768K
Downloads
995
Episodes
The Climate Minute examines current news on global warming, climate change, renewable energy and the prospects for progress on international negotiations, carbon taxes and clean energy policy.
Episodes
Friday Jun 06, 2014
Friday Jun 06, 2014
This was a great week for climate hawks. The Obama administration proposed new regulations on existing coal plants. The rules have lots of interesting implications.
There are a large number of interesting links to this story. Here are a few:
Check out the EPA's website or read the New York Times or find out what Bill McKibben thinks. Get our your yellow pad and read legal basis for the plan. You can even watch the EPA Administrator announce the rules. A state by state list of cuts is here. Why the rules are so business friendly is here. Joe Romm suggests some ideas on what else needs to be done. An analogy of fossil fuel to tobacco is here. Some discussion on possible comments and activist opinion is here. Of course ALEC is trying to cause trouble.
Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.
Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre
p.s, Thanks to D.R. Tucker, we have this great list of raw links to check out. Have fun!
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/03/318414868/gop-demonizes-once-favored-cap-and-trade-policy
http://legal-planet.org/2014/06/02/epa-releases-section-111d-rule-for-existing-power-plants/
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/1/5770226/june-2-is-the-most-important-day-of-obamas-second-term
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/02/3443593/obama-historic-action-on-climate-change/
http://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/climate-plan-sparks-political-battle-272217155734#
http://www.msnbc.com/the-reid-report/watch/will-new-epa-rules-hurt-dems-in-the-midterms-272266307506
http://www.msnbc.com/now-with-alex-wagner/watch/obama-s-major-move-to-save-the-planet-272297539507
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/are-new-energy-rules-death-knell-coal-industry-n120786
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=74tffDL1I_g
http://www.msnbc.com/the-cycle/watch/will-climate-plan-have-measurable-impact-272283715920
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/taking-action-to-cut-carbon-emissions-272371779518
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/critics-say-carbon-limit-comes-with-hefty-price-tag/
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/gop-slams-new-rules-to-slash-carbon-emissions-272449603571#
http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/matthews-on-the-gops-i-know-nothin-stance-272448579580
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBwQq2lhIJ8&feature=youtu.be
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-272458819887
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/epa-unveils-historic-carbon-regulations-272459331929
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/new-pollution-rules-bring-chicken-littles-272491587835
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/epa-chief-defends-price-white-house-plan-cut-carbon-emissions/
http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show/watch/debunking-the-medias-misguided-epa-coverage-273051203510#
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/opinion/nearing-a-climate-legacy.html?hp&rref=opinion
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-epa-carbon-emissions-20140603-story.html
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/06/04/should-epas-proposed-carbon-pollution-rule-be-tougher/
Wednesday Jun 04, 2014
Wednesday Jun 04, 2014
Those of us concerned about the impact of runaway carbon emissions finally have some good news—news that must be shared with our representatives and senators in Congress.
It comes in the form of a newly released study by the nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based group Regional Economic Models, Inc. and the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based group Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. The report, prepared by economists Scott Nystrom and Ali Zaidi, is entitled The Economic, Fiscal, Demographic, And Climate Impact Of A National Fee-And-Dividend Carbon Tax, and it promises to be a game-changer in the American climate change debate.[1]
The report forecasts the economic benefits of a federal carbon tax if such a tax would be implemented in 2016. The modeling is based on the idea that such a tax would begin at $10 per metric ton of C02 (“collected directly at the well-head, mine or port of entry, based on the carbon content of the material”)[2], rising gradually by $10 per year, with border adjustments—i.e., “import fees levied by carbon-taxing countries on goods manufactured in non-carbon-taxing countries.”[3] All collected revenues from the carbon tax would be returned to households as a monthly dividend check.
The report indicates that the implementation of a fee-and-dividend policy would provide a tremendous economic boost to virtually every region of the country over the next decade, specifically leading to dramatic employment increases in the fields of health care, retail trade, construction, finance, real estate, educational services, and manufacturing. The mining industry would be negatively impacted, yes, but that stands to reason; addressing climate change means moving beyond fossil fuels, and moving towards a clean-energy future. There’s no way around that. We will have to have a just and stable transition towards that future—and a national fee-and-dividend policy would create that transition.
Viewed from a regional perspective, a national fee-and-dividend policy would benefit virtually every segment of the country economically. The (literal) petrostates of Texas and Oklahoma would take a hit—but obviously that hit would compel both states to pursue clean-energy alternatives (and it should be noted that Texas has already taken steps to exploit the potential of wind energy).[4]
The economic shift prompted by a fee-and-dividend policy would result in a significant increase in the country’s gross domestic product, with little overall negative impact on the country’s manufacturing sector. The report also makes clear that such a policy would bring about a steep drop in US carbon emissions over the next decade, with only a 2% increase in the overall cost of living.
