----------
The Terrible Toll of Typhoon Haiyan Doesn't Excuse Bad Policy
Julian Morris
November 19, 2013
The terrible toll of Typhoon Haiyan—estimated to have
killed more than 4,000 people—reminds us of the often awesome power of the weather.
Some say the death and destruction in Asia are symptoms of climate change and
that we can expect worse to come—unless we cut back on emissions of greenhouse
gases. Coincidentally, negotiators from around the world are meeting in Warsaw,
Poland this week and next to attempt to hammer out a deal that would do just
that. But cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases may not be the best way to
address the threat of hurricanes and typhoons, even if climate change is making
them worse.
When it hit the Gulf of Leyte in the Philippines, Haiyan
had sustained winds of 145 mph, with gusts of up to 170 mph, making it
comparable in intensity to the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900, which had
winds of approximately 145 mph at landfall on the Texas Coast. The loss of life
in Leyte, currently estimated at between 3,600 and 4,500, may ultimately be as
great or greater than Galveston, where between 8,000 and 12,000—a quarter of
the town’s population—are estimated to have died, making it the most deadly
natural disaster in U.S. history.
Some activists claim that Haiyan is a symptom of climate
change and that it should be a wake-up call to take action to cut emissions of
greenhouse gases. Even theologians are getting in on the act, saying that the
typhoon is the result of the sin of climate denial! But those may not be the
most appropriate lessons. First, because it is far from clear that global
warming is leading to an increase in the number or intensity of typhoons and
hurricanes. Second, and more importantly, even if global warming does result in
more extreme weather events, cutting emissions will likely do little to reduce
the damage they inflict, while potentially costing a great deal, thereby
reducing people’s ability to take preventative or ameliorative action….
(Trend lines in global temperature, air (UAH and RSS), land + sea surface (HadCRU), land only (GISS) vs. global CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, January 1997 to October 2013)
The implications are clear. The best way to reduce the
impact of future tropical cyclones is through a combination of good governance
and economic freedom. Good governance (by which I mean government that is
responsive, accountable and subject to the rule of law) is necessary to ensure
that suitable sea defenses, early warning systems and transportation
infrastructure (roads, airports, etc.) are established. Economic freedom
(especially the ability to own property and engage in trade without undue
bureaucratic interference) leads to enterprise, innovation and economic
development, ensuring that individuals are better able to withstand the impact
of a cyclone.
Sadly, while the Philippines had early warnings of Haiyan
(NASA had forecast that it would hit the central Philippines two days before it
made landfall), it generally lacks either good governance or economic freedom:
it currently ranks 105 (of 174) on Transparency International’s Corruption
Perception Index (a measure of governance) and 97 (of 161) on the Heritage/Wall
Street Journal Index of Economic Freedom and is classified as “mostly unfree”.
That’s why attempts to evacuate people ahead of Haiyan were mostly a chaotic
failure and why even now, a week after the storm hit, supplies of food, water
and medicine are not reaching people who need them.
It makes sense to implement policies that would reduce
carbon emissions if so doing increases economic freedom. Examples include
removing unnecessary barriers to natural gas and other energy projects,
eliminating subsidies to energy and flood insurance, scrapping undue
restrictions on biotechnology and nanotechnology. Unfortunately, attempts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond these “no regrets” policies would likely
be counterproductive.
In the U.S., renewable energy mandates have imposed
enormous costs on producers and consumers, harming especially the poorest. Many
other interventions ostensibly aimed at reducing emissions of greenhouse gases
impose even greater costs per unit of carbon dioxide reduced. Future regulations
on emissions of greenhouse gases from coal-fired power stations will likely
exacerbate these problems by forcing the early and wasteful closure of existing
facilities, necessitating the construction of new (mostly gas-fired) plants
before they would otherwise have been built—thereby diverting resources to
energy production that otherwise might have been invested in other, more
innovative technologies.
Adding a carbon tax on top of all these regulations would
add insult to injury.
Political leaders have begun to realize that attempting
to regulate carbon dioxide emissions is both economically and politically
damaging. On Tuesday, Australia’s newly elected Prime Minister, Tony Abbott,
introduced legislation to repeal the country’s carbon tax. Canada’s Prime
Minister, Stephen Harper, reportedly praised the action. In the U.K., the
non-partisan Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee has urged a reduction
in energy taxes.
Leaders in India, China, Brazil and South Africa made the
same realization some time ago, which is why they have refused to agree to any
restrictions on emissions unless they receive large amounts of compensation –
on the premise that climate change cause by emissions from rich countries is
causing loss and damage.
But if voters in rich countries are already balking at
higher energy costs due to carbon controls, they’re hardly going to sanction
the payment of bribes to foreign nations so that everyone can suffer even
higher energy costs! That’s why in an October 22 speech in London full of
hubristic talk of a global agreement, the U.S. chief climate negotiator, Todd
Stern, made the following telling comment:
“Now the hard reality: no step change in overall levels
of public funding from developed countries is likely to come anytime soon. The
fiscal reality of the United States and other developed countries is not going
to allow it. This is not just a matter of the recent financial crisis; it is
structural, based on the huge obligations we face from aging populations and
other pressing needs for infrastructure, education, health care and the like.
We must and will strive to keep increasing our climate finance, but it is
important that all of us see the world as it is.”
So, to reiterate, forecasts of cyclonic doom should be
consumed with a heaped tablespoon of sea salt. And policies should be framed
accordingly. Instead of trekking to Warsaw for another pointless gabfest,
energy and environment ministers should stay at home to sort out the ridiculous
messes they and their predecessors have created, often in the name of saving
the planet. They should focus, to begin with, on scrapping the plethora of
subsidies and regulations that are weighing down our economies and preventing
us from adapting to change.
--------------
See also:Climate Tricks 19: Global Cooling and Resilient Society, May 31, 2013
Climate Tricks 20: Cooling Denial, June 22, 2013
Climate Tricks 21: Arctic Ice Will be Gone This Year?, July 14, 2013
Climate Tricks 22: Typhoon Haiyan due to Man-Made CC?, November 10, 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment