal plants. Over 259 gigawatts of coal power capacity – equivalent to the entire coal power fleet of the United States. To them the Paris Accords are toilet paper...toilet paper...that point can't be emphasized enough. They have an agenda which they will achieve come hell or high water. Their actions speak much louder than their words. It is the same across much of Asia, where coal consumption grew by 3.1% a year from 2006 to 2016, accounting for almost three-quarters of the world’s demand for the most polluting fossil fuel. From India to Bangladesh to Pakistan to the Philippines to South Korea...coal use is up. Such is the supply & demand that prices for thermal coal, the type used for generating electricity, are at their highest since 2012, & have more than doubled in the past two years. A renewable-energy revolution is neither imminent nor pain-free. That's the inconvenient truth.
4
Even with the limitless use of words the issue cannot be framed any differently than this is a test as to whether we have the will to make changes.
Imagine if we were facing Adolph Hitler in World War II, and people were protesting because of prescribed changes?
Either we take climate change seriously, or we don’t. This opinion piece doesn’t.
3
Nat gas is being flared (much worse environmentally than burning) in Tx because of too little pipeline capacity, which is carrying more profitable oil. Yet, our courts continue to reject new pipelines, hoping to stop fracking. Crazy.
4
@Bill Kaetzel
Keeping fossil fuels more expensive without relying on a (temporary) tax is an excellent way to discourage their use.
1
The IPCC addressed the issue of how to get to a livable world in its very carefully documented Global Warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius Special Report released in October, and the very detailed pathways on how to get there are very sobering: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/10/SPM3b_29102018-724x1024.png
All of the scenarios involve going down a double black diamond steep slope of drastically reduced fossil fuel use, combined with various degrees of soil carbon sequestration and industrial scale removal of carbon from the atmosphere using technologies that do not yet exist. These drastic reductions must begin within 2 to 12 years if we have a snowball's chance in hell of avoiding consequences that will be global and catastrophic for human societies. In other words we might already be too late.
So initial failures, whether it be Macron, Trump, Xi, Merkel or anyone else, should be taken as instructive but not definitive as there is way more at stake than that particular skirmish or political career. All too soon worrying about the end of the world and the end of the month will become increasingly difficult to distinguish.
3
During the Benalla affair (! ) that Americans have not followed , Macron has publicly defied the whole Nation. " If some have things to say, they can come and look for me " . His entry into politics has been the attitude of a caid . He set every adversary against each others and under his rule, created a fake political party that invaded the Assemblee Nationale and started legislating by ordonnances, thus short cutting the historical democratic process . He will pay dearly for that. France is not a nation of "veals " as De Gaule had dared to put it just before May 68 .France is an educated nation .If not the most educated .
Carbon needs to be regulated because the market doesn't take into consideration the ecological cost vs. alternate energy and potential alternate energy sources.
The same technological advances that creates new technology also makes old technology like bringing gas, oil and coal to market cheaper and easier. New clean energy sources that reduce the demand for gas, oil and coal reduce the price for gas, oil and coal. What neither does is offset the damage to the planet and the other costs that is now being quantified by our use of Carbon based energy.
Carbon should be taxed. The problem is user taxes are regressive. Their burden falls heaviest on those who can least afford them. In order to spread the pain the benefits of these taxes need to be progressive.
1
Oh, please. Over the past thirty years the rural network of public transportation in France has been decimated by privatization--as it has in many other EU countries. Anyone who thinks the protests in France are against ecological efficiency is simply hiding from themselves the root causes, as should be obvious from the fact that the "yellow vests" themselves are hardly likely to be satisfied by band-aids.
Oh, and incidentally: Saturday, along with the possibly violent protests, there is a solidarity protest in Paris as well-from the ecologists. "Même combat!"
2
Brett, you are omitting a very important factor in the french revolt against taxes, is that Macron, while raising taxes on ordinary citizens, canceled the I.S.F ( Impot de solidarité sur la fortune = Taxe on Wealth) as soon as he became president. This was seen as a giveaway to the wealthy, with a naive belief for a "trickle- down" effect. It was a slap in the face of workers who have seen their buying power shrink, while corporations and rich people find way to protect their income through tax shelters. You add to this a certain arrogance by Macron, busy trying to become a world political star, while dismissing the struggle of the working man, and you end up with a explosion.
1
Macron's mistake was instituting a tax where the government would keep the revenue. Instead, he should have proposed a carbon fee and dividend program. The fees collected on fossil fuels go into a dividend fund that pays out equal shares to every citizen on a periodic basis. Such a system puts a price signal into the economy that spurs fossil free technology development, conservation and efficiency and rewards people who work to reduce their use of carbon based energy sources. Citizens Climate Lobby - https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ - is working to introduce such a program in the US. A bipartisan bill is about to be introduced into Congress.
1
As Bill Gates said long ago, sustainable improvement in this area requires that our approach reduce emissions while lifting people all over the globe out of poverty. These combined objectives require plentiful and cheap "clean" energy. Mr. Gates' money has been behind a "burning wave" approach to generating electricity from nuclear fuel without emissions and without waste. It is a big bet and we all should hope he wins. He has also told us that we must spend more money on research (focused on these combined objectives) and that intermittent renewable stuff is political fools gold. In the meantime, organizations like the Sierra Club and NRDC are doing their best to make energy more expensive and scarce by lobbying officials to adopt and expand feel good stuff and using their war chests to fund litigation. They demand more taxpayer or utility customer subsidies for renewable stuff (ever increasing burdens on taxpayers and customers) while pushing to accelerate closure of nuclear generating plants. The revolt in France is a preview of where the Sierra Club and NRDC are taking us. And, investor owned utilities are mostly playing along because their business model assumes that the more customers' money they spend - the higher the utility bill -- the more profit they make for their equity owners. Thankfully, our collective stupidity will do us in before the environment does.
1
So the climate change that Bret Stephens has for years denied is actually the fault of working people in France.
Or it's the fault of activists who don't listen sufficiently to Bret Stephens, fossil fuel companies and politicians who point to snow storms as proof the whole thing is a liberal fraud.
Perhaps if Mr. Stephens & Friends hadn't been fighting solar development for 40 years we wouldn't be in this dire state, which according to Mr. Stephens, wasn't going to happen anyway.
Being a pundit means never having to you're sorry?
5
From the long time climate change denier we now get to "it's so hard! whaaaa! Some things we have tried haven't worked! Whaaa! We have no alternatives but to go nuclear"
Never mind the phenomenal corruption and cost overruns that have been the hallmark of all new generation nuclear plants. Some have been abandoned because of that corruption and the obscene costs. You want to talk about solutions being imposed from above that are locking in expensive electricity prices, look at Britain's planned Hinkley plant, which may fail due to the corruption and cost.
Never mind the breathtaking fall in the price of wind and solar (while the cost of nuclear goes only up). No, all the problems of W & S aren't solved, but they are solvable if people like this author, who has been on the wrong side of this issue from the beginning, don't prevail.
How much more evidence needs to be adduced -- beyond the mountains already out there -- before the wishful thinkers finally realize that there CAN BE NO POLITICAL SOLUTION to the climate change crisis?
This existential crisis can be solved only by innovation. The leading contender for a breakthrough, in my view, is that advances in Artificial Intelligence will finally allow us to get over the hump on nuclear fusion. We are closer in both arenas than most realize.
Instead of tut-tutting over the shortcomings of politicians -- an act that accomplishes nothing but making people feel good about themselves and morally superior to others -- let's lobby for additional funding and support for the technological breakthroughs that are necessary to address this existential threat.
Brought to you by the Koch brothers and the petrochemical industry. Stephens, the gift that keeps on giving.
1
Read 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond (about once thriving cultures who did themselves in by ignoring their environment), and you'll understand that humanity is not capable of saving itself.
1
You didn't state the obvious, son: Less human consumption by human beings. That was the brilliance, really, of releasing the Climate Change report on "Black Friday"... if saving the planet means less consumption of mass-produced, and shipped!, consumer products, what are YOU willing to do to sacrifice? Will people with means agree to travel overseas less, in private planes or commercial? Will we abstain from replacing our consumer goods every few years with other consumer goods? Will we indeed choose simpler lives? There is no sign in the newspaper that human consumption, and travel!, amongst our wealthiest shows signs of abating. Just a very bright warning sign from France: do not expact to tax the little people who need gas to fuel their vehicles for work and family obligations to bail us out on this one. If the rich people continuing consuming as only they can, then their choices are crippling future generations who will inherit their left-behind world. Too Big To Fail simply means passing the bill for your "wants", not needs, off to others... The wealthy of both parties have given up their own independence and fallen into this trap, assuming some one else will always be there to support them and provide clean up. They never learn consequences from their choices, burning the world and letting migrants flee. Learn from the recent presidential death: ashes we are, ashes we will become, all of us. The top dogs and the alleged lessers. Your daily choices matter.
