Forget the Paris Accords

 

The Trump administration is currently facing a major decision—whether to withdraw the United States from the Paris Accords on climate change. The huge multi-national agreement was finalized in the closing weeks of the Obama administration, just days before Trump’s surprise victory in the presidential election. The key commitment made by the United States under the accords is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the next decade by about a quarter of their 2005 rate, with further reductions to come thereafter. But during his campaign, Donald Trump promised to pull out of the accords, and, at the recent meeting of the G-7, was the lone holdout against a ringing endorsement of the agreement. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been insisting that the United States stay the course, but it appears as if Trump is inclined to honor his campaign promise to pull out of the accords, a position in line with that of Scott Pruitt, the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The President’s instincts are spot on here. He should withdraw the United States from the accords and be prepared to stoutly defend his decision on both political and scientific grounds. Ironically, the best reasons for getting out of the accords are the evident weaknesses in the reasons that a wide range of businesses and environmental groups offer for staying in.

One constant refrain of both large American corporations and environmental groups is that by withdrawing from the Paris Accords, the United States will suffer a “huge missed opportunity” to work on the cutting-edge technologies of wind and solar energy. But why? At this point, solar and wind energy, as the indefatigable Matt Ridley points out, amount to at most a trivial portion of the global energy supply, less than one percent in total. Indeed, most of that production comes from state-subsidized ventures that could never survive on their own. And while firms race to collect government subsidies to develop so-called cleaner energy, none of their research is likely to solve the intractable problem of how to store wind or solar energy efficiently.

Further, to label wind and solar as “green” energy simply ignores the substantial environmental costs associated over their life-cycle of development, fabrication, installation, and maintenance. Covering the ground with huge solar panels is a form of thermal pollution; wind turbines emit a low hum injurious to people and are notorious for killing birds; and mining the materials required for the manufacture of each form of energy results in more environmental harm.

On the other hand, it is a given that coal, oil, and natural gas will remain central pillars of the world’s energy supply for the indefinite future, given their energy richness and operational reliability. Research that reduces harmful emissions from these widely used sources has a far higher rate of social return than any improvements in wind and solar, which are large enterprises that require a huge number of workers to generate a tiny amount of energy: 374,000 people work in solar and 100,000 in wind, compared to 160,000 for coal and 398,000 for natural gas. These “green” energy sources are clearly inefficient, which is why so much labor is wasted on so little output.

On the other hand, there have been major technological advances in the production of natural gas, oil, and coal (the cost of fracking dropped 30 percent in less than two years), and these sources remain as vital as ever to global energy production. It is mere propaganda to insist that “The End of Coal is Near” now that China has decided to scrap the construction of 103 new power plants. China’s five-year plan still calls for a nearly 20 percent expansion of its coal production capacity by 2020. India and Japan are following suit. Germany, pace Merkel, produces huge quantities of coal annually, virtually all of it lignite, or brown coal, the dirtiest variety. Coal from these sources not only produce all the traditional forms of pollution, but also causes ailments ranging from asthma to radiation diseases (from mining rare earths)—making the issue of carbon dioxide emissions an afterthought. Improving the efficiency of coal production will thus yield far greater returns than fine-tuning the production of wind and solar energy.

A further reason to get out of the Paris Accords is to make sure that the United States does not get dragooned into researching areas that only promise, at best, low rates of return. If wind and solar were worth their salt, private capital would flow into their research and development, just as it does for fossil fuels. The accord’s supporters have the basic economics exactly backwards, for there is no reason to think that superior American technology will be spurned by countries that can use it to increase energy yields while reducing pollution.

The defenders of the Paris Accords are as dogmatic on the science as they are on the economics. To them, it is an axiomatic truth that carbon dioxide emissions pose a grave threat to the environment, even though the putative causal chain is filled with missing links. The current practice is to assume that every adverse climate event is somehow the result of the rather smallish increases in carbon dioxide levels over the past 65 years. In order to reach that result, however, it is necessary to exclude other explanations for the adverse events. An observed rise in sea level in Florida, for example, is more likely attributable to the draining of local aquifers than to increases in global temperature. Indeed, sea level rises have, if anything, slowed down in recent years, notwithstanding increases in carbon dioxide levels. In a similar vein, the rapid melting of ice on the western part of the Antarctic is more likely attributable to underground volcanic activity, particularly given that the overall ice levels in the Antarctic are up and not down. And highly variable adverse events are probably more closely associated with changes in water vapor patterns, the recent El Niño, active sunspots, aerosol levels, and a host of other factors, some of which are well known and others of which are only dimly understood.

