[TheClimate.Vote] March 16, 2020 - Daily Global Warming News Digest.

[Richard Pauli]

/*March 16, 2020*/

[just climate - from the NYTimes]
*Biden vs. Sanders, Issue by Issue*
...So, how do they actually compare on policy?
- - -
*Climate change*
Biden
Mr. Biden's $1.7 trillion climate plan calls for 100 percent carbon-free 
energy and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It would end fossil fuel 
subsidies and subsidize clean energy, but envisions a continued role for 
fossil fuels for some time: It would not ban fracking, for instance. Mr. 
Biden also supports federal funding for carbon capture and sequestration 
programs that could, in theory, eventually offset some emissions.

Sanders
Mr. Sanders is a proponent of the Green New Deal, a sweeping resolution 
that calls for aggressive action to combat climate change, and has 
modeled his $16.3 trillion proposal on that plan. He calls for an 
immediate ban on fracking, for the electricity and transportation 
sectors to be carbon-free by 2030, and for the United States to end the 
use of fossil fuels no later than 2050.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-issues.html



[crude emoluments]
*Trump Steps In To Help Oil Industry Facing Its Own Coronavirus Crisis**
*By JEFF BRADY - MAR 14, 2020
Oil prices bounced back a bit after President Trump said the Department 
of Energy would buy crude for the nation's strategic petroleum reserve.

"We're going to fill it right to the top," Trump said Friday in a 
wide-ranging news conference at the White House. He said it will save 
taxpayers "billions and billions of dollars" while helping an industry 
that's been reeling.

While oil prices increased nearly 5% after Friday's announcement, that 
was just a fraction of the amount they lost earlier in the week.

In South Texas, Rudy Martinez immediately experienced the effects of the 
past week's collapse in crude oil prices.

"I actually have a little man camp and these guys are on the way out 
because they lost contracts," says Martinez, who has eight rooms he 
rents to out-of-town oilfield workers in Karnes City, Texas.

"The workers get their per-diem and I charge them $100 a person [per 
week]. Actually I'd like to charge them a little more than that, but now 
that it's tapered off, it's hard to charge them that because they can't 
pay it," he says.

Back when the oil business was really booming in Karnes City, Martinez 
says he could charge up to $2000 a week per person.

This is one small example of what declining oil prices mean for the 
rural communities that depend on the oil business. And there's a lot at 
stake for the U.S., the world's largest producer of crude oil.

Oil prices had been falling out of fears the coronavirus epidemic 
threatened world economic growth. Demand was also down as large 
gatherings were canceled and people started staying home to avoid 
getting sick.

Then prices plunged after Saudi Arabia and Russia failed to agree on 
production cuts and instead entered a price war last Sunday. In a 
stunning reversal, Saudi Arabia said it would actually boost oil 
production and offer a massive discount for its customers.

U.S. oil companies, especially smaller ones, are now looking to make 
deep cuts. Industry analysts warn of possible bankruptcies, especially 
if oil remains where it's fallen to, in the $30 per barrel range. 
Companies operating in Texas's Eagle Ford Shale need prices between $40 
to $60 a barrel to remain profitable.

'We were here before the oil'

Karnes City was transformed by the oil drilling boom that started about 
a decade back. Karnes County National Bank President Trip Ruckman says 
there were local farmers and ranchers who were just getting by, then all 
of a sudden showed up at his bank with a $1 million oil royalty check in 
hand...
Right now it can still look pretty busy around town. There are trucks on 
the roads and a few local hotels are still full. Ruckman says it takes 
time for drillers to wind down production plans that already were being 
implemented when prices collapsed.

"Probably, in a few weeks to a month or two, I think you're going to see 
things slow down. But we'll still be here — we were here before the 
oil," says Ruckman, who tries to stay optimistic about the financial 
future of his community.

There have been reports the Trump administration may be willing to help 
the oil industry in other ways. For example, the White House could 
reduce federal royalties for oil pumped on government land or offshore. 
The administration could also offer low-interest government-backed loans.

Groups focused on climate change have criticized such ideas.

"The last people who deserve taxpayers' money are the billionaires that 
created and profited from the climate crisis," says Jack Shapiro of the 
environmental group Greenpeace.

One potential bright spot in all this is gasoline prices. Lower oil 
prices will mean cheaper gas for motorists in coming months.

Usually when gas prices go down people drive more and choose bigger 
cars, which increases consumption. But with many limiting travel out of 
concern over the coronavirus, this time might be the exception.
https://www.kut.org/post/trump-steps-help-oil-industry-facing-its-own-coronavirus-crisis



[Forbes says]
*Here's Why Coronavirus And Climate Change Are Different Sorts Of Policy 
Problems*
Nives Dolsak and Aseem Prakash
Climate protection and public health have striking similarities. The 
benefits of both can be enjoyed by everyone, even by individuals who do 
not contribute to the collective efforts to address these problems. If 
climate change slows down, both drivers of gas-guzzlers and electric 
cars will benefit - although the former did not help in climate efforts. 
Similarly, if the spread of Coronavirus is halted (the so-called 
flattening the curve), individuals who refused to wash their hands, as 
well as the ones who washed them assiduously, will enjoy the restored 
normal life.

