Salon | Newsreal: We need a 1-2 punch

T A B L E+T A L K
Is Bill Clinton the most besieged American president in recent history or the biggest jerk we ever elected? Join the debate in Politics.

D A I L Y+Q U O T E
Men are beasts

R E C E N T L Y
"Netscape is toast"
By Jonathan Broder
Prosecutors at the state level are planning further challenges to Microsoft on new ground
(10/23/97)
The commodification of a hero
By Ellen Umansky
Muhammad Ali memorabilia auctioned in Beverly Hills
(10/22/97)
Inside the IRA
By Ros Davidson
Can "ordinary" killers make peace?
(10/21/97)
Commissioner George Will?
By Drew Lindsay
He's just what baseball needs
(10/20/97)
Free the Boulder two!
By Mark Hunter
The parents of JonBenet Ramsey are being railroaded
(10/17/97)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsreal Archives
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

spacer

Turning up the heat on
global warming
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Meet one of the scientists who got Clinton's -- and the world's -- attention on the greenhouse effect.
BY FRED BRANFMAN | president Clinton finally announced Wednesday that the U.S. will support reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 at the historic negotiations in Kyoto in December. Major environmental organizations find this unacceptable, particularly since the U.S. made a voluntary commitment at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to reduce to 1990 levels by 2000. Environmentalists want real reductions by 2005, and support for goals like that of the European Union to reduce 15 percent below 1990 by 2010. The major auto, oil and coal companies, on the other hand, find this goal too ambitious.
But while the media attention is on the president and Kyoto, the real action on global warming is being driven by a little-known body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), established 10 years ago and involving more than 2,000 international scientists. The Kyoto meeting is only occurring because IPCC scientists have reached a surprising consensus that global warming is a major potential problem. And the fine print of the Clinton proposal is largely derived from reports written by the IPCC.
One of the key IPCC scientists is Mark Levine, a senior staff scientist and division director at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and an international energy conservation consultant who has advised the Chinese government on developing new building and appliance codes.
Salon talked with Levine about the emission reduction targets and what it will take to reach them.
Despite the consensus reached by the IPCC, there are still scientists and climatologists who disagree that there is such a thing as global warming. Recently, economist Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institute wrote in the Wall Street Journal that a warmer climate is a good thing. How worried should we be?
We should be worried even though there is a lot we don't understand. If we wait until we're certain about what is going to happen, we could be in deep, deep trouble. But that makes it very difficult politically: How do you take action, in the face of uncertainty, about a problem whose most serious impact would be far in the future?
How far in the future?
In the short run, the average Californian might sense the impact of global warming if we find it's linked to phenomena like El Niño. But much more significant and discernible impacts might be expected 25 to 75 years from now. It could affect available water, causing permanent droughts; produce severe or even devastating storms; destroy ecosystems, causing increased desertification; and so forth.
Critics of the IPCC say the main reason it is pushing global warming is to get government grants.
The critics would have a point if scientists behaved like lawyers, and were being paid for what they argued. But most scientists have more integrity than that. IPCC scientists aren't making money out of this; they often have to work on their own time on IPCC projects.
Including yourself?
I'm on a salary at LBL, but often do IPCC work for which there is no project funding.
The Senate recently passed the Byrd resolution saying we should not reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless other large nations like China and India do so. Is this a fair proposal?
It's ridiculous. We have been the big emitters, and we have the means and the technologies they do not have. If we want the rest of the world to do something, we have to go first. Give me a break.
Still, critics say, even if we do something, countries like China and India will go right on sending out emissions -- even increasing them.
China and India have to grow. The question is whether they will do so with energy efficiency. We can play a huge role in the energy decisions they make, by our example. If we can demonstrate better technology and make it available, they're going to use it.
How do we know that?
The Chinese have recognized the importance of improving energy efficiency since 1981, when Deng Xiao-peng decided the country would quadruple its gross domestic product in 20 years. His energy experts told him it would be impossible if energy grew as fast as GDP, or even nearly as fast. That's because energy production is very capital intensive, and rapid energy growth would deprive other essential social and economic investments of capital. So China decided to strive to cut energy growth to half that of GDP growth. The conventional wisdom was that such an equation is impossible, that energy has to grow faster than GDP. But the Chinese have achieved both goals.
There are big payoffs for working with, rather than pressuring, China. Our group, for example, has worked with one of China's largest refrigerator manufacturers to produce prototypes that would be 45 to 50 percent more energy-efficient than their current ones. We estimate that $100 million -- $50 million for education and training, $50 million for rebates to manufacturers -- would lead to widespread adoption of the new refrigerators and tremendous energy savings.
Who's giving them the money?
The Global Environmental Fund is financing the first $50 million, but no one has yet come up with the other half. Helping the Third World develop, adopt and implement appliance efficiency standards, and other similar measures, should be a major focus of American policy.

