Why does Bjorn Lomborg get paid to publish and I have to do mine for free?

© 2011 Joshua Stark

I had decided a long time ago not to do a post on Mr. Lomborg, what with my desire to stay away from popular topics...

Really, I felt (and still do) that he doesn't have much credibility concerning the things he discusses.  For years, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Lomborg was the poster boy for deniers of human-caused climate change.  Since I felt (and still do) that the science proving human-caused global warming was pretty solid, and that a paraphrase of Pascal's Wager fits nicely into the notion, I decided that this fellow didn't need any publicity I would give him.

Now, of course, he's changed his tune, and argues that we must do something about human-caused climate change.  So he's now entered the 1990's in terms of scientific advances; good for him.  But I wasn't going to spend my time on him, except that this time he tries to stray into planning, efficiency arguments, and science, and he falls so flat (without any real attacks on his claims) that I've got to clear the air. 

Mr. Lomborg, in his piece, argues that efficiency actually worsens our ability to fight climate change, and he does so by completely misrepresenting the rebound effect (where efficiency gains lead to people increasing consumption).
Fortunately, one doesn't have to do any research to debunk Mr. Lomborg's claim, as he effectively counters his own conclusions with the data he uses as example.  So without further ado, Lomborg claims, in his own words:
  From this:
"Back in the early 1970s, the average American expended roughly 70 million British thermal units per year to heat, cool, and power his or her home. Since then, of course, we have made great strides in energy efficiency. As the Washington Post recently reported, dishwashers now use 45 percent less power than they did two decades ago, and refrigerators 51 percent less. So how much energy do Americans use in their homes today? On a per capita basis, the figure is roughly what it was 40 years ago: 70 million BTUs."
  And this:
"the proportion of resources that we expend on lighting has remained virtually unchanged for the past three centuries, at about 0.72 percent of gross domestic product. As Saunders and his colleagues observe in their journal article, "This was the case in the UK in 1700, is the case in the undeveloped world not on grid electricity in modern times, and is the case for the developed world in modern times using the most advanced lighting technologies.""
  To this:
"the more efficient we get at using something, the more of it we are likely to use. Efficiency doesn't reduce consumption; it increases it."

I have one simple question for Mr. Lomborg:

Does "greater than" = "nearly equal to"?

There are more mistakes in his article... in fact, I was pretty amazed at his ability to throw together so many mistakes in such a small space.

Ultimately, readers should ask what Mr. Lomborg was attempting in his article.  His trite little ending, encouraging people to get their leaders to think up good ideas, is completely uninspired and silly, considering this is supposed to be a tremendous scientific mind at work trying to help fix climate change.  The only lesson this article illustrated to me is that aggressive exaggeration gets published, regardless of the logic, even when a person's popularity and "credibility" came from a background in science.

Perhaps he was more helpful when he pretended he didn't believe in human-caused climate change.  We look worse having him as a "cheerleader."

Climate bills...

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Well, Grist has a good break-down of the bills (and Pres. proposal) for carbon capping.

Just remember, the purpose of this is to cut carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

Update:  I'm reading through some summaries, and I'm happy to report that there is a rebate in the Lieberman-Kerry proposal, although I'm sad to report that some of it is in the form of energy bill credits.  That is stupid and sick, because it will incentivize people to use more energy in-house, while benefiting large companies.

Also, the proposed use for the remaining revenues (deficit reduction) doesn't take into account mitigating impacts on climate change.  That's too bad, because we need serious watershed and habitat protections and resiliency - they impact human lives, and they are valuable in and of themselves, yet they don't get a check cut to them.

Senate considers a fifteen cent gas tax to fight global warming

© 2010 Joshua Stark

Do I have an automatic, knee-jerk reaction to big oil companies supporting climate change legislation?  Yes, I do.  I understand that I need to rein that in some, but in this case, I'm concluding with my knee-jerk reaction.
flx1247rg
The L.A. Times reports that Sens. Lieberman, Kerry & Graham are hashing out a tri-partisan (the Independents in the Senate are their own beast) climate change bill that would possibly include a gas tax of around fifteen cents.  The Times reports that some oil companies are in favor of this because, "it figures to cost them far less than other proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including provisions in the climate bill the House passed last year."

I guess so.