2
Nuclear power isn't done because its too expensive. The costs are mostly hidden in gov't subsidies, but new nuclear is still incredibly expensive. I'm tired of having to explain this to conservatives who rail against subsidies for renewable energy. Both W. and Obama provided loan guarantees and even outright subsidies to nuclear, and almost no new nuclear was built. The economics don't work. You can criticize countries like Japan and Germany, who have already built nuclear power and are phasing it out. However, they are doing so because of popular opinion - what the people want. Its funny that you back what the people want when they oppose a tiny increase in the gas tax, but not of course when they oppose nuclear power.
The idea that cheap nuclear power (too cheap to meter!) will somehow save us from climate change at a very low cost, and the only thing standing in the way are stupid liberals, is a conservative fantasy. Get over it.
As for carbon taxes, virtually every economist agrees that a carbon tax would be the most economically efficient way to reduce emissions (even if some conservative economists don't agree that action needs to be taken). Not you though. Heck, if you raised the tax high enough, maybe nuclear could even compete. In the meantime, diverting funds to nuclear power just reduces the amount of money that can be directed towards other solutions that have greater bang for the buck.
As you say Mr. Stephens, "bad cures can be worse than the disease."
It seems that the only - accord - in Paris is that, when the bills for climate change mitigation come due, the appropriate response is to burn the city rather than pay the bills.
Maybe it should be renamed the Progressie Alliance Accord....
1
The usual curious mix of well thought out commentary and 20 years out of date/Koch Bros led thinking.
What use is that extra pittance in your pocket when the world is a howling maelstrom of chaos and unrecognisable compared to the one we know today? Macron is working for the future of his country and the planet, he is thinking of tomorrow's generation and taking the long-view. But people, as usual, are completely short-sighted. We ALL have to pay more for fossil fuels because they are costing us tremendously. As you sow, so shall reap and we are sowing the seeds of our doom with our slavish reliance on this muck. We need to put mustard on the fossil fuel teat NOW and spread it thick! There is simply no more time to lose.
The science of climate change has no animal, plant, socioeconomic,political,ethnic, gender, faith, color aka race, national origin, educational, journalist nor historical bias.
If we are in midst of the 6th major mass extinction, the question is whether or not African primate apes aka human beings are as evolutionary fit smart and wise as the vertebrate winners of the 5th mass extinction aka birds and bony fish. While the invertebrate winners were the social insects particularly the ants.
Emmanuel Macron has been elected with 57 % of abstention , which is perhaps normal election ratio for the USA , but in France , cannot represent a majority in the street and fields and villages .
Macron has acted on French politics as in a business stock appropriation. Replaced the Assemblee Nationale by his soldiers and started legislating by ordonnances , short cutting the French historical democratic process .It is a similar situation as the 3 eme Republique and Restoration .The 57 % and more, are now waving the yellow flag from the streets, the fields and villages .
1
While getting old is not for wimps, there are some times that being old is just fine. This is one of those moments. Currently at 62, I will likely be dead by the time the worst climate change effects make life as we know it very difficult to sustain. That is small comfort when thinking about the fate of our children and grandchildren, who will have to survive in a world besieged by more frequent and severe storms, droughts, and wild fires.
And if we think the swelling migrant masses are a problem for Europe and the US, just wait until water becomes more scarce and crops fail to appear in Africa and South and Central America. No wall or amount of “safe” tear gas will be able to contain them.
While solutions to the climate change problem are difficult and complex, the fact remains that inaction is not the answer. And it will take not only governments and politicians to do something, but the collaboration of all of us. Instead of saying we love our children and grandchildren let’s do something about it. But obviously, we do not have the will to do it. Want proof? Consumers in the US are shunning fuel efficient passenger cars and opting for gas guzzling trucks. We are just like the lemmings marching steadily, and apparently willingly, to the edge of the cliff.
86
@CEA The science on climate change is settled, but the politics isn't. The GOP is disingenuous when they deny the science, but lets be honest the Democrats are even more disingenuous when they deny the cost. Most major U.S. cities have gigantic energy needs which can't be met by clean energy. It's not scalable. We can't & won't stop burning coal...at least for the foreseeable future. Of all the fossil-fuel sources, coal is inexpensive & a major factor in the low cost of U.S. electricity. Renewables can't fill that gap. Coal & other fossil fuels are currently the only way we can meet the high demand for power. The electricity demand on the power grid must be generated as its needed, in real time. There's no other option. When the demand for electricity suddenly spikes, we need to have the means available to generate that power immediately. Fossil fuels provide this capability. Solar, wind & hydro power is limited as we cannot generate hundreds or thousands of mega watts of power upon request if the Sun isn't shining or if the wind isn't blowing sufficiently. If we were simply forced to generate power through only clean methods at this point, there would be rolling brown-outs and power curfews like there are in 3rd world countries. The American public won't stand for this under any circumstances. While many people are in favor of alternatives, they also want those alternatives to not compromise their lifestyle.
12
@Bill Brown
Perfectly said.
5
@Bill Brown
Firstly, have you any references to prove that renewables cannot supply enough energy? And why the false dichotomy? Why not supply the majority or a portion of energy needs with renewables and then supplement with coal for those spikes you speak of. This alone would help reduce emissions.
As to hydro being insufficient and being limited. That's simply untrue. We do very well with it here in the north east. It's pretty much all we use. Untapped is energy via tidal action - but why bother exploring that option, when you got all that 'clean coal' - am I right?
What YOU fail to get is that the American public will have NO choice. It's change now or die tomorrow.
6
I hope commentors here are aware of HOW these protests and riots began and fomented: Facebook. Thank Mark Zuckerberg for much of the uncertainty and disruption in today’s world. And thank Bush 2 for the migration of tortured people to Germany which has toppled one of two European leaders that have taken a lead in preserving democracy. Think Macron is bad - LePen is next up. Thought Clinton was bad - we have Trump. Actions have consequences and we have to live with them.
2
I agree with Stephens that there's a lot of photo-op gestures in the world environmental policy. Nuclear power is indeed a great way to avoid GHGs (greenhouse gases). By renouncing them, France and Germany are making GHG reductions vastly more difficult. The US doesn't need new nuclear plants because renewables are already so cheap, although California is making its transition to a GHG-free future far more expensive by subsidizing (formerly via rebates, now via "net energy metering") rooftop solar (solar farms are MUCH cheaper). With respect to a carbon tax, the French law makers could easily engender popular support by simply returning the revenues to its citizens in the form of a yearly check ("tax and dividend").
There is absolutely nothing to disagree with in this opinion. It is buttressed by facts, clear-eyed on the political and economic situation in France, and even offers an alternative solution to fossil fuels: nuclear. Nevertheless, some people are aggrieved because it does not echo the liberal shibboleths of ‘the apocalypse is coming” (it isn’t); “socialism is better” (not); “Trump is guilty” (this is not about Trump). The Yellow Vests movement is fascinating and transcends the climate issue but insofar as the reduction of emissions is concerned, the nuclear option, despite all its drawbacks, does seem the only realistic one. Raising taxes beyond what the average citizen is willing to bear is not the solution.
7
I'm not sure why we should take anything Mr. Stephens says on climate change seriously. He is considered a disingenuous commentator on the issue at best, if not actively an agent of institutions that have invested billions of dollars over the last fifty years in subverting efforts to fight climate change because those efforts would hurt corporate profits. Writing off the best chances we've ever had at the international cooperation we need to prevent unprecedented, sweeping ecological damage that will bring misery and chaos to billions over the course of my lifetime, simply because it wasn't attractive enough to oligarchs for them to put their campaign money behind it? That's exactly what got us in this mess in the first place, and I'd rather we didn't have any more of it.
1
@KP McGrath
And Krugman, a political hack is more credible?
How did that guy get a Nobel prize? Fixing data to fit his narrative!
2
Overpopulation and climate change. Free access to birth control should have been available decades ago. It may not be too late, but a decade more of inaction, and it will be. I'm 70 and childless. I'm not wondering what we are going to do about it, I'm curious as to what YOU are going to do about it.
2
Very well said.
Opposing nuclear plants out of meltdown fears is a declaration of (at least for now) indifference to climate change. To pair that with taxing poor people for going to work (in a car they are stuck with) or heating their house (when they rent) only generates a desire to vote out those responsible.
It is likely that government will have to support nuclear (and other preferred) energy in some way, including preventing new pipelines from being built since they make fossil fuels more competitive. This may be less prone to fraud and unintended consequences than many other "green" interventions.
