Thursday, July 05, 2018
Can a Carbon Tax Save the GOP? - by dana1981
Climate change is one of many issues that divides the Republican Party. Like racial resentment, climate denial is a position held mostly by old, white, male conservatives. There’s a climate change generational, ethnic, and gender gap. 61% of Republicans under the age of 50 support government climate policies, compared to just 44% of Republicans over 50. Similarly, a majority of Hispanic- and African-Americans accept human-caused global warming and 70% express concern about it, as compared to just 41% of whites who accept the scientific reality and 50% who worry about it.But the plutocratic wing of the GOP loves fossil fuels. Republican politicians rely on campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry, and quid pro quo requires them to do the industry’s bidding. It might as well be called the Grand Oil Party.
There is no other reason why the GOP should not unify behind a revenue-neutral carbon tax. This free market, small government climate policy – which taxes carbon pollution and returns all the revenue to American households – is indeed supported by many conservatives. A group of Republican elder statesmen created a coalition called the Climate Leadership Council to build conservative support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax. They’re now backed by Americans for Carbon Dividends (AfCD), led in part by former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott with a renewed effort to build support for this policy.
AfCD recently released polling results showing that 55% of Americans believe US environmental policy is headed in the wrong direction (29% say it’s on the right track), 81% of likely voters including 58% of Strong Republicans agree the government should take action to limit carbon emissions, and by a 56% to 26% margin (including a 55% to 32% margin among Strong Republicans), Americans support a revenue-neutral carbon tax.
It’s not a wildly popular policy proposal, but it does have broad bipartisan support. It’s also a smart way to curb climate change with minimal economic impact, and in fact with a massive net economic benefit compared to unchecked climate change. That’s why economists overwhelmingly support a carbon tax.
Republicans try to save their deteriorating party with another push for a carbon tax
Electric Vehicle Sales Promise Shock for Big Oil
If motor manufacturers are right about the prospects for electric vehicle sales, an oil price crash won’t be far behind.
Oil and gas companies have underestimated probable electric vehicle sales and the effect they will have on their own businesses and profits, a new report says.
If the car manufacturers’ projections of future sales of electric cars are correct, then demand for oil will have peaked by 2027 or even earlier, sending the price of oil in a downward spiral as supply exceeds demand, says Carbon Tracker (CT), an independent financial think-tank carrying out in-depth analysis on the impact of the energy transition on capital markets.
It says fossil fuel companies have taken into account some engine fuel efficiencies and the effect they would have on oil demand, but not the expected increase in electric vehicles themselves. There is a big mismatch between forecasts of EV market penetration from vehicle manufacturers and from oil majors, says Laurence Watson, a CT data scientist.
“The oil industry is underestimating the disruptive potential of electric vehicles, which could reduce oil demand by millions of barrels a day. Increases in fuel efficiency will also eat into oil demand and the industry’s profits. The oil majors’ myopic position presents a serious investor risk,” he told the Climate News Network.
Read more at Electric Vehicle Sales Promise Shock for Big Oil
If the car manufacturers’ projections of future sales of electric cars are correct, then demand for oil will have peaked by 2027 or even earlier, sending the price of oil in a downward spiral as supply exceeds demand, says Carbon Tracker (CT), an independent financial think-tank carrying out in-depth analysis on the impact of the energy transition on capital markets.
It says fossil fuel companies have taken into account some engine fuel efficiencies and the effect they would have on oil demand, but not the expected increase in electric vehicles themselves. There is a big mismatch between forecasts of EV market penetration from vehicle manufacturers and from oil majors, says Laurence Watson, a CT data scientist.
“The oil industry is underestimating the disruptive potential of electric vehicles, which could reduce oil demand by millions of barrels a day. Increases in fuel efficiency will also eat into oil demand and the industry’s profits. The oil majors’ myopic position presents a serious investor risk,” he told the Climate News Network.
Read more at Electric Vehicle Sales Promise Shock for Big Oil
Fossil Fuels Account for Lowest Share of U.S. Energy Consumption in More than a Century
The decline in 2017 marks the third consecutive annual drop in U.S. domestic fossil fuel consumption. The trend is driven partly by a decade-long decline in coal use — 40 percent since 2005, and 2.5 percent in 2017 alone. Domestic natural gas consumption also declined last year by 1.4 percent. Petroleum consumption, comprised mostly of gasoline used for transportation, rose slightly last year, but is down 10 percent from its peak in 2005.
