On a December Saturday in the mid-60s – I must have been five or six – my parents took my brother and me for a walk in Seneca Park in Rochester, New York. Due to a freak warm spell, the weather was in the 70s and we were all wearing shorts. “Remember this,” my mother said. “You’ll never wear shorts in December again.”
I did as she asked. Recently, I pulled the memory out for examination. My mom’s prediction was reasonable, given the data she – or anyone else – had to go on in the 1960s. We’ve learned much since. The five warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1998. The record was held by ’98 until 2005; which held the record until, probably, three weeks from now. The Washington Post reported last week that January-June 2006 were the warmest six months on record. Local papers report that November 2006 had less snow than any November on record.
Since 2002, George W. Bush has directed national policy to reduce the “intensity” of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This reduction in “greenhouse gas intensity” is a creation of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (it’s director, James Connaughton, is former lobbyist for oil and mining interests). The intensity it refers to is a ratio between greenhouse gas emissions and gross national product. Although the overall goal is reduction in emissions, the short-term idea is to reduce emissions per unit of gross national product. Sound odd? It is, if by odd one means that the CEQ is the only body in the world that employs “greenhouse gas intensity” as a metric. It was definitely one standard of measurement my mom didn’t have access to that afternoon in Seneca Park.
Even if America’s overall emissions are increasing, that’s OK with the intensity metric, as long as the economy grows faster. The White House prefers the intensity metric to say, the Kyoto Protocol, because it doesn’t set strict (read: effective) limits on the U.S. while letting developing nations like China off the hook.
Chinese emissions are a problem, no doubt about it. The International Energy Agency last month announced China will not, as expected, surpass the U.S. as the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide in 2020. It is now expected surpass the U.S. in 2009.
One reason for that, according to Chinese environmental official Pan Yue, is that western nations are exporting their dirtiest industrial processes to China, lured by China’s Kyoto exemption. China released a list of polluters in October; DuPont, PepsiCo, Panasonic and 3M head the list. Some people in China are calling the western companies “eco-colonialists” and are beginning to call for “eco-compensation.”
On one hand, it’s disingenuous of China to open the door to every and any filthy industry and then complain about how those industries are trashing China’s environment. China’s air and water have been befouled at record speed and, as the IEA points out, it is damaging the climate for us all. If Chinese officials are serious about remedies, they should consider accepting Kyoto targets, which would create a framework for the cleanup of the horrible mess they’ve allowed to happen and at the same time take away Mr. Bush’s fig leaf on the issue (which would help China’s economy stay competitive as it cleans). On the other hand, it’s equally disingenuous for the U.S. to brag about meeting its bizarre intensity metric or for Kyoto signatory nations to boast about meeting their obligations if they merely outsource their worst practices to Kyoto-exempt nations like China.
The problem with the greenhouse gas intensity metric and all the sneaking off to China is this: the environment neither knows nor cares about emissions as a function of gross national product nor does it respect political lines drawn on a map. As long as we continue to increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the planet will continue its out-of-control warming trend.
The shell games of Washington and Beijing have real effects in the real world. The local story about Vermont’s warm November was accompanied by a photo of ski-lift chairs dangling unused over grassy slopes. They looked like the grassy slopes of Seneca Park in the 1960s.
Saturday’s Washington Post reported that due to global-warming fueled storms, nearly all insurance companies are either canceling or no longer writing new policies for waterfront property on most of America’s east coast; those that will write policies are limiting them to $250,000 (not enough to replace a beach-front mansion) with deductibles of $50,000. Allstate Insurance refuses to write any new homeowners policies for any of New York’s five boroughs, Westchester County or Long Island. Period.
Wonder what that’s going to do for the gross national product?
P.S. –
An alert reader in New Jersey pointed out that the day this commentary was posted, Allstate Insurance announced that, as of February 2007, the company will no longer write homeowner’s policies in Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware, as well as areas in and around New York City.
