Dear Tobias--I need to go back and re-address the first point, having
responded too quickly--I better see what you were trying to get at, but
am still concerned not only about uncertainties and issues relating to
the terms, but also the concept that the way to calculate the return for
US investment is to consider just presently quantifiable impacts on the
US divided by US investment. Were every country to calculate only the
effects of its emissions reduction on itself, then adding up the impacts
in all countries would not come close to being an estimate of all the
impacts from the emissions, for the sum would not include the effects of
one's emissions on anyone else, and so one would get a very incomplete
estimate. There is then the issue of linkages of what happens elsewhere
and how that affects us (which I did mention), but there are also the
synergistic impacts involving what the combined emissions of the world
cause, but that the emissions of one nation alone would not cause (so it
is taking all of our emissions to really put Antarctica in trouble), so
there are nonlinear aspects. And then there are issues of how the US
responding might help and encourage other nations to respond (the
situation is clearly working in reverse, with others saying if the US
does not respond, why should they). And then a key issue that the
monetary estimates are based only on what can be quantified, and there
are a lot of impacts where this is at the least very controversial (what
is the value of the culture of a low lying island nation being totally
lost with inundation, biodiversity loss, etc.). So, while I do see that
you were trying to get to a return on investment (so assuming everything
can be expressed that way), in addition to lots of contention about
whether that is the appropriate way to be doing the evaluation, and lots
of issues about the numbers being used, and hence the reaction to what
seemed to me a problematic way of doing the evaluation.
Mike
On 2/9/19 12:10 PM, Michael MacCracken wrote:
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]
<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.