Renewables — which include hydroelectric, wind, solar, biomass, and other sources — accounted for 11.3 percent of U.S. energy consumption in 2017. This is the highest share since the late 1910s, when biomass, largely wood, was still a major source of energy, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which tracks energy trends as part of the Department of Energy.
Read more at Fossil Fuels Account for Lowest Share of U.S. Energy Consumption in More than a Century
Rising Sea Levels Could Cost the World $14 Trillion a Year by 2100
Published Wednesday in Environmental Research Letters, a study led by the UK National Oceanographic Centre (NOC) found flooding from rising sea levels could cost $14 trillion worldwide annually by 2100, if the target of holding global temperatures below 2ºC above pre-industrial levels is missed.
The researchers also found that upper-middle income countries such as China would see the largest increase in flood costs, whereas the highest income countries would suffer the least, thanks to existing high levels of protection infrastructure.
Dr Svetlana Jevrejeva, from the NOC, is the study's lead author. She said: "More than 600 million people live in low-elevation coastal areas, less than 10 meters above sea level. In a warming climate, global sea level will rise due to melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets, and from the thermal expansion of ocean waters. So, sea level rise is one of the most damaging aspects of our warming climate."
Sea level projections exist for emissions scenarios and socio-economic scenarios. However, there are no scenarios covering limiting warming below the 2°C and 1.5°C targets during the entire 21st century and beyond.
The study team explored the pace and consequences of global and regional sea level rise with restricted warming of 1.5 ºC and 2 ºC, and compared them to sea level projections with unmitigated warming following emissions scenario Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5.
Using World Bank income groups (high, upper middle, lower middle and low income countries), they then assessed the impact of sea level rise in coastal areas from a global perspective, and for some individual countries using the Dynamic Interactive Vulnerability Assessment modelling framework.
Dr Jevrejeva said: "We found that with a temperature rise trajectory of 1.5°C, by 2100 the median sea level will have risen by 0.52m (1.7ft). But, if the 2°C target is missed, we will see a median sea level rise of 0.86m (2.8ft), and a worst-case rise of 1.8m (5.9ft).
Read more at Rising Sea Levels Could Cost the World $14 Trillion a Year by 2100
Wednesday, July 04, 2018
Fossil Fuels’ Dirty Secret: Climate Action or Not, Things Look Bad
“There is no walking out from the energy transition.”
Wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles are getting cheaper and more abundant by the day, which is hurting demand for coal, oil, and natural gas. As demand falls for conventional fuels, so will prices. Companies that laid claim to coal mines or oil wells, won’t be able to turn a profit by digging up that fuel. They will default on their loans, pushing banks to the brink of failure. Prices are likely to crash before 2035, costing the global economy as much as $4 trillion, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
“Traditionally, fossil fuel companies have been considered very safe and very profitable industries with high returns, if you were to invest in their shares. Now, this may be changing,” said Jean-Francois Mercure, professor of energy, climate, and innovation at Radboud University in the Netherlands and lead author of the study.
“It requires institutions to properly reassess the risk in their portfolios,” he said. “This transparency needs to start to happen, because they need to know what their money is ultimately invested in. This really reminds us a lot of what happened in 2008 with the financial crisis, where there was a lot of repackaging of assets, and people didn’t really know what they owned until they realized those assets weren’t paying off.”
Mercure and an international team of economists and policy analysts modeled the future of fossil fuels under a variety of scenarios, examining what will happen if countries hew closely to targets of the Paris Climate Agreement, and what will happen if they don’t. What’s remarkable is that fossil fuels are likely to go bust whether or not countries take climate change seriously. The rapid pace of technological progress will transform the energy sector. Researchers say the only way to guard against the impending collapse in the price of conventional fuels is to accelerate the transition to clean energy, ensuring investors and fossil fuel firms aren’t caught flat-footed when oil, gas, and coal bottom out.
If this seems hard to believe, consider that renewables will drive down the price of fossil fuels long before they become our primary source of energy. By taking over a small, but significant share of the market, they will force producers to slash costs to stay competitive. People will buy electric vehicles, meaning they will no longer need gasoline to fuel their cars. They will buy electric heat pumps, meaning they will no longer need natural gas to heat their homes. They will buy solar panels and home batteries, meaning they will no longer need to buy power from a coal- or gas-fired power plants.
...
A sudden and dramatic drop in the price of fossil fuels would lead to mass unemployment. Jorge Viñuales, a professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge and co-author of the study, warns this could fuel “public disenchantment and populist politics.” He pointed to U.S. coal companies, which have struggled to compete with wind, solar, and natural gas. Many coal workers have thrown their support behind President Trump, who has tried to keep the industry afloat, most recently by moving to stay the shutdown of coal-fired power plants.
Researchers caution against subsidizing fossil fuels — a strategy akin to forcing Netflix users to rent movies from Blockbuster. The only viable strategy, they say, is to reduce the systemic importance of fossil fuels by accelerating the transition to clean energy. Mercure recommends retraining coal, oil, and gas workers for jobs in clean energy.
...
In a 2015 speech Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, warned that meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement would require leaving as much as 80 percent of the world’s proven reserves of oil, gas and coal underground, which would alter the economics of fossil fuels. Now, it seems that in the absence of ambitious climate policies, the growth of renewables will have a similar effect. There is, however, a bright side. As Carney noted, the shift to clean energy “is a major opportunity for insurers as long-term investors.” He added, “The more we invest with foresight; the less we will regret in hindsight.”
Read more at Fossil Fuels’ Dirty Secret: Climate Action or Not, Things Look Bad
“Traditionally, fossil fuel companies have been considered very safe and very profitable industries with high returns, if you were to invest in their shares. Now, this may be changing,” said Jean-Francois Mercure, professor of energy, climate, and innovation at Radboud University in the Netherlands and lead author of the study.
“It requires institutions to properly reassess the risk in their portfolios,” he said. “This transparency needs to start to happen, because they need to know what their money is ultimately invested in. This really reminds us a lot of what happened in 2008 with the financial crisis, where there was a lot of repackaging of assets, and people didn’t really know what they owned until they realized those assets weren’t paying off.”
Mercure and an international team of economists and policy analysts modeled the future of fossil fuels under a variety of scenarios, examining what will happen if countries hew closely to targets of the Paris Climate Agreement, and what will happen if they don’t. What’s remarkable is that fossil fuels are likely to go bust whether or not countries take climate change seriously. The rapid pace of technological progress will transform the energy sector. Researchers say the only way to guard against the impending collapse in the price of conventional fuels is to accelerate the transition to clean energy, ensuring investors and fossil fuel firms aren’t caught flat-footed when oil, gas, and coal bottom out.
If this seems hard to believe, consider that renewables will drive down the price of fossil fuels long before they become our primary source of energy. By taking over a small, but significant share of the market, they will force producers to slash costs to stay competitive. People will buy electric vehicles, meaning they will no longer need gasoline to fuel their cars. They will buy electric heat pumps, meaning they will no longer need natural gas to heat their homes. They will buy solar panels and home batteries, meaning they will no longer need to buy power from a coal- or gas-fired power plants.
...
A sudden and dramatic drop in the price of fossil fuels would lead to mass unemployment. Jorge Viñuales, a professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge and co-author of the study, warns this could fuel “public disenchantment and populist politics.” He pointed to U.S. coal companies, which have struggled to compete with wind, solar, and natural gas. Many coal workers have thrown their support behind President Trump, who has tried to keep the industry afloat, most recently by moving to stay the shutdown of coal-fired power plants.
Researchers caution against subsidizing fossil fuels — a strategy akin to forcing Netflix users to rent movies from Blockbuster. The only viable strategy, they say, is to reduce the systemic importance of fossil fuels by accelerating the transition to clean energy. Mercure recommends retraining coal, oil, and gas workers for jobs in clean energy.
...
In a 2015 speech Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, warned that meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement would require leaving as much as 80 percent of the world’s proven reserves of oil, gas and coal underground, which would alter the economics of fossil fuels. Now, it seems that in the absence of ambitious climate policies, the growth of renewables will have a similar effect. There is, however, a bright side. As Carney noted, the shift to clean energy “is a major opportunity for insurers as long-term investors.” He added, “The more we invest with foresight; the less we will regret in hindsight.”
Read more at Fossil Fuels’ Dirty Secret: Climate Action or Not, Things Look Bad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)