[TheClimate.Vote] January 7, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest

[Richard Pauli]

/*January 7, 2020*/

[Media culture awards]
*Climate Change Stole the Show at the Golden Globes*
https://earther.gizmodo.com/climate-change-stole-the-show-at-the-golden-globes-1840830510


[lessons not learned, will be repeated - opinion]
*Australia's apocalyptic fires are a warning to the world*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/australias-apocalyptic-fires-are-a-warning-to-the-world/2020/01/06/138a4ffc-30b8-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html


[taunt or boast? opinion]
JANUARY 3, 2020
*Washington Post is Confident Fossil Fuel Industry Has Enough Political 
Power to Destroy the Planet*
by DEAN BAKER
Charles Lane used his Washington Post column to brag about the fact that 
the fossil fuel industry and climate denialists have had enough 
political power to prevent more widespread use of electrical cars, as he 
had apparently predicted would be the case a decade ago. He seems very 
proud of this fact. He also concludes by citing a prediction that there 
will be 125 million electric vehicles on the road worldwide in a decade, 
less than one-tenth of the total. And he is confident that the actual 
number will be below this.

Okay, I'm sure it's fun to use your column in the Washington Post to 
predict a climate disaster, but let's take a look at some of the facts 
here, insofar as Lane has any.

He starts by telling readers:

    "gas-powered cars account for between one-sixth and one-fifth of
    U.S. carbon emissions."

Lane's source actually says that transportation accounts for 29 percent 
of carbon emissions. Cars and trucks account for 82 percent of this, 
with ships, boats, and "other" accounting for another 7.0 percent. If we 
assume that half of those emissions could also be readily replaced with 
electric motors, that would get us to 85.5 percent of the 29 percent of 
emissions attributable to transportation, which would put us at just 
under a quarter of total emissions. That's a bit more than "between 
one-sixth and one-fifth," but why quibble?

Then Lane informs us:

    "government subsidies for them [electric cars] will be a regressive
    transfer of social resources in return for little climate benefit,
    given that the U.S. power grid the cars draw from is 64 percent
    fueled by coal and gas."

Okay, there may have been someone somewhere who did not realize that the 
climate benefits from switching to electric cars are minimal unless we 
also switch to clean power sources, but I've never encountered such a 
person. The obvious point here is that even if we have a massive switch 
to clean sources of electricity generation, we will still be emitting 
huge amounts of greenhouse gases if most of our cars are still powered 
by fossil fuels.

Then Lane tells us the horrible news:

    "Government, both federal and state, subsidized electric-car sales
    and production to the tune ofseveral billion dollars, yet as of
    March 2019."

Wow, several billion dollars! That's a lot of money. He doesn't tell us 
how many billions "several billion" is, but his source warns that it 
could be as high as $20 billion in total. Let's see, that would be 
around 3.0 percent of the annual military budget. But since these are 
subsidies that took place over a decade, we would be talking about 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.5 percent of military spending over 
this period.

Lane also shares his great wisdom for those who want to see mass 
adoption of electric cars:

    "Mass adoption of electric cars, however, cannot occur unless they
    can do everything gas-powered vehicles can do -- including the
    ability to go hundreds of miles before refueling, and refueling
    easily -- at a comparable total cost of ownership."

When we think about the total cost of ownership and go back to Mr. 
Lane's great insights on the issue of electric cars a decade ago, it 
might be worth considering projections for the price of oil at that 
time. Back in 2010, the OECD projected that the price of oil in 2020 
would be $120 a barrel in 2009 dollars, which would translate into more 
than $140 a barrel in today's dollars.

That would easily add another $2 a gallon to the current price of 
gasoline. It would be interesting to know if Lane had recognized a 
decade ago that the OECD and other forecasters had hugely over-projected 
the price of oil, or alternatively, if he thinks it would not affect the 
competitiveness of electric cars if gas was selling for $5 a gallon 
instead of $3 a gallon.

This also raises the obvious point that folks who care about the future 
of the planet might want to tax gas by $2 a gallon (or more) as is done 
in Europe. Of course, if we think it is cute to wreck the planet for 
future generations, then we would never think of making people pay for 
the damage they cause.

In terms of what is possible, China sold almost 1.3 million electric 
cars in 2018 and sales are projected to grow at more than a 33 percent 
annual rate through 2024.  The industry has taken somewhat of a hit this 
year, as the government cut back subsidies, but it appears that the 
leadership is renewing its commitment to electric cars, which means it 
is likely to get back on this growth path. (China also leads the world 
in production of electricity from wind and solar power, so electric cars 
will make a difference there.)

Anyhow, Lane could be proved right. His friends in the fossil fuel 
industry may be able to thwart any serious efforts to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions here and around the world. That will give him something to 
gloat about in 2030.

It is worth noting, for anyone making nonsense arguments about 
affordability, the worldwide savings between the oil price projected 
from 2010 and the actual price of oil today comes to more than $2.7 
trillion a year. If we add in savings from lower priced natural gas and 
coal, which would be at least comparable, the total would be in the 
neighborhood of $5.4 trillion a year.

The $5.4 trillion in savings that the world is seeing each year from 
lower than projected fossil fuel prices would be enough to buy 180 
million electric cars a year, if they cost $30,000 each. In other words, 
switching to electric cars on a large scale is affordable, if anyone 
cares about the future of the planet.

This column first appeared on Dean Baker's Beat the Press blog.
Dean Baker is the senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy 
Research in Washington, DC.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/01/03/washington-post-is-confident-fossil-fuel-industry-has-enough-political-power-to-destroy-the-planet/


[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming  - January 7, 1982 *
The New York Times reports:

    "Mankind's activities in increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and
    other chemicals in the atmosphere can be expected to have a
    substantial warming effect on climate, with the first clear signs of
    the trend becoming evident within this decade, a scientist at the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration said here today.

    "The changes are in prospect because of excess carbon dioxide put
    into the atmosphere as humans burn coal, gas, oil and wood and cut
    forests for agriculture and other purposes. More recently there has
    also been an atmospheric buildup of methane, nitrous oxide and other
    chemicals as a result of agriculture and industry, said Dr. James
    Hansen of the space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in
    New York.

    "Dr. Hansen spoke at a session of the annual meeting of the American
    Association for the Advancement of Science here and amplified some
    of his remarks at a news conference."

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/07/us/warming-of-world-s-climate-expected-to-begin-in-the-80-s.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.