Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've been hearing about carbon offsets for awhile and even have purchased some for my car emissions through Terrapass. But I just got an email from my local power company saying that I can pay to offset my own carbon emissions at the low rate of just $8 per month. Is this a good idea? I hear such conflicting stories about the "greening" of coal power plants. How do I know what they are doing with the money?

Mary B.
Winston-Salem, N.C.

A. Dearest Mary,

Is your power company partying in the tropics thanks to you?If a utility is offering carbon offsets or "green power" to their customers, details are usually available on the utility's web site. A customer must then wade through the self-congratulatory text on the site and determine whether or not the utility is actually taking Acapulco vacations with their $8 a month.

Don't put too much emphasis on this being a power company issue, though -- carbon offsets are a puzzle no matter how and where you buy them. There are a variety of "certifiers" and ratings for offsets, and some generally accepted ideas about what makes an offset project acceptable, but as of yet no overarching body with one stamp of approval.

Offsets themselves are an interesting and contentious issue, as you may have seen in these pages. (Check out our recent special series on offsets for a taste.) I got a bit harrumphy about offsets this past weekend, as I drove past a car with a boasting bumpersticker. Not that I could throw any stones (though we did have five people in the car, hooray). I ranted for a while, but am now prepared to offer a calm assessment of how we might all view offsets: Purchasing an individual carbon offset from a company, which then supports renewable energy development, is great. It is a wonderful chance to financially support projects that would not otherwise be able to get up and running. It does not erase whatever emissions we are emitting. So driving around in an SUV with a "My emissions are compensated for" kind of bumpersticker is ... is ... is -- ooh! I'm getting agitated again. Let's just say I think it misleads the uninformed.

If we think of our offset purchases as a charitable contribution to renewable energy development, then the question about whether we purchase them gets a little clearer. Without worrying too much about the financial logistics of green power credits (though they are clearly explained here by moi) we can simply ask: Will my money help create new, long-term projects that otherwise would not have happened (also called "additionality"), and are these projects approved and vetted by somebody? There are other questions, too (a good introduction can be found at CORE) but these are the basics. The answer should be yes.

In North Carolina you have an unusual opportunity to support renewable power generation in your very own state. NC GreenPower is your statewide non-profit green power program, supported and created by your state government, power companies, and fellow citizens. Utilities can offer offsets to consumers such as yourself, then pass the fees over to NC GreenPower, which then uses about a quarter of the money for administration and gives the rest as production incentives to renewable power producers. The idea is to slowly build up North Carolina's renewable energy capacity through what amounts to a small grant system. I found all this out by following the trail from Duke Energy. It all looks legitimate. And if you hate your power company and their coalish ways, you can support NC GreenPower directly.

Locally,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Bukit Tigapuluh Forest is truly one of those special places. It’s got three endangered species, two minority groups of indigenous people and a superlative: it’s the last remaining stand of tropical lowland forest left on the island of Sumatra.

Funnily enough, it’s also about to be cut down.

Notorious rainforest destroyer Asia Pulp and Paper has cut a road through the forest and is working on getting a concession to convert the forest (containing over 1,000 species of trees) into a tree plantation (containing maybe 2 species).

They’re calling this development.

Nonprofits and businesses around the world are calling it deforestation. Unfortunately, the new forest part of the of the climate change treaty (called REDD) under negotiation this week here in Bangkok may end up calling it carbon savings and subsidizing its destruction.

Only two days into Bangkok, REDD talks have been picking up from the snail’s pace that they were running at in the Bonn sessions earlier this year. Developing countries like India and Brazil have come out with stronger positions that are challenging developed countries to truly make forests a priority in the negotiations, and formerly timid Australia is stepping up to the plate.

But forest definitions remain a problem. As the situation currently stands, the proposed treaty text does not distinguish between intact natural forests (those that humans didn’t plant) and tree plantations. Not only is this a problem from a cultural and biodiversity point of view - since tree plantations don’t provide any of the habitat or cultural benefits of natural forests - it’s a problem from a climate point of view.

Intact natural ecosystems like forests store and absorb massive amounts of carbon, tree plantations, being younger and less diverse, store and absorb significantly less carbon. This equation means that converting forests to plantations is a net loss for the climate, increasing the 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by deforestation, rather than decreasing it, which is ostensibly, the point of REDD. 

Right now, Bangkok is all about setting rules for how the game of REDD will be played. Just like in any sport, we need to know where the goal is and which plays will draw a red card. If the rules aren’t set out clearly, we may end up permanently offsides.

Forest definitions sound geeky, but they really do matter. If a treaty intended to protect forests and the climate can’t save a place like Bukit Tigapuluh, then what are we doing here?

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Clock block.This week saw heated multitudes descend on NYC
Their passions were aflame, though some were acting quite icy.
A human countdown filled the park with cries of Tck, Tck, Tck
And Indy told his corporate pals this problem they could lick.
Obama wowed the world by saying nothing much, and how!
He met his match in vagueness in our old friend Hu Jintao.

Hugh Jackman, Heather Graham, and other pretties lent their heft.
(Without celebs we might be feeling much, much more bereft!)
And then there were the Yes Men, those wry stunters we love most
Who tizzied up the city with that version of the Post.
Now Climate Week is over, but its vibe we must remember
As we plod e’er onward toward That Meeting in December.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

President Barack Obama spoke to the U.N. General Assembly on the morning of Sept. 22, as part of the U.N. Summit on Climate Change. Here are his remarks (and video is embedded below):

President Obama addresses the U.N. on climate.U.N. WebcastGood morning.  I want to thank the Secretary-General for organizing this summit, and all the leaders who are participating.  That so many of us are here today is a recognition that the threat from climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing.  Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history, for if we fail to meet it—boldly, swiftly, and together—we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe.

No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.  Rising sea levels threaten every coastline.  More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent.  More frequent drought and crop failures breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive.  On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees.  The security and stability of each nation and all peoples—our prosperity, our health, our safety—are in jeopardy.  And the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.

And yet, we can reverse it.  John F. Kennedy once observed that, “Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.”  It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat.  It is true of my own country as well.  We recognize that.  But this is a new day.  It is a new era.  And I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.

