Back40 fisking Pielke fisking Gore.

Al Gore gave a major speech on climate policy yesterday at NYU. Here are some excerpts and my reactions:

On the nature of climate policy debates:

Merely engaging in high-minded debates about theoretical future reductions while continuing to steadily increase emissions represents a self-delusional and reckless approach. In some ways, that approach is worse than doing nothing at all, because it lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not.

I could not agree more.

I don't agree. None of the techniques we have at present are sufficient to the problem and most of the policies proposed make things worse. It is doing those ineffectual things, such as Kyoto, that "lulls the gullible into thinking that something is actually being done when in fact it is not". These are the type of things that politicians and advocates, such as Gore, do instead of useful commentary or governance.

On what we should do first:

Well, first of all, we should start by immediately freezing CO2 emissions and then beginning sharp reductions. . . An immediate freeze has the virtue of being clear, simple, and easy to understand. It can attract support across partisan lines as a logical starting point for the more difficult work that lies ahead.

This seems to be in the realm of fantasy. Carbon dioxide emissions cannot simply be "frozen." This seems like exactly the sort of "high-minded debate about theoretical future reductions" that he just warned us about.

Indeed, fantasy politics, instrumental politics. But it is not high-minded debate, it is merely politics, devoid of debate or useful thought.

On international climate policy:

A responsible approach to solving this crisis would also involve joining the rest of the global economy in playing by the rules of the world treaty that reduces global warming pollution by authorizing the trading of emissions within a global cap.

At present, the global system for carbon emissions trading is embodied in the Kyoto Treaty. It drives reductions in CO2 and helps many countries that are a part of the treaty to find the most efficient ways to meet their targets for reductions. It is true that not all countries are yet on track to meet their targets, but the first targets don’t have to be met until 2008 and the largest and most important reductions typically take longer than the near term in any case.

The absence of the United States from the treaty means that 25% of the world economy is now missing. It is like filling a bucket with a large hole in the bottom. When the United States eventually joins the rest of the world community in making this system operate well, the global market for carbon emissions will become a highly efficient closed system and every corporate board of directors on earth will have a fiduciary duty to manage and reduce CO2 emissions in order to protect shareholder value.

This is misleading. The Kyoto "bucket" is full of holes, and not just from those countries that are not participating. Most European countries are failing to meet their targets under the treaty. To suggest that if the United States joins the Kyoto Protocol it will lead to an "efficient closed system" fails to mention that most of expected future emissions are not covered by Kyoto and that there are no plans for them to be.

There is nothing responsible about signing up to a bad plan that doesn't work even in theory, and fails in practice to an even greater degree since participants fall short of their already inadequate commitments. That is irresponsible, verging on criminal negligence. It may be helpful politically for some, but it does nothing about real problems.

On the practical actions needed:

Third, a responsible approach to solutions would avoid the mistake of trying to find a single magic "silver bullet" and recognize that the answer will involve what Bill McKibben has called "silver-buckshot" - numerous important solutions, all of which are hard, but no one of which is by itself the full answer for our problem.

One of the most productive approaches to the "multiple solutions" needed is a road-map designed by two Princeton professors, Rob Socolow and Steven Pacala, which breaks down the overall problem into more manageable parts. Socolow and Pacala have identified 15 or 20 building blocks (or "wedges") that can be used to solve our problem effectively - even if we only use 7 or 8 of them. I am among the many who have found this approach useful as a way to structure a discussion of the choices before us.

Gore repeats which has become a common myth – that if we reduce emissions by 7 or 8 of Socolow and Pacala’s "wedges" we will "solve the problem effectively." This is incredibly misleading and grossly oversimplifies the challenge of stabilizing carbon dioxide emissions. We discussed this at length here.

That a few wedges are not useful for mitigating climate change isn't the worst bit here. The impacts on society would be negative in a multitude of ways. These costs would be incurred without solving the problem. This is double-talk/double-think anyway. The wedges plan is a silver bullet, or wants to be at any rate, the very thing Gore speaks against. A true buckshot approach will not have a plan, will not pick champions, and will instead seek to do whatever small things governments can do to spur innovation and disseminate information.

Gore’s technological optimism on just about every other area of climate change policy does not square with his technological pessimism about nuclear power. My guess – and it is only an uninformed guess – is that Gore’s views on nuclear power provide the strongest signal that he is positioning himself for a run at the Presidency in 2008. His views on nuclear power seem carefully crafted so as not to offend his base of political support. Otherwise, why wouldn’t he call in grand fashion (as he has in every other area) for solving the problems of nuclear power that accompany its abundant carbon free energy? If we can freeze carbon dioxide levels we can sure keep nuclear material safe.

True, but far too gentle. Let's face it, Gore is stuck on stupid, pandering to a base that is stuck on stupid. I think it's a blunder because the trend is for that S.O.S. base to be ever more open to nuclear power as the strident disinformation of paleo-environmentalists (like Gore) is publicly questioned, and even some old time environmentalists are changing their stance. They are getting unstuck.

Climate change is not a political problem. It's the wrong tool for the tasks at hand. It isn't just that policies developed through political processes are deformed, it is also that this isn't a governance issue, it's a technological issue. Politicians are useless in these matters and do harm if they do anything. The best that can be done is to try to remove impediments from old, failed attempts to interfere in the issue, and work to disseminate information - real information not politicized craparooney.

I know this won't happen. Climate change is such a juicy pile of dung that politicians are drawn to it irresistibly. But those like Gore that try to exploit it most vigorously deserve the most criticism. He's part of the problem, not the solution. The more you care about the environment, the more you should oppose him and his ilk. They intend to squander our time, energy and resources on wild goose chases that solve nothing while they profit personally, advancing their sputtering careers. Politicians are sociopaths.