Cracks in the Environmental Community?

The national environmental community, while far from the most powerful alliance in DC, has found itself with more influence in the current political climate after decades of organizing. Now, one of the greatest challenges is to maintain a united message in an already diverse coalition. But one of my responsibilities is also to enact strong global warming legislation, even if coalition partners are selling short.

So when a coalition of 3 environmental groups and a score of regulated industries* released a report last week calling for a weak bill, many environmental groups pushed back. To see the harshest example, see this post in a popular environmental community insider blog, which argues that the "Blueprint" proposal falls way short of what science says we need. David Hawkins of NRDC, who was a big player in crafting the Blueprint, shot back in the comments section, and was allowed to create his own full post on the same blog, arguing that it was necessary politically. What follows below is my response to that post:

David’s point that environmental groups in USCAP must consider political strategy, and not just science, is absolutely right. But is the blueprint good strategy?

By finding a compromise between some environmental groups and some dirty industry companies, USCAP’s blueprint puts a stake in the sand for global warming policy. While it is too early to tell how heavy the stake is, it will inevitably draw politically-feasible outcomes towards itself. Industry groups asking for a weaker bill or no action will find their position less tenable in the face of industrial brethren that say the blueprint could be done without economic harm. Likewise, environmental groups will find it harder to demand stronger action with their allies having endorsed a weaker position.

Thus whether the move is helpful or harmful to strong global warming policy depends on what we would have gotten without it. If we would have gotten something worse, it will increase the likelihood of getting something better, and vice versa.

It is for this level of strategy that David has failed to give a convincing argument. Would we really have not been able to get anything better than this without the blueprint? The reaction of the environmental community makes it clear that most think too much was given away; we believe we can do more, and probably still can, despite the blueprint.

David argues, convincingly, that the industry groups that participated in USCAP also made impressive concessions. But it is not relevant which side gave up more, what’s relevant is what is possible now. The USCAP strategy, from the participating environmental groups’ perspective, was based on the assumption that the industry heel-dragging that has been the biggest obstacle for climate policy in the last decade would continue to be insurmountable. But the strategy fails to recognize the power of grassroots organizing and visionary leadership to sweep over the heads of special interests.

While USCAP was busy finding a document some people from all sides could agree on, Americans were busy organizing to kick out the naysayers and vote in the visionaries. So out comes the compromise between the industry and the enviros, after the enviros already won the public debate.

This isn’t a time to compromise, it’s time to follow the mandate of the American people and get it right. As David concedes, the blueprint doesn’t get it right.

*In this case, 'regulated industries' refers not to current legislation, but the fact that if we passed a cap and trade program, these industries would be subject to it (coal, oil, manufacturing, etc.).

Drawing Straws

Today a classified intelligence report focused attention on some of the lesser-known evils of unabated global warming, including poverty, weak governments, and terrorism. The report concludes that those problems are exacerbated by global warming, similar to previous assessments by U.S. security agencies.

While the theory isn't new, the provocative findings remind me of an interesting question that economists and policy wonks continue to puzzle over: How can uncertain and dramatic hypotheses about global warming tell us how to stop it?

In a simpler world, if every ton of global warming pollution caused $10 of damage to society (such as by withering crops), then economists would simply want to tax global warming pollution at $10/ton. That way, the price of things that cause global warming pollution would rise (by $10 per ton of pollution caused), and people would only pollute when it was worth it to them, despite the added financial cost. Pollution would still exist, but less of it, and only when it was worth it to society overall.

Unfortunately, as we were reminded by the report today, the cost to society from global warming is far from simple. The potential consequences range from changes in weather, such as more flooding and droughts, to changes in economies, such as declining agriculture in areas that currently use rain instead of irrigation, to changes in geo-politics, such as more civil unrest and extremism in poor areas where agriculture is no longer able to feed the people. Understanding any one of these areas is enough to keep hundreds of scientists or social scientists busy for their entire careers.

So, if you had to make a rough guess, how much damage would you say a ton of CO2 creates, over it's 100-year life-cycle? $10?

If the question seems absurd, you're probably on the right track. Not that economists aren't already trying to answer that question, but with all the uncertainties involved, not just in scale of damage, but also in terms of how much pollution will cause which effects, existing science is just not up to the task.

But there is one calculation that many climatologists have begun to answer that can be just as informative for global warming policy. Because many of the consequences of global warming (such as melting ice and thawing permafrost) are expected to cause more global warming pollution, and there are several very bad things that could happen all at once (such as the Antarctic ice sheet collapsing, lifting sea levels by several meters), many climatologists have begun to see global warming pollution like straw on a camel's back: it may be tolerable for a while, but at some point, one straw too many will make all the difference.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the worlds most respected consensus of global warming-related scientists, has even started to put a number on it. They say, if we want to have a decent shot at avoiding the worst consequences of global warming (the broken camel), we must keep the concentration of global warming pollution to below 450 parts per million.

Interestingly, that understanding does little to help us calculate the ideal tax on global warming pollution. But it does point to another solution: cap-and-trade. Make sure that we reduce our pollution by at least 80% by 2050, and unleash the power of our free market economy to figure out how to get there.

So let's get to it!

Next President Supports Cap and Trade

McCain reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system for global warming pollution today in Oregon (see the NYT article). While the cuts he proposes are weaker than those many scientists say are necessary to avoid major catastrophes from global warming, it underscores one of the big reasons that I am confident that we can pass a good global warming bill in the next congress. Regardless of whether he, Obama, or Clinton win on November 4, the executive for the next 4 years will be a public supporter of a mandatory global warming pollution cap, making a veto much less likely (even for a bill stronger than that proposed by McCain).

The challenge will be less about getting any global warming bill passed (that much is almost guaranteed), and much more about making sure the bill that does pass is strong enough to match modern science in terms of the speed and magnitude of cuts. Other concerns include avoiding loopholes, leaving out big pay-offs to losing industries like coal (such as major funding for CO2 sequestration), and making sure we make polluters pay for the pollution allowances, rather than giving them away for free (which would reward those who are polluting the most).

The presidential and congressional elections going on right now across the country are setting the stage for the fight that will go down in the next year or two over national global warming policy. As support for a mandatory cap continues to build momentum, more and more of the opposition will shift their strategies from attempting to discredit global warming to cutting their losses by settling early for a weak bill intended to stall stronger action. It will be fascinating to see the nuanced messaging that comes from all sides on this issue. No word is accidental!

Investment Firms Want Price for Carbon

This is great! Knowing that the tide is turning, a growing number of investment firms want an explicit financial price tag for global warming pollution to make planning easier. How far have we come in the last 5 years that they're now asking for regulation!

Here's a piece of the Denver Post article from yesterday:

Banks, investment firms, corporations and utilities have begun to price out carbon emissions at $20 per ton. Bank of America, the nation's second-largest bank, is the latest addition to this list. In a February speech, CEO Ken Lewis stated, "We need a stable and predictable regulatory environment with a bias toward clean energy and the green economy. When innovators and financial backers are confident of government support, risk calculations change and good things happen."

To help realize that stable market, he announced the bank's decision to price global warming pollution at $20 to $40 per ton in assessing risks for lending.

This announcement follows an earlier call to action by more than 60 leading investors, asset managers and companies with assets totaling $4 trillion. This group, which includes ALCOA, Sun Microsystems, and Dupont, called on the federal government to tackle global warming and included a call for pricing of global warming pollution.

Mr. Tim Goes to Washington

For those of you who haven't heard yet, I am taking a new job next year as Global Warming Advocate for Environment America! It is a 2 year commitment to help pass a nationwide cap on global warming pollution in the 111^th Congress. Woohoo!

Unfortunately, this means leaving California, which was a very tough decision; I ultimately decided that I couldn't pass up the opportunity to take a swing at one of the greatest sublunary scourges. I also know that I will love DC, having spent a couple quarters there during college, and I will most likely be moving there after the elections in November.

I'll be posting updates to this blog, along with tidbits joined loosely by global warming and my experience. I'm hoping the blog format will be conducive to discussions or debates on the juicy stuff from all aspects of global warming policy, science, technology, etc.

Enjoy!

Tim