In terms of a needed power shift, a federal fee-and-dividend policy would completely phase out the use of coal in the United States. The use of nuclear power would increase slightly, as would natural gas, wind and solar.
Specifically, the report concludes that a federal carbon tax:
- Would add between 2 million and 3 million jobs, and an additional $70 billion to $90 billion in annual GDP;
- Would result in a 33% reduction in carbon emissions by 2025;
- And would result in 13,000 avoided premature deaths from pollution annually over the next decade.
Sounds like a win-win-win.
This report is being released as the Obama administration unveils a bold proposal to reduce carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants.[5] Climate-hawk Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has observed that Obama’s proposals would be the key to Congress finally taking market-based action on carbon emissions.
In February 2014, Senator Whitehouse stated:
"When those big power plants are going to face serious EPA regulation, for their owners, suddenly, yeah, maybe a carbon fee doesn't look like such a bad deal."[6]
Senator Whitehouse expanded upon these remarks in a May 2014 op-ed for the Providence Journal, stating:
“…The days of free carbon pollution end this June, when the Obama administration announces regulations on the biggest emitters. That won’t just lower the polluters’ emissions, it will change their thinking. When their free-pollution holiday is over, a nationwide carbon fee may start to look better to them…
“[T]he climate deniers have lost the public. Independents and Democrats overwhelmingly support action on climate change, and most Republican voters under 35 in a recent poll said climate deniers are ‘ignorant,’ ‘out of touch,’ or ‘crazy.’ Republican mayors and governors, away from the polluter money choking Congress, are getting to work on climate change. Republican economists support a carbon tax. Republicans increasingly see they cannot possibly win the 2016 presidential race with a denier candidate.
“Before Citizens United, many Republican senators were working on and voting for climate legislation. Republican friends in the Senate have complained to me that the polluter money attacks Republicans in primaries, not just Democrats in general elections. The polluters, post-Citizens United, have run a coal-fired purge of the Republican Party in Congress. But even vast polluter money can only bully them quiet for so long — and when compliance is imposed by fear, disruptions are abrupt.
“When the denial castle collapses, the prospects for a serious carbon bill in Congress are good. The revenues from a revenue-neutral carbon fee are all returned to the public, and there are appealing ways to do that: lowering corporate tax rates from 35 to 30 percent would be a huge value to good corporate citizens such as CVS and its consumers; giving seniors on Social Security a raise, or students (and their parents) relief on college loans would please many Rhode Islanders; a straight-out check to heads of households would be possible.”[7]
Will the REMI report and the new EPA power-plant regulations generate the needed momentum to pass a strong climate bill in Congress? The odds may be long, but they’re not impossible if Senator Whitehouse’s calculation is correct.
Interestingly enough, the REMI report also comes out just a few weeks after conservative economist Irwin Stelzer wrote a lengthy piece in the Weekly Standard urging Congress to embrace a revenue-neutral carbon tax as an alternative to Obama’s proposed EPA regulations,[8]--a piece that was, of course, brutally attacked by Marlo Lewis of the fossil-fuel-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.[9] Lewis’s assault on Stelzer was little more than an attempt to de-legitimize Stelzer’s economic credentials. Good luck with that one, pal.
(At this point, it should be noted that for many years, the Competitive Enterprise Institute received millions in funding from ExxonMobil.[10] It should also be noted that on its corporate website, ExxonMobil now declares:
“Throughout the world, policymakers are considering a variety of legislative and regulatory options to influence technology development and consumer choice to affect [greenhouse gas] emissions. If policymakers do move to impose a cost on carbon, we believe that a carbon tax would be a more effective policy option to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions than alternatives such as cap-and-trade. And to ensure revenues raised from such a tax are indeed directed to investment, and to assist those on lower incomes who spend a higher proportion of their income on energy, a carbon tax should be offset by tax reductions in other areas to become revenue neutral for government. It is rare that a business lends its support to new taxes. But in this case, given the risk-management challenges we face and the policy alternatives under consideration, it is our judgment that a carbon tax is a preferred course of public policy action versus cap and trade approaches.”[11] Now why would CEI be so upset at the guys who gave them money for so many years?)
Whether CEI likes it or not, Irwin Stelzer now joins Gregory Mankiw[12], Arthur Laffer[13], Douglas Holtz-Eakin[14], Eli Lehrer,[15] former Secretary of State George Shultz[16] and former Representative Bob Inglis[17] on the list of conservatives who are calling for prudent action on climate change, as opposed to outright denial.
Another conservative voice for prudent energy reform is Barry Bickmore, a professor of geological sciences at Brigham Young University, who wrote a great piece entitled “Who are the 'alarmists' here? Real conservatives value evidence” for the Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Utah, on May 25. In the piece, he noted:
“As the scientific case for human-caused climate change becomes even more compelling, it would be nice if my fellow political conservatives would try to maintain some credibility about this issue, so that any solutions eventually adopted reflect our values as closely as possible.”[18]
After discussing recent op-eds downplaying the need for immediate action to address the climate crisis, including a May 11 piece in the Washington Post by Robert Samuelson,[19] Bickmore concluded:
“…The real concern is the rapidity of the projected change, some 50 [to] 100 times as fast as the similarly large warming that brought us out of the last ice age. Rapid, sustained change makes adaptation very difficult, even for humans.
“So who is being ‘hysterical’ and ‘alarmist?’ On one hand, we have people using all the best scientific, political and economic analyses — complete with estimates of uncertainty and risk — to come up with recommendations on how to solve a pressing problem in the most cost-effective manner. On the other hand, we have self-proclaimed ‘conservatives,’ supposed champions of personal responsibility, neglecting to obtain even a cursory familiarity with the best scholarship on the topic, blaming our inaction on what they assume (without evidence) China will do, extolling the unlimited capacity of humans to solve problems while excusing the present generation from even trying, and shrieking overwrought, nonsensical warnings about what serious climate action will cost.
“Some real conservatives, like former [Representative] Bob Inglis [,] have proposed excellent, minimally invasive strategies for dealing with climate change, such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but we have little chance of these policies being adopted if they continue to be overshadowed by intellectually and morally bankrupt rhetoric.”[20]
Another “real conservative,” former Department of Homeland Security head Tom Ridge, also acknowledged the need for climate action in a May 21 appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”[21]—oddly enough, a program hosted by Joe Scarborough, who has spent the last few weeks lavishing praise upon billionaire climate-change denier David H. Koch.[22] Ridge observed:
“At the end of the day, is it a potential challenge for us? Yes. Is it a security challenge that would bring destruction and economic damage if we don’t appreciate the fact that it’s happening and try to do something in anticipation of it occurring? It’s a real serious problem…I’m not a scientist, [but] it’s pretty difficult to believe that [releasing] millions of tons of sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is a good thing. And regardless of whether or not that causation is strictly man-made — and there certainly is a component of that — the fact of the matter is global climate change is affecting sea levels, water levels."
Now, we can’t deny the challenge of getting Capitol Hill to act responsibly on climate; after all, on May 22, the House of Representatives voted to block the Pentagon from using any funds to analyze the risk climate change poses to national security.[23] Yet, if Senator Whitehouse is right, the time for denial on Capitol Hill may be over. And there are some small signs of bipartisan hope. Three Republicans—Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey, Scott Garrett of New Jersey, and Chris Gibson of New York—joined 189 Democrats in voting against the effort to stop the Pentagon from addressing the climate crisis. In addition, in mid-May, Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire voted for a bipartisan energy efficiency bill that ultimately died, reportedly in part due to the lobbying of former Massachusetts Senator, and fellow Republican, Scott Brown.[24]
On June 24, seven hundred members of Citizens Climate Lobby—including yours truly—will head to Capitol Hill to speak to members of the House and Senate from both parties about the merits of federal fee-and-dividend legislation that places a gradually rising price on carbon emissions, with all collected revenues returned to households as a dividend, to reduce emissions and protect households without increasing government. To reference the quote long attributed to Victor Hugo, “Nothing, not all the armies in the world, can stop an idea whose time has come.” The time has come to put a price on carbon. The time has come to show global leadership on global warming. The time has come to finally protect the climate for present and future generations. The time has come for leadership in Washington after too many years of showmanship. The time is now.
…I’m D. R. Tucker. Thanks for listening.
[2] http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/article.cfm?Commentary_ID=193&SourceCode=20140527tza&_t=Another+look+at+revenueneutral+carbon+tax#.U4UulHb4I68.
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-is-readying-climate-rule-for-existing-power-plants-as-deadline-approaches/2014/05/21/8d1c0b5c-e088-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html
[6] http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/amid-the-deep-freeze-one-senator-s-warm-outlook-for-climate-legislation-20140213
[7] http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140527-sheldon-whitehouse-climate-change-in-a-tsunami-of-denial.ece.
[8] https://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/let-s-tax-carbon_792852.html?page=2
[9] http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/05/19/irwin-stelzers-conservative-carbon-tax-what-would-reagan-do/
[10] http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/binaries/2007/5/exxon-secrets-analysis-of-fun.pdf
[11] http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-policy-principles/overview
[12] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/business/a-carbon-tax-that-america-could-live-with.html?_r=0
[13] http://climatecrocks.com/2012/05/31/arthur-laffer-reagans-economist-proposes-a-carbon-tax/
[14] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html
[15] http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-change-gop_738063.html
[16] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/04/08/why_we_support_a_revenue-neutral_carbon_tax_117849.html
[17] http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/morning_call/2014/02/the-conservative-case-for-a-carbon-tax.html?page=all
[18] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865603909/Who-are-the-alarmists-here-Real-conservatives-value-evidence.html
[19] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-on-climate-change-we-have-no-solution/2014/05/11/24d767c6-d77d-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html
[20] http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/865603909/Who-are-the-alarmists-here-Real-conservatives-value-evidence.html
Friday May 30, 2014
Friday May 30, 2014
In this episode, we take a look at policy efforts here in Massachusetts. Here are some links to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Plan and the assessment from the
Global Warming Solutions Project . You can hear about the risk of natural gas leaks
here , or read about the Citizens Climate Lobby here.
Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.
Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre
Friday May 23, 2014
Friday May 23, 2014
Lots of news this week. Divestment is sweeping Massachusetts, and Bill McKibben issued a call for action in NYC this September. (Read more commentary here, but note the correction that there will be NO civil disobedience.)
The Obama administration will soon release regulations limiting carbon pollution from existing electric power plants. Here is some analysis of what the rules might do.
Billionaire Tom Steyer will put money into this fall's election in order to make climate a real issue. We discuss what it means.
Pope Francis seems to be getting greener all the time, and even the National Catholic Reporter calls climate change the church’s number one pro-life issue.
Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.
Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre
Tuesday May 20, 2014
Tuesday May 20, 2014
In a May 13 post on TheNation.com, Eric Alterman and Reed Richardson denounced what they called “The Two Faces of Climate Change on the ‘Washington Post’ Op-Ed Page.”[1] Alterman and Richardson wrote that “a diffident, often dismissive press corps” bears partial responsibility for our failure to resolve the climate crisis:
“Indeed, when not ignoring the issue altogether, the establishment media—and the Beltway punditocracy in particular—has played a key role in aiding and abetting the right wing’s denialism through stilted, he-said-she-said story framing. Widespread journalistic negligence of this breadth and depth should frustrate all of us. But no single news organization’s take on climate change rises to the level of inexplicable duplicitousness quite like Washington Post op-ed page.
Case in point, on Monday, the Post’s editorial board
unabashedly hammered Republican Sen. Marco Rubio for his shameless perpetuation
of climate change skepticism. Rubio’s comments, which marked a clear step
backward away from the scientific consensus, coincidentally came last Friday
during an interview where the senator not-so-humbly said he was “ready to be
president." The Post, not mincing words, rightly called out Rubio’s
misrepresentations and said his embrace of such falsehoods made him unfit for
the Presidency…”
“This rhetorical courage on the part of the Post’s editorial staff isn’t unusual. To their credit, they’ve long used the paper’s highly influential platform to champion the fight against global warming. All of which makes the Post’s willingness to host a number of climate change ditherers and outright deniers on its op-ed pages that much more puzzling.
“Of those, George Will sticks out as a climate change denier of the highest order, someone much more visible and voluble on spreading misinformation than Sen. Rubio or almost any other ‘hoax’-hyping Republican in Washington. Indeed, Will’s dissembling on climate change got so bad at one point in 2009, you may recall, that it prompted fellow Post columnist Eugene Robinson, the Post’s weather blog, and two reporters in the news pages to all call him and his lies out—by name.
“He’s by no means moved on or wised up since then. Back in February, there he was, throwing out more disingenuous talking points like ‘the climate is always changing,’ which I would note is almost the exact same phrase that Sen. Rubio used—‘our climate is always changing’—last week when the Post lambasted him. But notably missing from those series of rebukes to Will four years ago or from his column three months ago was a direct rebuttal from Fred Hiatt’s own editorial page.
“Unfortunately, Will is not alone. In [a recent] Washington Post column, conservative Charles Krauthammer scoffed at the notion that climate change is ‘settled science,’ without bothering to note the actual, overwhelming truth as reported by the Post. Instead, he boldly reiterated his stance as a so-called climate change agnostic, [stating]: ‘I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier.’ But while one can reasonably claim to be uncertain about matters of pure faith, like, say, the existence of God or a serious House Republican plan to replace Obamacare, one cannot by definition be neither a believer nor a denier of a fact.
“Moreover, for someone who claims not to have chosen a side on climate change, Krauthammer’s mind sounds fairly settled, since he allows no acknowledgement of the broad scientific consensus and instead cherry-picks data where the only perceivable goal is to feed climate skepticism. For example, he drolly points out that, in all of 2012, only one hurricane made US landfall and that 2013 saw the fewest Atlantic hurricanes in the past thirty years. Take that, climate Cassandras! While both of these facts are accurate, they’re also arbitrary and completely lacking in context. What he conveniently leaves out are the broader, global trends at work, like the unquestionably dramatic rise in ocean heating and the correspondingly fast disappearance of Arctic sea ice. And said post compels the Post to run an almost column-length letter-to-the-editor debunking Krauthammer, one wonders what is the point of giving his shoddy thinking the imprimatur of the paper in the first place?
