[TheClimate.Vote] October 3, 2017 - Daily Global Warming News
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Tue Oct 3 11:58:14 EDT 2017
/October 3, 2017/
*
Yale Climate Connections
**Climate change poses huge risks to investors
<https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/climate-change-poses-huge-risks-to-investors/>*
No industry is immune from its effects.
"They see this as a risk to their portfolio and there's no way to
diversify away from this risk."
That's Namrita Kapur, who leads finance strategy for the Environmental
Defense Fund. She explains that no industry is immune to the effects of
climate change. This means the typical strategy of spreading out
investments across various industries may be less effective than in the
past.
Kapur says some investors are now examining companies' environmental
practices and demanding policies to address environmental risks.
https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/10/climate-change-poses-huge-risks-to-investors/
*Poll: Most Americans want government to fight climate change
<http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/353417-poll-americans-want-government-to-fight-climate-change>*More
than 6 in 10 Americans believe that climate change is a problem that the
federal government needs to address, according to a new poll.
The poll, conducted in August by The Associated Press-NORC Center and
the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, found a large
majority of Americans in both major parties believe that climate change
is happening.
But Americans' opinions are less clear when it comes to what action they
feel should be taken
"Although half of households said they were unwilling to pay anything
for a carbon policy in their monthly electricity bills, on average
Americans would pay about $30 per month, as a meaningful share of
households report that they are willing to pay a substantial amount," he
said.
"So, while the raw economics appears to be less and less of a problem,
the open question is whether it is feasible to devise a robust climate
policy that accommodates these very divergent viewpoints."
Opinions were not entirely clear on hot-button climate policy issues,
either.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/353417-poll-americans-want-government-to-fight-climate-change
*Forget the Paris agreement. The real solution to climate change is in
the U.S. tax code
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/forget-the-paris-agreement-the-real-solution-to-climate-change-is-in-the-u-s-tax-code/>*
So when Trump said he wanted to "restore America's competitive edge by
passing tax cuts," he seemed to have at least one particular industry in
mind: oil.
When the Republican tax plan
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-tax-document-reveals-plan-for-massive-tax-cuts-preserves-key-deductions/2017/09/27/684ea40e-a387-11e7-ade1-76d061d56efa_story.html?utm_term=.4af560dada71> came
out last week, it was short on details, leaving much of the nitty-gritty
for Congress to hash out. It limits some benefits that oil companies
traditionally rely on, such as deductions for interest payments that
make it easier to raise money for expensive infrastructure like pipelines.
But the oil industry is still calling it a win, citing proposals that
would make it easier for oil companies to recover their investments in
exploration and to shield profits earned from drilling overseas, in
addition to lowering the corporate tax rate to 20 percent.
The oil and gas producers lobby group, Independent Petroleum Association
of America, called
<http://www.ipaa.org/on-tax-reform-capital-recovery-provisions-critical-for-independent-oil-natural-gas-producers/>it
a "positive step forward," while the American Petroleum Institute said
<http://www.api.org/news-policy-and-issues/news/2017/09/27/api-pro-growth-tax-policies-will-grow-economy-and-strengthen-us-energy-renaissan>the
reforms would "strengthen the U.S. energy renaissance."
The GOP tax plan gives little indication of keeping that commitment -
and that could have significant implications for U.S. oil production and
the climate.
Already, the U.S. oil industry benefits from a dozen specialized
subsidies adding up to about $4.6 billion per year, according to a 2015
review
<https://www.oecd.org/site/tadffss/publication/United%20States%20Self%20review%20USA%20FFSR%20Self-Report%202015%20FINAL.pdf> by
the Obama administration. Among other things, the subsidies reduce the
costs of labor and equipment involved in drilling - and shield some of
the profits earned on the oil itself.
In other words, tax reform can help fight climate change - just not the
kind of tax reform Trump and Republicans are proposing.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/forget-the-paris-agreement-the-real-solution-to-climate-change-is-in-the-u-s-tax-code/
In a new study Monday in Nature Energy, SEI researchers looked at newly
discovered U.S. oil fields that have not yet been put into production -
all 800 of them.
The researchers found that about half of these undeveloped fields would
never go into production, (assuming an oil price of $50 per barrel,
close to where it is today) - if oil company tax breaks are taken out
of the picture. The study is based on the current range of subsidies and
doesn't account for changes that could result from the new GOP plan.
"It's very much underappreciated how these subsidies ultimately tilt the
balance to increasing oil production and increasing CO2 emissions,"
Peter Erickson, the study's lead author, said in an interview.
*Effect of subsidies to fossil fuel companies on United States crude oil
production
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0009-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=kiiyzpca4OKwcK2ENMg1wtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OyLLEcIVrbwv-XjMBX8LWWSQfaRxfzG3nveNLI28CX7UbsgPkfhffaHK8mlUkRukWeqPiCqhj7gXV7qJW8k4jGCJLBQiSmwR2QNuhKgW7DVtcC2sXhTECF9Xy4MeRgPN9OkHEH_LY8pLkSximcy5IYGvFFyiXVAq42FCd8T7QFONyWv70dH4wMIlcbGQyH3Ekf6nYQ7K3Yl3oeSMBYP5raCggsBOBnWPyfSljxL28OQYRmHd91ETlOe1ZBXjumjhIY85BBtOclOYvN6N4GliNB91rSpe3r0XWXWIRiCJBCn8TDv3UbhceBuquCdvFQyWdKl5fp6EGfACgfhtX5Ytc4&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com>*
Peter Erickson Adrian Down Michael Lazarus Doug Koplow
Countries in the G20 have committed to phase out 'inefficient' fossil
fuel subsidies. However, there remains a limited under-
standing of how subsidy removal would affect fossil fuel investment
returns and production, particularly for subsidies to pro-
ducers. Here, we assess the impact of major federal and state subsidies
on US crude oil producers. We find that, at recent oil
prices of US$50 per barrel, tax preferences and other subsidies push
nearly half of new, yet-to-be-developed oil investments
into profitability, potentially increasing US oil production by 17
billion barrels over the next few decades. This oil, equivalent
to 6 billion tonnes of CO could make up as much as 20% of US oil
production through 2050 under a carbon budget aimed at
limiting warming to 2 degrees C. Our findings show that removal of tax
incentives and other fossil fuel support policies could both fulfil
G20 commitments and yield climate benefits.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0009-8.epdf
Why the 97% climate consensus is important
*Some have argued that consensus messaging is counter-productive. Here's
why they're wrong.
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/02/why-the-97-climate-consensus-is-important>*
The value of consensus is well understood by the opponents of climate
action, like the fossil fuel industry. In the early 1990s, despite the
fact that an international scientific consensus was already forming, the
fossil fuel industry invested in misinformation campaigns to confuse the
public about the level of scientific agreement that human-caused global
warming is happening. As has been well-documented, fossil fuel companies
learned this strategy from the tobacco industry, which invested enormous
sums in marketing and public relations campaigns to sow doubt in the
public mind about the causal link between smoking and lung cancer.
Opponents of climate action may reject scientific evidence supporting
the reality of human-caused climate change, but they have diligently
applied the social scientific evidence indicating how to reduce public
support for climate action. An analysis of conservative op-eds found
their most common claim was "there is no consensus." An analysis of a
six-month period in 2016 found that the most-shared climate article on
social media was about an online petition designed to cast doubt on the
scientific consensus. It's why the Trump administration wants to
televise a Red Team/Blue Team climate debate.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/02/why-the-97-climate-consensus-is-important
*After Hurricane Maria, Puerto Rican journalists defy collapse of
communications and personal losses to continue reporting
<https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-18849-after-hurricane-maria-puerto-rican-journalists-defy-collapse-communications-and-person>*
Teresa Mioli, Evelyn Moreno / Knight Center for Journalism in the
Americas / Sep 30, 2017
International and Puerto Rican media have set up shop in the Puerto Rico
Convention Center, creating a de facto newsroom in the same building
where officials give press conferences and citizens look for resources.
Aside from Internet and cell service, it is the place to find all
government sources who will provide updates on efforts to help the 95
percent of Puerto Ricans without power
<https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/09/f37/Hurricanes%20Maria%2C%20Irma%20and%20Harvey%20Event%20Summary%20September%2029%2C%202017.pdf>,
as well as the thousands without food, water, fuel
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/29/puerto-rico-crisis-supply-food-water>
andmedical help.
<http://www.npr.org/2017/09/28/554182929/in-puerto-rico-relying-on-luck-and-enough-gas-to-get-medical-care>A
team of five reporters is moving throughout the island when they are not
in San Juan –to the center, the north coast and other metropolitan areas.
Once they leave the convention building, communication becomes more
difficult.
"Outside of San Juan we have no phone connection, no messaging, no
WhatsApp, no nothing," Minet explained.
Though the journalists are physically fine, Minet said some of them have
family who lost homes or are stranded without water or gas.
https://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/00-18849-after-hurricane-maria-puerto-rican-journalists-defy-collapse-communications-and-person
*CAN WE REALLY LIMIT GLOBAL WARMING TO "WELL BELOW" TWO DEGREES
CENTIGRADE?
<http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/can_we_really_limit_global_warming_to_well_below_two_degrees_centigrade>*
Yes, but only in a model. We have essentially emitted too much carbon
dioxide already, and the most feasible pathways to stay "well below" two
degrees all require removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at an
unprecedented scale.
How can we stay "well below" two degrees?
- Immediate implementation of strong climate policies in all countries,
causing emissions to reach their peak and driving deep cuts in emissions
from fossil fuels, industry, and deforestation.
- Rapid expansion of new low carbon technologies to provide energy for a
growing population.
- The development and large-scale deployment of technologies that remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
- Deep emission cuts in all countries, regardless of their level of
economic development.
Failing any one of these either increases the costs of keeping "well
below" two degrees, or even worse, makes the "well below" two degrees
target physically impossible.
http://www.joboneforhumanity.org/can_we_really_limit_global_warming_to_well_below_two_degrees_centigrade
*Can Hollywood Movies About Climate Change Make a Difference?
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/mother-darren-aronofsky-climate-change.html>*
And when climate change is depicted on screen, it's often in an
onslaught of fire and brimstone, an apocalyptic vision that hardly
leaves room for a hopeful human response.
That, climate researchers and social scientists say, is exactly the
wrong message to give.
"Typically, if you really want to mobilize people to act, you don't
scare the hell out of them and convince them that the situation is
hopeless," said Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of
Michigan who is the author of "How Culture Shapes the Climate Change
Debate."
But that is just the kind of high-stakes film that Hollywood loves to
produce - like "The Day After Tomorrow," which depicted New York City as
a frozen dystopian landscape. Or "Geostorm," due Oct. 20, in which the
climate goes apocalyptically haywire, thanks to satellites that malfunction.
Copious research shows that this kind of dystopian framing backfires,
driving people further into denial and helplessness; instead of acting,
they freeze.
"You have to frame these things so people feel like they have an entry
point," said Max Boykoff, a professor and director of the Center for
Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of
Colorado-Boulder.
"We try not to create programming that is a cause for despair, but
rather an opportunity." Because, he added: "The greatest goal of climate
change programs is to first find a new audience and stop preaching to
the converted. At the end of the day, we're trying to find new converts."
One bright spot in showing environmental alarm onscreen is children's
programs, Ms. Levin said, which "work beautifully for everyday practices
and overall awareness. Parents often watch with them, and they learn
together." And climate change is a frequent topic of visual artists and
writers, where the genre known as cli-fi is growing.
One thing too few people do, according to Mr. Boykoff, the University of
Colorado researcher, is laugh about climate change. Alexander Payne's
forthcoming "Downsizing," in which people are shrunk to tiny versions of
themselves - thereby using less resources - takes a swing at that approach.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/mother-darren-aronofsky-climate-change.html
*This Day in Climate History October 3, 2010
<http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?printable=true#ixzz11K5nMoZ9>
- from D.R. Tucker*
October 3, 2010: NewYorker.com posts Ryan Lizza's analysis of the
demise of climate legislation in the Senate earlier in the year. The
piece, which also appears in the October 11 edition of the New Yorker,
notes that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was concerned about being
rhetorically assaulted by right-wing media entities for supporting the
climate bill:
"At a climate-change conference in South Carolina on January 5, 2010,
Graham started to sound a little like Al Gore. 'I have come to
conclude that greenhouse gases and carbon pollution' are 'not a good
thing,' Graham said. He insisted that nobody could convince him that
'all the cars and trucks and plants that have been in existence since
the Industrial Revolution, spewing out carbon day in and day out,'
could be 'a good thing for your children and the future of the
planet.' Environmentalists swooned. 'Graham was the most inspirational
part of that triumvirate throughout the fall and winter,' Michael
Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, said. 'He was
advocating for strong action on climate change from an ethical and a
moral perspective.'
"But, back in Washington, Graham warned Lieberman and Kerry that they
needed to get as far as they could in negotiating the bill 'before Fox
News got wind of the fact that this was a serious process,' one of the
people involved in the negotiations said.'"
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza?printable=true#ixzz11K5nMoZ9
/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
////Send email to subscribe
<a%20href=%22mailto:contact at theClimate.Vote%22> to this mailing. /
. *** Privacy and Security: * This is a text-only mailing that
carries no images which may originate from remote servers.
Text-only messages provide greater privacy to the receiver and
sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for
democratic and election purposes and cannot be used for
commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote with subject:
subscribe, To Unsubscribe, subject: unsubscribe
Also youmay subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Paulifor
http://TheClimate.Vote delivering succinct information for
citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously
restricted to this mailing list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20171003/49804876/attachment.html>
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list