Book Review of Howard A. Latin’s Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed   By Barbara D. Janusz
          Howard Latin’s rallying cry to end costly, ineffectual greenhouse gas emissions-reductions programs and instead adopt a progressive de-carbonization strategy might be likened to John the Baptist in the wilderness, exhorting his fellow Judeans to repent “. . . for the kingdom of heaven is near.”

          In his book, Climate Change Policy Failures: Why Conventional Mitigation Approaches Cannot Succeed, (World Scientific Publishing Co., 2012), Latin debunks the international policy initiatives of the global community to stem the rising tide of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Instead, he promulgates a substitute strategy to harness ‘clean’ CO2-free alternative technologies and processes, to steer the recession-battered global economy to a course that will more pragmatically and effectually tackle the growing problem of climate change.

          In the same vein as John the Baptist’s exhortation two millennia ago ushered in one of the most consequential epochs in history – the fall of the Roman Empire and rise of Christendom – Latin’s critique of climate change debates and policies, and his recommended progressive de-carbonization strategy, could not be more timely.

          In National Geographic magazine’s September 2012 feature article, “Weather Gone Wild,” author Peter Miller refers to climate change as “billion-dollar weather.” In an accompanying graph, 46 U.S. climate-related disasters between 1980 and 1995 – causing at least $1 billion in damages – are compared to 87 (twice as many) climate-related disasters between 1996 and 2011. Miller acknowledges that billion-dollar disasters can be attributed to “. . . more people . . . living on higher-value properties in vulnerable places, such as coasts.” However, he also warns that “. . . as the atmosphere warms, scientists expect destructive weather itself to become more common.”

          Yet despite the mainstream media’s reports of the growing urgency to address the devastating perils of climate change, few Americans, according to Latin, are prepared to make the necessary lifestyle changes and sacrifices that might lead to a more sustainable economic future.

          With the looming U.S. presidential election in his mind, Latin wonders out loud, near the conclusion of his book, whether the issue of global climate change will even be meaningfully addressed during the 2012 election campaign. His musings on that point reiterate his discussion in Chapter 4, “The Stalemate in International Relations,” of the irreconcilable climate policies of Southern developing nations and Northern affluent developed nations, and their respective leaders’ “political suicide threshold.” 

          It would be political suicide for the ruling elites of developing nations, such as China and India (whose GHG emissions have surpassed those of some developed nations), to curb their countries’ growing emissions and thereby halt the steady economic development that the Third World has been striving for decades to attain. It would be equally suicidal politics for the leaders of developed nations, such as the United States and in the European Union, to adopt policies that would jeopardize their competitive economic advantage over developing nations.

          It is this inherent conflict in economic policies, Latin argues, that blocks the global community from achieving a consensus on initiatives to stem the rising tide of GHG emissions.

          During the first U.S. presidential debate on October 3, 2012, President Barack Obama predictably avoided the issue of climate change. He was broadsided, nonetheless, by presidential contender Mitt Romney’s questions about the federal government’s subsidization of green energy companies.

          Notwithstanding the fact that the American middle class has been under siege for decades, Romney scored huge points in the first debate by questioning Obama about the wisdom of his trickle-down green economic policies. Obama subsequently lost his lead in the public opinion polls, although it may be too soon to tell whether his green policy initiatives constituted his “political suicide threshold.” 

          Yet it is precisely these types of policy initiatives that Latin recommends the U.S. embrace to tackle the growing problem of climate change.

          Latin is a Distinguished Professor of Law and Justice John J. Francis Scholar at Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, New Jersey. He has published many articles in the fields of environmental law, torts, and products liability, including seven articles reprinted in collections of the “best of the year” or “best of all time” in those fields.

          In a telephone interview with Latin, we discussed how a shift away from fossil fuels to new carbon-free energy sources might be more palatable for the average citizen if such policy initiatives did not require a compromise in standard of living.

          “We need to find ways to allow people to maintain their lifestyles while reducing damage to the climate,” Latin said, emphasizing that “it’s not enough to talk about it.”

          Without developing new energy sources, such as plasma arc gasification (a technology that converts garbage into gas without burning it) and nuclear fusion (which harnesses the hydrogen isotopes of deuterium and tritium), the business-as-usual scenario of burning fossil fuels will prove disastrous for the environment.

