Steven Hamburg, Ittleson Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Biology, answered questions posed by Janet Kerlin about air pollution and the power industry. The Bush administration has reversed itself and said it won't restrict carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Hamburg is also a research director at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown.
Hasn't business been required to make expensive pollution-mitigating changes in the past, and why are they refusing to do so at this time?
Just as previous administrations have done, the Bush administration is arguing it is too costly and the science is inconclusive about the impacts of rising carbon dioxide emissions. Neither justification holds up under scrutiny. The administration is either uninformed about the science of climate change or they are trying to hide behind the general public’s limited understanding of the issue. The science is more than adequate for a prudent person to take action. As far as the costs, it is clear the current administration is protecting the coal and oil industries at the expense of the natural gas industry and the health of the planet and the people who live on it.
How difficult or expensive would it be for power plants to curb carbon dioxide? Does the technology exist?
The technologies exist. One of the most effective ways of accomplishing a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is to switch the fuel used to generate electricity from coal to natural gas. Most New England power plants have made the switch and the largest air polluter within our region, the Brayton Point electrical generating facility, could address all of the serious concerns about the environmental impacts of its operations, from local to global, by making a similar change in the fuels used. The Bush administration unfortunately removed a potentially powerful tool for helping encourage the transformation to overall cleaner approaches to generating electricity.
How will this decision be perceived in the international community, and what might its effects be?
Most of our major allies and competitors already view the United States as obstructionist relative to shouldering its responsibilities toward addressing the threat from climate change. The Bush administration's decision not to address carbon dioxide emissions will decrease our credibility abroad and will be viewed by many as a signal that narrowly defined economic self-interest will be given the highest priority by the new administration. The next round of negotiations on how to implement a solution just got a lot more difficult.
Has the scientific community done a poor job of presenting evidence of the existence of global warming as man-made?
The scientific community has undertaken a process of building scientific consensus on what we know about climate change and its cause. It is the largest such effort attempted by the scientific community. Could we do more? Certainly. The problem at this point is not scientific uncertainty, but lack of political will to recognize that short-term political benefits of inaction are outweighed by the long-term economic and environmental risks.
What will happen to the global environment if carbon dioxide isn't curbed?
It will get more and more difficult to reduce the impacts of climate change. There is a lot of momentum to the changes in climate that we are beginning to experience. Inaction today means no matter what we do in the future we will experience significant disruptions to our economic and ecological systems. Locally, we can look for increased stress on the health of Narragansett Bay and tougher economic competition. Our global competitors are already increasing their efficiency to compete more effectively in a world that recognizes the need for action on reduced greenhouse gas emissions. We will undoubtedly have to do the same.