Global Climate Crisis: An Intern Debate!

Read on for a passionate debate between two of GSI's research interns...then weigh in with your own thoughts and opinions!

Question: What is the best method for the U.S. to address climate change in the global arena?

By Ian Gross, Research Intern

Position: An international coalition led by the United States is the best method to address climate change.

An international framework is the best way to address climate change. Consider the goal of climate change initiatives: reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In order to reduce CO2 emissions, one has to examine which countries emit the most CO2.
 
Let's look at a snapshot of emissions from 2005. That year, developed countries accounted for 85% of greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. was responsible for about 1/4 of that total, emitting 21% of global greenhouse gases. The remaining 15% of greenhouse gases came from developing countries.
 
Now, let’s fast forward to estimates of greenhouse gas emissions estimates for 2030. Global gas emissions have risen by 52% from 2005 levels. The U.S. is not as much of a major player emitting only 16% of global greenhouse gases. Developing countries, with China leading the way, are now responsible for an ever increasing share of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
The trend is clear. While the United States may be a major emitter of greenhouse gases now, its share of emissions relative to other countries will decrease markedly in the future. The U.S. is not alone in this regard. All developed countries will constitute a smaller portion of the global emissions pie by 2030.
 
Any policy towards reducing CO2 emissions should take note of this trend. With U.S. emissions already falling from previous levels, the U.S. should build an international framework to reduce CO2 emissions. This framework should focus on the realization that by 2030, 84% of greenhouse gas emissions will occur outside the United States. Only by addressing this fact will the world be able to accomplish the goal of long-term climate change initiatives and ultimately reduce C02 emissions.

By Andy Schneider, Research Intern

Position: The best method for the United States to address climate change is through governmental encouragement of domestic private-sector innovation in clean energy technology.

The best method for the United States to address climate change is through governmental encouragement of domestic private-sector innovation in clean energy technology. This methodology should be America’s guiding principle in addressing this challenge for three main reasons.

First, great innovation has historically come from the United States’ private sector (after federal subsidization and research grants). Railroad and train technology boomed in the mid to late 19th century due to the U.S. government carefully subsidizing research and investment in the private sector. The result was a boom in railroad building accompanied by great economic growth. Although there was an unsurprising bust that followed this boom, the infrastructure left behind resulted in a sustained progressive movement forward. More recently, the internet and technology boom of the 1990s was cultivated in part by federal (and state) funding to the private sector. Many of the ideas eventually picked up by venture capitalists were sparked largely through governmental funding. While the tech bubble also busted, its own legacy left behind an infrastructure that has indisputably carried us into a new age of communication and information flows. A boom in clean energy technology will likely follow a similar pattern.

Second, the United States has an almost unprecedented amount of “global cultural capital.” Policy disagreements aside, the world is still absolutely enamored with America. As Thomas Friedman writes, “travel the world and you will see: people follow Americans.” Ironically, people have followed Americans in our dirty-fuels consumptive ways (i.e. China). 200 million Chinese aspire to a middle-class “American life,” owning a sport utility vehicle, running utilities with little regard for energy saving, and essentially consuming, consuming, consuming as the modus operandi. Take into account the 200 million Chinese who are next in line and the problem becomes more urgent. Financing the private sector for clean-energy innovation makes any kind of awkward multilateral request for less consumption moot. If America innovates and acts on clean energy by choice (and unilaterally demonstrates its benefits), the world will follow suit.

Third, while the demand side is admittedly very important, I argue that the supply side is presently more important. We do need to reevaluate how we consume and spend. Yet, invoking Thomas Friedman again, the fact remains that “no one has yet come up with a source of electrons that meets all four criteria [for mass release of clean energy]: abundant, clean, reliable and cheap." We cannot seriously undertake any kind of meaningful action on climate change until we actually have the means to do so on a large scale, both in developing and developed countries. The unquestioned best means to do that, as I have tried to argue earlier, is through innovation in the U.S. private-sector. We need that aha-breakthrough innovation still. And by now I hope we know the best way to get it.