UN delegates met last week in New York to further discuss the Paris Climate Accord initiated in December. The world’s two largest financial institutions are pushing national leaders to price the carbon emitted in their respective countries, either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade. The article I read this in didn’t say that the banks favored one or the other (1), and neither do their webpages on carbon pricing.(3, 4). I thought this was interesting, because the two strategies, while they both price carbon, operate fairly differently and can lead to different results. As a means to achieve a certain level of GHG emissions, I’ve never understood the appeal of a carbon tax. It requires regulators to figure out what the price of carbon should be, so that the desired emissions levels are reached. Instead, in a cap-and-trade system, regulators set a cap on what emissions should be, and leave the market to figure out the price through supply and demand of allowances.

Although I am undoubtedly simplifying this to the argument’s detriment, with a carbon tax, a political body must rely on both the expertise of climatologists to pick a GHG emissions reduction goal that will ward off the worst of climate change’s effects and the expertise of economists to pick how high the tax should be to reach that goal. With cap-and-trade, you get to bypass the economists in that regard entirely. Although, if similar revenues are to be generated under cap-and-trade as under a carbon tax, economists are still very necessary in picking auction floor prices, whereas a carbon auction is not part of a carbon tax. I dunno! I have to read more about both of them.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/us/politics/carbon-pricingbecomes-a-cause-for-the-world-bank-and-imf.html?ref=politics
2. http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/enviro.htm
3. http://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/pricing-carbon

In reference to the title, it doesn’t appear like it will be this year. There have been no extreme weather events that have affected the country on a national scale lately. While 2015 may have been the warmest year on record, the difference between its temperatures and years before it are imperceptible to most of the US that don’t observe weather trends. How do you capture the public’s attention on an issue that arguably hasn’t contributed to any national catastrophes as of late?

Sanders and Clinton have contributed most to the topic, but they just appear to be fighting for a few remaining undecided democrat voters; they’re preaching to the choir, and I can’t imagine it would help either of them get independent or moderate republican votes in the general election.

That being said, if Kasich gets the republican nomination, he looks to be the most likely candidate to attempt to reach across to independent and moderate democrats in an appeal to climate change regulation. It’s strange to think that a republican nominee has more incentive to speak on climate change than a democratic nominee, but that may be the case.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JehM8NRDQ54J:www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

James Hanson et al.’s recent paper is somewhat controversial among other mainstream climate scientists, in that the conclusions drawn frame a much faster and dramatic climatic shift driven by previously larger than predicted Atlantic meridional overturning slowdown. Some mainstream climate scientists have called into question Hanson’s motivations or conflict of interest in these findings, as he’s been seen as an activist for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, taking part as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the EPA for failing to regulate carbon emissions. His political efforts are motivated by his knowledge as a climate scientist, but should he lose credibility as far as his research is concerned?

Claudia Tebaldi, and Michael Wehne, climate scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, respectively, have just published a study, funded by the Department of Energy, titled Benefits of mitigation for future heat extremes under RCP4.5 compared to RCP8.5,  which describes the effects of climate change on heatwaves, and the disparity in different populations’ exposure to, and ability to adapt to them. The authors state that heatwaves, severe, global temperature anomalies that occur about every 20 years, will be more frequent, and more severe in the next hundred years. Climate change mitigation programs will help some, but the implications are such that governments around the world will still need to provide large amounts of resources for vulnerable peoples, the elderly, young, and low-income urban populations, regardless of potential stringent mitigation efforts.

The report is especially useful for policy-making purposes, because it performs cost-benefit analyses of the large, immediate costs of heatwave adaptation efforts versus their relatively uncertain, long-term, and so discounted, benefits, and still finds the quantified, and monetary benefits to outweigh the costs.

Additionally, the fact that the study is funded through taxpayer money adds political clout to the policy recommendations.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/19559/searing-heat-waves-detailed-study-future-climate

http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/02/24/stories/1060032886

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-016-1605-5

The New York Times recently released an interactive graph that displays the temperature trend for a given city over 2015. The point of the graph is to emphasize the local trends in global warming, and to give the reader a more tangible feel for how climate change is affecting him or her directly. The idea is great- how get someone to comprehend a phenomena so abstract and large? You bring it close to home. How do you convey such a complex topic, one that may still escape the mental grasp of the reader? You use one simple, large graph. The problem I have with the report, and I think I mentioned this in a previous blot post, is what happens when a year isn’t warmer than the last? NYT can’t publish the same graph and say, “How Much Colder Was Your City in 20_ _ ?” Instead, it must find a way to acknowledge the larger climate change trend, which, admittedly, the NYT does on a regular basis. But those acknowledgments aren’t circulated through social media to nearly the same extent- people don’t seem to be as grabbed by ” x volume of permafrost melt occurred over the past y years, leading to z metric tons of GHG emissions.”

