Tobias: First, there is no single The Green New Deal. A Green New Deal has been talked about for over a decade, and while a proposal for a newer Green New Deal is emerging in the House, it will certainly go through many iterations before any legislation passes. Democratic presidential candidates are embracing the concept of a New Green Deal, but none are committed to the current version being offered in the House. Personally, I like the ambition of the current version in the House, especially with its integrated approach to climate change action and social justice. Its time table is unrealistic, but there is no question that the US will need to completely transform its fossil-based economy by 2050. It can do so without ruining the economy as long as you don’t base your opinions on the false analyses of dark money-sponsored organizations like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. In addition, the IEA takes an unreasonably pessimistic approach in its projections as well, having consistently underestimated the penetration of renewable energy into the global energy mix for the past ten years (http://www.sunwindenergy.com/energy-watch-group-criticises-unrealistic-iea-scenarios). Electrification of the global light vehicle fleet in the transportation sector will be nearly complete by 2040 no matter what the IEA is projecting.
One point that we do agree upon is that there is no question that the Paris agreement and Obama plans are compromises that fall woefully short of what the world needs to do to stabilize temperatures at no more than 2 degrees and preferably below. However, most supporters of both recognize that a step in the right direction is better than no progress at all. The primary fault in your logic is that you fail to look at the consequences for the climate system after 2050 of not taking serious action during the next three decades. Due to it high heat capacity, the global ocean is slowing the rate at which the Earth is warming in response to greenhouse gas emissions. That means it takes decades for the atmosphere to warm in response to the greenhouse-derived heat already trapped in the ocean. This is what is referred to as warming in the pipeline, and it is one of the reasons why we will not see many of the effects of our actions between now and 2030, or even 2050, until later in the century. An unfortunate corollary of this is that the ocean’s thermal inertia that is slowing down the warming of the atmosphere today will slow down its cooling in the future. That means even if we find ways to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations later in the century, we will be locked into whatever maximum global equilibrium temperature we hit this century for most of the next 1000 years. So, encouraging the US to drag its heels on significant climate action is a common strategy among those who don’t plan to live beyond the next 30 years and who don’t care about what happens to future generations. It is a strategy that the Trump Administration, GOP leaders, and their dark-money supporters from the radical right (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27833494-dark-money) are banking on. However, the millennial generation isn’t buying into it, for obvious reasons, and some kind of Green New Deal will happen. The only question will be whether it will have teeth and come soon enough to prevent a miserable future for theirs and future generations. This is my last post about this topic on the Geoengineering listserve. I do not think that it is a proper forum for these kinds of discussions. On Feb 9, 2019, at 5:49 AM, Tobias Schultz <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> on behalf of Charles H. Greene <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 2:00:50 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[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. [cid:[email protected]] One feels that no comment is necessary. Stephen Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland [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 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%7C636852168591926726&sdata=LsbbYlH160nTpmrfyHXBAHBa5ljEu0SpTReG5iNLJ%2BU%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%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 to [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[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%7C636852168591936755&sdata=74XiAAPcnM5qu%2BJsbN5vhq3C3kkfCts9MLqKz%2FWl3YA%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%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 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%7C636852168591946742&sdata=j9%2Bzxov2U3IQXhLbsAOllHKp8GMBEOT2H2Slv6yE4Vw%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%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 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%7C636852168591966759&sdata=E%2BB0RYPIcT0jbZyI0o924idV0O%2Bk9DABxiwFwjqrdho%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%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]. 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.
