Green Options

In an effort to help a major developing country (the 4th largest country in the world) deal with climate change appropriately, the new Prime Minister of Japan reportedly agreed to give Indonesia a $400 million loan for this last weekend.

The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released results of a major survey tracking what people believe about “Global Warming.”  It is not encouraging!  Across age, gender, race, political affiliation, and religion there have been declines in the number of people who believe that human activity is involved and increases in the number of people who don’t think it is happening.  My own demographic (white, male, 54 years old, political Independent, Evangelical Christian) is among the most skeptical, though the Baby Boom slightly bucks the trend for age.  Some friends and I are working on a strategy to challenge the Church on this issue.

Last Monday the popular show “CSI: Miami” ran a segment in which a young woman dies and it turns out to be because of a GMO corn developed by a rogue company called “Bixton Organic Foods.”  In the plot, the company willingly puts people at risk.  This fictional scenario bears no plausible tie to reality, but it fits well with the simplistic, good guys/bad guys image in the Myth that many people believe about farming.  To see how it feels to be the brunt of a distortion like this, I recommend you read a post from a real corn farmer.  

So why is it possible for CBS writers to generate fictional “drama” about the “danger of GMO” when in fact GMO technology has been used with complete safety for more than a decade on a gigantic scale?  (Having witnessed first-hand the thought and care that went into developing this technology over the past 30 years, I’m not surprised by that safety record).  There is an abundance of good information available about this technology including many confirmations of its safety by panel after panel of highly qualified, science and medical experts around the world.  I think the reason that the fear of GMO persists in certain extreme circles is the same reason that there are still “birthers” and people who are sure that health reform will lead to “death panels.”  Its not that there is much overlap between these demographics but rather that the same mechanism of “selective knowing” is involved.

Have you seen the comic art for the 2010 Union of Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity Cartoons? Shown above is a cartoon about science and the Endangered Species Act.

The entire calendar shows how “the absurdity of political interference in science is ripe for lampooning-and serves as a constant reminder of how vigilant we must be in defending science from politics.” The comics also highlight the need for the new administration and Congress to create a thriving federal scientific enterprise.

Norway committed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions 40% by 2020 this week. This is the most ambitious goal of any rich nation to date.

Norway’s prime minister Jens Stoltenberg (just re-elected) is meeting the requests of many developing nations and environmental NGOs with this commitment.

A new report released today says that if we shift our economy — to a greener, low-carbon economy — we will have more jobs, not fewer.

Earlier this week, Tony Blair (former prime minister of the UK) and the Climate Group reported that if we worked to avoid climate change we’d create 10 million new jobs by 2020 — worldwide. Another recent study by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council says that such a shift could increase employment in the EU by 2.7 million jobs by 2030.

One more report, released today by the Global Climate Network (an alliance of nine influential think tanks) comes to similar conclusions.

There’s one thing I don’t get about how Cap and Trade works. How carbon emissions would still come down, whether the initial allowances were auctioned or free. Most environmentalists are up in arms over “polluting industry getting free allowances” while I don’t object to anything that sweetens the deal. But would it work?

So I contacted Harvard’s Robert N. Stavins to get a very simple concrete example. He has authored much referenced works on environmental policy design and Cap and Trade legislation draws heavily on his work. Here’s his analogy in which TV or video gaming stands in for carbon emissions. First, you set a Cap. The limit will be 4 hours total, with a Cap of one hour max for each child. Here’s how he put it.

“If I put in place a system whereby you have to have an allowance for every hour of video games tonight, it does not matter whether you bought it or got it for free, it still limits you to one hour.  Period.”

He added: “And if you are allowed to trade these allowances with others, you have the same incentives to sell your allowance if you don’t want to play any video games tonight; or to buy more if you want to play more than one hour, regardless of whether you had to buy or got for free the first one.”

Now that Cap and Trade is a possibility, there is a rising clamor for a carbon tax instead, from conservative thinktanks like the American Enterprise Institute, outlets like The Washington Times and even directly from Exxon itself. Yet when first introduced by Al Gore, in 1993, the carbon tax was anathema to the fossil industry. What makes a carbon tax now less of a threat than Cap and Trade? It’s the Cap.

The key difference between Cap and Trade and a carbon tax is that a carbon tax controls just the cost of pollution - only a cap limits the quantity.

The “Cap” limits emissions by fossil companies

The Cap in Cap and Trade is the only mechanism for ensuring a total limit to carbon emissions. A Cap is set for the fossil industries as a whole. The Cap on emissions at point-of-entry sources (oil pipelines, coal fields and coal-fired power stations) in the current Cap and Trade bill limits total carbon.

Climate Action Will Pay for Itself, and More.

The United Nations (UN) stated earlier this month that the cost of avoiding climate change was at least 1% of global GDP — $500-600 billion dollars. Despite this major cost, Tony Blair, former Prime Minister of the UK, and The Climate Group, presented a report to the UN yesterday saying that a strong climate deal will “boost growth in all major economies & create millions of new jobs.”

A new survey of Asians finds that they want a strong international climate agreement, and they want a few key world leaders to step up to the plate to make it happen.

181 of the world’s largest investors say that the climate agreement in Copenhagen needs to be strong and binding.

This is from companies managing over $13 trillion and is the largest such statement to date. Their proposals are even stronger than what most activist organizations are asking for.