The situation is even more complex if one looks to the long run. Climate variability has been a constant long before human beings inhabited this earth. Of course, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that can trap energy. But so is water vapor, and its levels are far harder to track because its amount and distribution are not constant across the earth’s surface. Most crucially, observed cyclical patterns of temperature change do not correlate with slow but steady increases in carbon dioxide. Recent work by climate scientists Richard Lindzen and others shows that during the so-called Holocene period (roughly covering the last 11,000 years), there was a negative correlation between temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations—strongly suggesting that carbon dioxide levels cannot be the main driver of temperature changes. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that recent climate models that have predicted sharp temperature increases have consistently run “hot,” so much so that observed increases are less than 50 percent of those predicted. As climate scientist Judith Curry points out, the uncertainties involved are large and the role of natural forces in driving temperature change are systematically underestimated.

More specifically, the over-hyped climate models have ignored two key constraints that undercut the usual doomsday projections. First, changes in temperature occur much more slowly than changes in carbon dioxide concentration. At the same time, the increase in plant growth on land has vastly outstripped temperature changes, contributing powerfully to the greening of the earth in the last ten years, and suggesting that the social “cost” of carbon dioxide could be positive. Second, recent work suggests that “doubling sensitivity”— which adds the multiplier effect needed to determine the ultimate impact of carbon dioxide changes on temperature—is far lower than the previous estimates put forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ten years ago.

There is, therefore, no good reason to think that carbon dioxide could bring about any short-term crisis in temperature, let alone a crisis that can only be abated by instituting very costly (and likely ineffective) changes through the Paris Accords. The agreement could easily result in trillions of dollars in wasteful expenditures. What’s worse, the agreement seems to set its targets on autopilot, without accounting for new data that might require revisions to the initial figures. Right now there is little reason to believe that putting all the accord’s provisions into place would lower global temperatures by even a fraction of a degree.

I see no gain in having the United States participate in a treaty that combines bad science with bad economics. In the long run, the United States will gain in both wealth and influence if it adopts a more restrained approach to climate change. President Trump should not let himself be scolded to move in a fashionable but unsound direction.

© 2017 by the Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University

Published in Environment
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 42 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    A clear and concise summation — though the fact that you mentioned both Lindzen and Curry will probably trigger a protest against warming apostasy somewhere.

    • #1
  2. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Richard,

    100 percent. France & Germany can’t quite manage 2% GDP for the proper defense of Europe but they want a giant adult bedtime story at incredible cost.

    Send them to bed without the chocolate bar.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #2
  3. Pony Convertible Inactive
    Pony Convertible
    @PonyConvertible

    Here are my predictions.

    1. The U.S. will drop out of the Paris Accords
    2. None of the countries that agree to the Accords will meet their promised CO2 reductions.
    3. Despite #1, or maybe because of #1, the U.S. will reduce CO2 more than at least 90% of the countries that stay with the Paris Accords.
    • #3
  4. Brian Clendinen Inactive
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Pony Convertible (View Comment):
    Here are my predictions.

    1. The U.S. will drop out of the Paris Accords
    2. None of the countries that agree to the Accords will meet their promised CO2 reductions.
    3. Despite #1, or maybe because of #1, the U.S. will reduce CO2 more than at least 90% of the countries that stay with the Paris Accords.

    If I was a betting man I would bet for your predictive model againt  all the climate models combined so they could cherry pick after the fact the closet model.

    • #4
  5. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Member
    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen
    @tommeyer

    Richard Epstein:I see no gain in having the United States participate in a treaty that combines bad science with bad economics. In the long run, the United States will gain in both wealth and influence if it adopts a more restrained approach to climate change. President Trump should not let himself be scolded to move in a fashionable but unsound direction.

