28 April 2008
The Math of Climate Change
I did some of the math that Steven F. Hayward presents in his OpEd in the April 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal, “The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change,” and came to a different conclusion. Reducing emissions 80% by 2050 will be difficult, but not more impossible than emulating European models.
First of all, the 80% reduction goal must be applied to per capita CO2 emissions. In 1990 each American apparently was responsible for generating 20 tons of carbon dioxide. By 2006, we were still emitting over 19 tons per capita. Much of our population growth between those years, however, was due to immigration. Moreover, at least as much if not more of the increase in our numbers by 2050 will also be due to immigration. These additional Americans, fortunately, will have come from societies with lower emissions levels and will have habits that are less carbon-consumptive than the rest of us. They make our overall emissions-reduction task a little easier. In other words, the more our people and routines diversify through immigration, the lower our average carbon footprint becomes.
By Mr. Hayward’s numbers, an 80% reduction in our 1990 per capita CO2 emissions would result in a level of approximately 4 tons in the year 2050. While this is quite a transformation from America’s 19.3 ton level in 2006, it is 60% higher than the 2.5 ton level with which he tries to frighten us in his essay. In addition, it is only 40% lower than the current levels he credits to France and Switzerland. They will have a much less challenging job to meet the same per capita emission goal. How humiliating it will be for us to concede that we must envy the French and other Europeans for their foresight, and that we have something to learn from them about living within the means of our planet!
I did some of the math that Steven F. Hayward presents in his OpEd in the April 28, 2008, Wall Street Journal, “The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change,” and came to a different conclusion. Reducing emissions 80% by 2050 will be difficult, but not more impossible than emulating European models.
First of all, the 80% reduction goal must be applied to per capita CO2 emissions. In 1990 each American apparently was responsible for generating 20 tons of carbon dioxide. By 2006, we were still emitting over 19 tons per capita. Much of our population growth between those years, however, was due to immigration. Moreover, at least as much if not more of the increase in our numbers by 2050 will also be due to immigration. These additional Americans, fortunately, will have come from societies with lower emissions levels and will have habits that are less carbon-consumptive than the rest of us. They make our overall emissions-reduction task a little easier. In other words, the more our people and routines diversify through immigration, the lower our average carbon footprint becomes.
By Mr. Hayward’s numbers, an 80% reduction in our 1990 per capita CO2 emissions would result in a level of approximately 4 tons in the year 2050. While this is quite a transformation from America’s 19.3 ton level in 2006, it is 60% higher than the 2.5 ton level with which he tries to frighten us in his essay. In addition, it is only 40% lower than the current levels he credits to France and Switzerland. They will have a much less challenging job to meet the same per capita emission goal. How humiliating it will be for us to concede that we must envy the French and other Europeans for their foresight, and that we have something to learn from them about living within the means of our planet!
Comments:
Post a Comment