“Alas, these climate change know-nothings on the Post op-ed page has recently been complemented by climate change do-nothing and do-littles. On Monday, for instance, so-called liberal columnist Robert Samuelson melodramatically dropped on the climate change discussion what he purported to be a big ol’ truth bomb: ‘We have no solution.’ But, as Media Matters notes, his fatalistic language, while not only false, only further serves as a self-fulfilling prophecy, one that is a) helplessly reductive and b) only gives comfort to those skeptics who don’t believe climate change merits action anyway. Bizarrely, Samuelson actually does offer up an important framework toward a solution—a [federal] carbon tax—at the end of his column.
“Setting aside Samuelson’s self-refuting argument, it’s notable that one month ago the Post’s editorial page was singing the exact opposite tune, calling for immediate, unequivocal action on climate change…
“Even those conservative columnists at the Post who aren’t ideologically opposed to the science of climate change can have an undermining effect on the debate of what to do about it. For example, Michael Gerson’s [recent] forthright column aimed at debunking the climate conspiracy theorists in his party nonetheless engages in subtle innuendo and false choices. In it, he poses a lot of “questions” about climate change that have been already answered and characterizes the necessarily hard-to-swallow medicine of science-based solutions to global warming as naïve or unrealistic…
“Expert scientific advocacy for a worldwide solution, heaven forfend! Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like exactly the sort of idea we should be considering in the face of a global climate crisis. After all, following the wait-and-see, take-it-slow approach Gerson advocates is exactly what got us into this dire situation, and what the Post’s own editorial page forcefully rejects.”
Since he started writing for the Post in 2007, Gerson, who worked as President George W. Bush’s principal speechwriter for five years, has generally taken a more rational take on the climate crisis than his colleagues Krauthammer and Will. Let’s take a look back at some of his observations over the years:
- In an August 15, 2007 piece entitled “Hope on Climate Change? Here's Why,” Gerson wrote:
“…In 1975, Los Angeles exceeded the ozone standard 192 days out of the year -- meaning the choking smog was so bad that children, the elderly and the infirm were better off avoiding the risky practice of outdoor breathing. In 2005, the ozone standard was exceeded on just 27 days. Los Angeles has had 30 years of consistent improvement in reducing smog.
As conservatives would expect, these gains were largely the result of technology -- the catalytic converter in automobiles and reformulated gasoline -- and not by pedaling to work or undoing the Industrial Revolution. Smog was reduced mainly by innovation, not austerity.
But liberals are correct about something else: This technological progress would not have taken place as a result of the free market alone. Easterbrook argues that as long as producing pollution is a free good -- without cost to the polluter -- there is little economic incentive to produce new methods to restrict it. Federal and state regulations on auto emissions and air quality created an environment in which the invention of new technologies was economically necessary.
ad_icon
There are lessons here in the controversy over global warming. The debate is less and less about the existence of the problem itself. A consensus has hardened and broadened that global temperatures are increasing, that humans have contributed to the rise and that this is eventually a bad thing for the planet -- views held by the environmental movement and publicly affirmed by the current president. The differences come on whether these environmental changes are likely to be gradual and manageable or swift and apocalyptic. Here, the scientific computer simulations are complex and speculative, and their conclusions are sometimes wildly overplayed.
Hysteria on the environment is a liberal temptation. Prudence, however, remains a conservative virtue, and it requires the issue of warming to be addressed.
But is it addressable? Would any politically feasible policy changes by Congress and the president make a dent in this trend? There is good reason for skepticism. American emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are only part of a global problem. China and India are quickly building new coal-fired power plants to sustain massive economic growth. According to one estimate, China surpassed the United States in the production of greenhouse gases last year. We are only at the beginning of globalization -- and right now, that process is inseparable from the burning of fossil fuels. American restrictions on greenhouse gases, in isolation, would not be decisive.
This is not, however, an excuse for inaction. There is another, more compelling reason to consider a cap on the production of carbon dioxide. As in the case of fighting Los Angeles smog, this type of government regulation would create economic incentives for the development of new technologies -- incentives that do not exist in the free market. Capturing and storing carbon dioxide from power plants, by all accounts, is a difficult technical challenge. But the problem is much more likely to be solved if someone has a direct economic interest in solving it.
There are several proposals by members of Congress -- including a bipartisan bill from Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John Warner due next month -- that take a "cap-and-trade" approach to greenhouse gases. The government mandates overall reductions in emissions and lets companies decide how to implement them. If someone produces less carbon dioxide, for example, that reduction can be sold to another producer and yield some money in the process. This kind of market-based system has been used successfully to cut coal-powered plants' emissions of sulfur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain.
A cap-and-trade system isn't perfect. It is open to fraud -- companies in other countries have sometimes increased their production of pollutants to get benefits for cutting them later. A cap-and-trade bill could be used by Congress to push subsidies toward pet environmental projects of questionable value.