N E X T+P A G E+| Where do the automakers stand?

T A B L E+T A L K Is Bill Clinton the most besieged American president in recent history or the biggest jerk we ever elected? Join the debate in Politics. D A I L Y+Q U O T E Men are beasts R E C E N T L Y "Netscape is toast" By Jonathan Broder Prosecutors at the state level are planning further challenges to Microsoft on new ground (10/23/97) The commodification of a hero By Ellen Umansky Muhammad Ali memorabilia auctioned in Beverly Hills (10/22/97) Inside the IRA By Ros Davidson Can "ordinary" killers make peace? (10/21/97) Commissioner George Will? By Drew Lindsay He's just what baseball needs (10/20/97) Free the Boulder two! By Mark Hunter The parents of JonBenet Ramsey are being railroaded (10/17/97) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Newsreal Archives - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
		Turning up the heat on global warming - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Meet one of the scientists who got Clinton's -- and the world's -- attention on the greenhouse effect. BY FRED BRANFMAN \| president Clinton finally announced Wednesday that the U.S. will support reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2010 at the historic negotiations in Kyoto in December. Major environmental organizations find this unacceptable, particularly since the U.S. made a voluntary commitment at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 to reduce to 1990 levels by 2000. Environmentalists want real reductions by 2005, and support for goals like that of the European Union to reduce 15 percent below 1990 by 2010. The major auto, oil and coal companies, on the other hand, find this goal too ambitious. But while the media attention is on the president and Kyoto, the real action on global warming is being driven by a little-known body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), established 10 years ago and involving more than 2,000 international scientists. The Kyoto meeting is only occurring because IPCC scientists have reached a surprising consensus that global warming is a major potential problem. And the fine print of the Clinton proposal is largely derived from reports written by the IPCC. One of the key IPCC scientists is Mark Levine, a senior staff scientist and division director at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and an international energy conservation consultant who has advised the Chinese government on developing new building and appliance codes. Salon talked with Levine about the emission reduction targets and what it will take to reach them. Despite the consensus reached by the IPCC, there are still scientists and climatologists who disagree that there is such a thing as global warming. Recently, economist Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institute wrote in the Wall Street Journal that a warmer climate is a good thing. How worried should we be? We should be worried even though there is a lot we don't understand. If we wait until we're certain about what is going to happen, we could be in deep, deep trouble. But that makes it very difficult politically: How do you take action, in the face of uncertainty, about a problem whose most serious impact would be far in the future? How far in the future? In the short run, the average Californian might sense the impact of global warming if we find it's linked to phenomena like El Niño. But much more significant and discernible impacts might be expected 25 to 75 years from now. It could affect available water, causing permanent droughts; produce severe or even devastating storms; destroy ecosystems, causing increased desertification; and so forth. Critics of the IPCC say the main reason it is pushing global warming is to get government grants. The critics would have a point if scientists behaved like lawyers, and were being paid for what they argued. But most scientists have more integrity than that. IPCC scientists aren't making money out of this; they often have to work on their own time on IPCC projects. Including yourself? I'm on a salary at LBL, but often do IPCC work for which there is no project funding. The Senate recently passed the Byrd resolution saying we should not reduce greenhouse gas emissions unless other large nations like China and India do so. Is this a fair proposal? It's ridiculous. We have been the big emitters, and we have the means and the technologies they do not have. If we want the rest of the world to do something, we have to go first. Give me a break. Still, critics say, even if we do something, countries like China and India will go right on sending out emissions -- even increasing them. China and India have to grow. The question is whether they will do so with energy efficiency. We can play a huge role in the energy decisions they make, by our example. If we can demonstrate better technology and make it available, they're going to use it. How do we know that? The Chinese have recognized the importance of improving energy efficiency since 1981, when Deng Xiao-peng decided the country would quadruple its gross domestic product in 20 years. His energy experts told him it would be impossible if energy grew as fast as GDP, or even nearly as fast. That's because energy production is very capital intensive, and rapid energy growth would deprive other essential social and economic investments of capital. So China decided to strive to cut energy growth to half that of GDP growth. The conventional wisdom was that such an equation is impossible, that energy has to grow faster than GDP. But the Chinese have achieved both goals. There are big payoffs for working with, rather than pressuring, China. Our group, for example, has worked with one of China's largest refrigerator manufacturers to produce prototypes that would be 45 to 50 percent more energy-efficient than their current ones. We estimate that $100 million -- $50 million for education and training, $50 million for rebates to manufacturers -- would lead to widespread adoption of the new refrigerators and tremendous energy savings. Who's giving them the money? The Global Environmental Fund is financing the first $50 million, but no one has yet come up with the other half. Helping the Third World develop, adopt and implement appliance efficiency standards, and other similar measures, should be a major focus of American policy. N E X T+P A G E+\| Where do the automakers stand?