Here's another interesting tidbit from the Times:

The fifteen cent gas tax, "is shaping up as a critical but controversial piece in the efforts by Graham, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to write a climate bill that moderate Republicans could support. Along those lines, the bill will also include an expansion of offshore oil drilling and major new incentives for nuclear power plant construction."

Is this a "climate bill" like Clear Skies was an "air quality" bill?  I still need to get the specifics for myself, but if what we end up with is a bill where consumers have to pay a regressive tax so that major companies can have an easier time pumping more oil and not paying for failed nuclear projects, then this is looking a lot more like the environmental double-speak of administrations in the past.  

We need a price on carbon, not just gas.  And, we need a rebate of a good chunk of that money directly to Americans, to help mitigate the regressive nature of that price.  Also, the price has to be big enough to hit the 300 ppm of atmospheric carbon that is generally agreed to in the scientific community.  If it's easier to hit that number with a cap, then cap it.  If it's easier to hit that number with a cap-&-trade, then do that.  If it's easier to hit that number with a tax, then I'm all for it.  Just remember to mitigate the regressive impacts, and don't let individuals or individual companies off the hook.

For a refresher, here are some quick links to pieces I've written about climate change and/or regressive taxes:
Carbon Pricing:  Who, What, Why (the basics)
Cap & Trade, Front & Center  (on alliances and positions about its impacts)
Where are all the Big Greenhouse Gas Emitters? (on California's list of its biggest emitters, and greenwashing)
My Problem with Pigou (on Pigovian taxes used to help alleviate negative externalities, and the need for rebates)
Cap & Squander Strikes Back! (on a highly respected panel of economists agreeing with me about rebates)

Offsets Bad!

© 2010 Joshua Stark

My favorite weekday radio program, Marketplace, reports on offset problems in Brazil. This report adds another problem to the "offsets" concept.

First, a quick definition of "offsets". In a carbon pricing mechanism, government first caps the total amount of carbon allowed, then allows a price to be set for the remaining carbon. In it's most simple and fairest form, this price is set through a government auction of the carbon permits. An offset is a project or action that a company can take that will pull as much carbon out of the atmosphere (called "sequestering") as it is polluting beyond its permits.
flx1247rg
Theoretically, a company would buy a certain number of carbon permits, and if it couldn't cut its carbon pollution to a level below its permits, it would then purchase something that would sequester the carbon above its permitted level.

Examples of carbon offset projects include forests and solar panel projects that replace fossil-fuel generation.

I have written about my dislike of offset projects (look here, for example), and I think this post's title sums up my thoughts pretty succinctly. It isn't the idea in and of itself that offends, but the downstream potential for slacking-off in monitoring its effectiveness, the potential for gaming an already-complex system, and the impacts on co-pollutants that bothered me so much.

A few months ago, my wife asked another vital question: What will these incursions on wildlands have on the people who live there? She had her doubts about these projects, too. Marketplace gave one answer, and you can add that problem to my list of reasons to disapprove of offsets.

Offsets highlight a major problem in our political system: regulatory oversight, both by actual regulators, and also by non-governmental entities. Government regulatory oversight, especially around politically hostile topics like the environment, is often, ironically, irregular. Political powers shift, sometimes within the same administration, and leadership positions within regulatory agencies are often seen as rungs on a ladder, rather than places where permanence and stability are desired.

In addition, the hard slog of maintaining a regular presence at agency meetings and in regards to regulatory measures is very difficult for private individuals and non-profit organizations. The Next Big Bill in the legislature or Congress is far sexier to both media and donors, and nonprofits, like everybody else, are constantly forced to reconcile their hours with their budgets.

Offsets add problems and complications to any carbon-capping mechanism we choose. If international, how can we trust in compliance? If national, how can we trust in regulatory consistency? Plus, if the forests are seen as carbon stands rather than complex systems, how will the ensuing piles of money impact other services we get from these places? (I've written about the impact of pricing carbon benefits in European forests here.)

A major problem the environmental justice community has with carbon offsets concerns major polluters. It so happens that the biggest carbon polluters are also the biggest emitters of other pollution, pollution much more harmful to folks adjacent to the facilities. These companies will also have the hardest time curbing their carbon emissions, and will lean on the offset crutch, buying rights to an Amazon rainforest, instead of installing pollution-reduction equipment at home.

