Dear Tobias--I'll take you on--and this is just quickly.
1. Most obviously, you divided a per year estimate of indicated benefits
by an integrated estimate of cost over time, so it is apples and oranges
calculation.
2. Next is the question of whether the numbers are anywhere close to
being right. On the issue of the cost, aside from accepting an estimate
from the Heritage Foundation itself or even others, a very interesting
study of about two decades ago by economist Robert Repetto (now at Yale,
I think) on why the estimates of the potential cost of the Kyoto
agreement made very clear that the range then, from something like -2 to
+2% of GDP, or something like that, had to do with what the assumptions
were in the calculation, so about how money from say a tax was used
(which could slow or increase economic growth), whether or not one
counted co-benefits like reduced pollution and waste and extensive
health benefits (foregone black lung, etc.), what one assumed about the
potential for technological improvement, and so on. Doing thing in a
smart way can lead to many benefits and improvements to the economy,
jobs, and so on. Allowing for transforming technologies like solid state
batteries, etc. makes a huge difference (already renewable electricity
is less expensive than fossil energy--all we need is a better electric
network (say HV/DC) to move the electricity around, and at least one
estimate has its cost comparable to its savings on electricity bills; so
on that, yes there will be a lot of overall investment in new
technologies but you have to subtract off the cost of the investment
that would be required in old technologies. For three decades, the
estimates (by National Academy and McKinsey) have been that the US could
reduce its emissions by roughly 30% with then existing technologies that
had an economic payback of 3 years or less--so the low hanging fruit,
and there are studies out there talking about how innovation leads to
ongoing regrowth of low hanging fruit (LED lights, and so on). So, on
the cost side, I'd suggest the number you are taking needs a lot, lot
more consideration.
3. On the impacts side, first you assume the only benefits to the US are
those internal to the country; that makes no sense at all given the
global footprint of the US, importing food, having investments
everywhere, potential for spread of infectious diseases, and lots more.
What happens around the world matters to us, and what we do will have
effects around the world. Second, you only count the current year's
benefits and do not give any benefit from actions now moderating what
happens in the future to us, so by taking action now, we avoid a lot of
future impacts (a key issue is keeping the temperature down to moderate
sea level rise--though do see below). I'd also suggest that the economic
estimates that you draw from leave off a lot of aspects that are not
easily quantifiable, so the reduced ocean acidification and impacts on
the system, biodiversity loss that is impacted, etc. And then do realize
the US is considerably more than the 48 contiguous states, or even the
50 states, and Puerto Rico (avoiding even one severe hurricane over 5
years gives $20B a year) and even add the Virgin Islands. The US has
responsibility for Trust territories in the Pacific that may well get
inundated by sea level rise, and how do you account for those--just the
airfare to evacuate the people? So, this estimate of reduced impact you
give I think is way low.
Now, I do agree with you that the commitments to get to Paris won't get
us there, and I would argue that the "there" of Paris is not nearly
enough--in my opinion, we need to get the CO2 concentration back toward
300 ppm and get overall global warming back under 0.5 C and not be
heading over 2.5-3 C, returning to 1.5-2C as Paris seems to be leading
to. So, yes, lots more to do.
I also agree that in addition to all the work needed to cut CO2
emissions to address the long-term warming that it is essential (and
very cost effective) to be working to cut the emissions of CH4, black
carbon, tropospheric ozone, HFCs, and other short-lived species to slow
the rate of warming in the near-term, and if all we cared about were
limiting the warming by 2030 or 2040 that is all that we would do (and
since that may be as long as some of us live, that might well be most
cost effective for us personally), but if we care about the planet we
leave our children and grandchildren, etc., we also have to care about
what the climate will be in 2100, and that means we also have to be
aggressively cutting CO2 emissions--and, as just cutting emissions will
not be enough, we have to be moving to remove large amounts of CO2 from
the atmosphere.
While massive CO2 removal could presumably eventually get us back to
conditions that would get the global average temperature back to the
level of mid-20th century or earlier, given we are already at 1 C and
inevitably headed higher, my view is that in this interim period we also
need to be intervening, to the extent we can (a research question
needing to be addressed--and likely using tropospheric based approaches)
to at the least reduce the worst impacts (e.g., Arctic amplification,
tropical cyclone intensification, some regional aridification, protect
coral reefs and other biodiversity, ice stream slowing, etc.) in the
very near term and to also be preparing to bring down the increase in
global average temperature through stratospheric aerosol injection (also
to be researched and for which governance systems are especially
needed). The hope would be that CDR would be the exit strategy for
climate intervention, and neither would be a substitute for cutting
emissions of both long- and short-lived gases and warming aerosols,
doing so with renewable energy technologies, and for efficiency
improvements.
