Monday, January 04th, 2010

Global Warming

In the Garden of Eden there was harmony between God and man, man and man and man and nature.  God’s first commandment to man was to replenish the earth and subdue it, not by despoiling it, but rather to bring the earth under the harmony of the Garden.  Isaiah the prophet captures this image and extends it to a future day when all the earth will be under God’s dominion.  As he declares, “the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb . . . they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord…” (Is. 11:6, 9)  In Judaism exists the concept known as Tikkun Olam or repair of the world.  There are many interpretations of this concept, but the underlying idea is that the earth and humanity are separated from God due to sin and are suffering the consequences of such a separation.  By obeying God, this breach is repaired, and the whole earth benefits.  In modern Judaism, Tikkun Olam extends to making the world a better place through human action.  Clearly, as mankind has populated the earth, fulfilling one of the mandates in the Garden, the earth has changed. 

Until the rise of industrialism in the 19th century, man-made actions affected only local or regional areas of the world, mainly as the result of warfare.  Now, with growing populations and increased demands upon natural resources coupled with the proliferation of factories, cars and electronics, the entire planet is suffering.  In many areas of the world, air quality is poor; bodies of water are polluted; ocean life is degraded.  Over the past century, the earth’s temperature has increased, causing major climate changes, including the rapid depletion of ice in both the Arctic and Antarctica.  Most scientists blame man-made activities as the cause, although there is a minority of scientists who attribute the warming to the earth’s cycles.  Regardless, changes need to be made.  When we consider the classic Scripture verse, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” we must realize we have a sacred trust to preserve and beautify our planet for the sake of others now and in the future.

The modern environmentalist movement was launched with the inauguration of Earth Day on April 22, 1970.  I actually remember it quite well because I was a senior in high school, and we celebrated the day on the lawns of our high school campus.  Over the next several years federal legislation was enacted to clean up our nation’s air and water.  We take for granted now what was then controversial because the restrictions imposed by the various acts meant significant costs to many industries to comply with the new requirements.  But our economy adjusted, and the result is restored rivers and far cleaner and healthier air.  Global warming, however, is trickier.  One, as mentioned previously, while most scientists believe human activity is warming the earth, it’s difficult to prove because of the history of the earth’s natural warming and cooling cycles.  Two, irrespective of global warming, it’s unclear what the results of warming will actually be.  Three, most proposed solutions only slow the growth of warming, not reverse it, assuming it’s caused by human activity.

Driving the movement towards tackling global warming have been the gathering of international conventions.  The most important is known as the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 where an international treaty established specific targets to reduce greenhouse gasses that cause climate change.  The U.S. never signed the treaty.  Just recently, the Copenhagen Treaty was adopted again targeting the reduction of greenhouse gasses.  The Obama administration was active in treaty negotiations and is a proponent of reducing greenhouse gasses.  U.S. reluctance to sign these treaties is due to 1) the likely deleterious effect on U.S. industries to comply with new requirements; 2) the apparent advantage given to developing countries such as India and China to meet lesser standards and thus augment their ability to compete unfairly against American industry that is burdened with greater environmental restrictions. 

To combat global warming, the House of Representatives passed a bill instituting what is known as cap and trade.  This is a tool that has been utilized in addressing other forms of air pollution such as “acid rain.”  The government sets an emissions target (cap) to which an industry must comply.  Those companies who emit at levels under the target are given so-called credits.  Companies exceeding the target can then buy those credits (trade) in order to meet the cap requirements.  Hence, cap and trade utilizes private markets to achieve government imposed ends.  Obviously, the companies who save emissions are rewarded by those who emit more.  Most analysts agree that cap and trade has worked well for the reduction of specific pollutants.  But its application to attacking global warming is far more controversial because most forms of energy production - gas, oil and coal - will be subjected to emission limits, thereby driving up costs to almost every conceivable industry.  When this is coupled with the uncertainty of both global warming’s effects and the lack of any real evidence that global warming can be reversed by these actions, the chances of successful passage of such legislation are low. 

Further complicating these efforts are national security concerns.  Environmental restrictions or concerns limits domestic exploration and production of oil and gas and has prevented the building of any nuclear reactors for nuclear energy for over 25 years.  The result has been greater dependence upon foreign sources of energy, often from unstable areas of the globe.  More restrictions on industry to combat global warming will only increase dependence upon these same foreign sources, putting the country at greater risk of foreign threats. 

Another option being considered is a carbon tax.  Rather than setting emissions targets and then trading credits such as the cap and trade proposals, the carbon tax is a tax on the emission of carbon dioxide, considered by most to be the cause of the greenhouse effect (global warming).  Of course, all taxes raise costs and create the kinds of problems previously mentioned.  However, to some degree a carbon tax can be a win-win.  Oil, gas and coal are all non-renewable energy sources and are the greatest polluters.  The more the U.S. moves away from these sources of energy to renewable sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal, the less the carbon footprint on the planet and the less reliance on potentially unstable foreign sources of energy.  The challenge to using renewable resources is the cost, but a tax on emissions can make them more cost competitive.  In addition, with huge federal budget deficits looming for the foreseeable future, something needs to be done to drastically curb federal spending and/or raise taxes.  A carbon tax can assist in deficit reduction. 

Sadly, the greatest impediment to doing anything is the American lifestyle.  As discussed in an earlier blog (Crass Consumerism), Americans consume goods and energy at rates that far exceed any other country.  Seriously addressing global warming will affect our consumption orientation.  At the beginning of the Shabbat meal, fathers bless their children by declaring over them, “May God make you like Ephraim, Manasseh, Sara, Rebekah, Rachel and Leah.”  What type of planet will we leave our children and grandchildren?