Effective action is more important than a theoretically pure system at this point, and all those new electric cars will not charge themselves.
@Alan - Unfortunately, that ship has sailed. It will be 10-15 years before a new nuclear plant will be commissioned in this country due to the very necessary environmental assessments that will be required not to mention the inevitable NIMBY court challenges that will result. In the meantime, more renewables, storage and grid modernization can all be undertaken which would result in much lower use of fossil fuels. Nuclear might have been a good bet 20 years ago but it's too late now. The future depends on renewables, not nuclear.
2
@KingCrumbson
This is a false choice.
Relying on just renewables to transform our energy consumption is a giant risk. They have significant limitations to operating as the primary source of power, and they have a long way to go to scale up. In addition to the concerns specific to wind and solar generation, industry cannot produce an unlimited number of solar panels in a year or even in a decade - ignoring our capacity to build nuclear plants means burning more fossil fuels for a long time.
I say full speed ahead on wind and solar, but there is no reason to not also expand (non-intermittent) nuclear capacity as fast as possible. If we somehow end up with too much low-pollution energy, that is a "problem" we will be happy to have.
We are going through rapid change and it is going to be ugly. France is the tip of the iceberg of what it's going to be like to bring about needed change. The daily struggles of everyday life go on for 7.5 billion people. I'm not sure how it's going to end or when it's going to end, but the world is getting smaller by the day and the problems are getting larger. Everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie and there is less and less to go around. I wonder if there's a mathematical or physics equation somewhere in there that a super computer might be able to solve and predict a timeline for this planet's existence, because emotional humans will never ever be able to agree on any solution.
If it's a choice between "end of the world" as we know it, and "end of the month", we pay our leaders to pay attention to the long term -- even if that makes for near term political pain.
When my grandson asks his dad in 2050 or 2060 why leaders in the West ignored climate change for so long -- and to such awful effect -- the only answer will be that avoiding the short-term pain was judged more important than avoiding the apocalypse.
1
The author talks dismissively about government intervention and support of wind, solar, and other alternatives. I have news for Mr. Stephens: There would NEVER EVER BE ANOTHER NUCLEAR PLANT BUILT without MASSIVE government support in the form of loans, insurance, and price guarantees, things he supposedly abhors. His views on climate change (which he has formerly dismissed as no big deal), and its solutions are rotten to the core.
2
At my age, I doubt I shall see 2040. I tell myself that I fear what is coming environmentally. My children and my grand and great grand children are inheriting a planet over populated, over consuming, not sustainable. I, along with my predecessors are to blame. It is selfish to leave this planet without at least trying to right this wrong, to try to leave this planet a better place than we found it. Though our inherent nature fights us, for everyone's sake, we can be selfish no longer.
3
China, with the "artificial sun" created by it's scientists, six times the core temperature of the sun, is well on the way to harnessing the fusion process for safe, reliable energy production & distribution to the world.
One of China's leading nuclear scientists laments the fact that the USA, formerly the leader in nuclear technology, has been left behind as no longer having the engineering expertise. He called it "sad."
Nuclear power should be treated as an interim solution while we transition to renewables, since we have no way to safely dispose of the nuclear waste. The waste now exists in small quantities, but if we were to rely on nuclear power for a sustained period of time, the waste would become more than an abstract problem for the consumer. There are versions of nuclear power plants that have been designed to recycle waste, but they aren't widely implemented and require an extra step in the reacting process. It is also worth noting that, while Mr. Stephens says that nuclear power is an 'old' technology, the most efficient and innovative designs are newer, and haven't been tested as thoroughly as is ideal. In college, where I studied engineering (including sustainability), our professors stressed that there is no one solution to the energy crisis -- it is many-pronged, and will depend on geography and natural resources. We have to stop approaching the issue as 'one-size-fits-all'. Nuclear power is a good first step, but complacency would be dangerous.
I also have to point out that the leading contributor to carbon emissions is a group of 10 companies (accounting for 70% of emissions). Putting the onus on individual consumers is unwise (as seen in France); pressing exxon and chevron to change their business model would create a more meaningful result.
2
As always, you bring as much ideology to your comments as the worst protestors, but with better manners. "Beyond nuclear power, we need to be placing medium-sized bets on potentially transformative technologies not funded by regressive taxes or industrial subsidies, and not dependent on future breakthroughs that might still be decades off, if they happen at all. Let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work...' Your trial and error method, so beloved by ultra free-marketeers, might make sense when it comes to making socks or mobile phones. But the stopping and hopefully reversal of climate change is a race against time, to whom markets matter zero. The scale of constant investment (and degree of control needed to bring change) can't be left to the vagaries and failings of financial markets. It didn't matter much that we ended up viewing videos with the worst technology on offer in the 1970s, because of markets, but to miss the right technology now could be disastrous.
3
@GG2018
Further to GG2018's point, markets are notoriously bad at promoting the public good, as opposed to creating benefits for individuals.
The private sector has long been known to externalize the waste products of commerce. It wasn't companies that reversed the flow of the Chicago River so that Chicagoans could once again drink the water of Lake Michigan; it was government. Carbon dioxide and methane are today's sewage. It will take political will and government action to effectively deal with them.
The environment is tangled up in the Yellow Vest protests in a way that skews French support for the transition toward a green economy. By and large, French people are highly supportive of government efforts to move away from fossil fuels, and, to the extent possible in the near future, nuclear. However, Macron is a famous financier, and his policies, similar to the idea of "trickle-down" economics Reagan pushed in the 80s in the U.S., gives freer rein to business while taxing average people. I believe French citizens do not see his governments efforts as burden-sharing between business and citizenry, but rather as the effort to make doing business in France less tax-heavy. The average French citizen already uses much less energy per person than does a North American...and the French goal of a green economy remains strong.
8
Politicians never hesitate to slap the working class with a tax that endangers their budgets. Did it occur to any of them to increase the tax when properties are purchased for 300 million, a yacht for 500 million, a Leonardo da Vince for $450 million or a private plane? The increased tax would not effect the desire to possess extravagance.
2
Good article, Bret. You have to consider 3 things re climate policy.
-- Is the climate really changing abnormally
-- what is the threat
-- What is the cost of attempts at mitigation now v dealing with negative effects if and when they occur.
I'm tepid on warming. The evidence is quite weak from a number of perspectives. And the more I look at the data, the less convinced I become. A quick example, Berkeley earth provides detailed data on individual temp stations -- so I checked out the stations that comprise most of Texas climate division 2. The NOAA site, climate at a glance, shows a slight warming trend since 1895. But when I look at the individual stations, for the vast majority of stations the raw data shows decreasing temps. How is that possible?
But let's assume there is warming. And let's assume there will be some future negative impact. So do we beggar ourselves now based on hopes that a) a significant portion of the warming is due to man and b) if we cut fossil fuel use temps will flatten? Or do we wait until we have real identifiable problems that can be addressed.
Take hurricanes: Suppose warming brings more powerful storms: But whether or not there is an impact depends on if they hit land more frequently, where they hit, population shifts, whether we improve building codes, etc. Is it better to hurt our economy now to stop damage from future storms, or do we improve codes, change flood insurance rules, strengthen dams, etc.
5
@Ralphie Ralph, you keep posting these false claims that the climate is not heating up. The scientific evidence of CO2 driven anthropogenic heating of Earth (our only home) is overwhelming. It's time for you to stop supporting the fossil fuel interests and work to save a habitable planet for our children.
4
@Alan Wright Sorry Alan. The data that underpins the notion that the globe is heating up is weak. It's based primarily on estimates and adjustments. No one questions that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that climate changes -- the question is whether or not we have experienced an abnormal period of warming since the late 19th century. But the data supporting that position is extraordinarily weak. Virtually all the global land masses with the major exception of the US and parts of europe had but a handful of stations and those were on the coasts. The arctic and antarctic regions had none. And it appears much of the raw data has been adjusted.
Don't blame me for looking at the actual data.
3
@Ralphie don't know what you read or where you live, but you sound like you are talking about the reality of 20 or more years ago. Look up anything that Dr. Michael Mann has written, notice that the last 4 years have been the hottest ever, and that, well, I am so disappointed in people like you that I can't even bear to enumerate the myriad ways climate change has manifested.
I assume that you buy car insurance just on the odd chance that something will happen. Well, consider the largest EVER extinction wave in an unbelievably short time-frame, geologically speaking, and the potential for massive human conflict about resources and living space that is already occurring. Please, let's buy the best insurance that exists and act meaningfully now.
By the way, have you read anything scientific lately, maybe the latest UN report giving us 12 years to turn it around? Or much of the NYT or Guardian coverage of climate change?
