Scott Pruitt, US Environmental Protection Agency chief, made headlines last week for his reply when asked whether carbon dioxide is the primary control knob for climate. His answer was slippery.
鈥淢easuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do,鈥� he said. True. So is measuring a gravitational wave, but that doesn鈥檛 mean it can鈥檛 be done.
Pruitt went on: 鈥淭here鈥檚 tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact [of anthropogenic carbon dioxide]鈥︹�� Well, no. The rate of change of Earth鈥檚 atmosphere, oceans and biosphere is accelerating and unequivocal. The uncontrolled experiment is already catastrophic for some low-lying nations such as Kiribati in the Pacific Ocean.
Advertisement
He continued: 鈥溾�o no, I would not agree that it鈥檚 a primary contributor to the global warming that we see.鈥� This last part is a non sequitur and besides, growth in carbon dioxide emissions is the prime contributor, followed by methane, soot and nitrous oxide: all human influences. Natural forcings are nowhere close. The truth is that without emissions abatement it seems inevitable that pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will be catastrophic for most, if not all, nations.
The question is when this catastrophe will hit. The biggest uncertainty is whether or not politicians reshape the economic playing field to tackle climate change.
Creative destruction
Pruitt is a sharp lawyer who understands the scientific arguments. Rhetoric 鈥� ethos, pathos and logos 鈥� is his advocacy toolkit. Logos, you would think, might include impartial empirical evidence. No. It only includes evidence that supports the advocate鈥檚 viewpoint and Pruitt is on the oil industry鈥檚 side.
His appointment is part of a grander, darker geopolitical strategy. This is not about the science. It is not about economic priority setting nor conflicting values. This is not about a desire for small government, the primacy of individual freedom or myopic belief in capitalism and a free market 鈥� although those arguments all have a role as they can be marshalled against climate policy.
The only fact that matters is that solving the climate challenge means killing the fossil fuel industry 鈥� arguably the most influential and powerful on the planet.
Dealing with climate change means summoning the economic 鈥済ales of creative destruction鈥� 鈥� economist Joseph Schumpeter鈥檚 description of how technological innovation kills and replaces old industries to drive economic growth.
Russia is becalmed
The first gales are here. Zero-carbon technology is getting cheaper and easier to install. Just last week Elon Musk promised to build a 100 MWh battery bank in South Australia in just 100 days. It will store energy from renewable sources, smoothing out supply and preventing blackouts. What鈥檚 more, renewables promise individual freedom through energy self-sufficiency.
It all adds up to a global economy at a crucial inflection point. The US is well placed to ride the storm and capitalise on the next economic revolution. It has Musk after all. But vested interests dominate the landscape. The US is so influential that policy there could postpone the revolution globally.
In contrast, there are no Russian gales. Its economy is a basket case. Apart from oil and gas, it produces little anyone wants to buy. Compare that with my country, Sweden (population 10 million). There is no Russian Ikea, Electrolux, H&M, Skype, Spotify or Ericsson. Without restructuring, a global clean energy revolution will likely put the Russian economy in a death spiral.
Serious questions have been asked about the role of Russia, the world鈥檚 fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases and currently the largest oil producer, in the election of Donald Trump鈥檚 regime. Perhaps it鈥檚 time we expended more effort on asking exactly why it interfered.
