The Crux of the Climate Debate

As thousands of activists and negotiators fly their private jets back from the climate change negotiations in Bali, it is clearer than ever what is at the crux of the debate over climate change. Those on the left want to force "lifestyle changes" while those on the right trust technology to do the heavy lifting of reducing CO2. Count me on the right (a shock to you,I know).

Earlier this year the Seattle Times dedicated one month to coverage of climate change. One article asked "Can we change our lives to save the planet?" If the state's Climate Advisory Team (CAT) has any say, the answer will be "yes." The CAT's staff argues that "The gap between the current market dynamics and societal green house gas emission reduction targets can only be bridged using strategies combining incentives and more stringent regulations...” In other words, regulation that changes the way we live is not merely an option, it is the "only" choice.

The alternative is to promote technology that increases energy efficiency and reduces CO2 emissions. The graphic above (courtesy Joel Schwartz) shows how powerful technology can be. The top lines are all measures of economic growth, miles driven and coal consumption. Population, which has trended upward, could also be included. The lines trending downward are measures of air pollution. What is notable is that all are trending downard, some very dramatically. One-hour ozone is at less than 10 percent of its 1980 level. Despite more people, driving more and living more prosperously, the levels of air pollution are declining significantly.

Technology is already doing the same for CO2. Since 1990, U.S. CO2 emissions per unit of GDP have fallen 26.5 percent.

By contrast, to meet the challenge of reducing their CO2 emissions, the family highlighted in the Seattle Times series "ended up turning their lives upside down" according to the paper. The state, King County and others continue to focus on lifestyle changes rather than technology. In fact, King County lists reducing vehicle miles traveled, a lifestyle change, as one of its environmental goals.

People are free to make the choices they want, even if it means turning their lives upside down. The question is whether government mandates requiring that everyone do so is ethical and has a real chance of success versus an aproach that encourages entrepreneurship, efficiency and technology. That's the real crux of the debate.