What is worth more to you than a sustainable future not only for all of humanity but all sentient and non-sentient live on earth? Please think carefully, Mr. Tepid, and have your answer prepared for the generations to come.
2
I am not an expert on nuclear, hydroelectric, or ocean thermal energy production, but I am an investor, and believer in all three. We have successful, tested operating projects demonstrating the viable energy production of all three technologies. They don't burn coal, gas or oil, but they generate massive amounts of electricity without generating green house gases in the process. The Duke Energy project at Lake Keowee in South Carolina is a shining example of green energy production. It has been working for decades and out producing the alternative fossil fuel competitors. Since it began operating, Oconee has safely and reliably generated more than 500 million megawatt-hours of electricity – the first nuclear station in the United States to achieve this milestone. Oconee is one of the nation's largest nuclear plants with a generating capacity of approximately 2.6 million kilowatts. This is enough electricity to power 1.9 million homes. I live a few miles from the plant on lake Keowee. In stead of spending time and money looking for something else, we should take a good look at our current, proven capability. No riots needed.
4
The sun can indeed provide us with all the energy we need in a clean way, better than carbon oil or nuclear. We also have the techonolgy, but solar is still not price competitive yet. Brets arguments is to do nothing more because both parties dont dare to offend the tax payers, and look what just happen in Paris.
I believe one solution is to aggressively support engineering and research to find cheaper ways to harness solar energy without unduly penalizing the poor. Pundits who ridicule progessives for believing the problem can be solved poltically and scientifically are know-nothings!
2
The issue for the Yellow Vests is income inequality, and the solution is a carbon fee and dividend. We have such legislation proposed here in the US. It's HR7173, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act. Unless and until we de-invert the profitability of polluting and the cost of not polluting, we'll never address the rise in carbon emissions. We got into the climate mess through normal economic behavior, and we can't get out of it unless we reform what is normal. Give the Yellow Vests (and us!) the ability to make money by using less carbon, and the problem will begin to turn around.
4
I agree that government needs to stop picking or favoring certain renewables like biofuels for example, which are on balance the wrong way to go. But, the government can and needs to play an important role and that is in replacing the national electric grid. Our electric grid is ridiculously outdated and needs to be replaced regardless, but now mores than ever. The reason is that the electric grid is as important to this country's future as the interstate highway system. The grid will be the spine of our electric driven economy in 2050. Regardless of how energy is produced (hopefully renewable and clean) our soon to be future economy is going to be electric. My conspiracy mind feels that the fossil fuel producers are not wild about replacing the grid, which should tell us all something about how worried they are about renewables.
Nuclear power is nice save for one, not-so-small, problem.
What to do with the spent fuel rods. It's always been a NIMBY issue and will continue to be so. And, by the way, nuclear is not as clean a fuel as you make it out to be. Not if you take in to consideration what is involved with mining uranium. Very high carbon footprint.
Adam Nossiter: "To the protesters, Mr. Macron is concerned about the end of the world, while they are worried about the end of the month."
It has ever been thus. We haven't yet developed an ethos to live on this planet in a way that recognizes the finite and fragile resources can not be wasted forever. We live largely like our tribal ancestors did, hunting and harvesting what we want, and leave the leavings for the earth to deal with with no thought to consequences.
Nothing is as imperative as our immanent survival and now that we have decided that includes a vast and largely profligate consumptive system of goods and services, we have boxed ourselves into a major corner.
We obviously haven't been able to conceive a realistic way out of our conundrum so the earth is doing it for us. It's that simple. It's already too late for any reversal, the wheels are in motion, the work to right the imbalance is in progress and can't be stopped. Window dressing and plea bargaining means nothing to Mother Earth now.
Now the challenge for our giant brains is how to think our way out of the mess those brains have landed us to survive the culling that is imminent. The status quo is toast.
These are interesting times. I'm still waiting for all the smart people in the room to get exactly how interesting they could be, set to work on surviving the necessary destruction and take us to where we aught to have been long hence and need to be in the future.
8
@Memi von Gaza: I agree with much of what your write; much of what we regard as normal life is about to be sloughed off. "Aught," however is a revealing and accurate typo in the final paragraph; zero seems to be the number of "smart people in the room" who can take us where we "need to be in the future."
1
@sstott
Yes, typos are glaringly obvious after they've been published. Not so much before.
"Aught" is also apt in the context of what Bret calls, 'solving problems'. There's no point in solving the problems of a doomed system. Taller stilts for houses, bigger levees for rivers, higher walls for the haves who double down on the bet this too shall pass, and massive internment camps for the increasing and desperate havenots, will not solve the problems we are facing. We are such a waste of sentience.
Oh well. May the spores survive and find more fertile ground from whence to spring forth when all this has passed.
2
Arguments against nuclear: people are still skittish after Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima; many existing nuclear plants have exceeded their operational lifetimes and need to be decommissioned; there is nowhere to safely store the waste; it can take 20 years to get a new plant online given regulatory restrictions.
Still, I agree nuclear is a good option, in concert with robust work developing promising renewable technologies. What we know for certain: we must reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (and methane) we are pumping into the atmosphere. There is no question about that.
If we knew an asteroid were set to strike Earth in five years and that it would obliterate life, we would all work together to prevent it. How is climate change different? The frog/slow-boil effect?
We need to come together, globally, to solve climate change. If we can't figure out how to do that, the situation is hopeless. That's the biggest challenge, by far, but it also offers hope. What if climate change has been sent to humanity for the specific purpose of uniting us? You may not want to believe such a thing, but it doesn't matter, because it's the only way out.
3
Also, what do we do while we're developing more nuclear along with renewables? We reduce/reuse/recycle; we make sacrifices using less energy; less air travel in particular; less meat (methane generated by cattle is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide). It will take a multi-pronged effort.
"To have a diagnosis is not to have a cure, and bad cures can be worse than the disease. Those who think otherwise are also living in denial."
The thrust of Mr. Stephens article is that capitalism as exampled by the petrochemical industries will save the day. Those that think that will be dying in denial soon enough.
Nothing short of an international effort on numerous fronts will stave off the extinction of large warm blooded mammals.
Not goin' to happen. Capitalists have sold us the rope to hang ourselves, we bought it.
2
@James Griffin And your alternative is...socialism? Check out the environmental record of the USSR and the devastation it has left behind in Eastern Europe.
1
Although Mr. Stephens has incrementally boarded the climate change bus, he still has one foot in fossil fuels. The problem will not be solved by a bunch of tech start ups unless it is in concert with a national and international movement. Climate change is not local, it is a global problem. Issues like power grids, charging stations, batteries for cars, storage centers, and power transfer, will require a huge infrastructure movement akin to the Manhattan project. So put your Capitalist pipe back into your pocket. I know this goes against your conservative ethos, but the issue is science, and they know how to fix it. Profit motive is profit motive, not a solution. Absent a coordinated movement we are doomed to failure.
The world is at a precipice as the crisis grows. Governments must lead! Here in Michigan people continue to buy these gas guzzling pick-up trucks to go shopping at the mall. They are oblivious to the danger. There has to be a national awareness that the problem is a threat to future generations, and that personal responsibility is the price we have to pay. Government should be granting write offs to electric car purchasers, not oil companies. Considering how our current administration has stalled the progress for perhaps as much as a decade, we face the grim reality that profit motive will win out and seal our demise as a species.
6
The carbon dioxide which is in the atmosphere and oceans is the result of wealth making endeavors over the past few centuries. It is a byproduct of industrial capitalism. The working poor in both France and the US feel strongly that they should not have to pay for the byproduct of a wealth producing process when they did not receive the wealth. If somebody has to pay to address climate change, it should be those who have become wealthy through industrial capitalism. That, rather than the denial of climate science per se, is what is behind the reluctance of the working class to support measures designed to combat climate change. You had better send them a pretty big check in the mail if you're going to raise the price of filling up their pickup truck. The wealthy must be seen to be paying for addressing climate change, both wealthy people and rich countries. If that sounds populist, well it is. Not all populism is nativist.
.
I have looked at the problem of addressing climate change as a practicing chemical engineer who knows how energy is produced and consumed. I will know we are serious about addressing climate change when we get serious about building nuclear energy capacity, and massive dams to store renewable power as water power. Renewables will never be more than a partial solution, because of their intermittancy. Batteries are not scaleable to the grid level. I don't care what Elon Musk may be trying to sell you this month.
5
It would help people to come to their senses if the faux climate deniers would stop denying the obvious science. I'm sure part of the feelings in France are due to people feeling , "why should we suffer, when no one else is?". Until the whole world starts doing their part, one countries effort is going to make little difference. The alarm bells are being sounded. Unfortunately they are being muffled by too many with $$$ to lose. To blame the people who are trying to do something to slow down climate change while others outright lie about it, seems to be a straw man argument.
