Download Document

Federal climate policy and your
leverage on it
Paul Higgins
Senior Policy Fellow, The American Meteorological Society
Contributor, www.ClimatePolicy.org
[email protected]
ClimatePolicy.org
An American Meteorological Society Project
Recommended Reading
•
Dessler, A.E., & Parson, E.A. The Science and Politics of Global Climate
Change: A Guide to the Debate. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
•
Stavins, R.N. A U.S. cap-and trade system to address global climate
change. The Hamilton Project, 2007.
(http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2007/10climate_stavins.aspx)
•
Metcalf, G.E. A proposal for a U.S. carbon tax swap: an equitable tax
reform to address global climate change. The Hamilton Project, 2007.
(http://ase.tufts.edu/econ/events/specialEventsDocs/metcalfCarbonTax.pdf)
•
Aldy, J.E., Barrett, S., & Stavins, R.N. Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison
of Global Climate Policy Architectures. Climate Policy 3(4): 373-397.
(http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-03-26.pdf)
Opportunities for civic engagement
•
Outreach to the public
– Op-eds, letters to the editor, contributions to blogs/web commentary
– Speak to local groups (Lions clubs, Rotarians, etc.)
•
Outreach to Congress
•
AAAS Mass Media Fellowship
–
•
AMS Summer Policy Colloquium & Leadership Development Program
–
•
http://www.aaas.org/programs/education/MassMedia/index.shtml
http://www.ametsoc.org/spc
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships (sponsored by AAAS, AMS,
AGU, GSA, AGI, and others)
–
–
http://fellowships.aaas.org
http://www.ametsoc.org/csf
ClimatePolicy.org
An American Meteorological Society Project
Society’s options
Wait and see
(+) no wasted effort
(-) maximizes suffering
Mitigate
(+) reduces risk
(-) may waste resources
(-) some impacts unavoidable
Adapt
Geo-engineer
(+) better handling of risks
(+) potential desperation strategy
(-) some impacts too severe (-) may trigger big side-effects
(-) some impacts unavoidable
Cap & Trade: design issues
• Targets and timetable
• Allocation of allowances & use of revenue
– Auction permits or give them away
• Scope
– Economy-wide or sector-limited (e.g., electricity)
• Point of regulation
– Upstream (coal mine, refiners)
– Downstream (tail pipes, homes, businesses)
• Cost containment
– Price safety valve
– Borrowing & banking
• International incentives
Source: John Larsen, World Resources Institute
Visit http://thomas.gov for submitted bills & analysis
The Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590)
• Economy-wide cap on GHG emissions with a tradable permit
system to allow emitters to reach that cap at the least cost
• Cap declines by 2% per yr until 2020 and then by 5% per yr
– By 2020 US emissions would roughly equal 1990 levels
– By 2050 US emissions would be 80% below 1990
• Permits may be auctioned or given away in any combination
– Free allocation may not result in a windfall profit for polluters
• Revenue generated goes to a Climate Reinvestment Fund (CRF)
– Promote economic growth, ease distributional consequences, help displaced
workers, fund RD&D, reward early action, or help the states
• NAS review
– NAS may recommend further emissions reductions. The EPA
administrator must either implement these recommendations or explain
to Congress the reasons for declining to act
Visit http://thomas.gov for submitted bills & analysis
Mitigation: four comparable
frameworks for pricing carbon
• Cap & trade (C&T):
– Set targets & timetable (80% reduction by 2050)
• Carbon fee (FEE):
– Estimate fee schedule needed to reach targets & timetable
($45/ton in 2020 rising to $350 in 2050)
• Price safety valve (PSV):
– Same targets & timetable but w/ a price safety valve equal to the
FEE schedule
• Climate safety valve (CSV):
– Same fee schedule as FEE but it increases 20% if the targets
and timetable are missed
Mitigation: comparing frameworks
• Frameworks can be compared based on how
effectively they influence…
– The quantity of emissions
– The price of emitting
• Relative effectiveness of the frameworks
depends on how easy (cheap) or hard
(expensive) it is to reduce emissions
(mmT CO2e)
Emissions
If mitigation is cheap …
C&T & PSV
FEE & CSV (2x cheaper)
FEE & CSV (10x cheaper)
Year
(mmT CO2e)
Emissions
If mitigation is expensive …
C&T
FEE
PSV (2x expensive)
2X& harder
FEE
& PSV
(10x expensive)
10X
harder
2X harder w/sv
10X harder w/sv
Year
(mmT CO2e)
Emissions
The Climate Safety Valve still hits the target
C&T
FEE
PSV (2x expensive)
2X& harder
FEE
& PSV
(10x expensive)
10X
harder
CSV
expensive)
2X(2x
harder
w/sv
CSV (10x
expensive)
10X
harder
w/sv
Year
Which framework is best? It depends
on what we value
CSV
Relative Impact on the
Price of Emissions
Relative Effectiveness of
Climate Protection
CAP
FEE
PSV
Effort Needed to Reduce Emissions
How about bills to enhance coping &
avoiding the worst impacts?
