How Obama’s Climate Rules Might Unravel
Brought to you by Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Forum
This calculation, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), serves as the linchpin for much of the climate-related rules imposed by the White House over the past eight years. From capping the carbon emissions of power plants to cutting down on the amount of electricity used by the digital clock on a microwave, the SCC has given the Obama administration the legal justification to argue that the benefits these rules provide to society outweigh the costs they impose on industry. It turns out that the same calculation used to justify so much of Obama’s climate agenda could be used by President-elect Donald Trump to undo a significant portion of it. As Trump nominates people who favor fossil fuels and oppose climate regulation to top positions in his cabinet, he already appears to be focusing on the SCC. --Bloomberg, 15 December 2016
The Trump team could come, announce a reevaluation of the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), and then put the range at 5% — or 7%. That would turn a price that’s pushing broad changes in everything from microwave ovens to coal leasing decisions to one that would have practically little or no impact on policy. A 7% discount rate, which has been used by EPA for other regulatory analysis, could actually lead to a *negative* carbon cost. This change to the SCC makes sense for another reason. Listen to Trump discussing climate change with the New York Times: “It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies.” Lowering the SCC means lowering the costs to companies, such as power producers and refineries. --Catherine Rolfe, Bloomberg Government, 12 December 2016
A soon-to-be-published paper challenges the Obama administration’s so-called “social cost of carbon” estimate, which puts a monetary value on the supposed future damages from global warming. But the new study’s authors not only say the administration’s “social cost of carbon” (SCC) is overblown, they also argue it might actually be negative based on observed temperature increases, not just climate models. That means there’s actually benefits to emitting carbon dioxide. --Michael Bastasch, The Daily Caller, 6 July 2016
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the incoming chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, used a meeting with Donald Trump to deliver a list of 232 regulations that the incoming president could repeal immediately. The Freedom Caucus suggests that Trump open up oil exploration on federally owned land, pull out of the Paris climate accords (which will produce “little, if any, environmental benefit”), kill the State Department’s office on climate change and the special envoy for climate change, and basically scratch any office assigned to study it. --David Weigel, The Washington Post, 15 December 2016
We are supposed to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump have a budding bromance, as it is called, because Trump made a few off-hand comments during the campaign. And so the trope now is that Putin so preferred Trump that he may have even helped hack a salutary election outcome? If you want to ask our intelligence agencies what’s going on, let’s try an intelligent question. What single thing matters the most to Russia? It is money, not rhetoric…The geopolitical implications (never mind the domestic economic benefits) of expanding U.S. shale capabilities should be obvious. Not only would increasing shale output keep downward pressure on prices, but as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate’s Energy and Natural Resources Committee, earlier observed: “Many U.S. allies and trading partners are interested in purchasing American oil to diversify away from Russia, Iran, and other problematic sources.” --Mark Mills, RealClearWorld, 14 December 2016
My message to the alarmed scientist/advocates: Get over it, your side lost. Changes of Presidential administrations occur every 4 or 8 years, often with changes in political parties. Get busy and shore up your scientific arguments; I suspect that argument from consensus won’t sway many minds in the Trump administration. Overt activism and climate policy advocacy by climate scientists will not help your ‘cause’; leave such advocacy to the environmental groups. Behave like a scientist, and don’t build elaborate conspiracy theories based on vague conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Stop embarrassing yourselves; wait for the evidence. --Judith Curry, Climate Etc. 15 December 2016
I think we need a new coalition — one that is more suited than Swampy. It could involve religion: both the Pope and David Attenborough — as close as many secularists get to having a God — have called on us to do more to tackle climate change. Mammon is coming over to our side too, with businesses increasingly realising they have to adapt and mitigate risk. Shell has invested in a new form of wind energy that uses high-altitude kites. Google says it will run entirely on renewable energy by next year. Our side has money — Bill Gates is launching a $1 billion fund to invest in clean, sustainable energy — and it has glamour too: Leonardo DiCaprio went to Trump Tower to try to persuade the President-elect that man-made climate change is real. --Rosamund Urwin, London Evening Standard, 15 December 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment