Something to watch while you are on the treadmill.
William Nordhaus in The American Scholar, describing how people who have used his work to portray him as a climate change skeptic are wrong.
I think he’s a bit wrong in his argument about whether CO2 is technically a pollutant, but he’s not a lawyer (neither am I), and I think that whether CO2 makes you sick directly really doesn’t matter to the policy problems we’ve got here.
Brandon Fuller and Matt Kahn discuss the possibilities for charter cities as a means for adapting to climate change over at Vox.
Freakeconometrics is a blog written by Arthur Charpentier. He’s got an interesting post up on a talk he is giving at a conference. The graphics are spectacular, as usual with this blog, and the statistics are exemplary. Nice discussion on how to analyze tails.
Role of Motor Vehicle Lifetime Extension in Climate Change Policy
Shigemi Kagawa, Keisuke Nansai, Yasushi Kondo, Klaus Hubacek, Sangwon Suh, Jan Minx, Yuki Kudoh, Tomohiro Tasaki, Shinichiro NakamuraEnvironmental Science & Technology 2011 45 (4), 1184-1191
From the abstract:
Vehicle replacement schemes such as the “cash for clunkers” program in the U.S. and the “scrappage scheme” in the UK have featured prominently in the economic stimulation packages initiated by many governments to cope with the global economic crisis. While these schemes were designed as economic instruments to support the vehicle production industry, governments have also claimed that these programs have environmental benefits such as reducing CO2 emissions by bringing more fuel-efficient vehicles onto the roads. However, little evidence is available to support this claim as current energy and environmental accounting models are inadequate for comprehensively capturing the economic and environmental trade-offs associated with changes in product life and product use. We therefore developed a new dynamic model to quantify the carbon emissions due to changes in product life and consumer behavior related to product use. Based on a case study of Japanese vehicle use during the 1990−2000 period, we found that extending, not shortening, the lifetime of a vehicle helps to reduce life-cycle CO2 emissions throughout the supply chain. Empirical results also revealed that even if the fuel economy of less fuel-efficient ordinary passenger vehicles were improved to levels comparable with those of the best available technology, i.e. hybrid passenger cars currently being produced in Japan, total CO2 emissions would decrease by only 0.2%. On the other hand, we also find that extending the lifetime of a vehicle contributed to a moderate increase in emissions of health-relevant air pollutants (NOx, HC, and CO) during the use phase. From the results, this study concludes that the effects of global warming and air pollution can be somewhat moderated and that these problems can be addressed through specific policy instruments directed at increasing the market for hybrid cars as well as extending lifetime of automobiles, which is contrary to the current wisdom.
Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States Christopher L. Weber, H. Scott Matthews Environmental Science & Technology 2008 42 (10), 3508-351
Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO2e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.
Deb Niemeier at UC Davis writes about this piece of legislation on the table in Montana.
HOUSE BILL NO. 549
2 INTRODUCED BY J. READ
4 A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT STATING MONTANA’S POSITION ON GLOBAL WARMING; AND
5 PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.”
7 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
9 NEW SECTION. Section 1. Public policy concerning global warming.
(1) The legislature finds that
10 to ensure economic development in Montana and the appropriate management of Montana’s natural resources
11 it is necessary to adopt a public policy regarding global warming.
12 (2) The legislature finds:
13 (a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana;
14 (b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on
15 the environment; and
16 (c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it.
17 (3) (a) For the purposes of this section, “global warming” relates to an increase in the average
18 temperature of the earth’s surface.
19 (b) It does not include a one-time, catastrophic release of carbon dioxide.
Seriously? You have to have legislation that protects climate change? Yeah, clearly we must protect climate change from the veritable breakneck, swirling, dizzying pace of US action on climate change. We’ve just been moving forward on that issue like a herd of comatose snails, and with that kind of rannygazoo going on, states like Montana have to stand up for their interests.
SPPD’s first Urban Growth Seminar of the year, “Climate Change Adaptation in Ho Chi Minh City“, will be on Tuesday, August 24 at 12:15 in RGL 101. This seminar will feature current work by three SPPD faculty members that bridges the gap between theory and practical application in the emerging field of climate change adaptation.
This summer, Professors Hilda Blanco, Eric Heikkila and Richard Little of SPPD traveled to Ho Chi Minh City on the invitation of Mayor Le Qoang Hong of Ho Chi Minh City to participate in a roundtable forum organized by the Pacific Rim Council on Urban Development. The purpose of that forum was to advise the city on adapting to flooding induced by climate change. During this seminar, the professors will describe the forum, detail a framework for assessing climate-change adaptation strategies and summarize the of specific climate change adaptation recommendations the forum participants generated for Ho Chi Minh City.
About the speakers:
Dr. Hilda Blanco is a Research Professor and Interim Director of the Center for Sustainable Cities at USC’s School of Policy, Planning and Development. She is also a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington, Seattle, where she served as Department Chair from 2000-2007. Professor Blanco’s work focuses on climate change, urban growth management, brownfields policy, and decision-making and planning theories. Her published works include How to Think About Social Problems: American Pragmatism and the Idea of Planning (Greenwood Press 1994), and recent articles in Progress in Planning, Journal of Emergency Management, Urban Studies, and Technology and Society. She currently serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Planning Education and Research and the Journal of Emergency Management. Professor Blanco holds a Ph.D. in City and Regional Planning from the University of California, Berkeley.
– Heikkila, E.J., with Y. Wang, “Exploring the Dual Dichotomy in Urban Geography: An Application of Fuzzy Urban Sets” Urban Geography, forthcoming.
– Heikkila, E. J., with L. Hu, “Adjusting Spatial Entropy Measures for Scale and Resolutions Effects”; Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 33 (6) 845-865; 2006.
– Heikkila, E. J., “Seoul: Regional Realities and Global Ambitions”; Joint US-Korea Academic Studies, vol. 14, Korea Economic Institute pp. 139-157; 2004.
Professor Richard G. Little is a Senior Fellow in the School of Policy Planning and Development and Director of the Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy at the University of Southern California. Professor. Little teaches, consults, conducts research, and develops policy studies aimed at informing the discussion of infrastructure issues critical to California and the nation. Prior to joining USC, he was Director of the Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment of the National Research Council (NRC). He has conducted numerous studies dealing with life-cycle management and financing of infrastructure, project management, and hazard preparedness and mitigation and has lectured and published extensively on risk management and decision-making for critical infrastructure. He has been certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners and is Editor of the journalPublic Works Management and Policy. Professor Little was elected to the National Academy of Construction in 2008 and was recently appointed to the California Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission to assist the state in implementing public private partnerships for transportation. He holds an M.S. in Urban-Environmental Studies from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Other than the obvious harm to human life and society, the Russian fires are clearly prompting greater interest in climate change even among the formerly disinclined (e.g., Putin).
This article in this week’s Economist does as nice a job as I have ever seen of explaining why the fires have such significance:
Both heatwaves and heavy precipitation are more common everywhere than they were 50 years ago. Reflecting the latter trend, the Indian monsoon has been seeing more of its rainfall in extreme events than it did in the past. No single one of those events can be directly attributed to climate change; nor can Russia’s heatwave. The pattern of increases, though, fits expectations—and those expectations see things getting worse.
They see things getting worse faster from here.
Marty Weitzman is one of those people that planners simply do not seem to read, and they should, because his contributions to environmental economics are enormous. Matt Kahn linked to a recent paper from Weitzman available via NBER
From the abstract:
A critical issue in climate-change economics is the specifcation of the so-called
“damages function” and its interaction with the unknown uncertainty of catastrophic outcomes. This paper asks how much we might be misled by our economic assessment of climate change when we employ a conventional quadratic damages function and/or a thin-tailed probability distribution for extreme temperatures. The paper gives some numerical examples of the indirect value of various GHG concentration targets as insurance against catastrophic climate-change temperatures and damages. These numerical examples suggest that we might be underestimating considerably the welfare losses from uncertainty by using a quadratic damages function and/or a thin-tailed temperature distribution. In these examples, the primary reason for keeping GHG levels down is to insure against high-temperature catastrophic climate risks.
Matt Kahn, in response, discusses how the coastal reduction likely from sea change might not be unmanageable given new vertical farming technologies and urban densities:
So we need 424,000 of 52 million or .8% of the earth’s land area to be inhabitable after climate change really kicks in. As of right now, from a spatial portfolio point of view, I certainly think it is possible. If the world’s population shrinks or we reduce our caloric intake, the necessary quantity of viable land would shrink further. Implicit in my forthcoming book Climatopolis is my optimism that there will continue to be “safe” geographical places to settle and build new cities. I would like to know whether any climate change models predict that there are scenarios under which we cannot find 424,000 safe square miles of inhabitable Earth to build anew?
Here is a link to Dr. Kahn’s forthcoming book, which I have pre-ordered (and so should you). 🙂
Whether you can get on board with Weitzman’s argument, it’s nice to have strong technical discussion of the “fat tail” problem rather than the usual straw man arguments from people like Nassim Taleb.
A number of people have brought up Paul Krugman’s discussion last week about economic growth and climate change emissions: Growth and Greenhouse Gases – Paul Krugman Blog – NYTimes.com. His comments to me seem rather prosaic for somebody of his gifts, but maybe I am just not seeing the “wow” there.
However, I did see a “wow” discussion on climate change, carbon pricing, and social equity last week for the Keston center event I organized on pricing and social equity. Cap and trade with auctioned permits is essentially a pretty efficient carbon tax. UCLA’s Matt Kahn, always a treat, said something that got me thinking. He asked about whether those who are in carbon-intensive industries should be treated as bad betters or dumb buyers rather than victims of public policy, which strikes me as a very reasonable question at this point in the debate.
We’ve all heard the line that carbon regulation will cost job and create jobs, which has its distributive consequences, but Matt’s question is one I haven’t hear before: carbon-intensive industries as bad betting or dumb buying. Economists often argue that bad betters or dumb buyers shouldn’t be rewarded in markets, for good reasons: they either have bad information or they aren’t very smart about how they use information and they make bad market decisions. I have argued before that homeowners who have bought foolishly shouldn’t necessarily be saved from the consequences of those decisions. Is carbon intensity the same thing?
In general, those who are concerned about people who lose out from government regulation believe that these folks are victims; with sweeping new policies, programs and investments, the state can create windfalls on the one hand (the jobs and industries created) and wipeouts on the other (the industries and jobs lost). You can see how this is different from a bad better or in a market.
In our case, with climate regulations, which have been floating around for over 10 years, you have to ask: is a carbon loser at this stage–a decade into the debate–a victim or a bad better?
Science has a manuscript on the possible multiple consequences for oceans of a little-acknowledged climate changer: nitrous oxide: Interesting Times for Marine N2O — Codispoti 327 (5971): 1339 — Science.
Since the article requires a subscription to science, I’ll also link you to a nice Science Blogging description of the article.