But the overall argument for a cap-and-trade system is strong. The answer to global warming will eventually be technological -- the production of energy without the production of heat-trapping gases. But only the government can create the incentives for Americans to work on this problem with urgency and seriousness. And there is hope to be found in the clearer skies of Los Angeles.”[2]
- In a July 17, 2008 op-ed entitled “Climate change at top of the globe,” Gerson described a recent trip to the Arctic to observe the consequences of carbon pollution and concluded:
“Global climate, of course, has changed before. But climate conditions for the last 10,000 years have been relatively stable, to the great benefit of civilization. Current temperature increases point beyond that band of comfort and don't seem explainable by natural cycles. The one factor dramatically different from the past is the human production of greenhouse gases, particularly the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
“The challenge of replacing carbon in our economy is massive -- and many incompletely known factors, from ice dynamics to the flow of ocean currents, determine its urgency. Answers will require a politically difficult task: acting with uncertain risk.
“But as I stand near the top of the world on a desolate shore with whale skulls and ruins, the crude oil economy appears about as primitive and destructive as the whale oil economy now seems.”[3]
- In a July 1, 2009 piece entitled “Cap-and-Traitors and Global Warming,” Gerson defended those who voted in favor of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, declaring:
“A serious concern about global climate disruption remains the broad (not unanimous but predominant) view of the scientific community, including the National Academy of Sciences. Global warming since the 19th century is undeniable -- a trend not disproved by year-to-year variations. These changes are closely correlated with increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution. Climate disruption has become so rapid in some places that it is overwhelming the natural process of adjustment, reducing crop yields and leading to the extinction of species. Meanwhile, global carbon emissions are increasing faster than expected. Some scientists warn of possible "tipping points" -- the rapid disintegration of the ice sheets, the sudden release of methane from warming northern soils -- that could turn a challenge into a catastrophe of lethal heat waves and rising sea levels.
Is this scientific viewpoint certain or guaranteed? Not when the scientific models concern a system as complex as the Earth's climate. Neither is it guaranteed that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be used against that country's enemies. But the realistic possibility of disaster, in both cases, would recommend a serious response.
The range of serious responses is limited. The federal government might spend directly on new technologies that produce energy without emitting carbon. But government's record in picking technological winners and losers is poor.
Others propose a carbon tax -- a cost per ton emitted, with no special exemptions. This system would be simple to implement and difficult to game. But it would also disproportionately punish some energy-intensive American industries -- cement, glass, steel and paper -- that face intense international competition.
The final alternative is a cap-and-trade system, which sets an overall limit on carbon emissions while directing relief to specific industries through rebates and offsets. Cap-and-trade has been used with dramatic success to reduce acid rain -- but it has never been employed on the massive scale that the regulation of carbon requires.
Critics argue that carbon restrictions, even if fully implemented, would reduce global temperatures only by minor amounts, which is true. We are not going to regulate our way out of global climate disruption. The only eventual solution is technological -- the ability to produce affordable, clean power on a large scale.
But conservatives seem strangely intent on ignoring the power of markets to encourage such innovation. Right now, the emission of carbon is essentially cost-free. Putting a price on carbon would make the development of cleaner energy technologies more profitable. New technologies could be employed, not only by America, but also by China, India and the rest of the developing, polluting world. And it is an added (but not minor) benefit that American resources would no longer be transferred to Saudi princes, Russian autocrats and Venezuelan dictators.
It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the House cap-and-trade system is flawed beyond redemption -- so complex and confusing that it only benefits regulators and the lobbyists who outwit them -- and that Congress should start over with a carbon tax.
It is also legitimate to contend that, while the cap-and-trade system is flawed, it is better than inaction and necessary to spur innovation.”[4]
- In a January 16, 2012 piece entitled “Climate and the culture war,” Gerson writes:
“The resistance of many conservatives to arguments about climate disruption is magnified by class and religion. Tea Party types are predisposed to question self-important elites. Evangelicals have long been suspicious of secular science, which has traditionally been suspicious of religious influence. Among some groups, skepticism about global warming has become a symbol of social identity…
“But however interesting this sociology may be, it has nothing to do with the science at issue. Even if all environmentalists were socialists and secularists and insufferable and partisan to the core, it would not alter the reality of the Earth’s temperature.
“Since the 1950s, global temperatures have increased about nine-tenths of a degree Celsius — the recent conclusion of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project — which coincides with a large increase in greenhouse gasses produced by humans. This explanation is most consistent with the location of warming in the atmosphere. It best accounts for changing crop zones, declining species, thinning sea ice and rising sea levels. Scientists are not certain about the pace of future warming — estimates range from 2 degrees C to 5 degrees C over the next century. But warming is already proceeding faster than many plants and animals can adapt to.
