[TheClimate.Vote] September 5, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest
Richard Pauli
richard at theclimate.vote
Thu Sep 5 10:10:44 EDT 2019
/September 5, 2019/
[Summarize from ClimateNexus newsletter]
*Seven Hours, Ten Candidates, One Big Problem:* Ten 2020 Democratic
candidates talked climate change at length over a special seven-hour
forum hosted by CNN Wednesday evening. Speaking in one-on-one interviews
with CNN journalists followed by questions from an audience filled with
students and young people, the candidates touched on topics ranging from
a carbon tax to geoengineering to holding the fossil fuel industry
accountable. Former Vice President Joe Biden, who leads the pack in the
polls, made headlines after seeming to be caught flat-footed by an
audience question on a high-dollar fundraiser on his schedule for
Thursday with an oil and gas executive--which may violate a pledge Biden
signed to refuse campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry.
https://climatenexus.org/
- - -
[NYTimes summary]
*5 Takeaways From the Democrats' Climate Town Hall*
By Lisa Friedman and Maggie Astor
Over a marathon seven hours on Wednesday, 10 of the Democratic
presidential candidates participated in back-to-back CNN town hall
events on climate change, fielding questions from audience members and
several of the network's top anchors.
It was something of a consolation prize for what many candidates and
activists really wanted: an official Democratic debate devoted to
climate change, which the Democratic National Committee refused to hold.
But it was also more in-depth than any official debate would have been
-- because did we mention it lasted seven hours? -- and left no doubt
that climate change has become one of the most important issues in the
2020 primary.
Here are some takeaways.
*Young voters are asking tough questions.*
Young people asked some of the toughest, most pointed questions of the
night, holding Democrats' feet to the fire at every turn.
Sila Inanoglu, a high school student, asked Julian Castro, who supported
fracking as mayor of San Antonio, "Why should we trust you as president
to transition our economy to renewables?"
Ari Papahronis, a Columbia University student, asked Senator Amy
Klobuchar of Minnesota whether she would "take on the beef and dairy
industries that have so much influence in our government" given the
agriculture-rich state she represents.
And Isaac Larkin, a 27-year-old Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern, caused
a stir when he asked former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., "How can
we trust you to hold these corporations and executives accountable for
their crimes against humanity when we know that tomorrow you are holding
a high-dollar fund-raiser hosted by Andrew Goldman, a fossil fuel
executive?"
Both the moderator, Anderson Cooper, and Mr. Biden pointed out that Mr.
Goldman, a co-founder of a natural gas production company, has no
current role with the firm. But the question forced Mr. Biden to use
much of his 40-minute segment to explain how his link to Mr. Goldman did
not violate his pledge to avoid donations from the fossil fuel industry.
Several of the young people who got in questions at Wednesday's forum
were members of the Sunrise Movement, the youth-led environmental group.
That's no accident. The group pushed hard, though ultimately
unsuccessfully, for the Democratic National Convention to hold a climate
debate, and the CNN forum was in large part a reaction to that demand.
*Democratic rivals agreed to agree.*
The debate over the best ways to fight climate change has clear
parameters. If you are a Democratic candidate for president, you believe
climate change is an existential threat not only to the United States
but to human civilization. You believe the country needs to reach
net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the very latest. And there are
certain policies you can't avoid if you want to get there.
Pretty much everyone wants a moratorium on oil and gas leases on public
lands. Pretty much everyone wants to create incentives for more
sustainable farming practices. And everyone wants to rejoin the Paris
climate accord -- though the candidates' proud declarations on that
front irritated Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey.
"I'm sorry," he said. "That is, like, a cost of entry even to run for
president or talk about the presidency."
Most of the candidates also support some form of putting a price on
carbon emissions, at least in theory. But their level of specificity
varies: Andrew Yang, the tech entrepreneur, knows exactly how much he
wants to charge per ton of carbon dioxide, while Ms. Klobuchar wants to
see who controls Congress before deciding whether to pursue a tax or a
cap-and-trade program or something else.
One thing is certain: All of the candidates want to spend money, and
lots of it -- money for clean energy research, money to develop
carbon-capture technologies, money to expand public transportation, and
money to help communities withstand the effects of climate change
already underway.
*Nuclear energy is deeply divisive.*
There were several areas where the candidates differed in how far or
fast they wanted to act. But nuclear energy was a major issue where they
were fundamentally divided.
One wing, which included Mr. Booker and Mr. Yang, argued that it would
be all but impossible to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 without
relying to some extent on nuclear energy, even if solar and wind power
were preferable in the long term.
Nuclear energy currently accounts for about 20 percent of the country's
power, and people who think it's possible to get to net-zero carbon
without nuclear energy "just aren't looking at the facts," Mr. Booker said.
He and Mr. Yang both noted that new technology could make it possible to
build nuclear reactors that are not vulnerable to the meltdowns like
those at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Other candidates were much more hesitant. Senator Kamala Harris of
California talked about the dangers of nuclear waste before suggesting
she would let states decide whether to accept nuclear plants. Ms.
Klobuchar similarly emphasized the waste problem and said she would not
support new plants "unless we can find safe storage."
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont unequivocally opposed nuclear energy,
rejecting a questioner's premise that it was irresponsible, in the face
of such an urgent crisis, to take a carbon-free option off the table.
"It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to add more dangerous waste
to this country and the world when we don't know how to get rid of what
we have now," he said.
*Natural gas is the new litmus test.*
The battle over eliminating fossil fuels has moved to a new front:
natural gas.
Coal, notably, got relatively short shrift during the seven-hour
discussion. Despite the Trump administration's efforts to revive the
industry, coal use is rapidly declining. That has helped make
encouraging its demise a universally accepted position among Democratic
candidates.
But natural gas, and whether to commit to a ban on fracking, is dividing
the field.
Mr. Sanders has gone the farthest, urging Democrats to support a "full
fracking ban" -- a call that Ms. Harris and Senator Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts also embraced.
Mr. Castro said he has not called for such a ban, but supports states
that want to impose one. He also defended his previous support for
fracking. "We had been saying that natural gas was a bridge fuel" a
decade ago, he said. "We're coming to the end of the bridge."
On the other end of the spectrum was Ms. Klobuchar, who said she would
not ban fracking because she sees natural gas "as a transitional fuel"
that "is better than oil, but it's not nearly as good as wind and solar."
"I think I'm being honest about what we need to do to get to where we
are," she said.
Mr. Biden said he opposed new drilling on federal lands but not a
nationwide ban.
*Republicans took the forum seriously.*
President Trump issued a series of mocking tweets as CNN prepared to
begin the forum. But other Republicans took the discussion of how to
rein in emissions seriously.
That's not to say they agreed with the Democratic candidates' views on
pricing carbon, banning fracking or spending trillions of dollars to
reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Far from it. But as the forum aired on
TV, a number of conservatives did strive to show that they also want to
address climate change and have their own solutions in mind.
Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, the ranking member of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, called for beefing up nuclear power
"which is safe, reliable and emissions free, and which experts agree
must be part of our strategy to reduce emissions."
Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas pointed to other measures like
promoting carbon capture and storage technology that he said "clean up
the environment, promote innovation, don't ruin the economy AND are
based in reality!"
Even the United States Chamber of Commerce, which historically has
lobbied against laws and regulations that would curb emissions, issued a
news release promoting the "pioneering groundbreaking solutions" in the
energy sector to curb climate change.
Environmental activists say these kinds of efforts don't match the
urgency of the climate change challenge. But the fact that key
Republicans are calling for action at all is noteworthy.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2019/democrats-climate-town-hall/highlights-2020-climate-change
- - -
[CNN Summary]
*Live commentary: How to solve the climate crisis*
Elizabeth Warren emerged once again as the strongest, most effective
and compelling speaker. She also seems a happier warrior, relaxing
into her role as her crowds grow. My bet is that her crowds are
likely to grow again after tonight.
https://www.cnn.com/opinions/live-news/live-commentary-climate-crisis-town-hall/index.html
- - -
[Text and video summary planned for last night on CNN]
*Here's Your Cheat Sheet For The 2020 Democratic Candidates' Climate Plans*
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-forum-2020-democrats_n_5d6ede16e4b0110804562976
- - -
[Bloomberg commentary YouTube]
2020 Democrats Target 7 Ways to Fight Climate Change
**Bloomberg Politics
Published on Sep 4, 2019
Sep.04 -- The contenders for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination
have found common ground on seven major ideas for fighting climate
change. Bloomberg's Wendy Benjaminson reports on "Balance of Power."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxySopz8pMU
[Effort to grab back headlines]
*White House to Relax Energy Efficiency Rules for Light Bulbs*
The Trump administration plans to significantly weaken federal rules
that would have forced Americans to use much more energy-efficient light
bulbs, a move that could contribute to greenhouse gas emissions that
cause global warming...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/04/climate/trump-light-bulb-rollback.html
[ABA - the American Bar Association]
*The new progressive federalism: States' rights to clean air and climate
protection*
Melissa Hoffer
- - -
Since 1970, California has had authority to set its own more stringent
vehicle emissions standards under section 209 of the Clean Air Act, and
other states may adopt those identical standards under section 177 or
apply the national standard.
The administration's proposal would freeze the Obama-era standards at
2021 levels, and revoke California's authority--again, imposing a lower
federal standard on California and more than a dozen section 177 states,
and undermining their public health and clean transportation goals,
despite rhetoric about the primacy of state leadership.
This significant tension in the administration's position on state
authority in the realm of energy and environment is revealing: the
administration's allegiance to federalism does not appear to be a
bedrock principle, but rather is hostile to many states' energy and
environmental policies, under the guise of championing states' rights.
States now find themselves on the frontlines of climate disruption, and
many are building for resilience while mitigating emissions and doing
their part to advance the clean energy transition. States' rights and
authority under our federal system ensure that states can continue to lead.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/environment_energy_resources/publications/trends/2019-2020/september-october-2019/the-new-progressive-federalism/
[IMF - International Monetary Fund]
*A Role for Financial and Monetary Policies in Climate Change Mitigation*
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent the views of the IMF and its Executive Board.
SEPTEMBER 4, 2019
By William Oman
- -
A review of the literature by IMF staff aims to spur discussion of what
policies to mitigate climate change could or should include. The review
suggests that, while fiscal tools are first in line, they need to be
complemented by financial policy tools such as financial regulation,
financial governance, and policies to enhance financial infrastructure
and markets, and by monetary policy...
- -
Our review of academic and policy studies suggests that, currently,
there are insufficient incentives to encourage investment in green
private productive capacity, infrastructure, and R&D. At the same time,
investments continue to pour into carbon-intensive activities. These
undesirable economic outcomes prevent the needed decarbonization of the
global economy. Decarbonization requires a transformation in the
underlying structure of financial assets--a transformation that, studies
suggest, is hindered by several deficiencies in the way markets function.
First, financial risks may not reflect climate risks or the long-term
benefits of mitigation, given many investors' shorter-term perspectives.
Moreover, financial risks are often assessed in ways that do not capture
climate risks, which are complex, opaque, and have no historical precedents.
Second, there is a wide gap between the private profitability and the
social value of low-carbon investments. High uncertainty around their
ability to reduce emissions, as well as the future value of avoided
emissions, makes low-carbon investments unattractive to investors, at
least in the short run.
Third, corporate governance that favors short-term financial performance
may amplify financial "short-termism," while constraints in capital
markets can lead to credit rationing for low-carbon projects.
https://blogs.imf.org/2019/09/04/a-role-for-financial-and-monetary-policies-in-climate-change-mitigation/
[not encouraging]
*****Dorian Hammering Grand Bahama Island: Prolonged Storm Surge Threat
Ahead for Southeast U.S.*
Bob Henson · September 2, 2019, 1:34 PM EDT
- - -
*President Trump says he didn't know Category 5 hurricanes existed*
On Sunday, President Trump expressed his surprise over Hurricane
Dorian's Category 5 strength, saying:
"I'm not sure I've ever even heard of a Category 5. I knew it existed.
And I've seen some Category 4s. You don't even see them that much. But a
Category 5 is something that, uh, I don't know that I've never even
heard the term, other than I know it's there. That's the ultimate. And
that's what we have, unfortunately."
But the President knew full well that Category 5 hurricanes exist, based
on his past comments. As reported today by the Capital Weather Gang's
Andrew Freedman, Trump has expressed shock at the existence of Category
5 storms at least two other times: during Hurricane Irma in 2017 ("never
even knew a Category 5 existed") and Hurricane Michael in 2018 (never
heard about Category 5s before.") Oddly, though, Trump has repeatedly
called Hurricane Maria, which devastated Puerto Rico in 2017, a Category
5--even though it was a Category 4 at landfall. Troublingly, since the
president is in charge of ordering disaster relief in the wake of a
hurricane, his Category 5 misconceptions could lead to a slowing or
mis-allocation of resources.
