[TheClimate.Vote] February 26, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*February 26, 2020*/

[capital steps up - important analysis]
*Can Corporations Stop Climate Change?*
Hosted by Michael Barbaro, produced by Michael Simon Johnson, Eric 
Krupke and Lynsea Garrison, and edited by Larissa Anderson and Paige Cowett
One letter to executives around the world has prioritized climate change 
on corporate agendas. But will this make a difference without government 
regulation?
Monday, February 24th, 2020

In recent weeks, several of the largest and most profitable American 
companies have introduced elaborate plans to combat climate change. So 
why are they doing it now? And just how meaningful are their plans?

    These companies aren't dumb. If Microsoft, Amazon and Delta all know
    that what they're going to do on a very individual basis can't
    fundamentally change the game, right -- we know that they can't
    change the game by themselves -- what are they really doing this for?

    Michael Barbaro
    And what's the answer, a little bit of altruism a little bit of
    marketing?

    Andrew Ross Sorkin
    Probably all of the above. There's probably a little bit of
    marketing. There's probably a little bit of maybe the investors are
    going look at me differently. I think there are executives that want
    to be leaders in this space. There's no question that when Larry
    Fink wrote his letter or any of these companies thought about their
    policies, they were responding to consumers. They were responding to
    their employees. They were responding to investors. But the real
    question is whether a group of companies unto themselves can
    actually change the game. Whether their leadership is going to force
    every other company to follow them, or whether ultimately you need
    governments across the globe to create rules that every company
    follows. And until and unless that happens, I think there's going to
    be a lot of fair skepticism about what these companies are doing and
    why they're doing it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/podcasts/the-daily/climate-change.html



[JP Morgan paper -follow the money]
*Special Report Risky business: the climate and the macroeconomy*
=Climate change is a slow-moving process, but it is no less dangerous 
for that. It is likely to be one of the key defining features of the
coming decades. The longer action is delayed the more costly it will
be to deal with the issues. Moreover, a delayed policy response
opens us up to potentially catastrophic outcomes, which might be
impossible to reverse.
=This report examines climate change in three sections: the mechanics of 
climate change; the impact of climate change; and the response to 
climate change.
=The mechanics of climate change considers the journey from human 
activity to CO2 emissions, from CO2 emissions to atmospheric
CO2 concentrations, from atmospheric CO2 concentrations to the
global temperature and from the global temperature to the global
climate. The climate system is complex, non-linear and dynamic.
There is considerable inertia in the system so that emissions in the
coming decades will continue to affect the climate for centuries to
come in a way that is likely to be irreversible. Uncertainty is endemic, 
not just about modal effects but also about the shape of the
probability distributions, especially how fat the tails are.
=The impact of climate change is broad based covering GDP, the
capital stock, health, mortality, water stress, famine, displacement,
migration, political stress, conflict, biodiversity and species 
survival. Uncertainty is endemic here as well, trying to evaluate the 
impact of a climate that the earth hasn't seen for many millions of
years. Empirical estimates based on the variability of the climate in
recent decades likely massively underestimate the effects.
=The response to climate change should be motivated not only by
central estimates of outcomes but also by the likelihood of extreme
events (from the tails of the probability distribution). We cannot
rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is
threatened.
=To contain the change in the climate, global net emissions need to
reach zero by the second half of this century. Although much is
happening at the micro level, it is hard to envisage enough change
taking place at the macro level without a global carbon tax.
=But, this is not going to happen anytime soon. Developed economies, who 
are responsible for most of the cumulative emissions,
worry about competitiveness and jobs. Meanwhile, Emerging and
Developing economies, who are responsible for much less of the
cumulative emissions, still see carbon intensive activity as a way of
raising living standards. It is a global problem but no global solution 
is in sight..
read or download the 22 page paper at:
JPM_Risky_business__the_climate_and_the_macroeconomy_2020-01-14_3230707.pdf.pdf
- - -
[Beckwith video discussion]
Climate Catastrophe Warning in J.P.Morgan's: Risky business: the climate 
and the macroeconomy: 1of2
Feb 24, 2020
Paul Beckwith
"...it is clear that the Earth is on an unsustainable trajectory. 
Something will have to change at some point if the human race is going 
to survive."
Economic Research Report: J.P.Morgan, Jan 14, 2020 titled "Risky 
Business: the climate and the macroeconomy" (Google it!)
   "The New York bank (J.P.Morgan) is one of 33 powerful financial 
institutions to have provided an estimated total of $1.9 Trillion to the 
fossil fuel sector between 2016 and 2018."
Clearly, the money and power in society is pushing us at ever faster 
rates towards a barren Earth...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzNpd_nKx-8
- - -
[Second segment]
Forward J.P.Morgan's report: "Risky business: the climate and the 
macroeconomy" to Climate Deniers
I continue to chat about the J.P.Morgan Special Report titled "Risky 
business: the climate and the macroeconomy". 
https://rebellion.earth/wp/wp-content...
It is one thing for a treehugger or climate scientist to talk about our 
impending climate catastrophe, but another thing entirely for the 
largest investment bank funding fossil fuels to report using these dire 
terms. Thus, I highly recommend you forward this video and link to 
politicians and your climate denier friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKc_3Z0rfl8