I don’t really have an idea for how to make people care about the meaningful long-term trends, and effects of climate change, but it seems the solution needs to be personal, tangible, and easy to comprehend.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/19/us/2015-year-in-weather-temperature-precipitation.html#state-college_pa

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Last week, the Supreme Court made an unprecedented stay on federal regulation. The rule in question is the EPA’s effort to reduce GHG emissions through tighter regulations on power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. The enjoinment of a federal rule, before it’s wound its way through the lower court system, has not occurred until now, and it shows that at least four Supreme Court justices clearly had interests in the petitioner’s (27 states that are currently supported by carbon-intensive coal-fired powered plants) claim that the regulation would put undue burden on the states’ economies.

One of those Justices, Antonin Scalia, died on Saturday, leaving a vacancy that many thought would not be available under Justice Ginsburg retired. Now, with an ideological four-four split on the bench, there may be hope that, when the case is heard by the Supreme Court, it will not result in an injunction.

That being said, another historical event may take place in Senate, one which has far-reaching implications for the case. If President Obama nominates someone to fill the vacancy, and the Senate refuses to confirm or reject the nominee before next January, it will be the longest Supreme Court vacancy in history. If the Supreme Court then refuses to hear or make a decision on the case until then, the Clean Power Plan is at least in for a lengthy stay. Although, the current uncertainty is better than the previous strong likelihood of injunction.

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060032372

The Obama administration will make a bold move by proposing, in the 2017 federal budget, a tax on oil-producing companies by charging them $10 for every barrel of oil produced. The move is bold because the proposed tax must pass through a Republican-controlled Congress, unlike the Clean Power Plan, and most of the administration’s other climate-change efforts. The revenue would be recycled into green infrastructure programs, renewable energy R&D, and, what I’m most excited about, grants and other financial incentive programs allocated to states that invest in low-carbon public transportation, as well as urban planning intended to reduce GHG emissions. Given that many states (the ones that aren’t already ahead of the game) will have to eventually implement energy infrastructure plans that comply with Clean Power Plan mandates, the incentives outlined in the budget proposal will make implementing holistic climate change plans more appealing to states. Additionally, since some of the barrel-tax costs will be passed onto the consumer, states will face additional incentives to reduce their oil consumption.

Of course, the budget proposal will have to include measures that are highly appealing to Republican Congress members in order to have any chance of passing. I’m not sure how the Obama administration will go about this.

I’m also worried that, since some of the costs will, indeed, be passed onto consumers, that poor people will face disproportionate short-term economic burdens. I haven’t read anything that says that some of the revenue-recycling will be earmarked to offset this burden. This is disheartening, and worrisome. Any efforts to address climate change should simultaneously address climate justice, and this proposal may set a federal precedent to ignore climate justice altogether.

http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/02/05/stories/1060031881

California’s Public Utilities Commission has finally solidified a semi long-term plan for how it handles rooftop solar panels sending electricity back to the utilities, which means that investors, businesses, and the public can finally start acting with much less risk that their respective investments in solar, change in profit structure, and decision to install panels won’t get pulled out from under them via political or bureaucratic capriciousness. And because this decision is happening in California, with its gigantic market, the greater degree of certainty in a more solar-sourced energy sector will reverberate through the country.

The idea is that solar panel-equipped ratepayers will receive credits for their flow of electricity back into the grid, but that most will have to pay a one-time fee to their utilities upon installation and hookup. This money won’t be kept by the utilities, though, but will benefit low-income residents through subsidization of home energy-efficiency measures, such as solar panels! This means that, yes, some ratepayers who don’t have rooftop panels will have to pick up part of the cost, but that will only incentivize them to switch to solar as well. With greater certainty that demand for panels will increase with this decision, the green light is given for increasing investment in panel production, R&D, and installation and maintenance services, and so the cost of purchasing or renting panels is likely to continue to decrease.

All of this being said, I’m not sure what it means for maintenance of the grid. If investor-owned utilities are faced with the decision of reducing profit margins, or cutting corners to maintain their infrastructure (not sure how stringent the regulations are that govern this), I have to imagine they’ll lean towards the latter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/business/energy-environment/california-narrowly-votes-to-retain-system-that-pays-solar-users-for-excess-power.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

When storms like Hurricane Sandy and Patricia occurred, a lot of reporters and politicians considered climate change as a significant factor in the intensity of the storms. Notably, then-mayor Bloomberg used Sandy to promote a climate change mitigation and adaptation agenda (CBS). While the degree to which climate change currently contributes to extreme weather events is disputed among individual scientists, organizations like NOAA say it’s still too early to detect these effects (NOAA). I guess the problem/question I have with using events like hurricanes and the “hottest year on record” to further climate change awareness and action, at least among the public and politicians, is: what happens when we have a smaller-than average storm, or string of them, or if next year is actually relatively colder than the previous few years? These events force us (mitigation and adaptation proponents) to step back and say to opponents: “changes in climate occur over the course of years and decades. It’s the overall pattern we’re concerned about.” Opponents then get to throw in our face: “But you said Sandy was caused by climate change. So if…” (I realize “cause” is very different than “contribute”, but this distinction may be lost on many)

I understand that public and political opinion is largely formed through what the media, our friends, and public figures tell us, and that garnering public and political support for climate change measures hinges on influencing how these groups interpret something like Sandy, but there are potential downsides to this strategy.

CBS – http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bloomberg-post-sandy-nyc-will-lead-climate-change-battle/
NOAA- http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes