LyrArc Article Gist
BBC environmental correspondent points out that the climate change executive order from U.S. president Trump reversing Obama's clean energy policies is designed to change the narrative to job creation. This follows approval for building the Keystone pipeline from Canada to bring oil from oil sands production to the U.S. The pipeline was also presented as a job creation effort. Environmental groups oppose the president's action. Court action and challenges are seen as helping Republican policy of delaying implementation of Clean Power Plan policy setup to control carbon dioxide emissions under the Obama administration. 

LyrArc Article Gist
World Bank to raise 5.5 billion dollars for a fund to help developing countries use clean technology to combat global warming and climate change.

LyrArc Article Gist
In the context of president Trump's statement that the Paris accords if fully implemented would have "a tiny, tiny impact," BBC News points out that it refers to a Massachusetts Insititute of Technology study by scientists in 2014. That study did not include all the commitments made in the Paris talks, and does not carry the improvements forward beyond 2030 assuming that things level out with no improvements. It then came up with the figure of two tenths of one degree Celsius as the improvement by the year 2100. When the MIT scientists corrected these assumptions after the Paris accords in 2015, they stated that 1 degree of Celsius improvement would be achieved with the Paris accords and all countries working together on the planet. Scientists contacted by BBC News, including Prof. Hohne who works with Climate Tracker that tracks greenhouse gas emissions, say this 1 degree Celsius reduction is the difference between dangerous levels of global warming and tolerable levels. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Typical of climate change events - this week's floods in Spain- a year worth of rain in a few hours and all of a sudden.

An area of low pressure that breaks away from the jet stream that should blow it away formed in the Gulf of Cadiz. In weather parlance it is called a cutoff low. When this moisture laden air hits the mountains it forms clouds that dump torrential rain on coastal areas.

The warmer the Mediterranean is more of it evaporates, this years it was warmest in record. The warming Arctic adds to this by weakening the jet stream that can blow this off, say scientists.

LyrArc Article Gist
One of the authors of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology study cited by president Trump, John Reilly, says president Trump in citing the MIT study showed " a complete misunderstanding of the problem." Reilly's view is that even the Paris accords are not enough, that it is one step, in his words "an incredibly important step," without which the next step cannot be taken. His view is also that the Trump White House may not be listening, so MIT does not plan to reach out to correct this view.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump signs an executive order on March 28, 2017, reversing the American commitment to the Paris climate change agreement. The executive order also lifts a moratorium on the sale of coalmining leases on federal lands. The Obama administration 2015 clean power plan was designed to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It was blocked by courts in 2016. Trump says he is reversing president Obama's war on coal. Earlier he approved the Keystone pipeline for bringing oil from oil sands in Canada to the U.S.. Under the Paris agreement the U.S. agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26-28% by 2025 from 2005 levels. Market changes including the availability of cheap natural gas from technology advances fracking and hydraulic fracturing is leading a shift away from coal, apart from Obama administration regulations. Another factor is the long term trend towards cleaner energy, with large energy producers such as American Electric Power and other companies planning for the long term which is likely to be in the direction of cleaner energy. These companies see the Trump administration changes as a situation that may not be for the long term. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The climate change bill that passed the House 219 to 212. When the program begins in 2012 the estimated prie of apermit to emit aton of carbon dioxide will be about $13. This is projected to rise steadily as emission limits come down, but there is aprovision to prevent a surge in costs. In the early years of the program amajority of permits will be given out free to keep costs down. The Congressional Budget Office estimate is that an average American household will pay $175 ayear more in energy costs by 2020 as aresult of this bill, while the poorst households will recveive a rebate to lower their energy costs by $40. WHile the bill has been watered down form its original, the fact remains that this is the first climate change bill America has passed in decades. It is welcomed by Chancellor Merkel and the Germans who want to see the USA as akey negotiator in future talk on global warming.

LyrArc Article Gist
Following the executive order by U.S. president Trump reversing Obama administration policies on climate change and clean energy, BBC correspondent points out that the strategy of the Trump administration and Republicans is to change the narrative to job creation and with court challenges let the Clean Power plan be delayed. This would be followed by a different plan with less regulation of the coal industry. The clean energy policies were unpopular in states where Republicans had support.

LyrArc Article Gist
Try this climate change game from Harry Stevens in the Washington Post with your own answers. Data sets from Japan Meteorological Agency and National Snow and Data Ice Center helped build this game. Why is the Greenland ice melting that can cause sea levels to rise 24 feet along shorelines as the Greenland ice sheet melts. It is explained by the idea of Arctic amplification. Arctic sea water is whiter than the ocean. It reflects much of the sun's light and heat back into the earth's atmposphere increasing global warming. Increasing temperatures on oceans creating the kind of effect that created the Acapulco Storm and the Libyan coastal storm very rapidly before storm preparation can happen. And making more of the Greenland Ice Sheet to melt in this process of Arctic Amplification. Note that the Greenland Ice Sheet is based on land so that it contributes to sea level rise.

LyrArc Article Gist
Robert Stavins of the environmental economics program at Harvard is cited in this NYT article by Coral Davenport. Stavin says that even with the change in policy favoring fossil under Trump administration the trend is towards using less fossil fuel and this trend is unlikely to change. This makes the claims of Trump that half a million jobs can be created with less regulation of the coal industry and shale oil industry, less likely. Industry is shifting away from coal for economic reasons and investors preferences, say experts. At the same time the progress away from fossil fuels is likely to be inadequate to avoid the worst effects of global warming, says Stavins. The change by industry is reflected in the decisions made by executives such as Nicholas Akins at American Electric Power, Ohio based electric power company. Akins tells NYT that he is making decisions for power generation 20, 30 and 40 years from now, and this assumes some form of carbon control. He says no question but that industry will move forward with cleaner energy and that means closing large coal facilities. The incoming Trump administration does not affect his policy. Another factor away from coal is dictated by economics- the availability of cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing. Incentives for renewable sources such as wind, solar, are not likely to change either say experts, because the solar panels and wind turbines are made in Republican and Democratic favoring districts and have support of Republicans in places like Arizona, Texas and Kansas. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India and China agree to a legally binding deal on climate change and emissions that would be drafted by 2015, and take effect in 2020. This would bring them in line with or symmetrical with the U.S. and European countries for controlling emissions.

LyrArc Article Gist
What oil prices are doing to the redistribution of wealth across the globe. How rich and poor countries are coping. Money going to gasoline is still only 4% of disposable income of U.S. households and the USA hasn't lost its addiction to large vehicles, though there has been a moderate shift to smaller cars and SUV's. Chinese demand keeps growing. Fuel Economy standards are only now being changed and few alternatives are emerging quickly enough to make a difference in the short run. Though a worldwide recessionary climate could change things, no major change is expected. Airlines and the auto industry will be the most affected industries. Global warming and CO2 emissions will be a factor in evaluating how well these alternative are working. With oil and gas prices high, unfortunately coal use is increasing both in China and elsewhere. And ethanol hasn't won popularity because it uses up scarce resources of land, water and energy. A big change is the shift to most of the action going to government oil companies of developing countries, which are much larger now and have the resources to handle what the oil majors did before. Western oil service companies are working with government oil companies bringing access to technology....

LyrArc Article Gist
Under new proposed changes carbon emissions permits would be sold to industry and heavier polluters would have to pay more. And to make it fair to European companies exporters in other countries like China would have to buy these carbon permits to be able to export to Europe. There is similiar discussion about this in the USA which expects caps on greenhouse gas emissions in a few years. These changes wouldn't go into effect till 2013 at the earliest and industry will be trying to create a level playing field by then. Countries like China and India because they are developing have been exempt from the greenhouse caps under the Kyoto Protocol which expire 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol which Europe signed and the USA did not sign, European companies are giving carbon permits free to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas every year, the heavier polluters have to buy the permits from the ones that pollute less creating an incentive for companies to reduce emisssions.

LyrArc Article Gist
Rottgen says that the low point of the Copenhagen talks was reached when it was becoming clear the China was not even willing to accept unilateral pledges of the industrialized nations to reduce emissions by at least 8% by 2050. The Chininese he says said that was too little for them. At which point the Europeans said we could perhaps offer 100%, but that would have to be the end- for mathematical reasons. and Rottgen points out that at that point he and others realized that the Chinese were not concerned about agreeing on CO2 reductions, but rather with preventing them. It was at that poit that US President Obama went in for face to face talks with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Rottgen also faults the US where he says the elites realize that something has to be done about Co2 but cannot get the majority of people to support the changes and sacrifices required because of political reasons. Says Rottgen about the Americans "they prefer to have cheap money to consume, and they don't want to limit their CO2 emissions, so that they can continue to do things their way." Rottgen also sees the CO2 targets as away to get Germany and other nations to develop the most advanced technologies, and because of the German lead in this area he sees it as a way ensure Germany's economic future....

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Constellation Energy decides to cancel its Chesapeake Bay nuclear project, after failure of negotiations with the US government on the proposed fee for a loan guarantee.

LyrArc Article Gist
Fake news ads on Google Search are a couple of the hard to believe results Hiroko Tabuchi finds in one of his searches using the words "climate change." One ad says "Global Warming Hoax." More alarming is the way the Google algorithm and a person's search history is used by Google to send that person what he likes or approves. So that a NYT reporter's account may show a different ad on Search for "climate change" - mostly positive ones from Environmental Defense Fund. Tabuchi says some of the ads calling climate change false are still appearing on Google even after the New York Times alerted Google about the problem.  A perceptive observer would find that that this is exactly how Search can end up reinforcing people and dividing them into different camps hostile to each other. More significantly it might make people resistant to even hear another person with different ideas, a problem we face today in American democracy. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial Board opinion piece in the WSJ gives exceptional insights into major issues facing Germany, the cost of electricity generated from renewables, failure to meet climate change emissions targets set by the government, and the difficulty of forming a new coalition government with conflicting goals of the Greens vs the CDU and the FDP.  By one estimate it cost households and business about $125 billion extra in higher electricity bills for 2000-2015 to subsidize renewable energy from solar and wind. Utilities are required to buy renewable at above market rates, especially since the energy revolution called Energiewende was launched by chancellor Merkel in 2010. German electricity prices are about 36 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 13 cents in America. The 2011 decision following the Fukushima disaster to phase out nuclear power by 2022 made the effort to meet renewables targets of 40% by 2020 compared to 1990 -exceeding the 20% for the EU- even harder. Germany sees a 30% target for 2020 as reachable.   Even though renewables can generate 50% of required energy supplies, only 30% of the supplies are utilized as the renewables are generated mostly in the north of the country and there is a lack of transmission lines to bring it to the industrial south. The dirty secret says the WSJ editorial board for the renewable story in Germany is that a lot of coal is used in dirty coal plants to meet electricity needs when wind and solar energy are not available. Cheaper coal not natural gas is preferred for such generation as daytime peak use that recoups more expensive gas cost is managed with renewables. Leading to the situation that Germany generates only 9% of energy from natural gas compared to 30% in the U.S.. The further Germany has gone in renewables has also led to the paradox of increased dependence on coal. Getting to the new Jamaica coalition being planned between the CDU and the FDP and the Greens. The problem is that the Greens want to see the 20 most polluting coal plants closed, the CDU and the FDP are willing to close only ten coal polluting plants. The WSJ's opinion is that voters chose the AfD right wing party with 13% of the vote because of the platform promise to shut down Merkel's Energiewende policy.   ...