    Amen.

    • #5
  6. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    This analysis misses the key metric:  How can you put a price tag on that which makes very rich white people feel good about themselves?

    • #6
  7. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    Old Bathos (View Comment):
    This analysis misses the key metric: How can you put a price tag on that which makes very rich white people feel good about themselves?

    As @rightangles would say: hahaha

    • #7
  8. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    He can zero in with more substantive content in less space on more subjects than  almost all specialists in the dozens of fields he takes up.   We could line up a team of liberal lawyers, environmentalists, economists, bankers, corporate managers, foreign policy, defense policy with  teams of staff to support them,  on one team and Richard Epstein on the other in a prime time debate,  including Algore of course.  Yea, they’d jump at the chance, especially Algore.  Of course they’d not get a chance to speak so that’s a problem to.

    • #8
  9. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    When Obama was in Paris, I got an email from a lefty friend in California. It was an email forwarded from a friend of hers who was there, reporting breathlessly, in words dripping with import, from the scene. He wrote that some day we will achieve “climate justice.” I replied to please include a trigger warning the next time she sends me anything containing the words “climate justice.”

    • #9
  10. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    “climate justice.”

    Just what is that?

    Sort of adds new meaning to “when hell freezes over” don’t it?

    • #10
  11. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    MLH (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    “climate justice.”

    Just what is that?

    Sort of adds new meaning to “when hell freezes over” don’t it?

    To me, it’s another indication that they’ve lost their minds. They’re attaching the word “justice” to anything and everything now, whether it makes any sense or not. I love it.

    • #11
  12. JustmeinAZ Member
    JustmeinAZ
    @JustmeinAZ

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    “climate justice.”

    Oh, gag me!

    • #12
  13. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Why not stay in the accord but ignore its mandates and proposals. Best of both worlds. I expect that is what everyone else will do.

     

    • #13
  14. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Why not stay in the accord but ignore its mandates and proposals. Best of both worlds. I expect that is what everyone else will do.

    Because then we’re being dishonest, and we will fail to uphold our obligations. Better to reject it.

    • #14
  15. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Rush gave a detailed explanation today of why it would be a terrible mistake not to pull out of the accord.

    • #15
  16. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Valiuth (View Comment):
    Why not stay in the accord but ignore its mandates and proposals. Best of both worlds. I expect that is what everyone else will do.

    That is what everybody else is already doing but it keeps the fraud alive and well funded.  It must end and we have to lead the way.

    • #16
  17. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    I just heard (about 1130 PDT) that we are out!

    • #17
  18. Linc Wolverton Inactive
    Linc Wolverton
    @LincWolverton

    What you omitted and what is generally ignored in discussing the merits of wind and solar energy is the CO2 that comes from backup gas or oil-fired resources necessary to  make the power firm–that is, when the household turns on the light switch or the factory turns on its motors or other manufacturing facilities, such as computer chips. Because of the unpredictability of wind energy and the absence of nighttime solar energy production (as well as some unpredictability during the day), backup resources have to provide fill-in energy.

    In one study I was involved in, the CO2 emitted by backup resources actually exceeded that of the steady operation of  a resource that serves the same pattern–a combined cycle combustion  turbine. The upshot is that taxpayers pay a subsidy and get no or little net reduction in CO2. [Battery development may solve the problem in the future. In the Pacific Northwest during a severe  cold spell and high electric load, wind energy production can fall to near zero for days at a time, for which battery installation would be needed.]

    • #18
  19. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    Linc Wolverton (View Comment):
    What you omitted and what is generally ignored in discussing the merits of wind and solar energy is the CO2 that comes from backup gas or oil-fired resources necessary to make the power firm–that is, when the household turns on the light switch or the factory turns on its motors or other manufacturing facilities, such as computer chips. Because of the unpredictability of wind energy and the absence of nighttime solar energy production (as well as some unpredictability during the day), backup resources have to provide fill-in energy.

