Battlegrounds
Page 43
Other threats that place civilian populations and infrastructure at risk are proliferating. Autonomous aerial and subsurface vehicles pose a significant danger, for which defenses are immature. The 2019 swarm drone attack on the Saudi Arabian Aramco facility, which cut oil production by about half (approximately 5 percent of global oil production), should serve as a warning, as should the drone activity around London’s Gatwick airport that shut down airport traffic in December 2018. Autonomous and swarm attacks threaten to force our citizenry to live in fear reminiscent of that which Londoners experienced during the Blitz in World War II from V1 and V2 rockets, first-generation drones launched by Nazi Germany.
* * *
A THEME in this book, strategic narcissism, and the corresponding tendency to artificially separate interconnected problem sets, encourages short-term, simplistic solutions to complex problems. Bias against the long-term approach, like other maladies affecting U.S. policy, stems from a lack of empathy. Jamil Zaki, professor of psychology at Stanford University and the director of the Stanford Social Neuroscience Lab, observes in his book, The War for Kindness: Building Empathy in a Fractured World, that both time and distance diminish empathy because humans’ “caring instincts are short sighted.” Our ability to feel empathy about future developments is limited because “we tend not to feel for our future selves. It goes against our instincts, therefore, to tackle problems that we have not yet been forced to confront. If the consequences of action or inaction are far off and afflict strangers yet to be born, we are less likely to sacrifice or invest today.” That tendency is evident across the globe on the interrelated problems of climate change, pollution, energy security, and food and water security.
Like discussions with President Trump concerning the Iran Nuclear Deal, those concerning the Paris climate accord were animated. I was far from an expert on the subject, but it was clear to me that the issue of climate change tended to move people toward polar extremes. Climate activists endorsed impractical measures, while climate deniers and skeptics disregarded compelling evidence that global warming is happening, that it is caused by humans, and that, if unchecked, it will have disastrous consequences. Perhaps naïvely, I thought that if we simply focused on what Americans agreed on, we could develop options for a climate strategy, get beyond disagreements between those on the fringes of the issue, and make real progress.
I recommended to the president that the United States stay in the Paris Agreement, an environmental accord adopted by nearly every nation in 2015 to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions and limit the global temperature increase in the twenty-first century to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. I believed that climate change was manmade and that we had to develop a sound, multinational solution. The agreement was nonbinding, so I did not see the downside of staying in it. Besides, I felt that withdrawing would result in a loss of American influence not only on the range of climate-related issues, but also on other challenges that required multinational efforts.
Those who argued for leaving, however, believed that if the United States failed to meet its targets for carbon reduction in the agreement, activists would initiate litigation against the government and industries. They also believed that meeting the targets would limit economic growth and impose costs on the American people even as the world’s greatest polluters not only agreed to less ambitious goals, but also received payments from the United States and others as an incentive to convert to renewable energy sources. The agreement, like the Iran nuclear deal, was not ratified by Congress; many saw it as an infringement on sovereignty. In Trump’s Rose Garden speech in June 2017 announcing his decision to initiate the withdrawal process, he said the deal “disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”23 In short, the president believed that the accord would be an economic burden to the United States and, additionally, that it would result in a large-scale loss of jobs, putting the U.S. at an international disadvantage, all the while doing nothing to stop climate change in the long term.
I disagreed with the decision, but as I learned more about what action was needed to protect the global environment, reduce carbon emissions and methane, ensure access to energy, protect against health risks, and improve food and water security, I concluded that the cloud over America’s reputation that followed the withdrawal from the agreement had a silver lining. Withdrawing might draw attention to the agreement’s inadequacies and help persuade not only the United States, but also other nations to take a fundamentally different approach to climate change. The Paris Agreement, I came to believe, represented a danger because it fostered complacency. Although being a signatory allowed proponents to feel good about themselves, the nonbinding, unenforceable nature of the agreement did nothing to reduce what would be the greatest sources of human-induced global warming in coming decades: burgeoning carbon emissions from China and India and potential future emissions in developing economies in Africa. In the four years after the signing of the Paris Agreement, emissions increased by 1.5 percent per year.24 What we needed were inexpensive and profitable solutions that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions in China, India, and across all developing economies.