Most countries have gotten their acts together, although belatedly, on 
Coronavirus. Citizens also seem to be following the advice of public 
health officials. Could then the Coronavirus policy model be applied to 
climate change? We urge caution because these crises are different, 
which means that policies that worked well for Coronavirus might not be 
effective for climate change.

Different Penalties for Policy and Behavioral Procrastination
Climate change is the defining crisis of our times. Floods, hurricanes, 
forest fires, and extreme weather events have become more frequent and 
severe over the years. Although climate change generates passionate 
discussions in big cities and university campuses, there is inadequate 
public clamor for immediate action. Some types of decarbonization 
policies are certainly in place. However, carbon-intensive lifestyles 
continue (with "flying shame" in Scandinavia being an exception).

*Today In: Green Tech*
This policy lethargy and behavioral inertia are due to many reasons, 
including concerted opposition by the fossil fuel industry to deep 
decarbonization. But there are other reasons as well. Climate change is 
cumulative and does not have a quick onset. Its effects are not always 
immediate and visible. Many individuals probably do not see a clear 
link  between their actions and the eventual outcome. This reduces the 
willingness to alter lifestyles and tolerate personal sacrifices for the 
collective good.

In contrast, Coronavirus is forcing an immediate policy response and 
behavioral changes. Its causality is clear and its onset quick. Lives 
are at stake, especially in western countries. The stock markets are 
tanking, and the economy is heading towards a recession. Politicians 
recognize that waffling can lead to massive consequences, even in the 
short-term. Corona-skeptic President Trump has reversed course and 
declared a national emergency.

In the US, there is federal inaction on climate change. But Coronavirus 
seems different. 2020 is a Presidential election year, and perhaps this 
motivates the federal government to (finally) act decisively so that 
Coronavirus does not become Hurricane Katrina type of political liability.

*Spatial Optimism*
Climate policies are hobbled by "spatial optimism," whereby individuals 
believe that their risk of getting affected by climate change is less 
than for others. This reduces the willingness to tolerate personal 
sacrifices for deep decarbonization.

Coronavirus episode began with some level of spatial optimism in the 
Western world. After all, it was happening in China. But this confidence 
has quickly disappeared. Globalization means a lot of international 
travel and trade. China is the main global supplier of many products. 
Prominent companies such as Apple (AAPL) and Tesla (TSLA) depend on 
China for manufacturing and sales of their products. Spatial optimism 
has been overwhelmed by international travel as well as globalized 
supply chains and financial markets.

*Belief in the Efficacy of Adaptation*
Some might believe that climate change can be "managed." Innovators will 
probably develop commercial-scale negative carbon technologies and 
societies will adapt to sea-level rise by building seawalls, or maybe 
relocating some communities to safer areas.

Coronavirus offers no such comfort. Unlike the seasonal flu, there is no 
vaccine (yet). It is difficult to adapt to the Coronavirus threat when 
you don't know what to touch, where to go, and if your family members 
and neighbors are infected. Not to mention, how many rolls of tissue 
paper you need to stock before the supplies run out at the local grocery 
store.

*Different Incentives to Attack Scientific Knowledge*
On Coronavirus, citizens seem to be willing to follow the advice of 
public health professionals (at least when it comes to social distancing 
as reflected in empty roads and shopping centers). Every word of Dr. 
Anthony Fauci counts.

Why has this advice not drawn scorn from politicians who are suspicious 
of the "deep state"? After all, the same politicians attack scientific 
consensus on climate change.

Climate skeptics probably see substantial political and economic payoffs 
by delaying climate action. Stock markets have not penalized climate 
skepticism in the US: markets hit record high levels in the first three 
years of the Trump presidency. And, climate opposition is not leading to 
electoral losses. On the contrary, the climate agendas in liberal 
states, such as Oregon and Washington, have stalled.

Nobody seems to gain by attacking scientific consensus to delay policy 
action on Coronavirus. Airlines, hospitality, and tourism industries, 
who have taken a direct hit from social-distancing policies, probably 
want the problem to be quickly addressed so that people can get back to 
their "normal" lives.

US politicians who talk about the "deep state," may want Coronavirus 
issue resolved before the November 2020 election. Attacking science does 
not further their political objectives. After all, the looming recession 
and the stock market decline could influence the election outcomes.

*Depth, Scale, and Duration of Changes*
Climate policy will cause economic and social dislocation. 
Decarbonization means that some industries will shut down. Jobs will be 
lost, and communities will suffer unless "just transition" policies are 
in place.

