Climate Change Thread

[ReluctantSamurai]

Interesting that the majority of the worst performers are countries with authoritarian governments...

After some checking:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...v9RtLeQP7Q-iYc

Very, VERY, long read, with an interesting conclusion:

There has been critique of democracy, saying it relies too much on the supposedly naive belief that citizens will push for greener decisions, when they in reality are not at all compelled to do so. Shearman and Smith criticizes democracy, saying it is intertwined with capitalism and that it promotes individual and selfish behaviour while failing to protect the common resources of the world. They question if protection of one political philosophy or another is important when the most concerning issue is the preservation of the human species and as China and Russia continues to assert themselves internationally, ideas of what is desirable and not whenit comes to governance and values of a country are blurred. When the environmental threat intensifies, even the West might agree that any form of order is preferable to disorder, and thus put democracy on hold while handling more pressing issues.

In the six African cases used for this thesis there were many different aspects which played in regarding the way autocracies and democracies handled their policy-making and project implementation, including levels of economic growth, conflict and ambition. However, broadly speaking, the performance was quite similar between all the cases and differed only to a minor extent in some areas, meaning the type of government did not affect the performance extensively. In general, the autocratic countries did, in line with the theory, perform better than expected and actually had an extensive focus on climate change. However, unsurprisingly, they lacked in public participation, but seeing as they did not perform considerably worse than the countries with bigger participation perhaps it is not as important as it has been proclaimed to be. Although, it is worth remembering that despite perhaps being environmentally preferable, autocracies are not preferable from a human rights perspective.

Or is it the other way around:

https://theenergymix.com/2018/08/12/...limate-change/

And a view from the pro-democracy side:

https://issues.org/exceptional-circu...ump-democracy/

It seems there is quite a debate on the role of authoritarian vs democracy in climate change....

[ReluctantSamurai]

Interesting (and short) read on possible reasons for the accelerated rate of warming happening in Earth's polar regions, which no model, as of yet, has successfully explained. The article has a bunch of embeded links to follow, which are quite informative in their own right:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...roblem/618159/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Some more good news, Noah Kaufman was named to the WH Council of Economic Advisors, he is a proponent of a carbon tax. He now joins Yellen, Kerry and Buttigieg as high ranking officials who are in favor of the policy.

The American Petroleum Institute sees the writing on the wall and is now shifting from anti-climate change propaganda to supporting "economy-wide carbon pricing"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...te-carbon-tax/

Lastly, Senator Romney said he is "very open to a carbon tax, carbon dividend". Elections have consequences and the boldness of both individual actors and institutions continues to grow.

[ReluctantSamurai]

A microcosm of the battle being waged to reduce carbon emissions here in the US:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...kern-oil-field

This week the county approved an ordinance that would allow thousands of new wells to be drilled over the next 15 years. The decision comes despite deep opposition from local farmers and environmental groups, and it puts the county directly at odds with a state that has branded itself as a trailblazer on climate and set ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In doing so, Kern has become a microcosm of a debate happening across America – and around the world – about how to tackle the climate crisis in communities that are built on fossil fuels.

“Kern county runs on oil,” as the county chairman, Phillip Peters, concisely puts it.

It’s a complicated problem. Kern is also a leader in renewable energy production, accounting for roughly 25% of California’s supply, but officials argue there is not yet enough revenue from the new industries. For Kern, a county where nearly 20% live below the poverty line, expanding oil production means expanding the budget.

Roughly one in seven workers in Kern are employed by the industry or tied to it. A county analysis done last year found that the oil and gas industry funded the county to the tune of almost $200m a year. Roughly half of that, $103m, went to Kern county schools.

The ordinance, a scaled-back version of one that originally passed in 2015 but was struck down after an environmental review, will allow for roughly 40,000 wells to be permitted through 2034. It also requires producers to take steps to soften their impact on the environment, including paying into funds to help mitigate some of the negative impacts.

The cash comes with a high cost. Each year, the American Lung Association ranks cities in the region among the worst in the US for air quality and gives the county an F rating for both ozone and particle pollution. More than 30% of kids under 17 are diagnosed with asthma in Kern, more than double the rate across the state. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies done in high oil-producing areas across the country have found that living close to a drilling site correlated with high rates of cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular disease. And close to 60% of those living within a mile of the current oil and gas wells are people of color, according to a 2014 report from the National Resources Defense Council.

A familiar story. Infuse just enough money into a local economy to provide jobs and services, but ignore the true costs of the pollution created, and the health damages to the local residents, while making billions on the main.

Kern County also follows a growing trend for California in general:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...l-15825548.php

California approved 1,646 drill permits in the first nine months of 2020 — a 137% increase over the 694 permits it approved during the same period last year, according to data from the state Geologic Energy Management Division, the agency that regulates oil and gas extraction.

Environmentalists say the increase is emblematic of a disconnect between Newsom’s rhetoric and a lack of strong policies to confront climate change, which many experts believe contributed to a record-setting wildfire year in California in which 4.2 million acres burned and more than 30 people died.