[US military]
*"All hell breaking loose": How the Pentagon is planning for climate 
change**
*It's good that the US military is thinking about climate change -- but 
it's nowhere near enough.
- - -
A new book, aptly titled All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's 
Perspective on Climate Change, reveals the Pentagon is far more worried 
about the potential impacts of climate change than most probably 
realize. The good news is that it's doing a lot to develop ways of 
coping with that uncertain future. The bad news is that it still may not 
be enough...
- - -
Climate change is a threat in their eyes because it's going to degrade 
their ability to deal with conventional military problems. It's going to 
create chaos, violence, mass migrations, pandemics, and state collapse 
around the world, particularly in vulnerable areas like Africa and the 
Middle East.

At the same time, the military's own bases are very vulnerable to the 
effects of climate change because of rising seas and forest fires, 
storms, and floods.

Climate change, then, represents a threat to American armed forces 
because it's going to interfere with their ability to carry out their 
job. And therefore, it's a threat to national security...
- - -
The military is starting to adjust based on rising heat. The predictions 
are that temperatures in the Middle East before very long will routinely 
reach around 100 degrees Fahrenheit for long stretches during daylight 
hours in the summer.

We can't send American troops into those conditions carrying 60 to 70 
pounds on their backs along with heavy clothing and protective gear, 
too. That's lethal for anybody who goes outside in those conditions.

The military therefore has to rethink its equipment. Even some 
helicopters struggle in those temperatures!

Another adjustment that's been happening -- and here, the Marines have 
taken a leadership role -- is how to deploy forces in areas where 
there's no water, and where supplying them with oil is very dangerous.

This was experienced in Afghanistan, where the most dangerous mission 
you could be assigned to was to escort convoys of oil tankers to remote 
posts in the countryside. Those convoys were always ambushed by the 
Taliban. The same thing happened in Iraq.

So the Marines in particular have been seeking how to make their 
equipment and bases less fossil fuel-dependent. The military even 
developed folding solar arrays that you can carry in your backpack and 
then put over your tents to power your batteries for your radios, and 
make them independent of resources that otherwise would have to be 
carried under hazardous conditions...
- - -
The biggest problem, I think, is that none of these important 
initiatives to deal with climate change are happening fast enough. An 
awful lot of US military bases are highly exposed and are at great risk 
from the effects of climate change. Virtually every East Coast naval 
base is eventually going to be underwater, and nobody is willing to say 
out loud what the cost of relocation is going to be...
- - -
What happens when you have states collapsing, multiple wars happening in 
the Middle East and Africa and South America, and many hurricanes and 
disasters in the United States all at the same time? The US military 
doesn't have enough troops or resources to both defend the United States 
and to address all of these foreign catastrophes. That's what I call an 
all-hell-breaking-loose scenario, and the Pentagon knows very well that 
US forces aren't prepared or capable to deal with it...
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/24/21145687/climate-change-usa-military-book-interview



[State government failure]
*Oregon Republicans Disappear for Another Climate Vote*
After leaving the state last year to shut down a climate change 
proposal, Oregon senators were absent again on Monday.
By Mike Baker
Feb. 24, 2020

SEATTLE -- Less than a year after Oregon's Senate Republicans fled the 
state with passports in hand and hid out in Idaho cabins to avoid voting 
on a climate change bill, they have disappeared again.

With Democrats seeking to advance a new proposal to cap the state's 
greenhouse gas emissions, most Republicans refused to attend a floor 
session on Monday morning, and a search by the Senate chamber's 
sergeant-at-arms failed to find them.

That left the Senate with just 19 members on the floor -- one short of a 
quorum needed to vote -- and threatened to derail a range of bills in 
the final two weeks of the state's legislative session.
- - -
At the time, Ms. Brown bemoaned the walkout as an indicator that the 
divisiveness of federal politics had spilled down to the state level. On 
Monday, she said the Republicans' "boycott" was undemocratic, calling on 
them to show up to "make their voices heard rather than shut down state 
government."
- - -
"Serving in the Legislature is a great honor," she said. "Walking out on 
the job is dishonorable and disrespectful."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/24/us/republicans-oregon-climate.html



[positive sea change]
*Great Australian Bight: Equinor abandons controversial oil drilling plans*
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51623764


[clips for feeding flames of financial anxiety]
*Climate change and soaring flood insurance premiums could trigger 
another mortgage crisis*
Officials fear "a huge foreclosure crisis" from FEMA flood insurance 
reforms.
By Jie Jenny Zou - Feb 25, 2020
[from a partnership with the Center for Public Integrity and 
WNYC/Gothamist.]

NEW YORK CITY -- When Hurricane Sandy hit in 2012, Thalia Panton watched 
in disbelief as floodwaters careened down her quiet, tree-lined street 
in Canarsie, Brooklyn. Sparks flew from downed electrical lines as the 
rapids rose past her thighs.

The water receded as quickly as it appeared. But the damage was done. 
When the skies cleared, Panton was left with $60,000 in losses. The 
basement had flooded, damaging musical instruments her husband and son 
use for their gigs as well as electrical equipment that kept the house 
running. Panton and her neighbors didn't get flood insurance until after 
Sandy because Canarsie wasn't considered a major flood risk at the time 
of the storm.

Seven years later, as even more communities reckon with rising sea 
levels and catastrophic storms, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
is encouraging homeowners and renters to "buy as much flood insurance as 
they can." The agency provides more than 96 percent of all flood 
coverage through its National Flood Insurance Program, making it the 
sole option for most Americans.

But FEMA is revamping the debt-ridden program to make it operate like a 
private insurer, raising concerns that coverage could become 
unaffordable for many higher-risk areas across the country. Agency 
officials have not said how many Americans could be affected. Private 
insurers champion the reforms as a way to modernize the NFIP, but the 
industry also stands to profit. Insurers are now competing directly with 
FEMA. Companies have also sold the agency on expensive deals with 
dubious benefits for taxpayers...
- - -
"They've been kicking the can for almost two years now," Jainey Bavishi, 
director of the New York City Mayor's Office of Resiliency, said of the 
standstill over flood insurance. Congress has been unable to reach 
consensus on the direction of the program, which some see as a lifeline 
and others as a liability. The NFIP has been temporarily extended 15 
times since 2017, most recently in December, in lieu of a bill spelling 
out the program's future. Previous attempts have been jarring: Congress 
tried to reform the NFIP in 2012, only to renege on most of those 
changes just two years later...
- - -
"WE WILL BE UNDERWATER FINANCIALLY, LONG BEFORE WE ARE UNDERWATER 
PHYSICALLY."
In 2015, New York City officials appealed new FEMA flood maps that would 
drastically expand high-risk areas, making flood insurance mandatory and 
more expensive for thousands of New Yorkers. FEMA is working with the 
city to finalize new maps, but it's unclear what they will look like and 
how long the process will take.

Risk Rating 2.0, an initiative that FEMA began working on in 2017 and 
plans to implement in October 2021, could have further effects on costs 
here and in other higher-risk parts of the country. Under the 
initiative, premiums will be priced to fully reflect flood risk, a move 
FEMA says would make the NFIP more financially sound but experts worry 
could make coverage less accessible. The revamp is part of a 
long-simmering effort to transform the program so it operates more like 
a private insurance company.
- - -
The Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, supports 
FEMA's pricing shift as a way to communicate risk to the public, but 
only if premiums are made affordable through some kind of program and 
the agency ramps up investment in flood prevention.

"You can have as much insurance as you want -- the water doesn't care," 
said Anna Weber, a policy analyst for the group. NFIP shouldn't punish 
vulnerable communities for living in risky areas, especially when racist 
real estate practices like redlining have long steered people of color 
into undesirable neighborhoods, Weber said. "Flood insurance has the 
potential to be the linchpin in our climate policy. Right now, it's a 
liability."...
- - -
Much of what FEMA has been doing to recast its flood insurance program 
in recent years follows recommendations from the insurance industry. If 
the NFIP operated more like a private insurer, upping its rates, it 
would be easier for companies to compete for the less risky and more 
profitable policies they wanted. The NFIP would also pay for deals the 
industry has been trying to strike with the program for years.

Reinsurance, for instance. Every year, to avoid being overwhelmed by 
claims, private insurers like State Farm transfer some of their risk to 
reinsurers like Munich Re, handing over a cut of premiums in exchange.