In December 2019, a conference in Madrid, Spain, intended to finalize rules arising from the Paris Agreement, ended in disappointment. Like previous efforts to address global warming, discussions focused largely on nonsolutions that were either impractical or inadequate to address the complex problem set associated with climate change. Conference attendees voiced support for the Green New Deal, an unrealistic proposal that called for fulfilling all U.S. power demand through zero-emission energy sources; eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture; renovating all existing buildings and constructing new ones to improve energy efficiency; guaranteeing adequate housing, high-quality health care, and jobs with a family-sustaining wage; and mandating family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security for everyone in the United States. Some proposed that Europe adopt a similarly unrealistic approach. A fundamentally different proposal was needed, but the trend seemed to be toward doubling down on non-solutions. Although advocates for environmental justice recommended vast capital transfers to developing economies to compensate for historical competitive disadvantages, energy solutions that are clean and profitable are the best way to right previous wrongs, create opportunities for economic growth, and address issues of environmental justice. The goal of reducing the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GNP would highlight the need for solutions that are applicable to the developing world rather than proposals to transfer capital from the taxpayers of developed economies to countries that are negatively affecting the earth and their own people.
Once again, strategic narcissism obscures solutions as some climate activists imagine a world consistent with what they want to achieve, but take no practical steps to seize opportunities to address the problem. Their conceit leads them to overlook political and economic realities that would shatter their dreams. Climate deniers evince a different form of strategic narcissism; theirs is based on willful ignorance. What the world needs is a comprehensive strategy based on the recognition that countries will not suppress their security and economic interests to join an international agreement. Proposals must have broad commercial and political appeal not only in prosperous nations, but also in developing economies.25 And those solutions must avoid focusing on only one aspect of this complex problem set and thereby creating problems in other areas.
One common flaw with many climate proposals is that they pose single-country solutions to a global problem. Because pollution does not respect borders, solutions must apply globally. Climate scientists generally agree that global coal power generation needs to be reduced by 70 percent by 2030 and completely by 2050. Coal supplies 72 percent of India’s
power. And between 2006, when China surpassed the United States as the biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions, and 2020, China built the equivalent of fifty to seventy large coal-burning power plants every year. China is now the world’s largest coal user, and in 2019 it had 121 gigawatts of coal plants under construction, more than the rest of the world combined. Each plant burns about a ton of coal every ten seconds.26 Although Xi Jinping talks a good game on the environment, in 2019 China produced more carbon emissions than the United States and the European Union combined. Even worse, China is exporting more than 260 coal-fired power plants across Asia and Africa. One of those plants, in Kenya, fifteen miles from a UNESCO World Heritage Site, will be the largest source of pollution in the country.27 The polluting effect on the African environment is as devastating as the increased carbon emissions are to the global environment. The trends in India are just as bad.
Other proposals are flawed because they avoid a systemic and holistic understanding and choose to focus on a single aspect of the problem. But challenges of the environment, climate, energy, health, food and water security, and even poverty and migration are interconnected. For example, agriculture affects climate, and climate affects agriculture. If cattle were a country, they would be the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Deforestation is undertaken to make land available for cattle or to grow crops that are converted into biofuels. But deforestation removes trees that pull CO2 from the air, and when burned, these trees release all their carbon and greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere.
Climate change induces food and water scarcity and spreads human and agricultural disease. The effects can be immediate as well as long term, especially given that human-induced stress factors, such as war and criminality, can both be triggered by food and water scarcity and aggravate it.28 The ongoing tragedy in Yemen is a case in point. The effect of these interrelated problems on migration affects not only Africa, but also the Greater Middle East, Europe, and Central and North America. As a recent Hoover Institution study concluded, “[W]e are seeing a global movement of peoples, matching the transformative movement of goods and of capital in recent decades.”29
Efforts to address only one challenge can exacerbate others and perpetuate rather than ameliorate threats to security and prosperity. In China, the anticipated explosion of electric vehicles will actually increase carbon emissions and worsen already deplorable air quality because an electric car that charges its batteries with electricity from a coal-burning plant produces more CO2 per mile than a gasoline-powered car.30 In India, President Narendra Modi promised drinking water to every household in the country, but potable water accounts for only 4 percent of the total water used in the country. Nearly 80 percent goes toward the irrigation of cropland. An estimated 200,000 people perish each year in India because of acute water scarcity, and approximately 600 million others endure severe water stress. By 2030, the demand for water is expected to be twice the available supply.31 So, focusing just on water security without enacting reforms in agricultural techniques treats only symptoms while the underlying problem grows.
We need a dose of strategic empathy to develop solutions that address the interrelated nature of this problem set. And these solutions must generate incentives that lead to their broad adoption. A realistic approach that focuses on the following four objectives should minimize polarized political discussions that provide ammunition to climate deniers, obscure points of agreement, and delay initiatives that could make the choice between economic growth and survival of the planet a false dilemma.
