These things are killing us
A common complaint from the climate denialists is that if only the US cuts its Carbon emissions then we would be at a disadvantage (somehow) to all the other countries that did not. And it would not reduce CO2 all that much either because China.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Look at what California’s announced goal of going Carbon neutral would mean to interstate transportation. Among other things, California would have transitioned to all electric transportation so there would eventually be no need for traditional gas stations and they would close due to lack of customers. Maybe they become charging stations. Ok, now say you live in Las Vegas, Nevada and are considering a drive to Los Angeles along I-15, a distance of 270 miles. You are going to drive your ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) vehicle, which easily can go 270 miles on one tank of gas.
But how do you get back to Las Vegas? No gas stations in LA to refuel. Ok, say you top up right at the NV/CA border, drive to LA and back, then refuel again at the border. You could do that, but that cuts out the option of driving around much in California. It is much less stress to just trade in your ICE car for an EV and not worry about it, if you are in the habit of going to LA very often. Think about how long-distance truckers will deal with this.
So because of California’s dominant economic position, what it does can affect behavior in nearby states.
Now scale this up to international trade in the scenario of the US “going it alone” in Carbon elimination. Since the neo-liberal capitalists have shuttered most of our manufacturing capability, we now get a lot of stuff from Asia. I just bought a simple mirror to put on the wall in the spare bedroom, and the box said “Made in China”. We can’t even make a mirror any more. Well, we could, but the buyers at Lowe’s have determined it is cheaper to let the Chinese make them and ship them here.
The vast majority of this stuff from Asia comes by ocean-going ship. They set out from Shanghai or wherever and proceed to the Port of Los Angeles with the assumption that they will be able to buy fuel oil there to make the return trip. What happens when they can’t, because the oil refineries in Los Angeles have shut down, or the price of fuel oil is now so high that the entire trip no longer makes economic sense? International trade in physical goods to the US by petroleum-powered ship stops.
It is the same scenario as the Las Vegas to Los Angeles driver. The US is a significant trading partner to many countries in Asia. Unless ocean transport goes back to a 19th Century model of sailing ships the easiest way to deal with this is to resurrect the US manufacturing sector, this time with modern manufacturing technology. Back come all the jobs that have been lost since the 1980s. Not just making mirrors, but automobiles, televisions, washing machines, all the big heavy stuff.
And another thing
Modern jet travel is the most expensive way of getting anywhere in terms of CO2 emissions. Consumption of jet fuel increased by 3% from 2017 to 2018. Every round-trip trans-Atlantic flight emits enough CO2 to melt 30 square feet of Arctic sea ice. That is 2.50 metric tons of CO2 per seat, or about what your gasoline car would emit if you drove from New York to Los Angeles and back.
But there are zero-emission alternatives for your gasoline car.
On January 4, 2017, the office of New York governor Andrew Cuomo announced a plan to renovate the JFK International Airport at a cost of $7 to 10 billion. We can stop right there. Expanding airports is exactly what we should not be doing. A proposal to add another runway to Heathrow airport near London was called “beyond absurd” by Greta Thunberg and is facing protests from the Extinction Rebellion movement.
New York City and environs are served by three significant airports: JFK International, Newark, New Jersey, and La Guardia in Queens. JFK gets most of the international traffic. What would happen if we just shut it down? Bulldoze the runways. It is only 12 feet above sea level so this has to happen anyway, but say we start with that.
How would people get to Europe? That’s the point; they wouldn’t, at least by flying. We (the planet) can’t afford to let them. Business will find another way — telecom is quite good at that. Tourism? Forget it. Gone. Its the 19th century again as far as intercontinental travel is concerned.
Airlines in Europe planning on flying to the US would have to revisit their routes and cut out a lot of flights. Oh yes, Boston Logan too, another doomed close-to-sea-level airport. Again, being in a dominant position for business and travel gives the US a lot of influence in international transportation. If we cut back the right way, other countries have to cut back as well.
“You don’t listen to the science because you are only interested in solutions that will enable you to carry on like before. — And those answers don’t exist anymore. Because you did not act in time.” — Greta Thunberg speaking before the Briitsh Parliament, April 2019