Stephens is well known for his timidity towards addressing climate change, so his column should be read with that in mind. And he doesn't disappoint here, such as with his red herring that German invested significant resources in wind and solar power, and will still miss emissions goals. So we should collectively shrug our shoulders and do nothing? By how much more would Germany miss its goals if had not undertaken this laudable renewable energy initiative? And since it is an economic trope that one of the most effective ways of weaning ourselves from fossil-based fuels would be to increase the costs of using those fuels, how can policy-makers devise and introduce those policies in a way that is not overly punitive to the working class?
Stephens' comment about the glories of the free marketplace - "let thousands of climate-startups bloom — and let markets, not governments, figure out which ones work" - is especially risible when one considers how government has funded the oil and gas industries through various wasteful tax subsidies for decades. As a 2018 article in Investopedia
(https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/oil-tax-break.asp) says, "Several major tax benefits are available for oil and gas investors that are found nowhere else in the tax code." Funny how conservatives like Stephens never mention how the fossil-fuels industry has long benefited from government intervention.
2
Although Mr. Stephens has incrementally boarded the climate change bus, he still has one foot in fossil fuels. The problem will not be solved by a bunch of tech start ups unless it is in concert with a national and international movement. Climate change is not local, it is a global problem. Issues like power grids, charging stations, batteries for cars, storage centers, will require a huge infrastructure movement akin to the Manhattan project. So put your Capitalist pipe back into your pocket. I know this goes against your conservative ethos, but the issue is science, and they know how to fix it. Profit motive is profit motive, not a solution. Absent a coordinated movement we are doomed to failure.
The world is at a precipice as the crisis grows. Governments must lead! Here in Michigan people continue to buy these gas guzzling pick-up trucks to go shopping at the mall. They are oblivious to the danger. There has to be a national awareness that the problem is a threat to future generations, and that personal responsibility is the price we have to pay. Government should be granting write offs to electric car purchasers, not oil companies. Considering how our current administration has stalled the progress for perhaps as much as a decade, we face the grim reality that profit motive will win out and seal our demise as a species.
1
Thank you, Mr. Stephens, for keeping us in the loop, while Adam Nossiter's articles are of particular interest to this reader.
The lighted match set to the gasoline tax, one which according to the news, took place this May last, when a woman posted this on facebook, and a truck driver discovered what was in the forecast.
In the rural region not far from New York City, boarders rise and leave their house at 5:30 a.m. It sounds like an airplane taking off. Neighbors. living in what is known as 'The Big House', in our community village, are burning kindle and wood to keep warm. Our small post office has a sign 'free paper for those with fireplaces'.
To get to the end of the string beans, 'haricots verts', a popular saying in France, one which this American has never understood, it is no longer about the proposed hike taxation on gasoline, but a variety of concerns mostly affecting the poor, and the elderly.
You cite that 84% of the French are sympathetic to what is taking place. From listening to various parties in France, this appears to be right.
When I was ten in Paris, my parent let me read her future husband's notes. He always mentioned the weather on his travels. The President, if he wishes to retain his leadership, may have to compromise more. Rioters are to be found in The Yellow Vests. Yellow Jackets are wasps (guepes)
A solution of how to reduce high unemployment rate is difficult but without one, Paris is on fire and the air is toxic and polluted.
It’s a little early to dance on sustainability’s grave. The problem can’t be solved with one-offs. Climate change is Rubik’s Cube not whack a mole. You have to solve all sides simultaneously. So, carbon sequestration by mechanical means won’t work ever because it voliates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But open ocean iron fertilization has a great chance. Geothermal approaches will produce much more electric power than we need enabling us to get off fossil fuels. There is a belt around the world that supports geothermal and most countries can access it. The key to a solution is how to write down the fossil fuel infrastructure which has trillions of dollars invested. Last point, we still need the petrochemical industry because fossil fuels are the starting materials for making things like rubber, plastics, pharmaceuticals, cement and a lot more. The issue we all need to grapple with is change. The world will need to change somewhat but the alternatives make the pain worthwhile. Read my book, “The Age of Sustainability.”
2
The last thing we need now is more despair. Yet here it is.
If the EU cannot address this terrible menace, then it's time to stock up on ammo, learn to grow your own food, and form a community. Climate change will bring down civilization if we don't start addressing it like mature adults.
As a student activist put it, kids want a human face on problems. That's the problem with climate change. They can put a face on racial discrimination, on gender inequity. By the time each of us knows a climate victim, however, it may be too late for more than a Medieval way of life.
Ah, yes. The markets will solve all our (insert your favorite societal ill). Thanks, Bret, for reminding me about all the government subsidies for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries. Oh, sorry, I misread. All the subsidies for renewables that our present administration is pouring into that industry.
3
The Yellow Vests aren't rioting only because of a gas tax. They're fed up with a rigged economic system that stagnates their wages and diminishes their value as human beings, all for the purpose of vacuuming wealth to the wealthy. THEN they are taxed the same 6.5 cents a gallon as the wealthy. It's kicking a guy when he's already down. We all see it and nobody really does anything about it. Those without hope and with nothing to lose will lash out.
1
@Luke. Taxes are not 6.5 € cents/ gallon. French taxes are about 60 € cents/liter
Spot on. For far too long, policy prescriptions took the path of least resistance. That has been the escape route of the elitists world wide. Any wonder how we got stuck with Trump. Same offenses. 'Take one for the team" only works when you are on the team. The French people know the difference. It reminds me of the line from Shrek: "Some of you may have to die, but that is a sacrifice I am wiling to make." Democrats here must learn from that. "In the long run we will all be dead", is pithy, but it is not a strategy.
4
Amen. You know that climate-change alarmism is more of a religion than a policy proposal when the people advocating "do something ,anything" won't agree to nuclear power (because it's against liberal dogma) and can't point to any specific proposals that would pass a cost-benefit analysis. It's all about politics and the ability to call your opponents "deniers" and other names if they don't share your politics.
18
Taxes to pay for projects that promote the public good do not have to be levied on the backs of the poor and working classes. Tax the rich for a change! With ruling classes that own more wealth than the world has ever seen before, surely the means exist to transition to cleaner, cheaper energy .
3
Although the list of "somethings" addressing climate change may have not worked out as planned, at least, countries throughout the world are experimenting with variety of vehicles to stem a pattern of human and industrial behavior that will destroy this planet. The major obstacle to these experiments are cultures addicted to cheap energy ---and in this country big automobiles. What is worrisome about this very large cultural obstacle, is the clock is ticking---unless we as a nation / world get real about this crisis---my grandchildren will be living in a Mad Max scenario.
2
I'm not wildly anti-nuclear-power, by any means. Call me ambivalent, a person who is willing to make up his mind based on cost-benefit analyses.
That said, back in 1991 I was given a tour of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southern New Mexico, in solid salt beds some 2,150 feet below the surface of the earth. The plant was created to store low- and mid-level nuclear waste.
I came away from that remarkable tour with my eyes wide open about the one clear danger of nuclear power of any kind: there is no truly safe or affordable way to dispose of the radioactive waste generated in the process.
Interesting that nuclear boosters such as Stephens never seem to mention that little problem.
23
You confuse the issue by conflating several things.
First was dropping the annually due assets taxes and the rise in property taxes.
Second that France has high taxes on fuels and tollways because it employs people for road building and maintenance.
France provides many services that keep taxes high, like public transportation, child-care, a well provided for public education, upper education and trade-training, a safety net, preventative healthcare and over-all-health care, and maintains a viable infrastructure. None of this comes free. It is paid for by taxes. I have a friend who got her degree. As soon as she did, she and her partner bought a small house. Her partner is an electrician. They own a BMW. They aren't rich and that is because they, like all of us, pay our fair share of taxes for what we have.
The Yellow Shirts were doing fine until hooligans and out-right criminals joined them. So yes, most of France supports the Yellow Shirt Movement. What most of France does NOT support is the destruction of property, defacement of memorials, killing and injury of innocent people.
It does not help any country or person as long as journalists conflate, confuse, exasperate any type of news. The fact is: there are too many people in the world whose existence is cause the deterioration of our planet's ability to sustain life and all of us don't know how to stop a speeding train that has no engine-driver. We are all realizing it is already too late to search for him.
19
At the end of the war the amount of taxpayer's dollars put into developing atomic weapons and subsequently nuclear power was enormous. Then the high risk of commercial nuclear power was mitigated by the federal government. The government now provides billions of dollars per year subsidizing the Fossil Fuel industry that is knowingly destroying our planet.