Newsom’s administration defended the permit approvals by noting that oil production in California is down overall and that few of the approved wells have actually been drilled. Although the state issued far more permits this year, the number of new wells drilled plummeted by 77% — with just 51 dug through Sept. 30, compared with 223 last year. That’s largely because oil prices dropped as people traveled less during the coronavirus pandemic.

Environmentalists say that lack of drilling is of little comfort because permit holders could start work at any time within two years, the length of the permits, as the economy and travel presumably rebound.

So why is Gov. Newsom so reluctant to take action against the oil & gas industry? One possibility being raised by his critics:

https://capitalandmain.com/gavin-new...d-driller-0619

On June 1, in the midst of the turmoil created by the coronavirus pandemic and the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration quietly issued 12 fracking permits to Aera Energy, a joint venture owned by ExxonMobil and Shell.

The fracking permits are the latest example of California’s oil industry benefiting from regulatory or deregulatory action during the COVID-19 pandemic and came just months after the Newsom administration said it supported taking actions to “manage the decline of oil production and consumption in the state.” Aera, which also received 24 permits from the California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) on April 3 during the early days of COVID-19, has well-connected lobbyists in its corner who work for the firm Axiom Advisors.

One of them, Jason Kinney, headed up Newsom’s 2018 transition team and formerly served as a senior advisor to Newsom while he was lieutenant governor. He is also a senior advisor to California’s Senate Democrats. The other, Kevin Schmidt, previously served as policy director for Newsom when the latter was lieutenant governor. Aera paid Axiom $110,000 for its lobbying work in 2019 and, so far in 2020, has paid $30,000, lobbying reports reveal.

Axiom’s lobbying disclosure records show both Kinney and Schmidt listed as lobbyists and Aera as one of the firm’s clients. Kinney’s wife, Mary Gonsalvez Kinney, was also the stylist for Newsom’s wife–Jennifer Siebel Newsom–dating back to their time spent living in the San Francisco Bay Area. Kinney and Schmidt did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article.

Kinney and Schmidt are not the only two with Newsom ties. Aera CEO Christina Sistrunk sits on the governor’s Task Force on Business and Jobs Recovery, created to craft an economic recovery plan in response to the ongoing COVID-19 economic fallout.

Aera is one of the state’s top drillers and accounts for nearly 25 percent of California’s production, its website claims. Aera landed 490 drilling permits from CalGEM in the first quarter of 2020, according to data collected by FracTracker, and 651 permits in 2019.

I think the situation in California is a snapshot of the inter-connected web of local economies, oil & gas industry, and the outright bribery of government officials to keep the dependency on fossil fuels ongoing. While the energy companies make billions, the locals suffer from the pollutants produced, and the planet suffers from the continued production of carbon emissions...

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's not so much bribery as there is absolutely nothing in Kern County besides farming, oil, and aerospace. This is where Kevin McCarthy's district is. They are going to get their oil and gas.
Don't ever stop in Bakersfield.

At the same time California has deployed so much solar it is depressing energy prices: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ting-sunburned
California has also saved consumers over $100 billion from its efficiency standards: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/defa...fmc_id=3587711

Volvo has also now pledged electric only cars by 2030.

US renewables generated more electricity than coal for the first time ever: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...fmc_id=3587711
Two climate bills that will/have passed the House of Representatives to keep an eye on:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...fmc_id=3587711
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...fmc_id=3587711

Contrary to earlier posts, Japan actually has been making significant strides in reducing CO2 emissions by increasing overall carbon energy efficiency. https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/stat...91723369246723

China's new 5 year plan draft includes an increase in nuclear capacity from 52 to 70 gigawatts by 2025. Big moves.

By 2025, fridges will no longer be made using high global warming potential chemicals: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...per-pollutant/

Geo-engineering experiments are moving forward: https://www.economist.com/science-an...climate-change

COVID gave us an extra year due to the massive decrease in emissions in 2020. Also an opportunity to continue the momentum downward with these massive fiscal efforts. https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/stat...13620995936258

Biden admin causing Trump era energy leases to be re-evaluated or cancelled: https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/03/...ency-reverses/

[ReluctantSamurai]

It's not so much bribery as there is absolutely nothing in Kern County besides farming, oil, and aerospace. This is where Kevin McCarthy's district is. They are going to get their oil and gas.

Precisely for the reasons laid out...energy company bribes. Energy companies realize the writing on the wall. But they aren't going to go quietly until they can extract every last drop of oil & gas that they can. What's happening in Kern Co. is repeated everywhere there is fossil fuel to be extracted not only here in the US, but across the world.

US renewables generated more electricity than coal for the first time ever

There is no debating this. But it doesn't mean that energy companies aren't going to fight the inevitable with every means they can. Focusing on coal only obscures the fact that fossil fuel is still king. Despite the largest % growth of all energy sources, solar power represented only 1% of total energy production in the US:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

Oil and gas still represent the vast majority of US energy consumption...69%. Renewable energy, while making great strides in capacity, still only represents about 11% of total consumption. Because of fracking, the US remains the largest producer of oil and gas in the world.