We’re making our government’s largest ever investment in renewable energy—an investment aimed at doubling the generating capacity from wind and other renewable resources in three years.  Across America, entrepreneurs are constructing wind turbines and solar panels and batteries for hybrid cars with the help of loan guarantees and tax credits—projects that are creating new jobs and new industries.  We’re investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, buildings, and appliances—helping American families save money on energy bills in the process.  We’ve proposed the very first national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks—a standard that will also save consumers money and our nation oil.  We’re moving forward with our nation’s first offshore wind energy projects.  We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants.  Just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we’ll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country.  Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge.  And already, we know that the recent drop in overall U.S. emissions is due in part to steps that promote greater efficiency and greater use of renewable energy.

Most importantly, the House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  One committee has already acted on this bill in the Senate and I look forward to engaging with others as we move forward.

Because no one nation can meet this challenge alone, the United States has also engaged more allies and partners in finding a solution than ever before.  In April, we convened the first of what have now been six meetings of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate here in the United States.  In Trinidad, I proposed an Energy and Climate Partnership for the Americas.  We’ve worked through the World Bank to promote renewable energy projects and technologies in the developing world.  And we have put climate at the top of our diplomatic agenda when it comes to our relationships with countries from China to Brazil; India to Mexico; Africa to Europe.

Taken together, these steps represent an historic recognition on behalf of the American people and their government.  We understand the gravity of the climate threat.  We are determined to act.  And we will meet our responsibility to future generations.

But though many of our nations have taken bold actions and share in this determination, we did not come here today to celebrate progress.  We came because there is so much more progress to be made.  We came because there is so much more work to be done.

It is work that will not be easy.  As we head towards Copenhagen, there should be no illusions that the hardest part of our journey is in front of us.  We seek sweeping but necessary change in the midst of a global recession, where every nation’s most immediate priority is reviving their economy and putting their people back to work.  And so all of us will face doubts and difficulties in our own capitals as we try to reach a lasting solution to the climate challenge.

But difficulty is no excuse for complacency.  Unease is no excuse for inaction.  And we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress.  Each of us must do what we can when we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet—and we must all do it together.  We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.

We also cannot allow the old divisions that have characterized the climate debate for so many years to block our progress.  Yes, the developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate over the last century still have a responsibility to lead.  And we will continue to do so—by investing in renewable energy, promoting greater efficiency, and slashing our emissions to reach the targets we set for 2020 and our long-term goal for 2050.

But those rapidly-growing developing nations that will produce nearly all the growth in global carbon emissions in the decades ahead must do their part as well.  Some of these nations have already made great strides with the development and deployment of clean energy.  Still, they will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own.  We cannot meet this challenge unless all the largest emitters of greenhouse gas pollution act together.  There is no other way.

We must also energize our efforts to put other developing nations—especially the poorest and most vulnerable—on a path to sustainable growth.  These nations do not have the same resources to combat climate change as countries like the United States or China do, but they have the most immediate stake in a solution.  For these are the nations that are already living with the unfolding effects of a warming planet—famine and drought; disappearing coastal villages and the conflict that arises from scarce resources.  Their future is no longer a choice between a growing economy and a cleaner planet, because their survival depends on both.  It will do little good to alleviate poverty if you can no longer harvest your crops or find drinkable water.

That is why we have a responsibility to provide the financial and technical assistance needed to help these nations adapt to the impacts of climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

What we are seeking, after all, is not simply an agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions.  We seek an agreement that will allow all nations to grow and raise living standards without endangering the planet.  By developing and disseminating clean technology and sharing our know-how, we can help developing nations leap-frog dirty energy technologies and reduce dangerous emissions.

As we meet here today, the good news is that after too many years of inaction and denial, there is finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us.  We know what needs to be done.  We know that our planet’s future depends on a global commitment to permanently reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  We know that if we put the right rules and incentives in place, we will unleash the creative power of our best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs to build a better world.  And so many nations have already taken the first steps on the journey towards that goal.

But the journey is long.  The journey is hard.  And we don’t have much time left to make it.  It is a journey that will require each of us to persevere through setback, and fight for every inch of progress, even when it comes in fits and starts.  So let us begin.  For if we are flexible and pragmatic; if we can resolve to work tirelessly in common effort, then we will achieve our common purpose:  a world that is safer, cleaner, and healthier than the one we found; and a future that is worthy of our children.  Thank you.

Watch the video:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

The participants of the 2009 World Water Week in Stockholm last Friday unanimously said that water must be included in the COP-15 climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

At various sessions throughout the Week, a number of organizations and officials have articulated the reasons why water needs to be an integral part of the negotiation process on climate change and adaptation. Those reasons became key points of the “Stockholm Statement” which the assembled participants of the 2009 World Water Week unanimously supported at the final plenary session this morning.

Introduction: Climate change is happening and adding complexity to existing global challenges. A strong and fair agreement on future global commitments on climate change measures—both mitigation and adaptation—is crucial in order to secure future water resource availability. The negotiations towards a Copenhagen Agreement are therefore of great concern to the global water community.

The importance of water must be properly and adequately reflected within the COP-15 agreement, and in processes beyond COP-15. In recent months substantial efforts have been undertaken to ensure that this is achieved including the Dialogue on Climate Change Adaptation for Land and Water Management, the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul and during dialogues held at the Climate Change Negotiations.

Reflecting these efforts, and the urgent need to ensure that the global community is adequately prepared to respond to climate change, the following messages are conveyed from Stockholm to Copenhagen:

* Water is a key medium through which climate change impacts will be felt. Managing the resource effectively, including through well-conceived IWRM approaches and at a transboundary level, is central to successful adaptation planning and implementation, and to building the resilience of communities, countries and regions;

* Adaptation is a prerequisite for sustainable development and poverty reduction. Adaptation measures thus need proper integration within broader development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals;

* Integration of water with land and forest management is key to effective adaptation. We strongly endorse the Nairobi Statement on Integrated Land and Water Resources Management for Climate Change Adaptation; we also emphasize that water-related adaptation can and should support global mitigation actions;

* Ecosystem protection and sustainability is fundamental to adaptation and human development. We therefore urge increased efforts towards and investment in the protection and restoration of natural resources—including water—as an essential part of any adaptation process;

* Higher-quality information that is more effectively shared will strengthen responses. In particular there is a critical need for the water and climate communities to increase the sharing of information at all levels of policy and practice—from global to local, and from local to global;

* Vulnerability assessments and risk management are critical to sound adaptation practice. Knowing where and how the impacts of climate change are most likely to affect populations and ecosystems through the water cycle will help in the identification of areas for early intervention or ‘hot spots’; these include arid regions, areas highly dependent on groundwater, small island developing states, low-lying deltas and fragile mountainous areas;

* New and additional funds are essential. It is imperative that additional funding is allocated in support of developing adaptive strategies for vulnerable groups and ecosystems; there is a need for an initial mobilization of finance to assist vulnerable, low income countries already affected by climate change, followed by the establishment of a well-resourced mechanism for funding adaptation as part of ongoing climate negotiations.

Follow up
We urge the global water and climate communities to look beyond COP-15 and work through dialogue to strengthen global mechanisms that can enhance collective action on water and adaptation. These should include, but not be limited to, better sharing of knowledge and technology in support of adaptation measures in developing countries, active support for capacity building and access to improved levels of financing.

Finally, the water community expresses its commitment to strengthening institutional cooperation at all levels between the climate, water and wider development communities under appropriate mechanisms and institutional arrangements in order to work more collectively to address the immense development challenges ahead.

Reprinted from Stockholm Water Institute.

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Some assembly required.GM.comAt one of our news meetings last week, I mentioned a story I had seen. “GM says the Chevy Volt will get 230 miles per gallon,” I told my fellow editors. The number struck me funny because it was ludicrously far beyond any current mpg rating, and because GM acknowledged that the Volt, due in late 2010, would be difficult to recharge given current infrastructure. It’s as if you had a pony that delivered lollipops door to door, except it didn’t have anywhere to buy them. But to a couple of staffers, it was funny for a whole different reason: “Miles per gallon of what?” they asked. “It’s electric!”

The Volt does use some gas, and the 230 mpg figure is based on some fancy-footwork math. But as this Time article points out, a more realistic measurement for the new generation of vehicles might be kilowatt-hours per mile or even, when we get really high-tech, miles per kilogram of hydrogen.

I wasn’t the only one intrigued by the car company’s hype. Hundreds of stories repeated GM’s claim—breathlessly at first, then with a creeping note of skepticism, then with level-headed analysis. It didn’t take long for the EPA, which faces the unenviable task of figuring out how to develop fuel-economy measurements for plug-in electric hybrids, to clarify that it had not actually tested a Volt and couldn’t confirm the 230 mpg figure.

For me, the most entertaining part of the whole episode was this quote from a blog entry by GM Vice Chair Bob Lutz: “I’ve said before that Volt is like our moon shot, and I stand by that statement. It’s exactly like a moon shot, if the lunar landing module were getting 230 miles per gallon.”

Exactly!

So to today’s “moon shot”: GM is floating the idea that it might produce a $4,000 compact car. The model would likely be made and sold in Asia, though VP of International Operations Nick Reilly said the company can’t scooch down as low as the $2,500 Tata Nano because of emissions standards, among other reasons. This news, too, is being greeted fairly warmly; writes Derek Thompson in The Atlantic: “[Whether or not the car sells in the U.S.], it’s nice to see GM trying to compete with emerging market auto makers, because it tells me that somebody is serious about making GM an auto company that’s thinking globally and long term.”

Is that what we’re seeing—the transformation of a near-dinosaur into a far-sighted global giant? Or are we watching that dinosaur thrash around helplessly in a shady swamp, occasionally spitting out shiny driblets of PR that make the media go wild? Can a dinosaur make a moon shot and survive?

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Toxic suds want to watch you shower

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

“I don’t think there is a hope in hell that people will agree to 350 in Copenhagen. I think we’ll get 2 degrees.”

-- Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, speaking at a recent meeting with NGO officials.

"350" refers to the goal of reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, while "2 degrees" refers to the goal of keeping the global temperature rise to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Both have been discussed as potential targets for a new international climate treaty that will be negotiated in December in Copenhagen.

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

That pleading little essay I wrote in 2005? It was probably the last moment I could have written it. Clearly there were lots and lots of people already thinking the same way, because ever since it's seemed to me as if deep and moving images and sounds and words have been flooding out into the world.

Bill, built from Flickr pix.Kalman Gacs, 350.org/galleryThat torrent of art has been, often, deeply disturbing -- it should be deeply disturbing, given what we're doing to the earth. (And none of it has quite matched the performance work that nature itself is providing. Check out, for instance, James Balog's time-lapse photography of glaciers crashing into the sea -- if we could somehow crowd that thrashing sheet of ice into the Guggenheim for a week, people would truly get it.) But for me, it's been more comforting than disturbing, because it means that the immune system of the planet is finally kicking in.

Artists, in a sense, are the antibodies of the cultural bloodstream. They sense trouble early, and rally to isolate and expose and defeat it, to bring to bear the human power for love and beauty and meaning against the worst results of carelessness and greed and stupidity. So when art both of great worth, and in great quantities, begins to cluster around an issue, it means that civilization has identified it finally as a threat. Artists and scientists perform this function most reliably; politicians are a lagging indicator.

But once a threat has been identified, the attack has to be at least a little organized. Which is why I'm so pleased that many artists are not just doing their own thing, but also increasingly figuring out how to come together to make the sum of their voices louder than the individual parts. Let me use the example that's closest at hand: the 350.org campaign that I've been helping run this past year, the biggest global grassroots effort on climate change.

We're working with ministers and mountain climbers and youth networks and even politicians. But with artists too. I've been shamelessly asking friends to shape their work to fit our message: that 350, as in parts per million CO2, is the most important number in the world, that beyond it the world simply doesn't work in the ways it must for our civilization to survive. And people have responded in remarkable ways. You can see many of them on our website, from crafters to fine artists to someone who somehow managed to make a portrait of me from hundreds of Flickr photos of 350 demonstrations around the world. (I've always hated looking at pictures of myself, but that one I stared at for a long time, because it seemed to illustrate a principle that matters to me: we are who we are because of our connection to others.) 350.org is one of the first campaigns I know of with an official artist-in-residence, Kevin Buckland, who is coordinating as best he can many of these contributions. But mostly it's like a potluck supper. Everyone is bringing what they do best.

We've asked writers if they would pen 350-word poems and essays, and many have responded. Here's the great Chilean writer Ariel Dorfman, for instance.

Photographers are organizing around the world, not only to send us images, but also to document the thousands of actions that will be taking place on October 24 on our global day of action. (That day itself will be a carnival of performance art; I've just come from helping cobble together what we think will be the world's largest underwater demonstration, in the Maldive Islands.) We'll take the pictures they upload from around the planet and show them on a giant screen at the U.N. that day, and then deliver prints to every delegate and negotiator.

Amazing artists keep stepping up to fill needs we didn't even know existed. John Quigley, for instance, who is the Rembrandt of what you might call aerial art -- arranging human beings on the ground to make a point from above. Here's a picture from Poznan in Poland, and from Bonn, Germany, and from Bali, Indonesia. (See more aerial art in our performance art slideshow.)

Musicians too. Some of them world-famous: Moby will apparently headline a concert/rally on the big day in Mexico City, and Groove Armada in the U.K.; Sigur Rós let us use a song of theirs on our most recent organizing video. Fred Small provided us a marching song that we put to great use when we helped shut down the Capitol Hill Power plant in Washington in March. Rev. Lennox Yearwood and the Hip Hop Caucus have been helping us plan events across the country that use a different beat than old-school environmentalists are used to. Today's email brought not one but two cuts from one of my favorite pairs of singers, Michigan's Seth Bernard and May Erlewine. I asked them -- humbly but insistently -- for a song; they went to work. That's how it's been with pretty much everyone. (Read more about climate-change tunes and North American bands going green.)

A graphic depiction of the task at hand.Michael Lagocki, 350.org/galleryThere's no limit to the stuff we can use, from pros and from amateurs. Crafters have sent in endless great patterns; graffiti artists have started taking the number to the streets and building buzz; dancers have been creating dances of 350 steps and more; great video artists put together our first organizing video, which has now been seen all over the planet.

My point four years ago was that we needed art to help build a general consciousness about climate change, the greatest problem we've ever faced. That's happened. Now we need to focus some of that beauty and witness and anger sharply enough to help spur deep and lasting change. It's always hard for any of us who are writers and musicians and visual artists to subordinate our own personal vision even a little -- that's what makes us artists. But the pleasure of working together in common cause more than makes up for the imposition. Please join us!

Related Links:

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama?

Mr. President: Time to quit fibbing and spinning

Conventional wisdom has it that the effort to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is going to be long, expensive, and painful for consumers; efficiency can at best defray the costs.

It may not be visible to the casual news consumer, but that climate/energy CW is substantially shaped by economic modeling. I've argued in the past that such models systematically overstate the costs and understate the benefits of clean energy and emission reductions. I won't rehash all those points here (you're welcome!), but suffice to say, one of the main arguments was that the models consistently underestimate energy efficiency.

Several recent studies examine the potential for energy efficiency to reduce emissions at a negative cost, i.e., a profit, and the results bolster the argument. Importantly, these are ground-up studies, based on history and practice, rather than top-down studies based on economic theories and spreadsheets. From that perspective, the news turns out to be quite good.

"The Positive Economics of Climate Change Policies: What the Historical Evidence Can Tell Us"

Energy efficiency has outperformed expectations again and again, insofar as expectations are set by econometric projections, says Skip Laitner of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. He took a thorough look at the "economic data and the historical record." Here's what he found:

• Energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouse-gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050.
• Investments in more energy-productive technologies can also lead to a substantial net energy bill savings for the consumer and for the nation's businesses. In the diagnostic assessment summarized in this report, savings are on the order of two trillion dollars by 2050 (measured in constant 2007 dollars).
• Non-energy expenditures within the U.S. tend to be more labor-intensive and provide a greater rate of contribution to the nation's Gross Domestic Product compared to expenditures on conventional energy supplies. Instead of taking jobs away from the economy, the diagnostic assessment described in this report suggests a small but net positive gain in the economy.
• Hence, shifting away from the production and consumption of conventional energy resources, in favor of more productive investments in energy-efficient technologies, can lead to a more robust economy and to a greater level of overall employment opportunities with the U.S.

How can that energy efficiency potential be unlocked? Funny you should ask.

"Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy"

McKinsey's latest study is their most comprehensive assessment of efficiency yet (ably summarized by Joe Romm). Here are their efficiency options, mapped on a cost curve:

McKinsey & Co.

The study concludes ...

... a holistic approach would yield gross energy savings worth more than $1.2 trillion, well above the $520 billion needed through 2020 for upfront investment in efficiency measures (not including program costs). Such a program is estimated to reduce end-use energy consumption in 2020 by 9.1 quadrillion BTUs, roughly 23 percent of projected demand, potentially abating up to 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gases annually.

As Joe says, that's tantamount to saying "the entire 2020 target in the Waxman-Markey climate bill could be met with energy efficiency at a net savings to U.S. consumers and businesses of $700 billion."

One crucial thing to note about the McKinsey study is that it is only about stationary sources of energy; it doesn't consider transportation efficiency. Funny you should ask about that.

"Moving Cooler: Transportation Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

At the behest of, among others, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the American Public Transportation Association, NRDC, the EPA, and Shell Oil, Cambridge Systematics has produced a comprehensive accounting of policy options for reducing transportation emissions. The top-line result:

As you can see, the maximally aggressive policy portfolio described by Cambridge could reduce GHG emissions almost 25% by 2050. That portfolio would cost a great deal, but it would save a great deal as well. Savings would exceed costs between 2015 and 2020:

Importantly, the study finds most big emission reductions not in fuel efficiency, but in pricing policies (tolls, congestion fees, pay-per-mile insurance) and land-use changes.

That's another 11 percent to add to McKinsey's 2020 reductions, bringing us to 38 percent -- well above ACES targets, closing in on IPCC targets, at net positive savings. So much for miserable consumers shivering in the cold.

If we put our minds to it, we have the means and the opportunities to substantially reduce emissions while strengthening the economy. The early push on efficiency will give us much-needed breathing room to scale up new, clean sources. The path we need to follow is clear, and it leads to greater prosperity, health, and sustainability. That is good news.

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

This column from Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times really pushes my buttons. There's something beneath the surface that is downright pathological, and not at all unique to Rachman. It besets most political pundits on this issue. I'll try to dig it out.

The premise of Rachman's column is that while everyone accuses climate change skeptics of being in denial, in fact climate activists are in denial as well. They keep hanging on to the U.N. negotiation process long after it's become clear that developing countries aren't going to budge. The politics of an international climate accord are incredibly difficult, possibly insoluble.

That's an arguable point, but a fair one. The U.N. process is open to criticism. And the politics really are difficult. But listen to this conclusion:

The state of international negotiations presents a huge dilemma for climate change activists. Most genuinely believe that a failure to achieve an international agreement in Copenhagen would be catastrophic. But they also know that, even if a deal is reached, it is likely to be feeble and ineffective. If they admit this publicly, they risk creating a climate of despair and inaction. But if they press ahead, they are putting all their energy into an approach that they must know is highly unlikely to deliver.

It is a horrible dilemma. But, in difficult situations, it is best to start by facing facts. The trouble is that -- in different ways -- both sides of the climate change debate are in denial.

This kind of language is so familiar that you have to step back a moment to recognize that there's something bizarre about it.

Climate science indicates that a business-as-usual path will lead to at least 5 degrees of warming by 2100, which represents utter catastrophe. Many scientists believe that we are near (or have passed) tipping points after which positive feedbacks become self-reinforcing and climate changes are irreversible. If we want to avoid that, we have very little time to peak and start reducing global emissions. No one has proposed a credible way of doing that aside from international negotiations.

All that is either true, or it's not. The mainstream science and policy communities think it's true.

If it is true, then millions of people, and possibly civilization itself, are threatened by climate shifts, within the lifetime of people alive today. If it is true, then the difficulty of getting an international agreement is not a "dilemma for climate change activists." It's a dilemma for human beings. "A climate of despair and inaction" is not a risk to activists. It's a risk to the lives and welfare of hundreds of millions of people and future generations.

So I want to ask Rachman, and all the pundits who address climate politics: Do you believe it's true? Do you believe the mainstream scientific consensus that climate change poses massive risks for humanity, and that urgent international action is necessary to reduce those risks?

If so, it is incoherent, even immoral, to go on treating this issue as though it were merely a clash of interest groups. It's not like climate policy is for "climate activists" what card check is for unions, or financial regulations are to the banking sector, or subsidies are to farmers. It's not a parochial issue.

Do you believe it's true? If not, say so, clearly. If so, then it's your fight too. You cannot stand on the sidelines in the pose of a savvy, above-it-all observer. There are no sidelines.

Related Links:

Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

FOX News and TrollCat agree: Global warming is BUNK!

While I was away on vacation (it was wonderful, thanks for asking), the Washington Post editorial page featured opinion pieces from Sarah Palin and George Will, two of conservatism's leading, um, thinkers, revealing a great deal about the WaPo editorial page and the quality of conservative thinking.

Rebuttal has been ably carried out by many others, including Joe Romm (whose bald pate is belied by his youthful energy!). He demolishes Palin here and Will here.

Rather, a somewhat meta point. The debate over climate/energy legislation, at least as carried out between conservatives and everyone else, has taken on a surreal tinge. One might expect the media to respond, or notice, or react in some way, but outlets like the WaPo just keep carrying on as if the debate is perfectly normal.

The surreality comes from a simple fact: institutionally, as a movement and as a party, conservatives do not believe anthropogenic climate change exists. They don't think the problem the legislation is designed to solve is actually a problem.

You might think this would make for short debates. Conservatives could collectively sign on to a one-line op-ed:

"We do not believe in anthropogenic climate change, thus we do not support legislation to address it."

Period. Done. Right? But that doesn't happen. Instead you get peculiarities like Palin, droning on for 700 words about how the legislation is flawed because it doesn't promote domestic fossil fuel without once mentioning carbon emissions or climate change. You get Will analyzing the challenges of international climate negotiations and then mentioning, almost casually, at the end of his piece, "by the way, climate change isn't real."

But if climate change isn't real, of course we shouldn't be going through the wrenching process of trying to get off fossil fuels in a few short decades. Of course we shouldn't be beating our heads against a wall trying to get China and India to agree to constrain their growth. It's pointless even discussing those things.

If I simply refused to acknowledge the federal deficit, would Fred Hiatt have me on the WaPo editorial page analyzing the merits of deficit reduction proposals? Of course not. I don't believe the $%*# thing exists! Of course I don't support policies to reduce it.

By greenlighting Potemkin arguments about this or that climate policy from the likes of Palin and Will, the WaPo is giving conservatives a pass. Rejection of settled science is treated as a footnote. But without a shared set of facts, there are no rules, no constraints. Republicans can cavalierly demagogue anything Democrats offer, because hell, it's all just funny talk, a game of make believe.

There will never be a policy proposal sensible enough to gain support from people who do not acknowledge the problem the proposal is meant to address. You'd think that fact would merit notice!

So here's my modest proposal for Fred Hiatt and his ilk: Any conservative who writes about climate/energy legislation should be required to begin by stating clearly whether he or she believes the scientific consensus on warming. That fundamental fact colors everything else, so put it up front.

If they do not accept the science, then fine, let them tell us their preferred carbon-insensitive energy policy. Their fellow non-believers can debate the merits.

If they do accept the science, they can't simply reject the moderate (and inadequate) Democratic proposals for addressing the problem contained in ACES. They have to tell us how they would solve the problem. That's the benchmark.

That simple proposal won't make the climate debate sensible -- let's be realistic about our ambitions -- but it would move beyond the pretense that people like Palin and Will are involved in a good-faith debate.

Related Links:

On “climategate”

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

What to make of the new climate poll

Haleakala National Park in HawaiiPhoto courtesy Simonds via FlickrHawaii’s state legislature established a climate change task force last week to study the potential impacts of rising sea levels, eroding coast lines, ocean acidification, fiercer storms, and other expected affects of climate change, and to suggest response strategies.

Lawmakers overrode a veto by Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who said the state couldn’t afford the project and that such task forces “study issues but rarely produce tangible results." The bill diverts $50,000 a year from a state tourism fund to support the task force.

In June, the federal government’s major Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report forecasted severe effects on U.S. Pacific islands if climate change continues unchecked.

From the Hawaii bill:

See also: An editorial on climate change and Hawaii from Friday's Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

With deepest apologies to INXS.

Congregate, heads of state, don’t be late, big G8
Planet’s fate, cannot wait,
Don’t stall debate or hesitate, designate your carbon rate
A one world state, Italianate, on July 8, won’t abrogate
A gentle trait, a balding pate, a girlish gait, pontificate
We’ll predicate our specs ornate, officiate, not deviate
Green groups berate, gesticulate, packed in a crate, their sounds abate.
Congregate, heads of state, pasta ate, it was great.

Fritter away more of your time by checking out previous verses.

 Boom boom, ain’t it G8 to be crazy.WhiteHouse.gov

Related Links:

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford

They’re not just poems, they’re vaguely educational poems! Check ‘em out.

After the fence-jump frenzy, this week is sweet relief.
Bill passed! And all react to that with gasps of disbelief.

Just breathe.Yet as it was each time the bill got closer to the floor,
We must remember that it’s in for hurdles, many more.

The good news is the Democrats could soon be pulling rank in
Climate votes, thanks to the win of Senator Al Franken.

But back to now: assaults are spat at all the House “defectors”
Malkin and Beck berate, while Rush randomly hectors.

They hardly even cared that California got its waiver—
But stay tuned for that freakout, with its pseudo-righteous quaver.

Meanwhile, enjoy the weekend, whether well or in sick bay.
For as Al Gore reminds us, it’s Independence Day!

I’ve noticed that these poems just don’t cover all the bases.
So next week, not one single breath will be expelled on ACES.

Related Links:

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

A coalition of 47 environment, science, and faith-based groups have sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to pursue a goal of keeping global warming to less than 2 degrees Celcius in upcoming international meetings.

"Failure to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius will have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable nations and communities and will dramatically increase the need for adaptation in the future," they write.

The groups include those on the left side of the green spectrum like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, as well as more moderate groups like the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. The letter represents a notable show of unity between groups currently at odds over climate legislation -- Greenpeace and FOE opposed the bill that passed the House last week, arguing that it is too weak, while EDF and NRDC were key players in brokering the deal.

The organizations call on Obama to endorse the 2-degree threshold next month in Italy at the G8 Summit and the Major Economies Forum on Climate and Energy, to set the playing field for the global climate negotiations in Copenhagen in December. The groups note that 124 countries have agreed on the 2-degree limit, and that the goal is endorsed in the House climate bill.

Here's the letter, and the full list of signatories:

Groups signing the letter:

1 Sky
ActionAid USA
Avaaz.org
CARE
Center for International Environmental Law
Center for Biological Diversity
Chesapeake Climate Action Network
Clean Water Action
Climate Action Network International
Climate Solutions
Climate Law & Policy Project
Conservation International
Defenders of Wildlife
Earthjustice
EcoEquity
Education for Global Warming Solutions
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
Energy Action
Environment Northeast
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Fresh Energy
Friends of the Earth
Green For All
Greenpeace
ICLEI-USA
Institute for Policy Studies
Interfaith Power and Light
International Forum on Globalization
International Rivers
League of Conservation Voters
National Audubon Society
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Oceana
Oil Change International
Oxfam America
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Pew Environment Group
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Sustainable Obtainable Solutions
The Nature Conservancy
Union of Concerned Scientists
US Climate Action Network
World Wildlife Fund

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Like any legislation, the Waxman‑Markey bill has its share of flaws, but its cap-and-trade system has medium and long‑term targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are sensible, and the cap‑and‑trade system is -- for the most part -- well designed. With some exceptions, the bill's cap‑and‑trade system will achieve meaningful reductions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions at minimal cost to the economy.

There has been much lamenting about the corporate give-away in the bill, but this is unfounded, as I explained in detail in my May 27th post on The Wonderful Politics of Cap-and-Trade: A Closer Look at Waxman-Markey. Concerns have also been expressed -- such as by a number of Republican members of Congress during last Friday's floor debate in the House of Representatives -- about negative impacts on the international competitiveness of U.S. firms. The only real solution to the international competitiveness issue in the long term is to bring non‑participating countries within an international climate regime in meaningful ways. (On this, please see the work of the Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.) But that solution is fundamentally outside of the scope of the domestic policy action of any individual nation, including the United States.

In the meantime, the Waxman‑Markey approach of combining output‑based updating allocations in the short term for select sectors with the option in the long term of a Presidential determination (under stringent conditions) for import allowance requirements for specific countries and sectors was sensible and pragmatic (see my June 18th post on Worried About International Competitiveness? Another Look at the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Proposal).

That's the good news. But the bad news is that last-minute changes in the bill changed what was a Presidential option regarding long-term back-up border adjustments (tariffs) to a requirement that the President put such tariffs in place under specified conditions. This moved the legislation considerably closer to risky protectionism, as President Obama rightly noted in comments to the press on Sunday.

Also, the compromise amendments with the House agriculture committee that provide for generous numbers of potential offsets from the agricultural sector (regulated not by EPA, but by USDA!) are troubling -- not in terms of driving up compliance costs, but in terms of reducing the real environmental performance of the system. This is because of the general problem of limited additionality of claimed reductions under offset (or emission-reduction-credit) systems, as opposed to cap-and-trade systems, plus the well-known difficulties of measuring non-point emissions, let alone emissions reductions, from agriculture.

These and other design issues will be important topics when the Senate takes up its own climate legislation, although the debate in that body on some of these issues will likely be quite different. For example, there is likely to be more interest in the Senate in the use of a "price collar," a mechanism to constrain both the maximum and the minimum market price of allowances over time. This would be a move beyond the safety-valve mechanism that is provided in the House legislation.

When the action moves to the Senate, the greatest attention and the greatest skepticism should be directed not to the cap‑and‑trade mechanism, which is -- for the most part -- well designed in Waxman‑Markey, but rather to other elements of the legislation, some of which are highly problematic. While the titles of Waxman‑Markey that create the cap‑and‑trade system are ‑‑ on balance ‑‑ sensible, and will result in meaningful emissions reductions cost effectively, the other titles of the bill include a host of conventional standards, many of which (under the cap‑and‑trade umbrella) will have minimal or no environmental benefits, but will limit flexibility and thereby have the unintended consequence of driving up compliance costs. That's the soft under‑belly of this legislation that needs to be selectively, surgically repaired.

It is the fault of economists -- myself included -- that we have given so much attention to the cap-and-trade system that we have ignored these other important elements of the legislation, elements that unfortunately can degrade significantly the cost-effectiveness of the package while providing little if any incremental benefits to the environment. Even the Congressional Budget Office, in its excellent economic analysis of HR 2454, focused exclusively on the bill's cap-and-trade program. Going forward, CBO, EPA, and independent analysts need to examine the bill's other elements, and assess what those elements provide at what incremental cost.

A broader question -- also raised by House Republicans in the floor debate -- is whether the United States should be moving towards the enactment of a domestic climate policy before a sensible, post‑Kyoto international agreement has been negotiated and ratified. Such an international agreement should include not only the countries of the industrialized world, but also the key, rapidly‑growing economies of the developing world ‑‑ China, India, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, South Africa, and Indonesia ‑‑ which are and will increasingly be major contributors to emissions.

It's natural for such a question to be raised about the very notion of the U.S. adopting a policy to help address what is fundamentally a global problem. The environmental benefits of any single nation's reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are spread worldwide, unlike the costs. This means that for any single country, the costs of action will inevitably exceed its direct benefits, despite the fact that the global costs of action will be less than global benefits. This is the nature of a global commons problem, and this is the very reason why international cooperation is required.

The U.S. is now engaged in international negotiations, and the credibility of the U.S. as a participant, let alone as a leader, in shaping the international regime is dependent upon our demonstrated willingness to take actions at home.

Europe has put its climate policy in place, and Australia, New Zealand, and Japan are moving to have their policies in place within a year. If the United States is to play a leadership role in international negotiations for a sensible post‑Kyoto international climate regime, the country must begin to move towards an effective domestic policy ‑ with legislation that is timed and structured to coordinate with the emerging post‑Kyoto climate regime.

Without evidence of serious action by the U.S., there will be no meaningful international agreement, and certainly not one that includes the key, rapidly‑growing developing countries. U.S. policy developments can and should move in parallel with international negotiations.

So, the Waxman‑Markey bill has its share of flaws, but it represents a reasonable starting point for Senate deliberation on what can become a national climate policy that will place the United States where it ought to be -‑ in a position of international leadership to help develop a global climate agreement that is scientifically sound, economically rational, and politically acceptable to the key nations of the world.

Related Links:

What to make of the new climate poll

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Recent days have seen a flurry of blogospheric back-and-forth about the new CBO and EPA reports, and more generally about the costs and benefits of climate change legislation. As someone who believes the costs are overestimated and the benefits underrated, I thought I'd weigh in.

Here are three key questions:

If the answer to No. 1 is "scarce and expensive" and the answer to No. 2 is "still scarce and expensive" then an extremely high price signal and much economic pain will be required to force providers to scale up alternatives and consumers to substitute them, especially in the short-term. That pessimism is endemic to official projections.

Luckily, those aren't the right answers, at least I don't think so. Cost-effective low-carbon alternatives are plentiful. Many remain unexploited not because they can't compete in a free market, but because there isn't one. A variety of market barriers, market failures, and behavioral failures plague the energy sector: monopolies, oligarchs, myopic accounting, misaligned incentives, perverse regulation, information bottlenecks, immature business models, cultural inertia, plain old bad habits. Underutilization of cost-effective clean alternatives is especially true in efficiency. (See: McKinsey & ACEEE.) Hell, recycled waste heat alone could generate 742 terawatt hours of power a year in the U.S., according to Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (PDF).

Market failures can be overcome through smart legislation, regulation, and investment designed to encourage not just alternative technologies but alternative systems. When we get our accounting right, we see they're all over. The era of cheap energy in the U.S. has produced, among other things, a relatively sclerotic and unimaginative energy sector, particularly in electricity, which is dominated by monopolies. (The average power plant is no more efficient today than it was 50 years ago.)

But that languid pace of innovation is changing, and quickly. The past or even present pace of energy innovation is no adequate predictor of the explosion on its way.

"Am I cute enough to make you read a post about macroeconomics?"It's only a model

All those competing climate bill cost estimates you see coming from think tanks, government agencies, and industry groups? They're from macroeconomic models. The reason different models produce different results is that they value various parameters and inputs differently. For instance, making a different choice about the proper discount rate -- how the interests of future people weigh against present-day interests -- can change a Nordhaus model, which recommends a low carbon tax and a little research, into a Stern model, which recommends immediate, large-scale crisis mobilization. (How do you determine the "right" discount rate? I once asked ex-macroeconomics professor and then-McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin that question. His answer: "Insoluble.")

An EDF survey demonstrated that the consensus among the most reputable models is that the costs of climate mitigation will be modest; between 2010 and 2030, it's projected to reduce GDP by around one half of one percent.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future

But is even that overstated? Brad Plumer and Ryan Avent both argue that economists consistently overestimate the cost of environmental regulations. Jim Manzi disputes, with an atypically facile response:

Presumably the same awareness of the track record of asserted prior under-estimation of environmental costs was available to both the EPA and CBO as they prepared their cost estimates. Unless we wish to assert that they are biased or simply irrational, why would we assume they failed to incorporate this information into their (very similar) forecasts of costs by 2020?

In other words, if cost-overestimation has been a consistent result in modeling, current day modelers must know that, and incorporate it into their models. But that presumes the flaws in models are well-understood and that it's possible to incorporate optimism -- debatable propositions both.

I once asked economist Peter Dorman about the computable general equilibrium (CGE) models frequently used in policy assessment; he said there's been shockingly little effort to assess the success of past projections and determine how and why they failed. "They claim they're data driven," he said, "but in fact there's no retrospective analysis." UCLA economics professor Matthew Khan once said, "To be honest, these CGE models are crap." You'd never know that from press coverage. In a well-known 1991 paper, sociologist Amitai Etzioni complained about journalists presenting economic forecasts "as though the odds are in their favor, instead of as possessing all the dependability of omens in the astrology column." That hasn't changed.

Putting the generally voodoo-esque nature of macroeconomics aside, though, it's worth considering whether modelers could consistently incorporate positive answers to questions 1 and 2 above.