We have 2 years left to stop the increase in Atmospheric Carbon and then we have to cut carbon emissions in half every year after that ... almost impossible... especially since our government and its suicidal connection to the fossil fuel industry tries to undermine the renewable energy transition and provides a pittance for its research and support.
Mr. Stephans is right that large scale, divisive policy decisions have to be made now, but the complacency underlying his writing is a disservice.
Nuclear power is too expensive and too slow.
As you point out at the top, gas doesn't cost nearly as much here as in France. The US can afford to make changes. Oh, and the fact that India and China use a lot of coal is no argument against using a lot of coal.
3
Well said. But Brett doesn't mention the best thing we could do to make the market inspire a needed shift away from carbon fuels: a carbon tax. While it will be opposed by many as just another tax, it can be made revenue neutral by pairing it with reduction of taxes that don't do anything constructive. It would discourage carbon use and encourage development of alternatives in ways we cannot imagine. And it's not a command and control mandate. Bret proposes nothing else that would likely help more to avoid disaster for our offspring and the planet.
3
@Robert E Taylor
He mentions it you just didn't catch it. It is one of those 'bad cures' he is speaking about. Revenue neutral is a myth. If it was actually revenue neutral how could it reduce the use of the fossil fuels you are targeting. People pay a carbon tax but get the money back somewhere else they can still spend it on fuel. Why don't you see that carbon tax can only work if its NOT revenue neutral? And he does propose something that would likely help, more modern nuclear power plants.
1
No, a revenue neutral carbon tax still increases the relative cost of carbon based fuels, and as their cost goes up, people purchase less of them. But by offsetting this tax with tax reductions or rebates elsewhere, the carbon tax can be revenue neutral across the economy as a whole.
1
@JG
So its neutral to the economy as a whole but not to the low wage worker on whose back you are putting it? And that makes it better for that low wage worker? THEY still feel the pain, the fact someone else pays less because of their pain is not helpful and actually increases the injury to them.
1
Mr. Stephens would benefit greatly from reading the the article "Losing Earth:The Decade We Almost Almost Stopped Climate Change" published in this very paper to start his education on the history of the topic. It is not surprising that to many the urgency of this month is more important than the impacts of climate change. Part of that is undoubtedly a result of decades of misinformation on the urgency of the problem and complete lack of leadership from the market and government (really a single entity at this point.) The end of the month practical worries and the effects of climate change are now the same problem as climate changes is having direct consequences on human lives around the world. Using this single event in France as an illustration of a 100 year old problem of 'end of the month versus climate change' is an dangerous intellectual failure and the operating mode that has created the problem.
5
The 10 % of the richest of the world are responsible for 45 % of CO2 emissions when the 50 % poorest create only 13% . Social Inequalities are a major factor in the acceptability of the carbon tax and the ecological aggravation augments inequalities in the global economy .
1
When Climate Policy meets voters economy, it loses.
In France , as in the US
" Washington votes no on a carbon tax — again"
Decisively, 56:44
Washington State is one of the most Democratic States and liberal States in the Nation. It has not voted for a GOP presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
But if voters are asked to back up their opinion on climate change with dollars out of their own pocket , it is different.
In France, as in the US
10
As Scott Adams routinely points out, even if the major effect of climate change occurs, ocean rise, this will primarily impact the wealthy who can afford beach front properties. These folks will simply rebuild further inland and simulate the economy.
1
When the world’s economy comes to a grinding halt because of wars over water, or mass migrations due to fire, flooding or famine, I’m pretty sure those carbon emissions will drop. I wish I could be more optimistic.
10
What's abundantly clear is that the conservatives' beloved "Let the markets determine..." strategy simply will not work, at least in time before the planet becomes hostile to life.
Franklin Roosevelt didn't "let the market" work its magic when we found ourselves in the middle of the worst war in human history. He found the best minds he could and he immediately re-ordered the American economy to produce weapons. And we won that war.
Tell me the difference between than and now. Losing either World War II or this planet as a home for us all was—and is—unthinkable.
Think of our kids!
9
@Bob Burns I've said before: in trying to gin up public support with hyperbolic claims about impending doom, green activists undercut their scientific foundation.
Its been 15 years since "An inconvenient truth". Since no cataclysmic event has occurred, the greens have taken to attributing all bad weather to climate change.
The issue is what is the metric to show green policies have worked??? Hurricane seasons like those of the 90s? Snowfall that ensures a white Christmas but nothing else?
When we take a step back and try to articulate what "good" is, the absurdity of the climate change propaganda comes into view.
By attributing all weather events to "evil, polluting corporations" greens have shown their hand.
How about we talk about real, unsexy, solutions to flooding from storms in low lying areas? That's an actionable and measurable good. However, it won't look good on a bumper sticker so I won't hold my breath for bipartisan work on it...
3
Excellent article. Hopefully, those in the climate hysteria, end-of-the-world camp will take note. In the US, small cars are a bust. The reason: Cheap gasoline. The solution: Higher prices on gasoline. The result: The political party that implements such fuel taxes will spend years or even decades in the minority (see France). People who live in the real world simply do not buy the "well, we have to do something" argument when that "something" may have zero impact on the climate a century from now, but a major impact on peoples' quality of life today. We'd be a lot better off if we spent our time figuring out how to deal with the effects of warming temperatures, rather than wasting time trying to stop them. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and humans have managed to deal with it and, as a species, survive. This time will be no different. The greater threat to human survival is an asteroid strike. Just ask the dinosaurs.
16
@Southern Man No. You are so wrong and your evidence is very weak. Our species has not "managed to deal with" this sort of rapid change. Civilization will not "manage" to endure it.
That said, can I meet you half way? I consider man-made climate change the greatest danger civilization faces now. Yet I also agree with you that we are not doing a thing to really alter it. So why not invest in carbon abatement technology? We are going to have to geo-engineer a way back to the stable climate we enjoyed at the end of the Little Ice Age.
3
Except that there weren't 7 billion of us the last time we had to deal with dramatic climate change.
3
@Southern Man
That's an odd way to think about a problem we're almost single-handedly responsible for as a species.
"Oh, your house is burning? No biggie, just learn to enjoy the company of fire."
3
If the politicians gave tax breaks, credits, and created loopholes for wind and solar like they have for the oil industry we would see entreprneurs AKA wildcatters flocking to the western states where sunny days are abundant seeking their fortune.
Over the next few decades wind and solar would be the, "normal," for energy supplies.
3
@A P don’t know about you, but I got tax credits from NYS and the federal government for my solar panels. I don’t get any for my fuel consumption, but I do get some if I buy a device that reduces it. What subsidies do you get for using gas or oil?
2
It's clear the "conservatives" have been very excited by protests partly directed at raising fuel prices. The smarter approach would be to the the tax to redistribution. No, this does not absolve conservatives and Republicans of clinging to denial of science and of electing candidates who continue to reject reality. The 'solutions ' mentioned at the end amount to thinking: at a point when we have a matter of years to make deep cuts, just wait for non-existent inventions to save us. The real point: because someone else somewhere has failed, those who have brought us to this crisis can absolve themselves of responsibility: "ethics" for destroying our climate.
1
To people complaining about the environment:
There's a much darker story behind the fuel tax. Macron, when he acceded to power, approved vast tax cuts for the rich, a la Trump, as one of his first policies.
Fastforwarding to November 2018, leaks showed that half of the new tax fuel revenues would go to cover the budgetary hole left by the tax cuts to the rich -- and not to make France greener, as the official propaganda stated. Macron's environment minister resigned over not specified "philosophical differences".
That's the true source of indignation of the French people towards the fuel tax increase, not the idea that France should be "greener".
114
@VK
Along the same lines - Econ 101 would prescribe a per liter fuel tax paired with a per-person rebate focused on those who can't rely on the Paris Metro to get around their rural areas. But instead, no rebate, just exploitation of less-well-off to pay for a tax cut for the rich. Macron's cynicism is poisoning the well for progress on climate.
9
@VK "Vast tax cuts for the rich"? I'm afraid this is far from the truth in this most socialist country of the world. The tax cut you are referring to was the modification of the "fortune tax". This is an idea unique to France meaning that if your net worth, accumulated with what was left over after having paid taxes, exceeded around 1.3M€, up to 100% of any additional revenue could be taken from you, depending on your circumstances. The result? Emigration of large numbers of high-flyers with their businesses and bank accounts to more clement shores. Macron adjusted this to a tax on property alone, hoping to encourage at least some of these people to stay, develop their business activities, create jobs, and pay taxes vastly exceeding the cost of this readjustment. Populist forces clamoring for revenge bring this up constantly, forgetting that France is already the world champion for taxes: no less than 46.2% of the GDP in 2017 according to the OECD. And 32,1% of the GDP is redistributed in various forms of social benefits. Yes, that right nearly 1/3rd of the GDP in benefits. The problem is that at this rate there won't be anybody left to pay.