Coronavirus policies will probably not cause long-term structural 
changes in the economy. People will resume flying, tourists will flock 
to Venice, Rome, and Paris, and the basketball arenas will again 
overflow with spectators.

However, some short-term measures could lead to long-term changes. For 
example, individuals may realize that telecommuting is easy and 
efficient. As a result, they may permanently reduce their work-related 
travel. Coronavirus may provide the sort of a "nudge" that shifts 
long-term behavioral preferences.

In sum, the contrast between the rapid response to Coronavirus and 
policy waffling on climate change reveals how citizens think of risk and 
how this shapes their willingness to incur costs for the collective 
good. Further, it suggests that politicians respect science when its 
recommendations serve their political ends.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/prakashdolsak/2020/03/15/heres-why-coronavirus-and-climate-change-are-different-sorts-of-policy-problems/#4be82a5439e6


[Interview]*
****Oil & Epidemics: How A Virus Makes The Case For Renewable Energy*
March 15th, 2020 by Steve Hanley
In an interview with Forbes last week, Charles Donovan, executive 
director of the Center for Climate Finance and Investment at Imperial 
College Business School in London, laid out the reasons why he thinks 
building a global economy based on fossil fuels makes the world more 
vulnerable to market disruptions like the one caused by the coronavirus.

"I think we're entering a whole new phase of volatility," Donovan said. 
"These are the unfortunate repercussions of a global market that's 
exposed to the volatility of the oil markets and suffers when 
unforeseeable events like coronavirus arise at the worst time. We are 
now seeing the downsides of the choices we've made about the kind of 
energy economy that we have." He suggests that rather than shoveling 
cubic miles of dollars at energy companies, we should prioritize 
developing economies that are not coupled to oil and gas.

Donovan maintains that while renewable energy sources such as wind may 
may appeal to many because of their positive effect on a gathering 
environmental crisis, it is economic factors that should make them 
attractive to investors and policymakers.

"There has to be recognition that the increased volatility in the oil 
markets will stand in stark contrast to what may become the great virtue 
of renewable energy, which has nothing to do with its greenness, but 
more about the stability of cash flows from underlying assets. The 
relative stability of renewable energy that's fully contracted, that 
already has power purchase agreements…should make it immune from 
deterioration."

Here's another factor in favor of renewables in Donovan's view. They are 
far less likely to be monopolized by cartels (like OPEC) which means 
they are more difficult to manipulate (or fight wars over). Donovan says 
monetary policy has an historical bias toward fossil fuels, as happened 
last week when central banks pumped trillions of dollars into the 
markets after the OPEC nations failed to agree on new pumping limits, 
sending oil prices into free fall. That move ultimately failed due to 
another major shock to financial markets — the coronavirus.

"We're coming to a very important point now where policymakers can 
ensure that this round of easing is not hugely biased towards keeping 
oil producers on a lifeline," Donovan said. Bailouts could, instead, be 
structured around a strategy of decarbonization and preparing countries 
for low-carbon transitions. "To my mind those interventions need to be 
targeted towards structural investments and things like job retraining 
for people in industries that can no longer keep going," Donovan said.

Economies built around more durable, sustainable energy rather than 
those built on finite, volatile hydrocarbons will be better able to 
withstand unexpected disruptions such as the one created by the 
coronavirus, he argues.

"It's not that by having more wind turbines and solar panels we could 
avoid coronavirus. But [the world's major economies] have been like the 
frog in a pan of water that's slowing warming up. The fire has just been 
turned up several notches and the only thing we can do now is jump out 
of the pan. This is about building an energy infrastructure that creates 
resilience."

War, pestilence, polluted ground water, festering skies, oil spills, 
railway fires, pipeline leaks — all of them can be eliminated by 
building economies on renewables. So why aren't we doing so? Because the 
fossil fuel companies have bought and paid for national governments for 
100 years. So there's always the possibility that abundant renewable 
energy would lower the incidence of corruption at the local, state, and 
federal level thanks to fewer fossil fuel lobbyists throwing campaign 
cash around. Could that really happen? It might be interesting to find out.
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/03/15/oil-epidemics-how-a-virus-makes-the-case-for-renewable-energy/



[Digging back into the internet news archive]
*On this day in the history of global warming  - March 16, 2011 *
CBS News reports on the aggressive anti-science attitudes of the 112th 
Congress.

All 31 Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee
declined on Tuesday to vote in favor of a series of amendments
acknowledging the scientific consensus around climate change.

The three amendments were attached to a bill aiming to curb the
Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate greenhouse
gasses. They posited that "Congress accepts the scientific finding
... that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal'"; that the
scientific evidence regarding climate change "is compelling"; and
that "human-caused climate change is a threat to public health and
welfare."

The committee passed the measure, but voted down the amendments,
with 30 of the 31 Republicans voting against them and one - Marsha
Blackburn, of Tennessee - declining to vote either way. Democrats
unanimously voted in favor of the amendments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-republicans-reject-climate-change-science/

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

/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.