    In one study I was involved in, the CO2 emitted by backup resources actually exceeded that of the steady operation of a resource that serves the same pattern–a combined cycle combustion turbine. The upshot is that taxpayers pay a subsidy and get no or little net reduction in CO2. [Battery development may solve the problem in the future. In the Pacific Northwest during a severe cold spell and high electric load, wind energy production can fall to near zero for days at a time, for which battery installation would be needed.]

    • #19
  20. Giaccomo Member
    Giaccomo
    @Giaccomo

    Chapeau!

    • #20
  21. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):

    Richard Epstein:I see no gain in having the United States participate in a treaty that combines bad science with bad economics. In the long run, the United States will gain in both wealth and influence if it adopts a more restrained approach to climate change. President Trump should not let himself be scolded to move in a fashionable but unsound direction.

    Amen.

    Man, you took the word right out of my mouth.

    A. M. E. N.

    • #21
  22. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    MLH (View Comment):
    I just heard (about 1130 PDT) that we are out!

    A. M. E. N.

    and

    HALLELUJAH!

    • #22
  23. Old Vines Thatcher
    Old Vines
    @OldVines

    Here’s an idea:  submit the agreement to the Senate as a treaty. It will fail and all the big talkers will have to go on the record. In addition it will under score our commitment to constitutional norms.

    • #23
  24. Mike LaRoche Inactive
    Mike LaRoche
    @MikeLaRoche

    The Pacific Northwest could have used some of that “climate justice” this past winter.

    • #24
  25. GroovinDrJarvis Inactive
    GroovinDrJarvis
    @GroovinDrJarvis

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    MLH (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    “climate justice.”

    Just what is that?

    Sort of adds new meaning to “when hell freezes over” don’t it?

    To me, it’s another indication that they’ve lost their minds. They’re attaching the word “justice” to anything and everything now, whether it makes any sense or not. I love it.

    Is comment justice a sick burn from a keyboard warrior? Or a fuuny comment left unliked?  I guess it doesn’t have to make sense… #commentjustice

    • #25
  26. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Linc Wolverton (View Comment):
    Because of the unpredictability of wind energy and the absence of nighttime solar energy production (as well as some unpredictability during the day), backup resources have to provide fill-in energy.

    Exactly. And, for the benefit of those who aren’t energy wonks:

    The kind of energy production required for fill-in is particularly expensive. Power generation generally comes in three flavors: base-loaddispatchable, and intermittent.

    Because, as you said, the power produced by wind and solar is intermittent and unreliable, some other power production needs to be kept in reserve to handle a calm or cloudy day, hour, or moment. Base-load power such as coal and nuclear is the least expensive power, but it can’t be spooled up quickly to handle temporary shortfalls. So dispatchable power, typically natural gas, which is more expensive than base-load power, is called upon to fill the breach.

    • #26
  27. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    This is worth watching, if for no other reason than “a 61 year old dressed like Pee Wee Herman except without the fashion sense.”

    (Seriously, it’s good.)

    • #27
  28. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    Percival (View Comment):
    This is worth watching, if for no other reason than “a 61 year old dressed like Pee Wee Herman except without the fashion sense.”

    (Seriously, it’s good.)

    I love him. Bill Whittle not Bill Nye ha “A 61-year-old dressed like PeeWee Herman” hahaha

    • #28
  29. MLH Inactive
    MLH
    @MLH

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    This is worth watching, if for no other reason than “a 61 year old dressed like Pee Wee Herman except without the fashion sense.”

    (Seriously, it’s good.)

    I love him. Bill Whittle not Bill Nye ha “A 61-year-old dressed like PeeWee Herman” hahaha

    How old is PeeWee?

    • #29
  30. RightAngles Member
    RightAngles
    @RightAngles

    MLH (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):
    This is worth watching, if for no other reason than “a 61 year old dressed like Pee Wee Herman except without the fashion sense.”

    (Seriously, it’s good.)

    I love him. Bill Whittle not Bill Nye ha “A 61-year-old dressed like PeeWee Herman” hahaha

    How old is PeeWee?

    64.

    *edit* When Reubens was doing PeeWee, he was in his 30s.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.