[TheClimate.Vote] October 28, 2018 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/October 28, 2018/

[California leads]
*'Wrong way to go, Donald.' Brown rips Trump over cars, climate change 
<https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article220664720.html>*
BY DALE KASLER - October 26, 2018
California officials Friday launched their formal opposition to the 
Trump administration's effort to roll back ambitious rules limiting 
greenhouse gas emissions from trucks and cars, saying the president's 
plan will cost American consumers in the long run.

"Wrong way to go, Donald," Gov. Jerry Brown said, speaking to reporters 
at an R Street overlook near I-5. "Get with it. Bad, to put it in the 
vernacular."

Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, said the 
state filed 415 pages of testimony attacking the "completely unjustified 
and illegal proposal" by President Donald Trump's administration. Twenty 
other attorneys general filed testimony against the Trump plan.

It's the latest salvo in a battle between California and Washington over 
greenhouse gas emissions, electric vehicles and fuel-economy standards. 
The state has already sued the Trump administration over the issue.
Tailpipe emissions account for 28 percent of greenhouse gases, and since 
2009 the Air Resources Board and the Obama administration agreed to a 
plan to gradually scale back carbon emissions, year by year, on new cars.

The Trump plan is also a direct assault of sorts on California's unique 
ability to set stricter-than-the-nation guidelines on air pollution, as 
spelled out in the 1973 federal Clean Air Act. The Trump administration 
has said it wants to revoke California's authority.

It also wants to thwart California's "advanced clean car" regulations, 
which will require automakers to dramatically increase sales of electric 
vehicles and plug-in hybrids in the state, from about 420,000 on the 
road today to 1 million in 2025.

California officials said they're ready to defend the state's authority 
to impose strict limitations on carbon emissions...
more at - 
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article220664720.html


[The Tyee]
*The Moral Rot of Fossil Fuels 
<https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/10/26/Moral-Rot-Fossil-Fuels/>*
Petroleum's corrupting influence is on wretched display more than ever 
before.
By Mitchell Anderson
In case anyone needed a refresher on the moral rot associated with 
fossil fuels, this has been a hell of a month. Washington Post columnist 
and Saudi citizen Jamal Khashoggi, a vocal critic of the reigning oil 
oligarchy of Saudi Arabia, was disappeared in the Saudi embassy in 
Turkey on Oct. 2, possibly with the help of a bone saw.

This gruesome murder was followed by a series of laughably implausible 
statements about what happened by a regime apparently accustomed to 
saying and doing whatever they want, confident that the rest of the 
world is so beholden to their oil they will likely do little. In this 
one aspect the Saudis are completely correct.

The House of Saud is almost singlehandedly responsible for the largest 
famine in the world, perpetrated by blockade on the neighbouring country 
of Yemen. Meanwhile the U.S. and Canada have been arming Saudi Arabia 
for years now, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has egregiously 
referred to Canadian-built heavy assault vehicles equipped with 
105-millimetre cannons as "jeeps."

Former prime minister Stephen Harper personally assured the Saudi king 
that Canada would keep the details of the $15-billion arms deal secret, 
a capitulation continued by the Trudeau government, which has so far 
ignored calls to cancel the sale so obviously at odds with core Canadian 
values. Fourteen million people now face starvation in Yemen as Canada 
and the global community continue to politely tolerate the heinous 
adventures of the largest supplier of oil.

Much has also been made of the alleged reforms of Crown Prince Mohammad 
bin Salman, such as allowing women to drive cars in the 21st century. 
Less well publicized is the subsequent arrest of many women activists in 
the kingdom, some of whom may face the death penalty by public 
beheading, as one does in a civilized society.

Meanwhile the corrupting influence of petroleum is on wretched display 
elsewhere in the world. Venezuela is endowed with the largest proven oil 
reserves and unsurprisingly is ranked as one of most corrupt nations on 
Earth. Many in the impoverished population have been driven to eating 
their pets or even zoo animals. Up to four million people, or about 10 
per cent of the population, have been forced to flee a collapsing 
economy and inflation rates of nearly 100 per cent per month.

Russia has the largest reserves of natural gas in the world and, in 
spite of President Vladimir Putin's aspirations to global greatness, his 
nation is ranked by Transparency International as only marginally less 
corrupt than Haiti. Russian fossil fuel revenues have funded a storied 
ecosystem of billionaire oligarchs and organized crime whose most 
pressing apparent problem is laundering their money into Western banks 
so it can be enjoyed elsewhere.

Here in Canada oil continues to impair our collective ability to respond 
in a principled way to the largest threat facing the planet. The most 
recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assured 
anyone brave enough to read it that we have about 12 years to 
drastically decarbonize our economy before most of the horsemen of the 
apocalypse saddle up for a little ride.

Apparently three election cycles away from Armageddon is still far too 
far into the future to engage our political machinery. In fact 
Conservative parties throughout the nation have seized on the strategy 
of actively fighting climate action as the best way to achieve power. 
Even formerly principled leaders such as Alberta Premier Rachel Notley 
now genuflect before the oil industry, fighting a pitched battle on its 
behalf to export unprocessed Canadian resources, often no further 
offshore than price-gouging refineries in Puget Sound.

One of the reasons it is so difficult to trigger political change on 
carbon reduction is the vast amount of dark money spent by the fossil 
fuel industry to undermine the credibility of climate science. This has 
been both an odious and effective investment with only 45 per cent of 
Americans in 2015 believing climate change is a very serious problem.

It is undeniable that cheap, abundant energy has lifted vast numbers of 
people out of poverty and contributed to a lifestyle of agency and 
affluence unimaginable in the recent past. However, these hard-won gains 
are soon to be swept aside by the impacts of mounting levels of carbon 
in the atmosphere. Climate refugees are already pouring into many parts 
of the world and a credible case can be made that climate change 
contributed to the civil war in Syria.

Having the dominant source of energy in the form of a finite resource 
largely held in private hands is a recipe for ongoing corruption, war 
and inaction on climate. While a rapid move towards renewables is 
already underway, this is largely propelled by the profit motive and 
disruptive technologies. Where is the bold action from democratic 
institutions?

If anything, governments throughout the world remain part of the problem 
rather than the solution, contributing over $5 trillion in subsidies to 
the fossil fuel sector, the equivalent of 6.5 per cent of global GDP. 
Here in Canada, $3.3 billion of your tax dollars are shelled out to oil 
and gas companies every year – the highest economic proportion within 
the G7. This generous largess also does not count the $4.5 billion in 
public money recently splurged on the Trans Mountain Pipeline or the 
additional $7 billion to complete the planned upgrade.

Ottawa's much touted carbon pricing scheme is a long overdue step in the 
right direction but will initially collect less money from polluters 
than the public giveaways flowing in the opposite direction.

The tide is beginning to turn. A recent report shows that renewable 
energy has now pulled even with the economic might of fossil fuels, 
accounting for $4 trillion in global trade. In addition to not 
undermining life itself, a future based on distributed renewable energy 
enjoys many other positives, such as not producing murderous regimes or 
contributing to famines.

Powerful vested interests will fight this transition tooth and nail. 
Elected leaders will look to public opinion on whether or not to act. 
Our future and our morality hang in the balance
https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/10/26/Moral-Rot-Fossil-Fuels/


[life-support matters most]
Wealth Matters
*3 Ways to Create a Climate Change Investment Strategy 
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/your-money/climate-change-investment-strategy.html>*
By Paul Sullivan
Oct. 26, 2018
The United Nations released a sobering report on climate change this 
month, stating that the Earth is warming faster than even scientists 
thought and that without far-reaching action, the planet is likely to 
warm to a dangerous level by 2040.
- - - -
"When you lay out what the challenge is, you're in a better position to 
attack it," said Stephen M. Liberatore, a fixed-income portfolio manager 
at Nuveen who manages $9 billion with an environmental, social and 
governance mandate.

"A report like that lays out the solutions," he said. "If we need $2 
trillion to invest to save the planet, here's what we need to do. I 
think it allows people to see what they need to do to accomplish their 
goals."
- - -
There are two main approaches to creating a climate change investment 
strategy. One is investing in alternative energy. This can be done in a 
variety of areas, including solar, wind or geothermal production and 
distribution, or companies that make the infrastructure, like battery 
cells that power electric cars.

The other way is what some call climate-proofing a portfolio. The 
premise is that a warmer Earth will create economic disruption and that 
companies need to prepare for this.
- -
Here are three ways to consider climate change as a criterion for making 
investments:
*Tap public markets for green investing*
Investing in publicly traded equity and debt is an easy way to express a 
view on climate change. And their availability, along with the 
increasing number and size of mutual funds with a focus on the 
environment, offer plenty of choices.
Yet these investments, like any other, carry risk. "You still have to do 
your homework," said Lloyd Kurtz, head of social impact investing for 
Wells Fargo Private Bank. "If you buy an expensive stock with bad 
fundamentals, it could be green but it's still going to perform badly."
That was the case with many early solar investments and the selections 
that early green energy funds made, Mr. Kurtz said. But he said the case 
for renewable energy had been bolstered by companies, like Apple and 
Google, that adopted these sources to power their operations in the 
United States.
- - -
*The debt market has developed to a level that there are offerings for 
retail investors.*
Louise Herrle, managing director and head of socially responsible 
investing at Incapital, which underwrites bond offerings, said she had 
seen an increased interest from baby boomers who want a portfolio 
aligned with their values. This could mean offerings from the World Bank 
to fund water projects or bonds like the one from Toyota.

"Retail is going to drive this," she said. "They want to put their money 
where their mouth is. People are talking about the financial return and 
the social return."
Seek companies expanding responsible business

Constructing sustainable buildings is a major source of green 
investment, as are wind farms and solar arrays. But there are plenty of 
companies in a middle ground, working to retrofit buildings or using 
alternative energy to add to existing power sources.

Kevin Walenta, who manages Fidelity's select environment and alternative 
energy portfolio, said he followed companies that saved energy in more 
traditional ways. These companies, like Ingersoll Rand, Lennox 
International, Honeywell and Johnson Controls, install efficient 
lighting or heating and cooling systems in commercial buildings. The 
result is significantly less energy consumption, higher green ratings 
for a building and returns in just two or three years.

Mr. Walenta said he looked at both parts of investing, the environmental 
impact and the total return.

"I am looking for the companies that are driving environmental change 
but have a durable business model, good returns, positive cash flow and 
strong balance sheets," he said. "Within the context of environmental 
change, I want them to drive profits over long periods of time."

Another area for investors is electrical utilities, he said. In regions 
like Southern California and Arizona, the cost of solar energy makes it 
competitive with traditional energy. The same, he said, holds true for 
wind power in parts of the Midwest like Oklahoma.

"A decade ago, they weren't the best investments because you had 
significant premium for a wind turbine or a solar panel relative to the 
other options, like natural gas and coal," Mr. Walenta said. "Today, 
that difference is nonexistent."

Such strategies aim to rebut the common belief that investing with an 
environmental focus reduces returns. There are examples of inferior 
investments made to achieve a social good, but there are companies 
focused on green initiatives that are profitable and may be more so as 
climate change intensifies.

"There are three main misperceptions that I talk to every investor 
about: You give up performance to be responsible investors, responsible 
investing isn't mainstream, and you can't make an impact in public 
market securities," Mr. Liberatore said.

*Look to Asia for a big impact*
Its decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement was big news, 
but the United States' pollution of the environment has stayed roughly 
consistent over the past 25 years, and Europe has decreased its carbon 
levels. The big polluters have been countries in Asia, China in particular.

Vivek Tanneeru, portfolio manager of the Matthews Asia ESG Fund, said 
that 85 percent of the growth in emissions had happened in Asia, and 
that China had accounted for 61 percent of that growth.

On the positive side, he said, the solar panels that China installed in 
the first nine months of 2017 exceeded all the solar panels in the 
United States up to 2016.

"It tells you the Chinese government has the political will to do this," 
Mr. Tanneeru said. "Anyone who is serious about addressing climate 
change needs to begin in Asia to have any global impact."

His investment focus is not in renewable energy. That industry, and 
solar panels in particular, has not had a great track record over the 
past decade, largely because of government support and low barriers to 
entry, which led to oversupply.

Mr. Tanneeru said he was focused more on battery technology, which is 
produced almost entirely in Asia. Tesla uses Panasonic battery cells, 
BMW's i3 runs on Samsung technology, and GM used batteries from LG 
Chemical. It's also an area, he noted, that has high barriers to entry.

Another climate strategy in Asia is investing in the companies that run 
high-speed rail networks, like MTR in Hong Kong. In a decade, China went 
from zero to 125,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, making living 
outside polluted cities like Shanghai a possibility.
- - - -
Regardless of the investment type, most investors suffer from 
home-country bias, which is a tendency to invest more where they live 
even if concentrating their money there increases their risk. The same 
holds true for climate change investing, a fact that seems baffling 
given that by definition, rising temperatures are a global problem.
"The U.S. has walked out of the Paris climate accord, but all of Asia is 
in," Mr. Tanneeru said. "There's a lack of appreciation of Asia's 
leadership in addressing these challenges. That's the big constraint in 
my mind."
more at - 
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/your-money/climate-change-investment-strategy.html


[memo language from 53 years ago]
[*Nixon library memo from 1969 refers to 1965 memo to LBJ 
<https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf>*]
THE WHITE HOUSE - September 17, 1969
FOR JOHN EHRLICHMAN

    As with so many of the more interesting environmental questions,
    <https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf>
    we really don't have very satisfactory measurements of the carbon
    dioxide problem. On the other hand, this very clearly is a problem,
    and, perhaps most particularly, is one that can seize the imagination
    of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.

    *The process is a simple one. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has**
    **the effect of a pane of glass in a greenhouse. The C02 content is**
    **normally in a stable cycle, but recently man has begun to introduce**
    **instability through the burning of fossil fuels. At the turn of the**
    **century several persons raised the question whether this would**
    **change the temperature of the atmosphere. **
    **
    **Over the years the hypothesis has been refined, and more evidence **
    **has come along to support it. It is now pretty clearly agreed that**
    **the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the
    average **
    **temperature near the earth' s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit.
    This in turn**
    **could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York.**
    **Goodbye Washington, for that matter. We have no data on Seattle.*

    It is entirely possible that there will be countervailing effects. For
    example, an increase of dust in the atmosphere would tend to lower
    temperatures, and might offset the C02 effect. Similarly, it is
    possible to conceive fairly mammoth man-made efforts to countervail
    the C02 rise. (E. g., stop burning fossil fuels. )

    In any event, I would think this is a subject that the Administration
    ought to get involved with. It is a natural for NATO. Perhaps the
    first order of business is to begin a worldwide monitoring system.
    At present, I believe only the United States is doing any serious
    monitoring, and we have only one or two stations.

    Hugh Heffner knows a great deal about this, as does also the estimable
    Bob White, head of the U.S. Weather Bureau. (Teddy White's brother.)
    The Environmental Pollution Panel of the President's Science Advisory
    Committee reported at length on the subject in 1965. I attach their
    conclusions.

Daniel p. Moynihan
Attachment 
https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Revelle1965AtmosphericCarbonDioxide.pdf
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/sites/default/files/virtuallibrary/documents/jul10/56.pdf


*This Day in Climate History - October 28, 2005 - from D.R. Tucker*
October 28, 2005: The New York Times reports:

    "A sudden interruption in oil supplies sent prices and profits
    skyrocketing, prompting Exxon's chief executive to call a news
    conference right after his company announced that it had chalked up
    record earnings.

    'I am not embarrassed,' he said. 'This is no windfall.'

    "That was January 1974, a few months after Arab oil producers cut
    back on supplies and imposed their short-lived embargo on exports to
    the United States. Oil executives, including J. K. Jamieson, Exxon's
    chief executive at the time, were put on the defensive, forced to
    justify their soaring profits while the nation was facing its first
    energy crisis.

    "Three decades later, their successors are again facing contentions
    that oil companies are making too much money and have failed to
    expand production.

    "Politicians and other critics are asking why the industry allowed
    its refining capacity to tighten.

    "Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, said yesterday that
    its third-quarter net income jumped 75 percent, to $9.92 billion.
    Its profit in the first nine months of this year - $25.42 billion -
    already equals its full-year earnings for 2004. This year's sales,
    which topped $100 billion in the last quarter, are expected to
    exceed those of Wal-Mart.

    "Another oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell, reported a 68 percent jump in
    profits yesterday, to $9.03 billion. Chevron is expected to post a
    profit of more than $4 billion today.

    "This year is shaping up as an exceptionally lucrative one for the
    oil industry, thanks to strong global demand, tight supplies and
    high prices for oil and natural gas. While the idea that the Bush
    administration was considering imposing a windfall profits tax was
    knocked down yesterday by officials, longstanding resentments
    against Big Oil are resurfacing and could end up imposing some
    additional burdens on the industry.

    "The sense that government should step in to curb the phenomenal
    wealth and power often enjoyed by oil companies goes back to Exxon
    Mobil's corporate ancestor from the late 19th century, the
    Rockefeller oil trust known as Standard Oil.

    "Today, Republicans and Democrats alike, aware of the politically
    sensitive issue of high energy prices, are putting increasing
    pressure on the oil and gas industry to return some of its profits.
    The ideas include forcing the industry to invest in more refining
    capacity, to increase inventories to cushion energy shocks, or to
    provide money directly to the government program that helps
    low-income people pay heating bills."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/business/28oil.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print


/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
//Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
//
/https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote//
///
///To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
/to news digest. /

        *** 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/20181028/fc3f7f78/attachment.html>