“These facts do not dictate a specific political response. With Japan, Canada and Russia withdrawing from the Kyoto process, the construction of a global regulatory regime for carbon emissions seems unlikely and may have never been possible. The broader use of nuclear power, the preservation of carbon-consuming rain forests and the encouragement of new energy technologies are more promising.
“But any rational approach requires some distance between science and ideology. The extraction and burning of dead plant matter is not a moral good — or the proper cause for a culture war.”[5]
- In an October 10, 2013 piece entitled “Politics is poorly suited to address global warming”:
“However the IPCC report is used or abused, it represents a consensus and not a conspiracy. “Each of the last three decades,” it concludes, “has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.” The oceans have warmed and grown more acidic. Ice sheets are losing mass. Sea ice and snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere are shrinking. Ocean levels are rising. (Compared to its report six years ago, the IPCC has raised its projection of sea-level rise during this century by about 40 percent.) All these things are plausibly related to increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produced in vast amounts by humans. And these trends involve serious public risks.
The report is filled with admissions of uncertainty, which are sometimes seized on as vulnerabilities. Uncertainty is, in fact, essential to the scientific enterprise, which is designed for self-correction. The evidence for human-caused climate disruption is increasingly clear. The magnitude of future disruption is a matter of scientific debate. But when the stakes are high, uncertainty is not a good justification for complacency.”[6]
- And in the May 12 piece Alterman and Richardson referenced in their Nation piece—an article entitled “Americans’ aversion to science carries a high price,” Gerson writes:
“…Skepticism about climate change is correlated with libertarian and free-market beliefs.
Merely raising climate disruption in this context will cause many to bristle. Skeptics employ this issue as a prime example of motivated reasoning — politicians motivated by the prospect of confiscation, scientists motivated by securing acclaim and government contracts.
In its simplest, cable-television version, this charge, at least against scientists, is outrageous. The assumption that the vast majority in a scientific field is engaged in fraud or corruption is frankly conspiratorial. In this case, the conspiracy would need to encompass the national academies of more than two dozen countries, including the United States.
Other, more measured criticisms ring truer. Some scientists have displayed an artificial certainty on some matters that seems to cross into advocacy. Others assume that the only way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions is a strict, global regulatory regime — an economic and political judgment that has nothing to do with their actual expertise.
But none of these objections relates to the scientific question: Is a 40 percent increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution driving disruptive warming? And further: Can this process be slowed, allowing societies and ecosystems more time to adapt?
Our intuitions are useless here. The only possible answers come from science. And for non-scientists, this requires a modicum of trust in the scientific enterprise. Even adjusting for the possibility of untoward advocacy, it seems clear that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have produced a modest amount of warming and are likely to produce more. This, in turn, is likely to produce higher sea levels, coastal flooding, shifting fisheries, ocean acidification, water shortages, lower crop yields and vanishing ecosystems. The consequences will vary by region but are likely to be more severe in poorer nations. New York City can adapt to a rising ocean better than Bangladesh.
This scientific consensus raises difficult political questions. Is some grand global bargain on carbon-dioxide emissions, including China and India, even a possibility? Might it be more practical to make polluters pay — perhaps with a revenue-neutral carbon tax, fully rebated to taxpayers — thereby encouraging the development of new technologies that limit future carbon emissions?”[7]
As someone who believes the answer to both of Gerson’s questions is “Hell yes!”, I have to give Gerson credit for his serious analysis of the climate crisis. I don’t agree with all of his points—but then again, I don’t agree with things I wrote five years ago. I do agree that Gerson has the potential to play a critical role in forging the bonds that will be needed to resolve the climate crisis once and for all.
Here’s hoping that Gerson continues to use his forum at the Washington Post to ask thoughtful questions, and point to potential answers, regarding how we can protect our climate for future generations. By urging us to think about what happens if we don’t, he’ll continue to do what George Will won’t.
[1] http://www.thenation.com/blog/179846/two-faces-climate-change-washington-post-op-ed-page#
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/14/AR2007081401327.html
[3] http://www.thenation.com/blog/179846/two-faces-climate-change-washington-post-op-ed-page#
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/30/AR2009063002896.html
[5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/climate-and-the-culture-war/2012/01/16/gIQA6qH63P_story.html
[6] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-politics-is-poorly-suited-to-respond-to-climate-change/2013/10/10/870c1138-31d0-11e3-9c68-1cf643210300_story.html
[7] http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-americans-aversion-to-science-carries-a-high-price/2014/05/12/7800318e-d9fe-11e3-bda1-9b46b2066796_story.html
Friday May 16, 2014
Friday May 16, 2014
This was another pretty good week for Climate Hawks.
Massachusetts’ Governor Deval Patrick gave a great commencement address at UMASS Amherst. We talked with Carolyn Barthel of 350 Massachusetts about what it means. Unfortunately, there was no greatness in the Senate as it killed an energy efficiency bill.
