Is climate change policy still alive?

I had thought climate change legislation would be way on the back-burner at least until after the mid-term elections. After the bruising health care debate and Obama's movement on education reforms, I suspected, as did others, that the political capital needed to move another big policy had been depleted or diverted elsewhere. Now, however, Reuters is reporting that we may see a vote on climate change this summer. It sounds like the leadership is not ready to commit to passage before the mid-terms, particularly with Democrats facing a tough election cycle (Mid-terms are generally difficult for the party in the White House) and the economy still in recovery mode:

Once the senators formally sketch out their bill, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid will decide the next steps in a year crowded with competing legislative priorities and congressional elections in November.

The bill could face stiff opposition from lawmakers in states with economies heavily dependent on oil and coal.

The proposed legislation would end state and regional carbon policy and preclude the U.S. EPA from regulating carbon under the Clean Air Act, according to Reuter's sources.

'Hockey Stick' used "inappropriate" methods

The Financial Times reported Wednesday that the famed 'hockey stick' paper by Michael Mann that purports to show tremendous warming in recent years is, in fact, based on "inappropriate" methods. Climate change skeptics have seized on the hockey stick and the 'Climate Gate' emails that suggest a "trick" was used in Mann's analysis to "conceal the decline" in temperatures. President of the Royal Statistical Society David Hand cautioned that the conclusions of a report by the University of East Anglia and the Royal Society should not be construed as dismissing global warming. As the report states:

It is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.”

An ongoing review will determine whether British freedom of information laws were violated by the cadre of scientists collaborating with Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit and East Anglia University, who has reportedly been suicidal since Climate Gate erupted shortly before the winter holidays last year.

What economics tells us about AB32

This week I received an email seeking signatures for an "open letter from economists to the people of California in support of the state's efforts to reduce global warming emissions." The letter comes from Jasmin Ansar, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and already bears the signatures of several people from my department, including a member of my research committee, Max Auffhammer. The letter itself is fairly mundane (I have pasted the full contents at the end of this post), but two sentences cry out for some commentary.

First, there is this:

In fact, being an early mover to reduce emissions could yield economic (as well as climate) benefits for California.

This is the green jobs argument that has been articulated by backers of AB32 ad nauseum.  But as I have begun to argue in an op-ed that will likely never be published anywhere except in this space, the green jobs that will be produced in order to feed demand for green products in California need not be located in California. In fact, one might expect green goods to be produced outside California because even the production of green products causes greenhouse gas emissions, which will be priced in California but not elsewhere. As the Wall Street Journal noted in an op-ed against AB32 this week, the Air Board's own analysis concedes our dirty firms are especially mobile and therefore likely to leave. So Californians will be compelled to invest in green products from Nevada and Texas in order to avoid energy costs increases induced by AB32. The claim of economic benefits to California is dubious.

Equally dubious is the suggestion that AB32 will yield climate benefits to California. Greenhouse gases are a global public bad, which means emissions anywhere affects people everywhere. So reducing emissions in California affects California's climate only in so far as it causes a (very) marginal reduction in global emissions and that marginal reduction in emissions causes a reduction in climate change. Roughly, California emits 6% of all U.S. emissions and the U.S. emits 20% of worldwide emissions. So California is responsible for about 1% of worldwide emissions. If we reduce our emissions by 25% as per the intent of AB32, then we will reduce annual world emissions by one-fourth of one percent by 2020. If we extrapolate from the IPCCs A2 scenario, this means AB32 will reduce temperatures by 0.002 degrees Celsius per year. I am guessing no one will notice of California is 0.002 degrees cooler than it otherwise would have been in 2020. By 2100, it will be 0.16 degrees cooler than without AB32--and this only if we assume there is no leakage and AB32 succeeds. Some climate benefit! I find it stunning that such respected people in my profession would sign onto a statement that is just so objectively wrong.

There is one context in which AB32 will provide real benefits to California, and it is included in the letter's list of AB32 merits:

Furthermore, policies that reduce global warming pollution are likely to provide immediate benefits to the health and welfare of residents by reducing local pollutants.

