A Critique of the House Republican Climate Policy Proposals
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
A Critique of the House Republican Climate Policy Proposals BENJAMIN ZYCHER MARCH 2020 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Executive Summary he Republican leadership in the House of Republican policy proposals based on “alarmist” TRepresentatives released recently a set of pol- assumptions are unlikely to prove salutary. If anthro- icy proposals ostensibly designed to address the pogenic climate change represents an “existential potential dangers of anthropogenic climate change. threat,” then no cost is too large and no benefit is too These proposals appear to be driven by perceived small for given policy proposals, and proponents of political imperatives perhaps revealed by polling climate policies purportedly more “sensible” inexora- data, and at least in substantial part by many of the bly will be driven to negotiate with themselves over same assumptions about climate phenomena, both how far toward the alarmist view they are willing to current and prospective, underlying the “net-zero” move. Instead, an alternative policy stance supported emission proposals of the more-alarmist propo- by the actual climate evidence and straightforward nents of climate policies, one example of which is benefit/cost analysis is available. It comprises the fol- the Green New Deal. lowing central components. The House Republicans propose two sets of pol- icy initiatives: (1) subsidies and other policy sup- • Any plausible policy to reduce greenhouse gas port for formal US participation in the international emissions, whether implemented by the US “trillion trees” initiative and (2) subsidies and other alone or all nations collectively, would yield by policy support for capturing and sequestering car- 2100 climate effects effectively equal to zero. bon dioxide from enhanced oil recovery, from natural gas power production, and through direct extraction • At the same time, the costs of such policies from the air. would be very large and inflicted disproportion- The US component of the trillion trees effort, ately on the world’s poor. based on the demonstrated absorption effect of trees on carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, would • Anthropogenic climate change is real, but nat- have a near-zero effect—a bit less than 1/100th of ural processes too affect climate phenomena. a degree C—on temperatures by 2100, based on The scientific literature suggests that mankind straightforward modeling with the climate model is responsible for about one-third of the approx- used by the Environmental Protection Agency. More- imate 1.5 degrees C of warming since 1850. over, because forest canopies are dark as a crude generalization, expansion of forests would be likely • There is substantial evidence that increasing to reduce global “albedo” (reflective) effects on carbon dioxide concentrations yield both risks solar radiation; the scientific literature suggests a and important benefits, and the unanticipated net warming effect for most regions. Even ignoring adverse effects of government policies should the albedo issue, the costs of this effort would not be not be discounted. trivial; it could not satisfy any plausible benefit/cost test in terms of its stated objectives. • The body of evidence on climate phenomena The same is true for an expanded effort to cap- does not support the “crisis” or “existential ture and sequester carbon dioxide. It would yield cli- threat” assertions commonly heard in the pub- mate effects effectively equal to zero and would be lic debate. Many of those arguments are based very expensive. Under conservative assumptions, the on model projections driven by implausible plant capital costs of such an effort for the electric underlying assumptions, while others are simply power sector alone would be $182 billion per year. assertions made ex nihilo. 1 A CRITIQUE OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CLIMATE POLICY PROPOSALS BENJAMIN ZYCHER • There is no “consensus” among scientists about like—that add to human capital and so increase climate science, whether at the 97 percent level incomes and the demand for conventional commonly asserted or any other number. More- energy. Therefore, opposition to fossil fuels is over, scientific “truth” is not majoritarian, and fundamentally antihuman. scientists in any event are not entitled to defer- ence with respect to their policy views. • The uncertainties about shifts in future climate phenomena, whether anthropogenic or natu- • Climate policies, whether explicitly or implic- ral, are large, and any plausible policy action to itly, are intended to reduce the use of fossil affect them by reducing greenhouse gas emis- fuels by increasing their relative perceived costs. sions would yield trivial effects while imposing The historical increase in the use of fossil fuels large costs. The most sensible policy approach has driven advances in human well-being, while moving forward comprises watchful waiting, increases in individual incomes have expanded adaptation over time, and ongoing investment the demand for fossil fuels significantly. Oppo- in resilience against the future effects of climac- sition to fossil fuels implies a reduction in pol- tic changes. Such an approach would be very dif- icies—education, training, health care, and the ferent from “doing nothing.” 2 A Critique of the House Republican Climate Policy Proposals Benjamin Zycher t is of no small interest that President Donald can be surprised that this last dynamic already I Trump—a man driven by instincts rather than has begun: Having released its proposals only on analytic insight, a man unimpressed with scientific February 12, Republicans have responded to the “truth” based on majoritarianism among experts, inevitable Democratic criticisms—the Republican and a man utterly unconcerned with the approval of proposals are vastly inadequate in the face of an elites and opinion makers—has an outlook on the “existential threat”—by saying they “have never said overall climate policy question that is correct in its we don’t have to reduce carbon emissions” and that essentials.1 That has not satisfied the perceived polit- the proposals are just a “first step.”5 ical needs of much of the Republican establishment Can it possibly be the case that Republican strat- in the House of Representatives, now proposing its egists did not foresee something so predictable? own set of climate policies, to which we turn below.2 Having endorsed the assumptions of those proposing This response is likely to have been driven by poll net-zero policies, however costly, authoritarian, and numbers among younger and suburban Republicans, unworkable, the principles that will support opposi- heavy criticism from editorial pages, and the old tion to those policies in favor of something that can Beltway adage “you can’t beat something with noth- be summarized as “yes, but less” are far from clear.6 ing,” that “something” being the various proposals For now, it is useful briefly to summarize the for immediate policy actions to achieve something essential contours of the public debate. It is sober- approximating zero net emissions of greenhouse ing to review even a small sample of the myriad pur- gases (GHG), typically by 2050.3 ported disasters looming large as sources of human In short, they seem to see promotion of a set of suffering and ecological disaster resulting from alternative climate policy responses as a political increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG:7 imperative, but if those alternatives are based on floods, fires, sea level rise and coastal destruction, the same assumptions as those of the net-zero pro- disappearing arctic sea ice, the collapse of Antarctica, ponents, they can be predicted to engender envi- cyclones, droughts, torrential rainfall, mass extinc- ronmental effects, whether positive or negative, tions, large-scale contagion, wildfires, large migra- effectively equal to zero, combined with an inexo- tions of starving people, and wars over shrinking rable increase in the size, cost, and destructiveness supplies of resources and food. Mainstream news of government.4 Another outcome virtually cer- coverage does not spend much time or space on dis- tain to obtain is a process in which the proponents sent from such apocalyptic predictions. That there is of such policy alternatives gradually descend into little evidence of such effects to date has not damp- negotiations with themselves over how far toward ened the crisis rhetoric; indeed, it may have elevated the alarmist view they are willing to move. No one it if rhetorical volume is viewed as a substitute for A CRITIQUE OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CLIMATE POLICY PROPOSALS BENJAMIN ZYCHER the actual data on climate phenomena, which are concentrations of GHG and thus dampen the atten- summarized below. dant effects.14 Neither the US share of the additional The next section discusses the recent House Repub- trillion trees nor a timetable are specified in the draft lican climate proposals and their attendant problems. legislation, but a recent report argues that 60 billion Then I offer an alternative policy response to alarmist additional trees could be planted in the US over the climate assertions and net-zero emissions proposals. next two or so decades, using 330 million acres of Finally, I present some concluding observations. land, an area well over three times the land area of California.15 The Green New Deal—much derided by Republicans—would require “only” about 115 percent The House Republican Proposals of the land area of California.16 The same report estimates that such a US effort House Minority Leader Kevin