|
Title: Everything But the Carbon Sink Peter Robinson: The United States has said, we want credit under the Kyoto Agreement for acting as a carbon sink. And article appears in Science in 1998, points out that the United States releases 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon per year, poof off into the air and that our forests, our uptake of carbon each year is 1.7 billion metric tons, which is to say, we're taking in more than we're putting out. We don't owe the re--rest of the world an apology or one red cent. They owe us. Why shouldn't we get credit for that? William Burns: Here's the problem with that. First of all, laws of nature dictate that all the carbon that's stored in soils and in forests will inevitably be released in the future. And there's been recent studies that indicate that--that global warming is actually going to accelerate that process. Peter Robinson: How does that work? The--the… William Burns: The respiration process will--will actually accelerate from--from, in terms of the release of carbon as the temperatures increase. Peter Robinson: So a tree sucks in carbon but at some… William Burns: Right. Peter Robinson: …point takes--puts it out or you don't have to wait until you cut the tree down and burn it? William Burns: No. It--it--it inevitably releases it and… Peter Robinson: Exactly the same amount that it absorbs? William Burns: Exactly… Peter Robinson: So there's no net gain whatsoever? William Burns: There's no net gain whatsoever… Peter Robinson: You're nodding your head. Okay I just want… William Burns: …and--and as a consequence of--of--of the projected climate change we have, new studies indicate that by the year 2050, tr--the tropics, for example, which are a net sink for a carbon right now will become a net source. So by relying on that in the short-term, it's simply a Faustian bargain because, in the long-term, the chickens come home to roost and we… Peter Robinson: The long-term is two decades, five decades… William Burns: Maybe five decades. We're… Peter Robinson: Within a century? William Burns: Yeah, we have a massive release of carbon again and if we haven't ta--taken other structural measures to permanently reduce emissions, then we haven't a--a--achieved our goal. And the skeptic in me says, even though the United States argues, well if we can take credit for those things and store it for now, that'll give us time to make a transition to these other things. If you look at the United States' record and even Europe's record in complying with the climate convention so far, it's easy to be skeptical about that. We--we claimed that we were going to reduce emissions to--to 1990 levels by the year 2000, for example. Peter Robinson: Wait a minute, but who did those--who did the claiming? William Burns: The United States and the other… Peter Robinson: Which chunk… William Burns: …industrialized nations. Peter Robinson: …of the United States? That was some ig--negotiator appointed by--by whom? William Burns: Well that would--that would… Peter Robinson: And you say there was not even--even rudimentary effort to get congress behind that, was there? William Burns: There certainly was. Even the--even the--even the former Bush administration when--when it was negotiating the climate convention was trying to engender some support for that. The Clinton Administration's certainly did. But even during that time, our emissions continued to increase. And it's projected now that, by the year 2020, we'll be forty percent, meaning the industrialized countries, above 1990 levels. So these--this fiction that if we allow credits, we'll do the other things we need to do, is--is never translated into policy. We need to make structural changes in the economy, the kind of things that Tom was talking about, in terms of making a transition to a… Peter Robinson: You buy that? William Burns: …non fossil fuel economy. Peter Robinson: No carbon sink? It's a loser? John Weyant: I--I--I probably would allow for very limited use of this type of an offset for the re--reasons that Will mentioned because I think it's not a long range solution. I think there's pretty clear evidence on that. In fact, these terrestrial, so-called terrestrial things, could actually become sources in--in--in mass and… Peter Robinson: Okay. So you--all three of you basically take… Peter Robinson: Let's look at an emissions proposal that Tom has been writing about..
|