           Latin also argues in his book that international initiatives such as the Kyoto Protocol – designed to defer significant GHG emissions reductions too far into the future – are largely ineffectual, because this approach will prove “too little, too late” by allowing for rising GHG emissions.

          He enjoins that “none of the consensus proposals would require annual GHG emissions cutbacks of even 50% until 2050 . . . Before then, weak interim emissions-reduction targets would allow huge amounts of residual GHG discharges – all greenhouse gas discharges authorized within the annual emissions-reduction targets or caps – which are certain to compound the already too-high atmospheric GHG concentration while allowing the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change to become steadily worse.” (p. 9)

          The deferral of large GHG reductions into the future is, of course, particularly alarming due to carbon dioxide being the most common greenhouse gas, which is also “. . . highly persistent and may remain in the atmosphere for centuries or longer,” he notes.

          Latin devotes an entire chapter to economic incentive programs that advocate “putting a price on carbon” through cap-and-trade schemes, carbon offsets and carbon taxes. As a precursor to his recommended strategy outlined in his final chapter, “Overlapping Institutional Responsibilities,” he advances a compelling argument in favour of a direct regulation approach rather than a cap-and-trade scheme.

          He writes that “under direct regulation a firm that chooses to close down or to modify its operations will eliminate all or some of the GHG pollution from its operations.” Not so under a cap-and-trade scheme, however. A business that cannot afford to modify its operations and closes can then sell its GHG allowances to other operators, who would have the option of ‘banking’ them so that in the future, to comply with the regulated adjusted caps, the buyer of allowances can defer modifying its operations and reducing its GHG emissions.  In effect, the trade in carbon emissions would provide to the more profitable operators a licence to maintain a business-as-usual model.

          A cap-and-trade scheme not only accomplishes very little in reducing GHG emissions, such an approach also – and more importantly, unlike direct regulation – fails to provide incentive or a foundation for the economy’s transition to new carbon-free technologies.

          In our telephone discussion, I asked Latin about the continued development of Alberta’s Athabasca tar sands, which many environmental groups have targeted as the largest source of GHG emissions in Canada, and whether the projected expansion of the tar sands runs counter to the adoption and implementation of his clean technology replacement strategy.

          Adopting a common sense approach, Latin replied that “we have to make it economically unattractive to continue to develop the tar sands.” The rising price of oil has made it not only economically feasible to mine the tar sands, it has also provided an incentive for the industry to develop new technology, such as carbon capture storage, Latin said.

 

Blueprint for de-carbonization

          We also discussed the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, and how the international community cooperated in phasing out the discharge of harmful fluorocarbons.

          Latin emphasized that, at the time, industry had already developed a suitable substitute chemical (hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs) that would prove less damaging to the ozone layer. He added that the success of the Montreal Protocol is a blueprint for his progressive de-carbonization strategy, which includes establishing the following overlapping institutions and measures:

               • the Clean Technology Commission and Development Fund;

               • a progressively increasing carbon tax; and

               • direct pollution-control regulation of the worst greenhouse gas dischargers. 

         These measures, however, are predicated upon the global community shifting its focus away from emissions-reduction programs and embracing effective pollution-control measures through the development of GHG-free technologies.

          While a carbon tax would fund the development and deployment of new technologies, the mandate of the Clean Technology Commission and Development Fund would be to administer the new strategy by selecting “. . . which replacement technologies and de-carbonization methods should receive subsidies or other kinds of development and marketing support.“ (p. 162-3)  Latin envisions the commission to be government sponsored, but it would remain independent and be comprised of leading scientists, engineers and economists. 

          The wisdom of staffing the commission with experts rooted in science is borne out by a recent Eco-Watch website story, about a renewable energy fiasco that entails the logging of U.S. forests, the pelletizing of timber and shipping of the pellets to Europe, as a substitute for coal to generate electricity.    

          In the story, the North Carolina-based Dogwood Alliance reports that “between September 18 and September 24 (2012), four new wood pellet manufacturing facilities were announced, one in south Carolina and three in Georgia,” along with a proposed port expansion project in North Carolina, “. . . for the stated purpose of supporting the growing wood pellet export market to Europe. 

