Let us start with a framework for this discussion
- First, on a per capita basis, Americans are one of the largest polluter in the world. We emit substantially more than the global average, when you compare numbers for 2011 (in the chart above). If you were to compute the cumulative totals, the discrepancy would be even larger (countries that had the industrial revolution first have been emitting for longer).
- We have also benefited the most ~ there is a very strong correlation between per capita GDP (ie, our income), and the per capital CO2 emissions (see my previous diary for this). My belief is that if we were to compute the relationship between cumulative per capita CO2 emissions and per capita GDP, the relationship would be even more striking.
- Let us also postulate (as most people here do) that global warming is real, and is substantially due to human activities, as measured by CO2 emissions. That is, I am assuming that most of the readers of this blog are Democrats.
- Let us go further, and stipulate that climate change is the most pressing problem we have ~ it is the one problem that requires most attention and resource. Let us stipulate that we need to see substantial progress on climate change, even if it comes at the cost of other things. Let us stipulate that we are prepared to make some sacrifices, just so we can leave the planet in a healthy shape for our children and grandchildren.
- Let us also stipulate that a solution will require sacrifices being made by poor people across the globe.
The question is: what exactly are those sacrifices. What will it entail ? What are we (the residents of the richest country on the planet) willing to do, and what are we going to ask the poor people to do.
Let us go back to the chart above, and consider India as an example: India is a rich democratic country with a lot of poor people. This makes it a perfect recipe for disaster, from the global warming viewpoint. Consider the following
- If India were to increase it’s per capita emissions to the US levels, then it would essentially be game over for global warming. Heck, if India were to increase it’s per capita emissions to the global average, then it would be game over for global warming.
- Did I mention that India is a rich country with a lot of poor people, and that it is a democracy ? And there is one thing that is common to poor people across the globe ~ they all have the exact same aspirations. The poor want to have electricity in their homes (which can be conveniently generated by burning a lot of coal), and they want to have food on the table (which can be generated by pumping out the groundwater and dumping lots of fertilizer on the ground), and they want decent jobs that gives them enough disposable income so that they can buy some cheap goods. The easiest way to accomplish all this is by (a) burning a lot of coal & (b) entering into trade agreements that gives you access to overseas markets.
Free trade and poverty
So let us consider what trade does. The chart below summarizes the effect of trade liberalization on the growth rate in a country. The observations cover 133 different countries, and are all in the period of 1950-1990. As you can see, trade liberalization has a very dramatic effect on the growth rates in the developing world ~ growth rates increase by about 2%. Now, consider what this difference does
- An increase of 2%, when computed over a cumulative period of one or two decades, is the enabling factor in hundreds of millions of people being lifted out of poverty.
- It also enables a cultural shift ~ an economy that is growing at 1% is not producing any new jobs. If you have read Piketty’s book, you will know that this means something else as well: when there are no new jobs, then children inherit jobs being done by their parents, which means that you have very little social mobility (rich stay rich for generations), and the social problems that it entails (such as the caste system in India, tribal warfare in Africa). When you have an economy growing at 3%, you have lots of new jobs, so this entails a cultural shift.
- Women enter the workforce and get empowered. If you are for women’s rights, take note here ~ this is best illustrated by the example of the women in Bangladesh who work in the garment factories.
- Sometimes, those women fall in love with their colleagues. Sometimes, those colleagues happen to belong to a different religion, or a different caste, or a different trible. Perhaps they speak a different language. Sometimes, you marry someone who has a different skin color. And, in the end, this is the only way to break barriers. So, if you are for equal rights, irrespective of all that divides us, please take note here.
- And as old prejudices die, it becomes possible to have a rational conversation about difficult choices. The son of a Muslim father and a Christian mother is more likely go ignore hateful rhetoric on Jesus vs Mohammad, and focus on potential solutions to the Syrian crisis, for instance. He/She is more likely to make the sacrifices necessary for global warming. If he/she has enough disposable income, he/she is more likely to make the sacrifice necessary for “green” technologies (although, sadly ~ this does not happen all too often).
And, more and more and more people across the globe have been living in a regime of trade liberalization, as summarized in the chart below.
It is largely for these reasons that the number of people living in extreme poverty has declined, even as the world population has grown.
To quote from another article: The global decline in extreme poverty is inseparable from the global trading regime. When poor countries can sell cheap goods to rich countries, or bring in a lot of foreign direct investment, growth skyrockets. This means more jobs, better government services, and thus less poverty.
Choices on CO2 emissions
Coming back to CO2 emissions, we have to figure out a way to quickly reduce global emissions. This requires 2 things: (a) that rich countries (such as the US) substantially reduce per capita emissions, and (b) poor countries (and also rich countries with poor people) maintain their low levels.
Both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have plans for substantial reduction in CO2 emissions in the US. You can critique their individual plans (Bernie Sanders’ plan is a little more aggressive), but that would be an incomplete assessment. [And here, I am not bothering with the bad guys on the other side]
What you also need to consider is: how are they going to convince the poor countries to maintain low levels of CO2 emissions. Our President will have to offer something substantial: it will have to entail “green” mechanisms for growth in the developing world, which will include the resources for deploying green energy sources, and enhanced access to global markets that enables growth in the developing world.
And this, I am afraid, is where Bernie Sanders is going to be a disaster.
His website promises to "reverse" NAFTA and the Central American FTA (CAFTA), bills slashing US tariffs on goods from around the Americas. It also promises to get rid of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China, a Clinton-era designation that prevents the US from imposing special tariffs on China that it doesn't impose on other trading partners.
"If corporate America wants us to buy their products they need to manufacture those products in this country, not in China or other low-wage countries," Sanders's website says.
Now, I understand that some of the readers of this blog are all for the actions he promises above — it clearly helps him get votes in Michigan. But I submit that it would be a disaster for global poverty, and thus for global climate change. If you are still for the actions he is promising above, then this diary is not for you… this diary is meant for those who believe that global warming is the primary concern of today, and requires sacrifices on our part.
And some of you are probably thinking that he either does not mean the above, or that he cannot do it.
According to Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and an expert on trade law, Sanders could unilaterally withdraw from NAFTA and CAFTA. Ending PNTR for China would probably be impossible without congressional buy-in, but Sanders could unilaterally impose new tariffs on Chinese goods, which would accomplish the same end of limiting imports from China.
"There is power within the White House to increase duties on imported goods," Hufbauer tells me. "That's especially true with so-called safeguard laws, where [the president alleges] an injury to a domestic industry."
So President Sanders would clearly have the power to do some damage on this front. Would he do it ? I am very much afraid that he would ~ he is, as I am sure you will all agree, a man of deep convictions. And even if he does not, he will have leaders across the world who will be deeply suspicious of cutting a deal with him...because it is possible that he will do what he says he will.
My conclusion
I am a very strong supporter of environmentalism, and I do believe that global warming is the primary threat to all of us. I do not like socialism, and have strong disagreements with Bernie on his health care plans etc., on his 2007 immigration vote, and on his gun control votes… but I really like the fact that he speaks so strongly on climate change. And I also like the fact that he inspires the millenials.
And so, based on climate change along, he would have gotten my vote (with concerns on climate change overriding everything else). It is just that when he talks about free trade the way he does, not only is he proposing something that would worsen the lot of the poorest people in the world (and here, I really don’t understand how a socialist can propose this), he is also making it very difficult to make progress on climate change.
Now, I know some of you are supporting him because you think he is the only one who can fix climate change. I hope you will at least consider the arguments I have presented above.
Peace.