The Hard Look

A CO2 Cartel Is Doomed

Those who wish to prevent further man-made global warming (think the IPCC) are trying to create an economic cartel no different than the oil cartel.  In each case, the cartel acts to limit production.  In each case, production control is a voluntary act.  In each case, the cartel falls apart when a member decides they need more production than the cartel will allow them, especially in the face of unmet demand. 

The IPCC, who seeks to create this CO2 cartel, ran into a stone wall in Bankok, Thailand, last week.  China, India, Indonesia and African nations said they won’t follow the cartel and limit CO2 production until they have significantly increased their economic development, something that is going to take a lot of CO2 to accomplish.  And, just like the oil cartel, the rest of the members reacted predictably.

Not only are these very large CO2 polluters (2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th after the U.S.) unwilling to cooperate with cartel production limits, neither is the US.  Bryan Walsh of Time Magazine thinks that “as long as [China and India] send out signals that they're unwilling to consider substantial global-warming action — especially anything that could result in mandatory targets on emissions — even green Democrats in Congress will have a difficult time defending carbon controls at home.  (Time’s article is here.)   And, it isn’t just the U.S.  Time cites to Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who suggests, "It ought to be clear that the developed world will not move without something from the developing nations."

Cartels don’t work.  Never have.  Only one model will work to ensure full cooperation on reducing CO2 to the levels the IPCC seeks – world hegemony. The IPCC lacks the moral and intellectual authority necessary to be a hegemon.  So does the U.N., Al Gore, Prince Charles and the Green Parties throughout the world, all of whom would be delighted to be one.  No, the basket is empty.  We have no environmental hegemon today and I don’t see one peaking over the horizon anytime soon. 

This is the grim reality of global CO2 control.  Those in the business community may find these facts helpful as you plan your investments and growth projections over the next decade or two.  As for the politicians, there is nothing more than cold comfort on this previously warm and fuzzy agenda item.  Finally, I offer no suggestion on how to create a political mechanism that could effectively limit CO2 world wide.  I have confidence that the marketplace will find new technologies that, if cost-effective, will reduce CO2 at the margin.  But as for large scale reductions in CO2 emissions, I see nothing to make that happen. 

Is there a Global Temperature?

I started out as a physical chemist a long time ago, and when the global climate community built their predictions about changing climate on “global temperature change”, it seemed a little dicey to me.  After all, the whole planet is not at the same temperature, and the word “climate” has a real meaning – the meteorological conditions at a specific place on the surface of the planet.  Professors Essex,  McKitrick,  and Andresen have  published a useful discussion on this point.  ( See: Does a Global Temperature Exist?; J. Non-Equil. Thermod. 32, 1-27 (2007).  Their conclusion: “global temperature” is fundamentally meaningless and models built on this concept are inherently just as meaningless.  Here’s how a steward would look at this.

Stewardship, Global Warming, CO2 and Oceans

What would a steward do about Global Warming in light of CO2 and ocean acidification.  Nothing.  The common steward would take adaptive steps for his shell fisheries and the High Steward would get more serious about global CO2 reduction but still more serious about adaptation for his nation’s continental shelf and near shore ecologies. Neither would give a fig about warming from CO2, per se. Two new studies explain why.

[For those wondering about the difference between common stewards and High Stewards, go here for an explanation.  In essence, common stewards hold responsibilities for increasing the value of assets owned by their employer while High Stewards work for the sovereign and address issues within the nation’s borders.]

The Stewardship Series – Common and High Stewards

The history of stewardship is as old as written history.  Every culture and civilization has employed stewards, and in Europe common stewards have become High Stewards and two have those have gone on to become Kings.  Although the word steward has been applied to many roles, the historic role is the manager of the estate.  This series discusses these stewards and how they would likely deal with environmental and policy problems in the public forum today. 

There are two kinds of stewards, common stewards and High Stewards.  Both have the same goal, to increase the assets of their land owner.  The major difference between the two involves the scope of their assets and the mechanisms at their disposal to manage those assets.   Here are some of the major differences between the two stewards.