6
What the advocates of nuclear typically neglect to mention, is that it's very poorly compatible with renewable technologies (wind, solar) and would likely cannibalize them.
The biggest drawback to wind and solar is their unreliability. When the wind dies down and thick clouds block the sunlight, energy companies quickly power up their fossil fuel plants to fill in the gap and avoid a blackout.
Nuclear power can't play that role because even the most modern nuclear power plants take days to get up and running.
Then there's the question of cost. Nuclear power plants are prohibitively expensive to build. So that would either have to be subsidized, or the investment would have to be earned back through higher energy prices which would make it uncompetitive. Some sort of subsidy would therefore be unavoidable and faced with that choice, which country would opt to spend money on two poorly compatible forms of technology at the same time? It would be fiscally irresponsible to do so.
I have yet to see any country come up with a national energy plan that successfully combines nuclear power with renewable energy sources. The reason for that would appear to be that a choice for one effectively excludes the other for technological and financial reasons.
2
@Erik You may be right that nuclear plants cannot be ramped up to make up for windless or shady days, but so what? Nuclear is good baseline power that does not need to be combined with anything.
7
The root cause of the French protests stems from the citizens being outraged over President Macron’s high gas taxes. Dig deeper & we discover the riots are caused not just by a huge hike in fuel costs, but that the increase was due to a draconian increase in fuel taxes to reduce fossil fuel consumption in order to meet the Paris Climate Accord. Yet to fight climate change as many Democrats want that's exactly what we would have to do here. Obama’s former OMB director, Peter Orszag, told Congress that “price increases would be essential to the success of a cap and trade program. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. Period. Gas in France is about $6 a gallon. Can you imagine what would happen in the U.S. if a Democratic President imposed a $3 climate change gas tax? All this in an attempt to lower the temperature of the planet by 2 degrees over the next 100 years to see if it will alter the weather. This, even as every bit of evidence has concluded that China’s international coal plant construction alone makes that absurd goal a total impossibility. Pure insanity. France has one of the lowest carbon footprint for its electricity grid thanks to their nuclear power - so why go so hard on gasoline? Because the inmates are running the asylum, that's why. Inconvenient truth. When a government tries to enact a green tax to support carbon reduction when income inequality is increasing, people will react to their immediate situations without considering the future.
12
@Bill Brown
"When a government tries to enact a green tax to support carbon reduction when income inequality is increasing, people will react to their immediate situations without considering the future."
Thereby likely assuring that their descendants won't have any sort of future.
I agree that most people are selfish and shortsighted, but that needs to be pushed against for the good of all of us, now and later. And sometimes it only government that can push hard enough.
Remember, too, that the French government largely got itself into this mess by reducing taxes on the highest earners and then needing to make up the revenue shortfall, as others here have pointed out. The yellow vests would probably not be anywhere near as angry if that hadn't happened first.
9
@Bill Brown
The people who want a carbon tax have said that eventually that tax will be a whopping $49.00 per gallon of gasoline. That's what they want to get to. $49.00 per gallon of gas as a carbon tax. How many people today could drive anywhere except to the poor house if they had to pay $49.00 a gallon in tax for gas?
2
@Glenn Ribotsky And how do you propose that governments push when the citizens are saying no. In a democracy the leaders serve the people not the other way around. The GOP isn't the problem when it comes to enacting climate change legislation. American voters don't want to pay more for energy. Every poll backs this up. The GOP is simply reflecting the desires of their constituents. The point of cap & trade was always to increase the price of 85 percent of the energy we use in the U.S. That is the goal. For it to work, cap and trade needs to increase the price of oil, coal, and natural gas to force consumers to use more expensive forms of energy. The majority of U.S. voters will never go for this. Period. The overall reality in that climate change legislation is hard to pass even in good times. It's a real killer in an economic downturn where citizens & business fear higher costs, even slightly higher costs, & may see no concrete benefits. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. We're trying simultaneously to reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. Mind you this started when Obama was President. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels? Are we willing to vote against our own self interests & approve higher taxes on fossil fuels? Can we muster the restraint needed to leave assets worth trillions in the ground? Absolutely not. It's never going to happen.
3
Let's not forget that only part of the combustibility we saw in the streets of Paris was due to the increase in fuel taxes, which were only a last straw according to a recent NYT article.
The initial sparks came from Macron's earlier $3 billion tax cut for the rich.
Also note that the French rioters didn't set fire to their own neighborhoods and local businesses (as our street riots sometimes do) but directed their wrath at wealthier venues. Unless economic trends change here, we may be seeing the future of America in what's happening with French protesters today.
28
Sorry, Brett, but your writings on the topic of climate science policy remain unhelpful as long as what you accept remains unknown on climate science itself. Your previous writings on this topic cast considerable doubt on whether or not you accept the facts presented to us by every professional scientific society in the world: climate change is real and is primarily caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Without knowing that, this article is just fits the anti-science narrative used by the right-wing to sow doubt in the public's mind about the scientific reality of climate change.
2
Mr. Stephens is missing the point that we have to at least try to help the planet. Sometimes we try climate cures and they don't work, then we go to another. Just because a politician backed a program years ago with the hope that it might work, doesn't mean that they back it today. There is a lot of trial and error in this process.
By the way, nuclear energy involves nuclear waste, which cannot be stored anywhere. The Yucca Mountain site never materialized. Currently, there are few places to store waste. The underground site in New Mexico, which had an accident in 2014, was expected to top $2 billion to clean and hasn't reopened.
3
Everyone would prefer transformative new technologies but there is no guarantee that these will be available so we should think about policies in case we aren’t able to invent our way out.
Unfortunately the only workable policy would have to be global in nature as otherwise there is too much incentive for individual countries to shirk on their commitments. The best option is a global cap and trade system with quotas being assigned to countries per capita and rich nations being allowed to buy quotas from poor countries that don’t use theirs. This will give every country, including developing ones, an incentive to emit less, because they could sell excess quotas, while at the same time being fair and not simply entrenching the existing global distribution of wealth by letting rich countries pollute more at no cost. But this is politically as unrealistic as inventing a magical technology.
Wow. Stephens really let his dark side shine today. Let's throw up our hands and do nothing because the French don't want to add a few pennies to gas that costs $6 plus dollars a gallon. The French and other European countries already have done much more than the US to implement environmental friendly transportation policies. Think fast and efficient mass transit. Smaller vehicles. Norway will go all electric with cars in a few years. The US needs a carbon tax with a tax credit/rebate for lower income families. The time for talk is long past.
152
@Eric Not to be over-critical of the U.S. (since every nation has its major 'blind spots' on this subject): but on this side of the Atlantic we've been paying more than $6/gallon (U.S.) for several years now, and surviving. We have less-than-2-litre cars that produce >150h.p. and do around 45m.p.g (US), 0-60mph in 7 seconds or so, and top out at over 100mph. I.e. the engine-technology already widely exists to take a big chunk out of gasoline/diesel consumption, even before electric cars become commonplace.
On a recent trip stateside, I took the train from D.C. to S.C.: my g.p.s. clocked 75m.p.h at best, and the trip took 9.25hrs. Paris-Marseille (a similar distance) by TGV (high-speed train) is barely 4hrs, city-centre-to-city-centre. In fact, in much of Europe this system has put the internal airlines out of business (along with its pollution): without all the end-travelling times to & from airports), even relatively-long distances are quicker by (electrically-powered) train.
I'm sure the airline lobby has long been questioning this argument - even though the much-greater distances in the U.S. protect their business models well-enough anyway. Nevertheless, such strategic changes are typical of those that'll be needed if we're to fend-off global warming. And yes: such an infrastructure shift would also cost $billions.
But so does increasing disaster-relief funding year-on-year.
77
@Eric You're doing exactly what Mr. Stephens is complaining about: throwing out policies that have not been tested and may not be worth the cost, while demonizing anyone who disagrees. Mr. Stephens is not saying "let's do nothing"; he's saying let's approach the issue with less alarmism and sanctimony.