First, to ensure that the United States remains the global leader in reducing pollution while expanding our economy, any plan must cut across energy, agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and construction. Renewable energy will remain important, but bolder, short-term action, such as encouraging a worldwide shift from coal to natural gas and an expansion of nuclear power, is essential.
Second, the United States should lead the world in the development of integrated solutions, especially with the use of new technologies, including improved renewable energy sources, next-generation nuclear reactors, and better batteries and carbon-capture technologies. The costs of many of these technologies are plummeting.
Third, the United States must work with other nations on the development of clean energy, new agricultural techniques and supply chains, water security, transportation, environmental stewardship, and health security. We might initiate a large scale, long-term partnership with India on those interconnected problems, with an emphasis on results.
Fourth, all should prioritize the conservation of energy, food, and other resources, including making vehicles more energy-efficient.32 A carbon credit system could encourage populations to emit less and conserve more. Conservation of food through limiting waste will be crucial. The water used to grow the food that we waste is greater than the water use of any single nation, and carbon emissions from that wasted food are greater than two times the emissions of all cars and trucks in the United States.33
There are many innovative solutions that advance toward these four objectives. One with which I am familiar is Zume, a company headquartered in San Francisco. I serve on its advisory board. Zume strives to integrate existing and mature technologies into new systems to revolutionize the entire food supply chain by better balancing supply and demand, saving on food and transportation waste, and integrating new agricultural technology to emit much less carbon. Integrated solutions such as those that Zume is pursuing could have a dramatic positive influence internationally across the nexus of environment, energy, climate change, health, and water and food security.
While international organizations and forums can help coordinate and inspire multinational solutions, the real progress must happen inside sovereign states. It is worth noting that during the global climate protests of September 2019, massive crowds totaling an estimated four million people worldwide called for action in New York, Seoul, Kabul, Istanbul, and elsewhere.34 There were, however, no protests in China.35 International organizations and nations whose citizens are victimized by irresponsible behavior must bring pressure to bear on nations that fail to be good stewards of the planet. Informing populations of potential solutions and of the consequences of inaction may help generate social pressure on autocratic regimes from within.
Discussions on these topics should begin with points of agreement. The vast majority of Americans can agree that climate change is a problem; that it is caused by humans and associated with carbon emissions; that there is no one exquisite solution; that solutions need to create economic incentives that lead to widespread adoption; and that the conversion of coal-burning plants to natural gas or another low-emission source should be an urgent near-term priority. And to generate the empathy necessary to impel action, we need to think about our children and grandchildren while recognizing that this isn’t a future problem set. It is a right-now set of intertwined problems that include climate, energy, environment, health, food, and water security.
* * *
ENERGY IS the largest of the components associated with climate change, and may afford the greatest opportunity. The largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, for example, came not from a large government program or regulation, but instead from the fracking revolution in the United States. Fracking is the process of drilling into rock and then injecting highly pressurized liquid into the holes to create fissures, which allow gas and oil to escape and be captured. It was an unforeseen technological innovation that suddenly made cheap natural gas available in large quantities. This cheap supply provided an incentive to make the capital investments necessary to convert coal-fired plants to natural gas. Coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation fell from 48 percent in 2008 to 22 percent in 2020. U.S. utilities do not build coal-fired power plants because natural gas and renewable power plants generate cheaper electricity.36 The conversion of coal to natural gas worldwide presents the greatest near-term opportunity for carbon emissions reduction in the power and i
ndustrial sectors.
Advanced nuclear reactors provide another opportunity to achieve dramatic reductions in greenhouse gases without slowing economic growth. These Energy Multiplier Module (EM2) reactors provide a grid-capable power source that takes just over three years to build. They are also more efficient and safer than standard reactors, which send spent fuel out for geologic storage. EM2 reactors recycle used fuel after removal of some of the fission products. No liquid reprocessing is necessary, and no heavy metals are separated. Even better, these fission products require only about five hundred years of storage before decaying to background levels, compared to the ten thousand years or longer required for current designs. In addition, EM2 has the potential to reduce our waste stockpile because it can be powered with this spent fuel.37
Advanced reactors would also provide an opportunity for the United States to regain its ability to compete with others, including China and Russia, in the global nuclear power market. Only two nuclear reactors are under construction in the United States, while China is rapidly building out its nuclear capacity. Russia dominates nuclear reactor exports, though China is catching up.38 The last successful export and construction of an American reactor design was to China, which modified that design and now exports it. If we build reactors that are safer, cheaper, newer, and better, we can regain the lead in the industry and contribute to the reduction of greenhouse emissions.39