Trump's Category 5 blindness is also financially dangerous for a
businessman who owns a multi-million-dollar property on a barrier island
in a hurricane storm surge zone--the Mar-a-Largo resort in Palm Beach,
Florida. NOAA's National Storm Surge Hazard Maps database predicts that
Mar-a-Largo would see inundations of up to 3 – 6' on the back-bay side
during a Category 5 hurricane. The resort was evacuated and boarded up
for Dorian, after a 1 pm Sunday evacuation order was given for the
barrier island.
Also concerning is the President's failure to understand the size of
Dorian. On Sunday, he tweeted: "In addition to Florida – South Carolina,
North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much)
harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever."
In these comments, President Trump confused the strength of the storm
for its size. The intensity of a hurricane's peak winds is not
correlated with the areal size, and Dorian is an average-sized hurricane
whose winds will come nowhere close to affecting Alabama. Officials
there had to scramble to put out statements refuting the President's
misinformation. Unfortunately, he repeated the claim later at a FEMA
press conference. He told journalists: "And Alabama could even be in for
at least some very strong winds and something more than that, it could
be. This just came up, unfortunately. It's the size of the storm that
we're talking about. So, for Alabama, just please be careful also."
Finally, we should be concerned about the President's reported
willingness to use nuclear weapons on hurricanes. According to an August
25, 2019 report from Axios, citing inside sources, during one hurricane
briefing at the White House, Trump said (paraphrasing the president's
remarks): "I got it. I got it. Why don't we nuke them? They start
forming off the coast of Africa, as they're moving across the Atlantic,
we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why
can't we do that? Trump has denied making the statement.
If one were to detonate a nuclear device in the eyewall of a hurricane,
the radioactive fallout would very efficiently be carried high into the
atmosphere due to the tremendous upper-level outflow that ventilates a
hurricane. In a matter of days, radioactive fallout would be carried
around the globe by the sub-tropical jet stream, contaminating rainfall
over a huge area. The blast would also have little or no impact on the
hurricane, since the amount of energy released by a nuclear device is
puny compared to what a hurricane generates. It is also illegal under
the terms of the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty between the U.S. and
the former Soviet Union to explode a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere.
Dr. Jeff Masters co-wrote this post, including the section on President
Trump.
tweet https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1168229088642981889
text box of Trump quotes:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDZiHHCXYAAMepA?format=png&name=small
https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Dorian-Hammering-Grand-Bahama-Island-Prolonged-Storm-Surge-Threat-Ahead-Southeast-US
[Correcting another magazine]
*What the New Yorker Got Wrong About Forests and Wildfires*
by GEORGE WUERTHNER
The New Yorker recently published an article titled Trailblazing plan to
fight California Wildfires that contains misinformation...
- - -
What is obvious to anyone familiar with the scientific literature on
wildfire is that while the author dutifully and accurately reported on
the opinions and work of her sources, she did not realize that much of
what she reported is contested or countered by other scientists and sources.
While permitting more wildfires to burn in remote areas is a positive
outcome of our understanding of the important role of wildfire in forest
ecology, the idea that massive thinning and burning can preclude large
fires is delusional. In the end, the focus should be on reducing the
vulnerability of homes and cities to fires–and this starts at the home
and works outward–and preventing the construction of homes in the "fire
plain". Unfortunately, the article gives the impression that all that is
needed is more management of our forests.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/09/02/what-the-new-yorker-got-wrong-about-forests-and-wildfires/
[Humorous.. see this XR cartoon]
*Brenda the Civil Disobedience Penguin asks: what will you give up to
save the planet?*
First Dog on the Moon
There is a lot of work to do and you soft flipperless humans are going
to have to ask yourselves some difficult questions
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/05/brenda-the-civil-disobedience-penguin-asks-what-will-you-give-up-to-save-the-planet
[Not funny trick with hurricane map]
*Trump shows fake hurricane map in apparent bid to validate incorrect tweet*
Trump points to map with black loop extending hurricane's path
President made baseless claim that Alabama would be affected
*This Day in Climate History - September 5, 2009 - from D.R. Tucker*
September 5, 2009: White House advisor Van Jones decides to resign after
a series of vicious rhetorical attacks on him by Fox News Channel host
Glenn Beck and other conservative pundits.
http://youtu.be/_RuAFg0haCk
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/
/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
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe,
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for
http://TheClimate.Vote <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.
More information about the TheClimate.Vote
mailing list