Given all of this, I think your objections to the principles of the new
Green New Deal are premature and overdone. Yes, there is a lot to be
done--the key questions will be if they choose paths that can quickly
get emissions down, not being overly focused on being optimally
efficient and ideologically pure over coming decades (e.g., so don't
close nuclear early; keep up research on full range of energy options;
don't force all new buildings to be immediately carbon and energy
neutral; etc.--be a bit flexible but with a strong push) and then let
ongoing technological developments and evolution of the
emissions-reducing-technologies come in as they can. There is a huge
amount that can be done (and it concerns not just climate change, but
sustainability more broadly), and the real key is making the commitment
and getting started at it.
Best, Mike
On 2/9/19 10:49 AM, Tobias Schultz wrote:
Hi Chuck,
The Green New Deal is a case in point. It's technologically impossible
and would be financially ruinous for the country. Not only that, what
would actually happen to the climate warming trajectory if the USA
went emissions neutral by 2030? Nothing would happen- global warming
would slow barely one iota by 2050, as the rest of the world continues
growing its emissions and the existing CO2 loading continues to drive
warming. The IEA World Energy Outlook projects 20 percent growth in
primary energy demand by 2030, stemming from, among other things, 250
million people getting electricity in the developing world for the
first time. The climate externalities are real and I believe they
should be addressed, but can one really argue those people dont
deserve electricity? They arent getting that power from solar and wind.
Yet despite the facts that the Green New Deal is a joke, the Democrats
are trying to insist that the USA should ruin its economy. Of course
this should be met with skepticism. Believing that climate change is
real and should be addressed (as I do) does not imply that the economy
should be sacrificed in order to do so.
Regarding my estimates. The $3 trillion by 2050 cost of Obama's plan
is from the Heritage Foundation but many similar estimates exist. The
US Climate Assessment is that the USA will experience $200 billion
worth of climate damage per year by then, and that if we're instead on
RCP4.5, those damages are $36 billion less. The Paris Agrreement would
not achieve RCP4.5, let alone the US's pledges, so a $20 billion
reduction in damages is actually overwhelmingly generous for Obama's
plan. This means that the cost benefit is crudely, less than $0.01 per
$1 invested (just dividing $20 billion by $3 trillion).
If I am wrong somewhere in my logic please point it out to me.
Tobias
Sent from a tiny mobile device, please excuse typos
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [email protected]
<[email protected]> on behalf of Charles H. Greene
<[email protected]>
*Sent:* Friday, February 8, 2019 2:00:50 AM
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* geoengineering
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Costs of climate change by US region
Tobias:
What is the basis for the following two statements?
"Of course the Republicans are right about this. If Trump had kept the
country in the Paris Agreement, it would have cost the US economy $3
trillion per year by 2050, while preventing only (optimistically) $20
billion in damages.”
"A similar logic was used in Trump’s justification for revoking CAFE
fuel economy standards – high cost and no real benefit in terms of
reducing warming.”
I only ask because there is a rather extensive, peer-reviewed
literature that runs counter to them. I won’t even bother addressing
the first statement because it is simply ridiculous. With regard to
the second, the CAFE fuel standards and tax incentives for electric
vehicles (EVs) are policies that are driving electrification of the
light vehicle fleet. EVs are already less expensive to operate in the
long run than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, and within
the next few years, there will be no need for subsidies because the
upfront costs of EVs will be cheaper, too. So, we get less expensive,
more reliable vehicles and reduce GHG emissions of the transportation
sector at the same time. Seems like a win-win to me unless you’re
heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry.
The reason that the “current liberal consensus" on tackling climate
change has not worked is because it has never been given a chance due
to a political system corrupted by the wealth and unethical behavior
of the fossil fuel industry. Had GHG emissions been properly regulated
40 years ago, when Exxon had already reached the same conclusions that
the IPCC only reported definitively a decade ago, we wouldn’t be
facing the huge challenges confronting society today. If Democrats and
anybody who actually understands the stakes involved do not double
down on a “New Green Deal”, then everybody’s future is at risk.
