Elections, Climate Change, and Energy

This is an excellent post by Andy Revkin on the implications of the mid-term elections on climate change and energy. Check out the "heat ladder" link toward the end. It's an article from 2007 which still resonates today. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

More Evidence of Change

The impacts of climate change are taking place right now, not in some far flung future. There is a lot being done to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increase the use of low carbon energy around the world, but more is needed to meet the scale of the challenge.

Climate Change - A Threat to Prosperity and Security

The UK Foreign Secretary gave a speech last week at the Council for Foreign Relations focused entirely on climate change.

Some of the key extracts from the speech -

· “Climate change is perhaps the twenty-first century’s biggest foreign policy challenge along with such challenges as preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. A world which is failing to respond to climate change is one in which the values embodied in the UN will not be met. It is a world in which competition and conflict will win over collaboration.”

· "You cannot have food, water, or energy security without climate security. They are interconnected and inseparable."

· "We must all take responsibility for this threat. We must take robust action. But we must also be clear-headed about the difficulties of reaching agreement and not lose heart when the going gets tough."

· "We need to shift investment urgently from high carbon business as usual to the low carbon economy – this means building an essentially decarbonised global economy by mid century…To drive that shift in investment from low to high carbon we need a global climate change deal under the UN."

· "Many say that Copenhagen failed because of process. The diplomats and the politicians had created a negotiation that was too difficult and too complex. This misses the point. International treaties are an outcome – not an input – of political bargains. If you have made the political commitment to deliver, you can make the process work to deliver"

· "That is why the coalition to which I belong has committed itself to being the greenest government ever in the UK; and why with others in Europe we are calling on the EU to commit to a 30% cut in emissions by 2020 without waiting for the rest of the world to act."

· "But we will not succeed if we act alone. We must aim for a framework that is global and binding. It needs to be global because climate change affects everyone. Only a response that allows everyone a voice will generate a sense of common purpose and legitimacy."

· "There is no global consensus on what climate change puts at risk, geopolitically and for the global economy, and thus on the scale and urgency of the response we need. We must build a global consensus if we are to guarantee our citizens security and prosperity. That is a job for foreign policy."

· "We have a shared vision to meet the millennium development goals. But in a world without action on climate change, that vision will remain a dream. The effort of the last ten years will be wasted."

· "Climate change is one of the gravest threats to our security and prosperity. Unless we take robust and timely action to deal with it, no country will be immune to its effects. However difficult it might seem now, a global deal under the UN is the only response to this threat which will create the necessary confidence to drive a low carbon transition. We must be undaunted by the scale of the challenge. We must continue to strive for agreement. We must not accept that because there is no consensus on a way forward now that there will never be one. And to change the debate, we must imaginatively deploy all of the foreign policy assets in our armory until we have shaped that global consensus."

· "We have to get this right. If we do, we can still shape our world. If we do not, our world will determine our destiny."

OECD - US Economic Report

Nothing like curling up with a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to ease any insomnia you might suffer from. To be fair the report is actually a great resource for US facts/figures, though I'm not sure about its claim that the US is accountable for only 15% of global emissions. This is far lower than the ~20% figure I've seen in the past (and ~22% for China). You can read the summary here.

A few highlights:

* The climate section of the report is framed in the context of reducing Americans' exposure to risk. It also identifies the corollary benefits of taking action - cleaner air, improved health conditions, enhanced energy/national security due to a reduction in foreign oil imports

* The report makes a very strong case for putting a price on carbon - least cost option, driver of RD&D, etc., and argues that the EPA is a less cost effective tool and unlikely to deliver the necessary emissions reductions

* It calls for passage of US climate legislation but: i) opposes the removal of provisions which do not take the indirect land use effect of bio-fuels into account (i.e., food shortages, increased prices, etc.); ii) opposes the inclusion of BTAs (border tax adjustments), also known as BAMs (Border Adjustment Mechanisms) in US parlance; and iii) suggests limiting offsets so revenues raised can be used as a deficit reduction tool.

I'm not sure what impact the report will have on the US debate, if any. But it's interesting to note that an organization set up to counterbalance OPEC is calling on the US to reduce its emissions and put a greater emphasis on investment in low carbon technology.

Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade

I came across this recent op-ed in the Houston Chronicle whose authors argue for a carbon tax which increases over time. I'm a strong supporter of a price on carbon but I'm not convinced about the efficacy of a tax for a few reasons. First, I think its a hard sell these days. Cap and trade has a difficult enough time getting traction in a down economy, I can't imagine a hard tax getting through. Secondly, I don't think it'll be as straight forward as proponents suggest. Anyone who has ever done their own taxes knows how complex they can be.

Most importantly, I don't think a carbon tax offers the same environmental certainty you get from a cap and trade program, in which the cap tightens over time. Not only does a "cap" ensure the emissions reductions necessary to avoid dangerous climate change, the "trade" allows for greater flexibility in the market place enabling business (that's right, business) to make the appropriate choice in meeting its targets. But it's also important to remember that cap and trade is one element of a wider suite of options needed to deal with the challenge.

Cap and Trade - A Bipartisan Success Story

I came across this excellent article recently on the history of cap and trade in the US. It's over a year old but that only effects a few aspects of the piece. It provides a great overview of how cap and trade became one of the most successful environmental programs in history under the George H.W. Bush Administration. Stunningly, it was a bipartisan effort. I know, consider your mind blown. So for those who doubt the efficacy of such a program this is a gentle reminder that it can be done, it can be successful, and it won't ruin the economy.

Action in spite of Uncertainty

This is an excellent piece from the Financial Times about the uncertainty surrounding climate change. It goes to great lengths to spotlight areas of agreement and areas where the evidence is less clear (e.g., it's pretty much a given that we'll experience a 1.5C rise in temps, but not so clear cut on 4C).

If you don't have time to read the whole article, skip to the last paragraph:

Meanwhile, concentrations of airborne carbon increase year on year. Once carbon is in the atmosphere, it can stay there for a century, continuing its warming effect. The problem is that if action is delayed until these areas of uncertainty are resolved, the world may find it is too late.

I've written about this before. The whole point of dealing with climate change is to manage our exposure to risk despite the uncertainty.