Global warming: what to do. The global warming crisis is a real toughie. The government can’t just put out laws and regulations to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike other pollutants, we don’t really know how to effectively cut back on them, other than to lower our living standards. Greenhouse gasses are a necessary by-product of any fossil fuel combustion; a whole lot of it is created whenever there is fire. I hear much talk about “carbon sequestering technology”, but such technology is in its infancy. We’re still very unsure just how effective such technology will be in removing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the exhaust created by power plants, furnaces and engines (yes, including automobile engines). And then, just where do we put the stuff so that it doesn’t leak back out into the air? The nuclear power industry never did solve the problem of radioactive waste disposal. So why do we think that greenhouse gasses are going to be any easier?

Another tough thing about global warming is that we’re still not sure whether it’s going to become the huge environmental crisis that now certainly seems possible. The whole thing is still very probabilistic. So if we go into crisis mode and spend what may be needed to deal with a situation that threatens billions of people, we could really mess up the economy; taxes and prices would shoot way up, and increased government control might be needed to avoid severe depressions. A whole lot of people would become poorer in the short and medium terms, and some personal freedoms would be given up (although in the long run the world might experience an economic boom from the spin-offs from all the technology that would be developed to deal with greenhouse gasses). So do we take that chance, given that the whole thing may turn out to be a semi-false alarm (i.e., something that will happen more slowly and manageably over the next few centuries than James Lovelock and his like predict)?

Well, I would say this – it’s time for our world to start hedging its bets about global warming. Unfortunately, the world is an unruly, every-nation-for-itself place. It’s going to take one really big player to start the ball rolling. As the Kyoto accords show, not much is going to happen without the USA. Uncle Sam is the man here. It’s up to our nation to decide whether to save the world or not. Or at least get things going in that direction.

What I’m imagining is an expensive crash technology program by the American government to develop carbon sequestering and alternative (non-fossil) energy sources. It would be funded by a nasty tax on oil, gas and coal, and by progressive surcharges on the incomes of the top 10% of earners (perhaps with special credits for investments in the commercial development of anti-warming technologies, and for purchase of carbon reduction credits).

Once these technologies start to reach the feasibility stage, they would be offered to entrepreneurs who would try to make a fortune by selling the best and cheapest greenhouse gas reducers, carbon storage arrangements, and alternative energy sources. As with things like the canals, railroads, the aircraft industry, the telephone and the internet, government would have to “prime the pump”. Once things went beyond the experimental stage, the business world could take over. Once anti-warming technologies were proven to work, the government could impose limits on carbon emissions (making use of reduction-credit bartering systems), and private entrepreneurs would have a guaranteed market for their investments in sequestering and alternative energy technologies.

Such a crash program would probably take 20 or more years to make a dent in the problem. Living standards in the USA would stagnate or even fall back a few decades. (But in a way that would be good, especially if the overall distribution of wealth went back to the way it was in the 1960s – i.e., much fairer than today). However, if in 5 or 10 years our scientists conclusively determined that global warming is not going to have such a big impact after all, we could “waive off” and go back to a low-tax, high-growth, high-inequality economy such as we have today. And furthermore, much of the research into carbon sequestration would not go to waste; there would no doubt be many spin-off technologies, as with the Space Race back in the 1960’s. The economic growth that the US experienced up through the mid-1970’s was probably fueled to a large extent by all of those government dollars that went into beating the Russians to the moon.

How about the rest of the world? Europe would take its usual hypocritical stance for a while, i.e. talking a good line but not doing much. But once the USA proved that it was serious, I think that France and Germany and Britain would take our cue and join in with our research efforts. Cautiously at first, but with greater enthusiasm as the first fruits of our programs became apparent. And as we got further down the road, I suspect that India, China and Russia would get aboard too. In the short term, they would seemingly have more to gain by ignoring our expensive greenhouse gas control techniques. But over time, once those technologies started to get traction and the costs of fighting global warming started to come down, they would realize that they had better get on board the technology train or be left behind, along with the rest of the “developing world”. Imagine that – the USA once again being the technology leader of the planet, as it was 30 or 40 years ago.

Obviously, George W. Bush is not going to be the President who would get such a crash program under way. The GWB presidency has become a presidency of denial. One can only hope that the 2008 election is going to be about reality fixes. Still, I’m not sure if the American public will be ready for the notion of sacrifice by then; the consumer spending party that has been going on since the late Reagan years will not be easily ended (even 9-11 hardly put a damper on things). We’d like to think that we can still have our McMansions and SUVs and consumer electronics devices and big vacation trips, while fighting the world’s problems. A change to this attitude may not come until 2012 or 2016, when the public finally realizes that we have a real crisis that threatens everyone. Well that’s too bad, because for every half-decade that we wait, the global warming problem gets that much harder to solve. If by some miracle we could get a real start on an American techno-ingenuity program within the next couple of years, I’d be optimistic that we might avoid the worst of it. But if we keep on choosing big TV screens and surround-sound and Caribbean cruises over a sustainable world for our children, then I really have my doubts.

It will be interesting to see if and how Al Gore will play a role in the great policy deliberations that will start just over a year from now in the 2008 battle for the White House. But hey, Al can only propose. America, it’s up to you as to how you dispose.

Of your carbon, and of your conscience. And, your vote.