Chuck Greene
On Feb 7, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Tobias Schultz
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The American’s public acceptance of climate change, even amongst
conservatives, has been growing – though still relatively low among
Republicans. But there is a very large disagreement between Democrats
and Republicans is the best ways to address climate change. A Pew
2016 survey looked into this and found Republicans highly skeptical
that current efforts (restricting power plants, international
agreements, etc.) will make a big difference in addressing climate
issues.
http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewresearch.org%2Fscience%2F2016%2F10%2F04%2Fpublic-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591896701&sdata=ul7i%2BVBnUlVpDHbUKRX%2FE%2BRi4VwREKOHWJdrzaE5XXs%3D&reserved=0>
Of course the Republicans are right about this. If Trump had kept the
country in the Paris Agreement, it would have cost the US economy $3
trillion per year by 2050, while preventing only (optimistically) $20
billion in damages. That’s a nonsensical direction for a country to
take – any country – no rational policymaker would ever choose it. A
similar logic was used in Trump’s justification for revoking CAFE
fuel economy standards – high cost and no real benefit in terms of
reducing warming. It’s also at the root of the French yellow vest
movement, Australia’s repeal of the carbon tax, etc. As the Democrats
double down on a “New Green Deal” they risk their political future,
and all for nothing. The current liberal “consensus” on how to tackle
climate change HAS NOT worked, demonstrably, and there is no
indication it will work.
Of course if MCB or some of these other technologies really have the
potential that all climate modeling seems to indicate, it would be a
game-changer. If that doesn’t pan out, perhaps I will eventually move
to Montana, Idaho, or Washington in anticipation of their balmy winters.
*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
**
*Tobias Schultz*
/Director of Research & Development///
SCS Global Services
2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA
+1.510.452.6389
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
www.SCSglobalservices.com
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scsglobalservices.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591906709&sdata=nIYkaq193W%2BnUeAV8PkiRtsSaeVOnlpB2QghYHYtCiI%3D&reserved=0>
/Connect with me on LinkedIn
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Ftobias-schultz-85690a22&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591916718&sdata=i6Y6oceUmiOT1PmBKObF2WrtffrXdchPFt%2BEgC0%2B86Q%3D&reserved=0>/
*From:*[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]><[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Kevin Lister
*Sent:*Thursday, February 07, 2019 8:26 AM
*To:*Stephen Salter <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*geoengineering <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [geo] Costs of climate change by US region
Interestingly, the states being hit the hardest are the Trump states.
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, 16:12 Stephen Salter <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>wrote:
Hi All
Nature has an article from the Brookings Institute about how the
costs of climate change affect regions of the US.
One feels that no comment is necessary.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering,
University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW,
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, Tel +44
(0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195,WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2FWWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk%2Fshs&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591916718&sdata=5WCuIcQ4JnQ%2BZ%2BSGSX37g8wLq9TRkV4VO1uC9pdl5J0%3D&reserved=0>,
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group athttps://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591926726&sdata=LsbbYlH160nTpmrfyHXBAHBa5ljEu0SpTReG5iNLJ%2BU%3D&reserved=0>.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591936755&sdata=ABfP8etRuUypzZMPFR1osybqrYhleG9fqp5swppTTXM%3D&reserved=0>.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email [email protected]
<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group athttps://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591936755&sdata=74XiAAPcnM5qu%2BJsbN5vhq3C3kkfCts9MLqKz%2FWl3YA%3D&reserved=0>.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591946742&sdata=GxX58ZER2JFHepFdvlIm4B%2Bxw29WMpb%2BU6aMezb0vWo%3D&reserved=0>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group athttps://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591946742&sdata=j9%2Bzxov2U3IQXhLbsAOllHKp8GMBEOT2H2Slv6yE4Vw%3D&reserved=0>.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591956750&sdata=2tyaa2AeDA4NpGSQzmvqD%2FkdwoPbMolkSjVUtXy%2B38s%3D&reserved=0>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group athttps://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591966759&sdata=E%2BB0RYPIcT0jbZyI0o924idV0O%2Bk9DABxiwFwjqrdho%3D&reserved=0>.
For more options, visithttps://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591966759&sdata=bEkNpvIp2yIR09b80SWxEZOobwFyqzJl792ruTLKMsg%3D&reserved=0>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fgroup%2Fgeoengineering&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591976788&sdata=Fxn7ukuhkDOuABh%2BCRAdmDqf2svILeR47ilBbwZiSPE%3D&reserved=0>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgroups.google.com%2Fd%2Foptout&data=02%7C01%7Ctschultz%40scsglobalservices.com%7Cea5b21e3cd27492aee9b08d68dac50ac%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7C0%7C636852168591986775&sdata=96Ot0QeIX%2FAYjy7%2BNO6f9T4hvUqHxc92Cia3KvMstFs%3D&reserved=0>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