Faith in models

Market and behavioral failures tend to fade from view at the macro level, where models assume full employment -- i.e., that resources are optimally deployed. It's down in microeconomics, behavioral economics, even psychology and history where the extent of failures in energy markets become clear. It's in bottom-up studies based on empirical examination of what's possible and what's been done. ACEEE, which has intensively studied the barriers to and potential of efficiency, says Waxman-Markey efficiency provisions will produce annual household savings of $4,400 by 2030.

As for modeling innovation, that's always been the Achilles heel of economic forecasting. In this piece, Eban Goodstein and Hart Hodges trace a history of cost overestimations around environmental regulation. Again and again, models have underestimated the pace of business and technological innovation.

Today's modelers surely do all they can to incorporate innovation. (As Brad notes, the CBO tries.) But there are constraints to how precisely this can be done. In 1980, McKinsey reported to AT&T that mobile subscriptions would rise to 0.9 million by 2000. The real number turned out to be ... 109 million. (This factoid is among many interesting tidbits in this presentation from Vinod Khosla.) What if a modeler had come along in 1980 and said, "There will be massive innovation and new infrastructure and new business models and costs will fall by orders of magnitude, so much so that the prediction of our friends at McKinsey is 121 times too low!"

They would have been roundly mocked. And rightly so. How could they presume to predict so many fortuitous twists, turns, and serendipities? They obviously couldn't see the future.

The thing is, neither could McKinsey. The reason its report sounded reasonable is that it was a modest number, roughly what you'd expect from linear extension of existing trends. In a sense, that's always the responsible prediction, the small-c conservative one. That things can change hugely, quickly, is almost by definition unpredictable. For McKinsey to have forecast it would have been an act of faith.

Professional economists can't go around saying, "At this point, magic will happen and costs will plunge." That's true even though magic usually happens. The American entrepreneurial spirit gets 'er done!

Yes, this post is still going on

Point being: economic models like the ones on which Manzi bases his opposition to Waxman-Markey tend to undercount the accessible low-carbon alternatives (especially efficiency) and underestimate innovation.

They also tend to be wrong about oil and gas prices. They miss difficult-to-quantify benefits, the kind of systems-of-systems benefits Adam Siegel discusses here. They haven't foreseen the bubbles and busts we keep going through. They can't anticipate further regulations and investments from the Obama administration. And they don't take account of the avoided costs of climate change.

These blind spots are by no means unique to macroeconomic forecasts. Models simply put a sheen of scientific precision on conventional wisdom.

Still, despite their unblemished record of failure, to object to making policy on the basis of cost projections from macroeconomists is to come off as vaguely obscurantist and anti-science. Advocating policy based on historically grounded optimism is seen as ideological.

The real question is: do you believe the American people can figure out innovative, profitable ways to transition to clean energy if they put their shoulders to it? In the end, it's an expression of faith. But as conservatives like Manzi are eager to point out in other contexts, faith in American entrepreneurialism tends to pay off.

Related Links:

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price

This week’s poem features dubious meter and indubitable passion. Fritter some time away by checking out a few previous climate poems.

All eyes are on Waxman-Markey this week.
From the orbs of Obama
To the peepers of the meek.

I’m just beside myself!Will it pass, is it lame, should we love it anyway?
Did the Ag folks make it worse?
Were they just making hay?

So many questions on a solitary bill.
So many arguments
Echo from the Hill.

While ACES seems to freeze us all, the world’s still turning.
Hopers have to Cope.
Coal keeps burning.

Gordon wants to start a fund, in dollars or in pounds.
And Big Oil’s glad that Florida’s
No longer out of bounds.

This climate chaos really is a lot to endure.
So c’mon, hon, let’s ditch it
For a world wind tour!

Ahem, P.S.:

If you want a climate path that looks a little clearer,
Take your cue from pop’s late king
And start in the mirror.

Related Links:

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

I am outside of Mexico City with delegates from the world's 17 biggest economies who are meeting this week ahead of the next G8 meeting to further negotiate international climate agreements. Issues on the table include funding for forest protection, mid-term and long-term emission reduction targets, and financing for adaption and mitigation. The outcomes from these talks remain in doubt and other questions fester, like to what will the U.S. commit to?

Greenpeace and our partners have our own climate treaty, which can serve as a model for these delegates as they decide the crucial questions about the future of our planet. Given the future potential economic costs of the emerging climate crisis, we can't afford not to tackle climate change. We need to see the economic crisis as an opportunity to invest in our future through building sustainable green economies by massively increasing energy efficiency and investing in renewable sustainable energy sources like solar and wind power, thereby stimulating the economy, creating jobs, promoting sustainable growth and simultaneously addressing the climate crisis.  What we cannot afford is being locked into unsustainable dirty industries dependent on fossil fuel power. 

For an effective climate deal at December's Copenhagen Climate Summit, the world's wealthiest nations--the G8 countries, who are at the core of the MEF-- need to take the lead both at MEF and when they meet in L'Aquila, Italy for the G8 Summit next month. The G8 countries emit more than 40% of global CO2 emissions, despite being home to only 13% of the world's population. These countries are looking at the U.S. to show leadership, but thus far, the leadership from the U.S. has been absent.

This is really a question of trust. By committing to targets for emissions cuts and financing for developing countries for mitigation, forest protection and adaptation, G8 countries can build trust and confidence and lead the way on global climate action - both for the MEF as well as for the UN negotiations, which will culminate in Copenhagen in December. But if they don't show leadership, the rest of the world will have little incentive to take any sort of action.

At the last MEF, Germany and France called for strong short-term commitments, along the lines of what the world's leading scientists recommend to fight against climate change. But the U.S. balked, and the slow progress of the U.S. Congress on a climate deal and its refusal to support the policies that keep climate change as far under 2 degrees C as possible must be leaving the rest of the world questioning the U.S.'s commitment.

Last week, the White House released a report that found that climate change is already creating changes in the United States by threatening the Southwest with heat waves, the Atlantic with stronger storms and the Midwest with drought. Given confirmation from the highest levels of government, there is no excuse for inaction.

The time to lead is now. The G8 leaders at the MEF and the G8 summit need to take responsibility for their role in climate change and agree to:

Related Links:

Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

The Climate Post: You heard it here first—Copenhagen a success