 This is true. Carbon, itself, is not a pollutant (in spite of what the U.S. EPA may say as it tries to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act). It is naturally occurring chemical that is harmless to humans. Still, carbon emissions are correlated with emissions of chemicals that are pollutants and are hazardous to people, plants and animals. To the extent we send our carbon-intensive industries away, we also send our pollutants away. OK. Fine. But that is about the only sliver of truth in this letter, which has already been signed by a nobel-laureate. Is the consensus among climate scientists also based on this kind of empty rhetoric?

Here is the rest of the letter (and below it, the email that brought the letter to my attention):

The Most Expensive Thing We Can Do is Nothing
An Open Letter on Clean Energy and Global Warming from Economists


We believe that the state of California should proceed to control global warming gases and not delay as some are advocating.

In a 2006 letter, many of us stated that "Global warming gases will be best managed through a combination of policy approaches. Emissions caps combined with a range of regulatory and market-based implementation mechanisms offer a particularly potent strategy because they provide clear incentives for changes in business practices and the development of new technologies." We continue to believe this.

While global climate change poses significant risks to the California economy, we believe that well-designed and judiciously phased-in strategies to limit global warming pollution can reduce emissions substantially in the long run at modest cost to the state. In fact, being an early mover to reduce emissions could yield economic (as well as climate) benefits for California. Well-designed strategies can stimulate innovation and efficiency, which could help the state become a technological leader in the global marketplace.

We continue to support the efforts of the California Air Resources Board to implement the 2006 state law, the Global Warming Solutions Act.

The current recession and the very high unemployment rate in California present daunting challenges. Some have argued that these economic conditions warrant suspending the implementation of emission reduction policies. We disagree. Delaying action now and waiting for the future before initiating accelerated action to reduce global warming gases will be more costly than initiating action now. Acting now is more likely to limit further environmental degradation, lower the cost of mitigation, and spur innovation in renewable energy and conservation technologies. Furthermore, policies that reduce global warming pollution are likely to provide immediate benefits to the health and welfare of residents by reducing local pollutants.

For these reasons we urge continued support for policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These policies can improve our energy security, create new business opportunities and more jobs, and provide incentives for innovation.

Signed by,

Kenneth J. Arrow
Stanford University
Nobel Laureate, Economics

Maxmillian Auffhammer
Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of California, Berkeley

Anthony C. Fisher
Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of California, Berkeley

W. Michael Hanemann
Chancellor's Professor
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics
University of California, Berkeley

Charles Kolstad
Professor of Economics
Department of Economics & Bren School of Environmental Science and Management
University of California, Santa Barbara

Jasmin Ansar
Western States Climate Economist
Union of Concerned Scientists

The email I got forwarded:

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject:    Economist letter in support of CA global warming policies
Date:    Thu, 08 Apr 2010 14:06:48 -0700
From:    Larry Karp
To:    are-faculty@lists.berkeley.edu

Colleagues,
I am forwarding an email that solicits signatures for a petition in
support of California's climate change policies.  (Some of  you have
already signed, I know.)

cheers
>
>
>
>         
>
> ACTION ALERT
> Sign on: Economist Letter in Support of CA Global Warming Policies
>
> Dear Economist Colleagues,
> 
> I'm writing to ask you to add your name to an *open letter from
> economists
> to the
> people of California in support of the state's efforts to reduce
> global warming emissions *as required by the landmark 2006 Global
> Warming Solutions Act (also known as AB 32).
>
> Join the leaders in this effort, including Nobel Laureate Kenneth J.
> Arrow, Stanford University; Maxmillian Auffhammer, UC Berkeley;
> Anthony C. Fisher, UC Berkeley; Michael Hanemann, UC Berkeley; Charles
> Kolstad, UC Santa Barbara; and myself.
>
> In a 2006 letter, many of us urged California decision makers to take
> action to reduce global warming emissions. Our support helped lead to
> passage of AB 32. This year, state agencies and legislators are
> expected to authorize several critical components of the AB 32 policy
> package.
>
>         
> Support California's landmark climate programs today.
> Please read the economists letter supporting California's global
> warming law and sign it today! We will be accepting signatures until
> May 12, 2010.
> click here to take action
>
> Related Links
> 2006 Economists Letter (pdf)
>
> Threats to California's climate law
>
> Tell A Colleague
> Please encourage your colleagues to sign up
> and help
> increase our effectiveness in creating a healthy environment and a
> safer world. CLICK HERE
> .
>
>
>   
>
> Now, *some who oppose action—including two Texas oil companies— are
> doing all they can to turn back the clock.* They are bankrolling a
> ballot initiative that would prevent California from moving forward,
> arguing that the economic downturn demands delay. We disagree.
>
> Delaying action now and waiting for the future before initiating
> action to reduce global warming emissions will be more costly than
> acting now. Taking action now is more likely to limit further
> environmental degradation, lower the cost of mitigation and
> adaptation, and spur innovation in renewable energy and conservation
> technologies.
>
> *A letter from economics experts, like you, can make a big difference
> in public debates and with state decision makers, as it provides the
> courage to act despite some of the fear-mongering tactics from the
> opposition.*
>
> We will use the letter to engage California decision makers to shore
> up support for the state's forward-thinking policies. For example, we
> will deliver copies to members of the California Air Resources Board,
> state legislators, and other key stakeholders.
>
> The letter is open to economists with a Ph.D. who live or work in
> California, or who have done research or analysis on California
> issues. Please read the letter and sign it today! We will be accepting
> signatures until May 12, 2010.
>
> Please read the letter and sign it today!
> We will
> be accepting signatures until May 12, 2010.
>
> Thank you for joining this important effort. If you have any
> questions, please contact Jasmin Ansar at jansar@ucsusa.org
> or (510) 809-1570 or Chris Carney at
> ccarney@ucsusa.org or (510) 809-1577.
>
> Take Action Today
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Jasmin Ansar
> Jasmin Ansar
> Western States Climate Economist
> UCS Climate & Energy Program
>
> P.S. UCS Climate Scientist, Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel will appear on The
> Colbert Report on Comedy Central tonight, Tuesday, April 6 at 11:30
> p.m. EDT. It should be funny and informative. We hope you tune in!
>
> The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based
> nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world.
>
> UCS is a 501(c)(3) organization. All gifts are tax deductible. You can
> be confident your donations to UCS are spent wisely.
>
>         Union
> of Concerned Scientists
> 2 Brattle Square Cambridge, MA 02238-9105
> phone: 800-666-8276 | Fax: 617-864-9405
> sciencenetwork@ucsusa.org
> www.ucsusa.org
>
> To stop receiving emails from UCS about climate change, click here to
> update your interests
> .
> About UCS
> | Take Action
> | Donate
> | Contact
> Us |
> Privacy Policy
> |
> Unsubscribe
>
> | Add UCS to Your Address Book
>
> © Union of Concerned Scientists. All rights reserved.
>
> powered by CONVIO
>
> nonprofit software
>

--
Professor Larry Karp, Chair
Dept. Agricultural and Resource Economics
University of California at Berkeley
207 Giannini Hall #3310
Berkeley, California 94720-3310
Phone: (510) 642-7199
Fax: (510) 643-8911
e-mail: karp@berkeley.edu

http://www.are.berkeley.edu/~karp

 

Senate Hopeful Fiorina Proposes Suspending AB32

Following CA Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman's lead, Carly Fiorina, the former HP exec who hopes to replace Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate, has come out in oppositon to AB32, the Sac Bee reports. Its strange to see these leading Republicans advocate the overturning of a law that has come to define Gov. Schwarzenegger and is viewed in some circles as his crowning achievement. When Schwarzenegger signed the bill, he was in the midst of a difficult re-election fight, with all the unions ganging up against him. His support of the bill was deemed critical to the re-elect. Has the politics of climate change changed so much in just a few years (see yesterday's post), or are these women with fairly weak conservative credentials pandering to primary voters?

Despite health care bill, founder of the Chicago School has "hope" for "change."

Former Reagan Speechwriter Peter Robinson interviewed Gary Becker for the WSJ today. And while Becker doesn't expect the health care mess (and he does think the latest bill is a mess) can be undone, he does think voters will turn back to the markets and away from big government in November. He remarks on the temptation for Americans to trust politicians over capitalists, even though the latter have done more to lift people from poverty:

"Or look at developing countries," he says. "China, India, Brazil. A billion people have been lifted out of poverty since 1990 because their countries moved toward more market-based economies—a billion people. Nobody's arguing for taking that back."