The Reinsurance Association of America lobbied Congress in 2012 and 2014 
to confirm FEMA's authority to purchase reinsurance and to take out 
catastrophe bonds, a newer form of risk transfer. "Cat bonds" are 
high-stakes gambles that Wall Street players like hedge funds make on 
Mother Nature. If a storm devastates, investors could lose their cash, 
which goes toward paying claims. But if a storm underwhelms, investors 
keep their cash and take a hefty profit, leaving insurers to foot bills 
on their own.

Consumer advocates warned that a government agency entering into these 
deals amounted to easy Wall Street profits that would cost taxpayers 
money. Robert Hunter, a former NFIP risk manager and Texas insurance 
regulator, said reinsurance makes "no sense" for FEMA, which can borrow 
from the Treasury at low interest rates set by the federal government.

By comparison, reinsurance prices are set by private companies that need 
to turn a profit and tend to raise rates after major disasters. And 
countries that have relied on cat bonds have found the deals don't 
always pay out as expected.

Nevertheless, Congress urged FEMA to see if reinsurance and cat bonds 
could work for the NFIP. For answers, the agency turned to Guy 
Carpenter, a company that brokers those very deals.

The resulting FEMA report in August 2015 found reinsurance would be more 
expensive than borrowing from the Treasury but could encourage private 
insurers to start competing with the NFIP, offering flood policies of 
their own. This could help the federal government reduce its share of 
flood risk over time as private insurers step up, the report found.

Months earlier, Guy Carpenter unveiled a new specialty practice to sell 
insurance products to big government clients to "relieve the burden on 
taxpayers" -- meaning the company stood to profit if FEMA took its 
recommendation.

That's exactly what happened.
- - -
But it's not clear whether the benefits outweigh the costs. FEMA has 
paid roughly $886 million in premiums to the private insurance industry 
so far. This doesn't include additional millions in commissions and fees 
FEMA has paid to a long list of contractors like Guy Carpenter to 
execute each deal, which the agency declined to fully disclose.

In the four years FEMA has purchased reinsurance, it has collected 
payment once. The agency recouped $1 billion in 2017 after hurricanes 
Harvey, Irma, and Maria. Neither of the agency's two cat bonds to date 
has resulted in a payout.

David Birnbaum, executive director of the Center for Economic Justice, 
argued that FEMA's deals are about political expediency, not taxpayers. 
"If I can operate the NFIP using reinsurance and not have to go to the 
Treasury to borrow more money, that's accomplishing two things," he 
said. "It means I don't have to involve Congress, number one, and number 
two, I don't have to publicize that we're losing money."...
- - -
"There's no incentive for insurers to encourage to build back better," 
O'Hare said. Similar issues plague NFIP policyholders in the US.

The mismatch speaks to a larger issue of who is responsible for 
protecting communities from future disasters. By recommending that 
property owners buy as much insurance as they can, FEMA puts the onus on 
individuals. But that distracts from what experts say is really needed 
to reduce flood risk: large-scale government action.

Sitting in her neighbor's living room one autumn night, Thalia Panton 
and other Canarsie homeowners commiserated about their uncertain futures 
and the little government support they've received. Federal officials 
recently greenlit construction of a six-mile-long sea barrier along the 
eastern shore of Staten Island, another area in New York City hit hard 
during Sandy. But discussions about a far less extensive barrier to 
protect communities like Canarsie are in their infancy.

"It's been seven long years," Panton said, "and not a lot has happened."

Jie Jenny Zou is a reporter with the Center for Public Integrity, a 
nonprofit, nonpartisan investigative news organization in Washington, DC.
https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21146896/climate-change-fema-flood-insurance-mortgage-crisis
- -
[Archive from Nov. 2019]
*FEMA postpones flood insurance rate revamp amid backlash*
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/07/fema-postpones-flood-insurance-rate-revamp-amid-backlash-067505



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming  - February 26, 2003 *
The New York Times reports:

    "A panel of experts has strongly criticized the Bush
    administration's proposed research plan on the risks of global
    warming, saying that it 'lacks most of the elements of a strategic
    plan' and that its goals cannot be achieved without far more money
    than the White House has sought for climate research.

    "The 17 experts, in a report issued yesterday, said that without
    substantial changes, the administration's plan would be unlikely to
    accomplish the aim laid out by President Bush in several speeches:
    to help decision makers and the public determine how serious the
    problem is so that they can make clear choices about how to deal
    with it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/us/panel-of-experts-faults-bush-plan-to-study-climate.html

/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/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.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/attachments/20200226/9c4b7a0c/attachment.html>