Following the President’s release and full-throated support of the National Climate Assessment, has the Overton Window opened just a tiny bit for climate? After all, the Generals promulgated , Christy Todd-Whitman pontificated and Senator Joe Manchin equivocated. However, only Marco Rubio could confabulate an evasive answer on ABC, (or perhaps couldn’t in front of the National Press Club.) Both Time and the Washington Post questioned his presidential timber. So, has climate denial become disqualifying for a politician seeking higher office? Thom Hartman discusses tobacco and denial while Dan Farber discusses possible hints of hope in Rubio's comments. Ed Schulz of MSNBC has his heart in the right place and has made a remarkable public journey to climate reality, but as he highlights Rubio’s confusion he needs to keep his facts straight.
Finally, two downers and one uplifting report. If you are less than 29 years old, you have never experienced a month of below average global temperatures. And, by the way, the collapse of parts of the Antarctic Ice shelf is unstoppable. On the other hand, composer John Luther Adams won a Pulitzer for his Earth inspired symphony Being Ocean.
So we will close the way we always close, by saying that because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the US put a price on carbon.
…Ted McIntyre
Tuesday May 13, 2014
Tuesday May 13, 2014
D.R. Tucker looks back at "The Day After Tomorrow", Micheal Crichton and the mechanics of denial
Saturday May 10, 2014
Saturday May 10, 2014
This was a good week for Climate Hawk’s. The President released the National Climate Assessment for 2014. DR Tucker gives us a comment, but the reaction on places like CNN's CrossFire shows the some folks need to present legitimate policy proposal that they favor, instead of empty talking points about scare tactics.
Stanford divests from coal and provides a good example for colleges on the east coast. NPR’s Yuki Naguchi proves she doesn’t get it with this report.
On the Fracking Front, we learn about a judgment in Texas and the impact of
Finally on the arts front, learn about “Angel Azul, the Movie”. You can see a related
music video and catch of glimpse of the politician with his head in the sand off the coast of Mexico. Check out the play Sila in Central Square. As a bonus, here are some climate haikus and music inspired by birds on a wire.
So we will close the way we always close, by saying that because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the US put a price on carbon.
…Ted McIntyre
Friday May 02, 2014
Friday May 02, 2014
This was a big week for climate hawks.
The Supreme Court ruled that the EPA’s method of controlling pollution from Midwestern coal plants was constitutional. You can read about the decision and some further analysis. The decision is good news for the Obama administration's climate plan to be announced in June, since the ruling safeguards the methods the EPA will use in the future. Even Forbes thought it was a big deal.
Divestment is an ongoing issue, and DR reported on events at Harvard.
The Koch Brother seem to have declared war on solar power. Even the New York Times opined against it.
The media has botched the coverage of the Supreme Court’s ruling (even according to right wing critics) just as it has the whole issue of climate change . Jon Stewart skewers CNN - watch if you want a laugh.
Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.
Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre
Friday Apr 25, 2014
Friday Apr 25, 2014
We discuss two big topics this week: the meaning of the Obama Administration’s delay of the KXL pipeline decision and a feeling of malaise people may have around the meaning of Earth Day.
Late last Friday, the administration decided to indefinitely delay the KXL decision. The decision might have been based on practical concerns , but others put it in context of the midterms. On balance, 350 got it’s assessment just about right. Keep in mind that a protest in Washington D.C. called “Reject and Protect” is in progress this weekend.
Earth Day occurred this week. Some commentators expressed frustration and disappointment with how and why we celebrate this holiday in the 21st Century. Two interesting examples of this train of though are from Joe Romm who says things like:
I don’t worry about the earth. I’m pretty certain the earth will survive the worst we can do to it. I’m very certain the earth doesn’t worry about us. ,,,.We need a new way to make people care about the nasty things we’re doing with our cars and power plants. At the very least, we need a new name.
Another thought provoking view comes from Wen Stephenson who calls for a new kind of movement:
Many of us, rather than retreat into various forms of denial and fatalism, have reached the conclusion that something more than “environmentalism” is called for, and that a new kind of movement is the only option. That the only thing, at this late hour, offering any chance of averting an unthinkable future—and of getting through the crisis that’s already upon us—is the kind of radical social and political movement that has altered the course of history in the past. A movement far less like contemporary environmentalism and far more like the radical human rights, social justice and liberation struggles of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Stephenson makes a compelling argument, and is his piece is well worth the effort to read it. In fact, The Nation has an entire issue devoted to climate this month, with articles by MSNBC's Chris Hayes on The New Abolitionist, the provocative Naomi Klein and an interesting piece on legal suits against Big Carbon by Dan Zegart.
Because we recognize the necessity of personal accountability for our actions, because we accept responsibility for building a durable future and because we believe it is our patriotic duty as citizens to speak out, we must insist that the United States put a price on carbon.
Thanks for listening.
…Ted McIntyre