Contrary to earlier posts, Japan actually has been making significant strides in reducing CO2 emissions by increasing overall carbon energy efficiency.

Don't think you read my post correctly. When presenting data for Japan, I actually acknowledged Japan's efforts to lower carbon emissions by 2050. My only counterpoint was whether 2050 is soon enough to achieve carbon neutrality.

China's new 5 year plan draft includes an increase in nuclear capacity from 52 to 70 gigawatts by 2025. Big moves.

Big moves indeed, if they actually carry out the draft. Meanwhile some other big moves that China is actually carrying out:

While global coal consumption decreased in 2019 by 0.6%, China’s coal consumption increased by 2.3%, and accounted for 57.6% of its energy use and 51.7% of the world’s total coal use. Despite the world’s lower coal usage, the global coal fleet increased by 34 GW in 2019—the first increase in net capacity additions since 2015. Nearly two-thirds (43.8 GW) of the 68.3 GW of newly commissioned capacity was constructed in China.

And perhaps you overlooked the fact that China is the largest financier of overseas construction of coal-fired plants in the world. This goes a long ways to offset some of the gains made at home in China.

COVID gave us an extra year due to the massive decrease in emissions in 2020.

And the majority of the decrease came in the first six months of the pandemic. Emissions are on rise again:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-c...ssions-in-2020

The peak of the decrease in emissions this year occurred in the first half of April, the researchers say in a briefing document. This was when lockdown measures in response to Covid-19 were at their most comprehensive – particularly in Europe and the US [...] For the year as a whole, the researchers estimate that CO2 from fossil fuels and industry (FF&I) – which includes emissions from burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement and other industrial processes – will decline by 2.4GtCO2 compared to 2019. This has “never been seen before”, the researchers say, and is equivalent to a drop of 7% in global emissions.

So yes, a 7% decrease was a very good thing. But there is going to be a rebound as vaccination gets more widespread, and nations begin to jump-start their economies. How much of a rebound is uncertain:

On the five-year anniversary of the Paris Agreement, which is marked this week, the researchers note that “the growth in global CO2 emissions has begun to falter”. However, the rebound in emissions seen in the aftermath of previous global crises suggests that the way countries stimulate their economies after Covid-19 lockdowns will play a key role in future emissions.

Prof Corinne Le Quéré, a Royal Society research professor of climate change science at the University of East Anglia, told journalists that “this year alone will not change anything” in terms of the pace of warming, but economic stimulus packages “will have a massive effect”.

Also referring to the Paris global warming limits, Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, chair in mathematical modelling of climate systems at the University of Exeter, told the press briefing that “we need sustained reductions in emissions of 1-2GtCO2 per year over the next 20-30 years to limit warming well below 2C”.

The pandemic has had the effect of temporarily reducing emissions the past year, but the global response the next several years will be crucial. Will it be the quick and easy way of economic growth through the continued use of fossil fuels, or taking the opportunity to advance the use of cleaner energy sources? Looking at the current success rate of countries pledged to very modest goals of the Paris Agreement (and many countries are on a pace to not even meet those), I'm not so sure emissions will be reduced far enough to stay below even 2 degrees Celsius...

Biden admin causing Trump era energy leases to be re-evaluated or cancelled

This is a good thing, but what happens in 2022 and 2024 if the Republicans control both Houses of Congress and the White House? Executive orders are mostly a short-term remedy. What's needed is long-term legislation that cannot simply be reversed or stopped by a simple stroke of the President's pen.

And don't forget the overrun feature built into the Earth's long-term feedback loops. The Earth's oceans have absorbed 90% of the excess heat created by carbon emissions to this point. Even if carbon emissions were cut to zero tomorrow, there will be a 20-25 year period where atmospheric warming continues as the oceans release that heat back into the atmosphere. I don't believe the world will meet the target of <1.5 degrees, or even <2 degrees Celsius by 2050 unless carbon capture technology is accelerated rapidly through investment, and in parallel, making it profitable to do so.

And the narrative has to be expanded from the macro to the micro.

How many people who purchase hundreds of cases of bottled water or soda every year, ever consider how much fossil fuel went into producing all that plastic? Or the millions who consume fast food thereby contributing to the continued dominance of Big Agri-business and all of their carbon emitting farming practices? How many people who pull up to the gas pump actually think about what the true cost of that fuel they are pumping is? Some, as evidenced by the increasing use of electric vehicles. But there are still far too many who prefer that big, gas-guzzling SUV or the fancy sports car. How many people consider the true cost when they turn up the thermostat in winter (or down during summer)? There are literally millions of homes that need insulation, window upgrades, and other such energy-saving modifications, and too many people just don't care (and I realize that many can't afford them, either). I have a neighbor who is a perfect example: a big brick colonial built in the '30's---still has the original iron-frame, single pane windows---no insulation at all---an inefficient 30 year old conventional furnace---and an old conventional hot water tank. Yet he just bought a new Cadillac Escalade for a cool $80,000.

People have to not only change the way they think about energy consumption, but how they live their lives to reduce their carbon footprint.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You don't have to be such a downer bro.