My Mother’s Data Set
On a December Saturday in the mid-60s – I must have been five or six – my parents took my brother and me for a walk in Seneca Park in Rochester, New York. Due to a freak warm spell, the weather was in the 70s and we were all wearing shorts. “Remember this,” my mother said. “You’ll never wear shorts in December again.”
I did as she asked. Recently, I pulled the memory out for examination. My mom’s prediction was reasonable, given the data she – or anyone else – had to go on in the 1960s. We’ve learned much since. The five warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1998. The record was held by ’98 until 2005; which held the record until, probably, three weeks from now. The Washington Post reported last week that January-June 2006 were the warmest six months on record. Local papers report that November 2006 had less snow than any November on record.
Since 2002, George W. Bush has directed national policy to reduce the “intensity” of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This reduction in “greenhouse gas intensity” is a creation of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (it’s director, James Connaughton, is former lobbyist for oil and mining interests). The intensity it refers to is a ratio between greenhouse gas emissions and gross national product. Although the overall goal is reduction in emissions, the short-term idea is to reduce emissions per unit of gross national product. Sound odd? It is, if by odd one means that the CEQ is the only body in the world that employs “greenhouse gas intensity” as a metric. It was definitely one standard of measurement my mom didn’t have access to that afternoon in Seneca Park.
Even if America’s overall emissions are increasing, that’s OK with the intensity metric, as long as the economy grows faster. The White House prefers the intensity metric to say, the Kyoto Protocol, because it doesn’t set strict (read: effective) limits on the U.S. while letting developing nations like China off the hook.
Chinese emissions are a problem, no doubt about it. The International Energy Agency last month announced China will not, as expected, surpass the U.S. as the world’s leading emitter of carbon dioxide in 2020. It is now expected surpass the U.S. in 2009.
One reason for that, according to Chinese environmental official Pan Yue, is that western nations are exporting their dirtiest industrial processes to China, lured by China’s Kyoto exemption. China released a list of polluters in October; DuPont, PepsiCo, Panasonic and 3M head the list. Some people in China are calling the western companies “eco-colonialists” and are beginning to call for “eco-compensation.”
On one hand, it’s disingenuous of China to open the door to every and any filthy industry and then complain about how those industries are trashing China’s environment. China’s air and water have been befouled at record speed and, as the IEA points out, it is damaging the climate for us all. If Chinese officials are serious about remedies, they should consider accepting Kyoto targets, which would create a framework for the cleanup of the horrible mess they’ve allowed to happen and at the same time take away Mr. Bush’s fig leaf on the issue (which would help China’s economy stay competitive as it cleans). On the other hand, it’s equally disingenuous for the U.S. to brag about meeting its bizarre intensity metric or for Kyoto signatory nations to boast about meeting their obligations if they merely outsource their worst practices to Kyoto-exempt nations like China.
The problem with the greenhouse gas intensity metric and all the sneaking off to China is this: the environment neither knows nor cares about emissions as a function of gross national product nor does it respect political lines drawn on a map. As long as we continue to increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on our atmosphere, the planet will continue its out-of-control warming trend.
The shell games of Washington and Beijing have real effects in the real world. The local story about Vermont’s warm November was accompanied by a photo of ski-lift chairs dangling unused over grassy slopes. They looked like the grassy slopes of Seneca Park in the 1960s.
Saturday’s Washington Post reported that due to global-warming fueled storms, nearly all insurance companies are either canceling or no longer writing new policies for waterfront property on most of America’s east coast; those that will write policies are limiting them to $250,000 (not enough to replace a beach-front mansion) with deductibles of $50,000. Allstate Insurance refuses to write any new homeowners policies for any of New York’s five boroughs, Westchester County or Long Island. Period.
Wonder what that’s going to do for the gross national product?
P.S. –
An alert reader in New Jersey pointed out that the day this commentary was posted, Allstate Insurance announced that, as of February 2007, the company will no longer write homeowner’s policies in Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware, as well as areas in and around New York City.
See: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/12/08/allstate_to_stop_writing_new_homeowner_policies_in_3_states/
© Mark Floegel, 2006