And now we are finding out that the long-term implications for carbon offset projects in that same rainforest can also negatively impact folks living in them.

Offsets bad!

The heating climate around the, uh, heating climate

Back at this blog's first post, and in a few others, I've pointed out schisms in the conservation-environmental community. Now, the purpose of highlighting all the breaks in ideas, directions, and actions within our community is not to destroy us, nor is it to sell (you'll notice at this website that I'm not selling anything); the purpose is to illuminate the ethical reasons behind our positions and decisions, and to therefore make us stronger. If we can see where we disagree, we can, hopefully, weed out the bad ideas while increasing tolerances for each others' divergent views. At the same time, we can hopefully strengthen our defense of the wild. The ultimate goal here, then, is greater protection, and I follow a mantra when it comes to that goal, one I learned as a park interpreter: Through education, appreciation; through appreciation, protection.

With that in mind, let's turn to a a major conflict within the community, over how to curb carbon emissions. Last week in, of all places, Washington D.C., this conflict came to a head when a number of environmental justice groups took over the D.C. office of Environmental Defense (article here). Right now, there are two competing views on how to begin curbing carbon emissions, a "carbon tax", or cap, and the creation of a carbon market with caps, or "cap & trade."

This disagreement is primarily between the traditional environmental groups and the environmental justice groups. The former has, for the most part, come down in favor of a market, and the latter in favor of a cap with no market. Personally, I'm on the fence, and so I feel I can adequately provide the arguments for and against both concepts.

First, a quick description of cap & trade: Most simply put, it is the creation of a market for the sale of carbon and other greenhouse gasses (GHG's). Really, though, let's start with the goal, to cut GHG emissions from as many major sources as we can. Right now, people emit GHG's into the atmosphere willy-nilly, as a byproduct of combustion, and nobody wants to own these emissions. As you probably remember from your high school econ. class, all markets require scarcity, demand, and supply. Government creates the demand & scarcity by capping the total amount of GHG's allowed per year below current emissions, and then allowing the GHG's below the capped amount to be traded among emitters (hence the term 'allowances'). Over time, it is expected that government will continue lowering the amount of GHG's being traded, either by lowering the cap, or by buying up allowances in the market, effectively removing them from play. Being a market, it quickly gets more complicated from there, but that is the basic model.

Proponents of cap & trade argue that effective markets have been created to deal with other pollutants, notably SO2 (an acid rain component). They argue that the funds created through an initial sale of allowances (to kick-start the market) can be used by the government to mitigate climate change effects on areas that are hardest hit by climate change and/or the market (say, poor communities, habitat, the state of Florida). They also argue that, since CO2 is not a pollutant that hurts people locally, but is instead a global problem, then it doesn't matter where it gets capped, and so there will be no direct local pollution problem to worry about. Last, they argue that by allowing the market to function on a larger scale, then economies of scale, innovations, and money will drive down GHG emissions, while encouraging corporate buy-in, rather than causing foot-dragging and litigation to slow down emissions cuts.

Opponents argue that contrived markets are easy to game, that the market won't work quickly enough to actually curb GHG's, that compromises with industries for a market will probably exclude the initial sale of allowances, and that the market will affect poor communities the most in a number of ways. This last is the biggest concern of EJ groups, because companies with the worst pollution records operate in their communities, and the co-benefits of having to curb GHG emissions will almost certainly also cut other, more dangerous local emissions. For example, if you cut your CO2 emissions, you also usually cut your ozone emissions, and ozone is a cause of asthma attacks. 1 in 5 children in San Joaquin Valley have asthma, so you can see that communities in SJ Valley have a high stake in seeing these emissions cuts be local.

Instead, opponents argue for an across-the-board cap on carbon emissions through a GHG tax. Each emitter will have to account for their emissions, and if they run over their cap, then they must pay a cost-prohibitive tax for additional carbon. This would require all sources to account for and cut emissions.

Of course, major corporations would prefer nothing, but that is long gone, so they are pushing hard for a cap & trade market with free allowances to start, and to include many offsets, which are carbon trapping mechanisms, like forests, in their GHG totals. So, for example, a company may purchase some allowances, purchase some offssets, and cut whatever is left.

The legal grenade thrown into this? Last year, courts ordered the EPA to regulate carbon as a pollutant.

The incoming Obama Administration has a lot to work on.