          “New companies with catchy, green sounding names, like ‘Enviva’ and ‘Enova Energy’ are popping up out of nowhere, staking their positions as leading suppliers of ‘sustainable,’ ‘renewable’ energy.” (See http://ecowatch.org/2012/forests-logged/).

          Clearly the logging of timber for wood pellets is not a panacea for the burning of coal in Europe. And clearly the policy decision to licence cutting of large tracts of timber (which results in the release of carbon) for manufacturing wood pellets is not only misguided, it confirms the soundness of advocating for scientists and other experts to oversee Latin’s proposed Clean Technology Commission and Development Fund.

          In my discussion with Latin about the urgency of nation-states shifting their focus from emissions-reduction programs to pollution-control measures, we also considered the mindset of the general public. It, too, requires adjustment from regarding fossil fuels as an energy source to viewing their exclusive and limited use as a platform for developing carbon-free technologies.

          In his book’s conclusion, Latin identifies several factors that have been instrumental in the U.S. failing to take the lead in combatting climate change by transitioning to de-carbonization strategies.

         Along with the oil and gas industry’s resistance to effective GHG regulation, the polarization of American politics and the short-sighted (and often ill-conceived) agendas of politicians, Latin identifies denial as a psychologically powerful coping mechanism, prevalent amongst the masses of people already overloaded with negative and fearful information.

          Moreover, studies have determined that ideology is a more powerful determinant of people’s beliefs than scientifically proven facts. This is yet another factor that has likely militated against the public demanding more effective measures be employed to counter rising GHG emissions and the resulting devastating impacts of climate change.

 

Military-industrial complex influence

           While Latin’s overview of the factors that have stymied our transition to a more sustainable future is comprehensive and illuminating, he has largely overlooked the military-industrial complex as the dominating foreign and domestic policy influencer in the U.S. since the Second World War, and the role it plays as a gargantuan emitter of GHGs.

          According to a May 11, 2012 Forbes post, “U.S. Military not Retreating on Clean Energy,” the Pentagon is the biggest consumer of fossil fuels worldwide, burning 300,000 barrels of oil per day, at a cost of more than $30 million in fuel per day. (See http://www.forbes.com/sites/pikeresearch/2012/05/11/u-s-military-not-retreating-on-clean-energy/).

          In order to reduce the military’s energy consumption (25 per cent of the U.S. government’s overall energy burden), the U.S. Department of Defense has become a supporter of renewable energy sources, not only to reduce rising costs but also to save lives.

          Military convoys carrying fossil fuels, deployed to bases in combat zones, are routinely targeted by insurgents. In order to render forward military bases more self-sufficient, micro-grids that harness wind and solar energy are replacing conventional fossil fuel sources. The U.S. fleet of fighter jets is being retrofitted for biofuels and many non-combat military vehicles are now electrically powered.

          Notwithstanding these efforts on the part of the Pentagon to reduce its energy consumption, the manufacture of munitions and military equipment – which has long played a role in employing millions of Americans – remains a huge emitter of GHGs. There is still no substitute for metallurgical coal in steel production, and the U.S. is not the only country that expends a good proportion of its GDP on munitions production.

          As long as the U.S. persists in pursuing a strategic policy viewed by other nations as hegemonic and aggressive, other nations in the interests of their own defence, such as Iran, or as allies of the U.S., including Canada, will continue to play a hand in the worldwide discharge of GHG emissions.

          The irony, of course, is that the pursuit and control of oil reserves worldwide, particularly in the increasingly volatile and dangerous Middle East, is a catalyst for continued and even increased military spending.

          Howard Latin’s exhortation to end ineffectual GHG emissions-reductions programs is not only critical to forestall climate change calamities and “billion-dollar weather,” but also to stem the tide of rising tensions between developing and developed nations in their relentless pursuit for power and control over the planet’s dwindling natural resources.

EnviroLine 

Barbara D. Janusz has been a regular contributor to EnviroLine since 2005. A freelance writer, novelist, poet and sustainability management consultant, she resides in Crowsnest Pass, Alberta.