7
@Eric A rational dialogue needs to begin on this issue but a carbon tax is the last thing we should talking about not the first. The Left's unequivocal blaming of CO2 as the source of climate warming is dishonest at best. In the 60 years following WWII the earth's human population jumped from 2 billion to 7 billion. In short the climate is warming faster because so many more people need energy. The left rarely addresses over population since that would rob it of its cause, its chance to flap its ethical wings over our fossil fuels use. The notion that we can tame climate change without resolving over population is idiotic. We're targeting 9 billion plus by 2050. The planet can't support those numbers. That does not incorporate other threats to our food supply such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves. How we can support a population of 9 billion, perhaps more? Not on carbon taxes. There's more to this than regulating the planet's thermostat. The value of proven fossil energy reserves the last I read was approximately 30 trillion dollars. Can we erase that sort of wealth from the global economy? We can't and won't. One way or another it's all coming out of the ground. There's zero evidence of the popular will or the political will for the unprecedented changes that would be required to achieve a any of the Paris Accord targets. The recent riots in France under score this. We need to go back to the drawing board. Responsible family planning will be essential going forward.
3
Biofuels are not a bust - criminally removing forest sto plant palm-oil is a bust. Just remind you, however, that the US removed forest and prairies to put corn and other crops at an immense environmental cost. It just did it decades ago.
But to the broader point - people acknowledge the problem with climate, they just do not feel that a problem in the "future" will affect them today. It is as simple as that. Furthermore, polluting in one place pollutes everywhere, which makes the atmosphere a sewer that nobody controls. Hysterical shouts "to save the planet" are not convincing, they are removed from people's day to day concerns. I much rather save ecosystems, or lovely species within an ecosystem if we need poster plant and animals. Communicate well or fail; so far failing.
3
@Ard
Which biofuels are not a bust? Bio-diesel? Ethanol? Ethanol uses food crops to produce and bio-diesel needs that palm oil, or some other vegetable based oil to produce and almost all of them involve either food crops or the land that can be used to grow food crops. I believed in bio-fuels enough to take classes toward a bio-engineering degree. When I realized it was all a fraud I left school with a lot of debt and no degree. So for me, bio-fuels is a definite bust. Please tell me what bio-fuels I am unaware of that are not a bust? Algae?
3
Thank you for a brilliant article.
You are absolutely right, and I learned something new from your argument. Which is: if I am chagrined and angry that we are doing very little to mitigate climate change, I would be hopping mad and despairing if we actually did something to mitigate climate change. I want climate change mitigated while driving my big car, throwing my plastic water bottle into the sea, using coal-fed electricity, and buying cheap gee gaws built in China, for free and without pain.
Thank you for pointing to the naivety of the current movement.
21
If protests continue this Saturday it can tell us much about whether the fuel tax was a symptom of a deeper problem now roiling western societies.
The protests by yellow vests across France seems to be aimed at a government not listening to its people. “ The whole baguette instead of crumbs” as one spokesman for the protests put it to describe the gulf between rich and poor, urban vs small towns and villages provides a deeper context to explain this discontent.
As Mr. Stephens points out in his column, trying anything can result in economic dislocation if the policy is short sighted but working to solve climate change and addressing the other causes of angst now being demonstrated by yellow vests do not have to be mutually exclussive.
13
Is time running out on this or is that propaganda? This is a distempered article that provides a single solution: let the market decide. But there are many policies to reduce bad impacts: insulation of buildings, getting people to live closer to where they work and study, investing in public transportation, growing food hydroponically everywhere, reducing the consumption of meat, making consumer goods more durable -- all these together would be a noticeable step toward saving the planet from the destruction that looms. Getting mad at environmentalists doesn't cut it.
48
@pedroshaio I'm not a part of the energy lobby. But we & (the world) will continue to use fossil fuels for the foreseeable future no matter what happens. Maybe less but still in massive amounts. It's baked into our energy grid. It can't & won't be eliminated overnight. That will take decades at best. Even though our governments now subsidize clean-power sources, efficient cars, buildings, etc... we continue to rip as much oil, coal & gas out of the ground as possible. And if our own green policies mean there isn't a market for these fuels at home, then no matter: they will be exported instead. The US is extracting carbon & flowing it into the global energy system faster than ever before. For years we've tried to simultaneously reduce demand for fossil fuels while doing everything possible to increase the supply. More efficient engines enable more people to drive more cars over greater distances, triggering more road building, more trade & indeed more big suburban houses that take more energy to heat. Can we bring ourselves to prioritize renewables over cheap fuels, power, convenient goods & services? We all know the answer is no. The science on climate change is settled, but the politics isn't. The GOP is disingenuous when they deny the science, but lets be honest the Democrats are even more disingenuous when they deny the cost. Cap & trade, carbon taxes etc are politically dead in the water. American voters simply don't want to pay more for energy.
3
@pedroshaio If we let the markets decide as Stephens suggests then Americans would all be driving big gas guzzling and carbon polluting cars. It was the act of our representative government that forced car makers to make fuel efficient and less carbon polluting cars. It was our government that created subsidies for electric cars. This allowed the marketplace to develop electric cars with greater and greater range.
And Stephens dismisses cap and trade due to corruption and mismanagement. Why can't this be fixed? Why give up so easily? And Germany missing its 2020 emission goals is reason to give up? Energy prices have soared? What does that mean? Compared to what? Affordable? And maybe that is the cost of a clean environment. Money is always available for things like the military, so why not in trying to save the planet?
7
A necessary recap and analysis of why we're on the freight train. But there is no way any of these measures will ever work if we don't talk about reducing consumption.
2
Revenue was the main issue in France's gas tax, not preserving the environment. The tax was regressive falling hardest on lower income citizens. Perhaps a workable answer could be found if the oil, gas, and coal corporations has a less formidable stranglehold on this administration and congress. There has not been an all out strategy to bring about reduction in greenhouse gases that includes efficiency, and new technology. Some countries have already made this transition. By knocking efforts to improve our environment and declaring solutions are missing(Mr. Stephens is no expert on this subject) is akin to kicking someone while they are down. Conservative patience is all in on keeping unworkable past approaches, but insist on instantaneous solutions when departure from past practices they favor are sought.
40
Mr. Stevens appears to conspicuously neglect that the first thing that the Gilets Jaunes want is more purchasing power, which they can only earn if businesses and industries start growing in France again.
Maybe the only reason that climate policy fails is that it's just cheaper to buy those things that fossil fuel allows us to produce so easily. We've become over reliant on diesel cars and most of them only carry a single passenger to and back from work.
The reality is that people can have all the good faith in the world but most of the time they just won't budge if doing the right thing costs them too much.
And the irony of it all is that since this whole thing started gas prices have fallen 8%. This leaves them lower, tax included, than a month ago. And now a planned 3% increase of the minimum wage is being derided as "nothing" and "a mockery" even though those initial 2.8 cents on the gallon were the end of the world. 50% of France's GDP is owed to public expenditure, and the French state is now so fiscally involved with its taxpayers that our gargantuan tax system has just become impossible to touch.
The government is literally being blackmailed with the threat of unrest and no one's batting an eyelid. If the burning of préfectures were happening in the banlieues things would be different, but now it's okay, because apparently it's "democratic." Talk about double standards.
21
@Paul You seem to forget, or ignore, that democracy was brought through fights, barricades and mine strikers shot by the army. All along the history of France. The French government is not being blackmailed at all. 70 % of the French population lives close or under the minimum wage in a country that also knows luxury and some of the highest fortunes in the world . You don't know France.
10
@JPH I think I know France quite well, actually. I'm French. I live in Paris. I've seen the burned cars and the defaced Arc de Triomphe first-hand.
What you're talking about is what has been necessary to earn democracy in the first place, and reject tyranny and the likes of Louis XVI, Napoleon, Napoleon III, Louis-Philippe, etc. Macron's not a tyrant, he's elected. That's how democracy works. You can't have your cake and eat it too. To think that France is a tyranny is a fantasy. Democracy is the Weil Law, it's the Liberation of Paris, it's the 1905 law, it's the abolishment of the death penalty, it's the passage of gay marriage into law, it's enacting universal healthcare.
Democracy's not a ransack. It's not defacement. It's the progress of a people that chooses to respect and have faith in the laws it sets for itself. It's worth remembering before smashing another shop window or burning another working Parisian's car.
11
@Paul Stephans supports violent demonstrations unless they are directed at Supreme Court justices that abuse women and lie to Congress, those demonstrations are barbaric
Finally, an intelligent piece on climate policy. The only realistic long-term solution (which no one likes to talk about), is a cooperative partnership with the energy industry whereby large-scale C02 removal technology is developed and deployed, offsetting its release in transportation.
7
@sdm, I'm not sure that banking on the development and deployment of a speculative technology whose costs may well be greater than those of reducing carbon emissions in the first place is a "realistic" solution. And the underlying political problem is still there - who exactly would pay for global-scale sequestration? Everyone? Those who have benefited most from past emissions? Whatever the answer, somebody's going to feel it's unfair.
2