After Robinson quotes Chicago-school co-founder Friedman on the need for this generation to keep the intellectual defense of liberty that Friedman and colleagues provided, Becker says this:

"When I think of my children and grandchildren," he says, "yes, they'll have to fight. Liberty can't be had on the cheap. But it's not a hopeless fight. It's not a hopeless fight by any means. I remain basically an optimist."

Who says climate change has to be taken so seriously?

I chuckled at this post over at Freakonomics.

The Climate Change climate is changing

At last week's POWER conference at UC Berkeley, hosted by Severin Borenstein of the Haas business school and my own department, I sat at a table of PG&E folks responsible for planning the energy sourcing for the largest utility in the state. I felt sorry for these people who face such tremendous uncertainty about the future of carbon regulation. They seemed hopeful that federal legislation would be forthcoming and that it would put some of the uncertainty to rest. I regretted to tell them that I didn't think they were likely to see anything coming out of Congress anytime soon. As the Economist summarized last week, aggressive climate change regulations face an uphill climb:

The mess at Copenhagen is one reason. So much effort went into the event, with so little result. The recession is another. However much bosses may care about the planet, they usually mind more about their bottom line, and when times are hard they are unwilling to incur new costs. The bilious argument over American health care has not helped: this is not a good time for any bill that needs bipartisan support. Even the northern hemisphere’s cold winter has hurt. When two feet of snow lies on the ground, the threat from warming seems far off. But climate science is also responsible. A series of controversies over the past year have provided heavy ammunition to those who doubt the seriousness of the problem.

To this I would add only that the now legislated and signed health care reform has likely saited American's appetites for government expansion. Combined with the stimulus and financial bailout, Americans must be just about ready for a hiatus from "hope and change." As Charles Khrauthammer colorfully noted two years ago, a takeover of carbon is bigger than a take over of health care:

And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

My sympathy for all the green investors (who are sitting on the sidelines) and for utility planners amid the policy mailaise is heightened upon review of climate change policy in a climate progressive state like California. The leading contender to replace Governor Schwarzenegger in November has advocated putting on hold the main provisions of AB32--the Global Warming Solutions Act. And a state ballot initiative proposes to repeal it entirely. And when the state's renewable fuel standard was enacted in 2006, it gave utilities until 2020 to generate 20% of load from renewables. A year or so later, the Governator upped that deadline to 2020 and established a 33% RPS by 2020.

If public opinion on climate change is tied to weather outcomes, like snowy winters, then policy prognosticators are in for a rough time--and an even rougher time if the earth is warming and that warming will bring more extreme weather, as the scientists tell us it will. Earlier this month, Gallup polling found that Americans are more skeptical about the seriousness of climate change than they were last year and the year before--48% think climate change claims are exaggerated, up from 31% in 2007.

Even in California, global warming ranks last among twelve issues voters think the Governor should focus on. Not surprisingly given the recession, they think jobs should be job number one for the Guv. But it is surprising that even in California, more people think climate change is not an important issue than think it is "among the most important" issues, according to a new Field poll (link opens pdf). The numbers that think it is either among the most important issues or merely "an important" issue, however, dominates the number of skeptics, 64% to 35%. Importantly, however, the Field poll allowed voters to pick several issues to be "among the most important," so a strong showing for jobs and the budget deficit as top issues did not preclude big numbers for climate change, too. Nevertheless, while 69% and 68% thought jobs and the budget were top priorties, respectively, only 23% felt that way about global warming. And this in California! I hope the nice folks at PG&E aren't holding their breath waiting for Congress to act.

Finally, The Economist also makes the point that uncertainty about the science and its predictions should not lend itself to inaction:

If it were known that global warming would be limited to 2°C, the world might decide to live with that. But the range of possible outcomes is huge, with catastrophe one possibility, and the costs of averting climate change are comparatively small. Just as a householder pays a small premium to protect himself against disaster, the world should do the same.

I'll discount catastrophe, but agree with them on the rest.