• Adaptation
– Create an climate adaptation council within the office
of the President (similar to the National Security
council) that would assess current and future climate
vulnerabilities and recommend strategies for
improving our ability to cope
• Geo-engineering
– Establish a geo-engineering research program along
with protective mechanisms to prevent and
discourage the hasty deployment of geo-engineering
solutions (e.g., criminal penalties and trade sanctions)
Three obstacles to action
• Persistent gap in understanding between
research & policy communities
• Challenging distributional consequences: losers
& winners of climate policy
• International cooperation
Obstacle #1: Persistent gap in understanding
between research & policy communities
• Culture of science
• “Balance” in the media
• Scientific arrogance/communication skills
• Examples: the economics of climate change,&
international responsibility for emissions
• Possible solution: more civic engagement by
scientists
2005 CO2 Emissions
Hansen
2005 CO2 Emissions
CO2 Emissions 1750-2005
Hansen
2005 CO2 Emissions
CO2 Emissions 1750-2005
Year 2003 per capita fossil fuel CO2 emissions (103 kg/year/person)
Hansen
Obstacle #2: differences between losers
& winners of climate policy
• Losers
–
–
–
–
Know they’ll be hurt
Care about few issues
Politically Organized
Powerful
• Winners
–
–
–
–
Don’t know they’ll gain
Care about more issues
Disorganized
Politically weak
Possible solution: Compensate losers &
build a constituency with permits/revenues
Obstacle #3: International cooperation
• Problem:
– Genuine need for a global effort
– Political rhetoric against unilateral action (e.g., the
Byrd-Hagel resolution)
• Possible solutions:
– A conditional unilateral response
– Border tax adjustments to deal with those who
subsidize pollution
– Encourage more accurate depiction of the problem
Strategies for engaging Congress
•
Find the right staffers (usually the Legislative Assistant for energy and
environment)
– www.governmentguide.com
• [email protected]
• [email protected]
•
Send a short message asking to talk/meet with them
– Why you want to talk
– Why they want to talk to you
• You’re a constituent
• You work on an important aspect of the issue
• You work at an important institution in their district
•
Ways you may increase your effectiveness when meeting with staffers
– Be clear about what you want the member to do
– Be relevant (tie what you’re asking to larger issues that affect constituents)
– Be aware that policy choices go beyond scientific understanding
•
Consider inviting the member (or the LA) to tour your research facility
– Check with the Legislative Affairs Office for constraints or help
Future career options
•
Science & engineering
– Further our understanding & help develop next generation technologies that can
reduce emissions
•
Business
– Need for entrepreneurs who can provide the products & services that we want in
ways that promote climate security (energy, transportation, especially)
•
Policy
– Need for creative problem solvers/leaders who can develop approaches that will
protect climate, boost the economy, and diffuse political obstacles
•
Writing
– Inform decision makers and the public through journalism, books, etc.
•
Advocacy
– Speak for the climate system and all who depend on it
•
Teaching
– Educate & train the next generation of scientists & engineers, business owners,
policy makers, writers, and advocates
End
Simple, cost effective solutions may be
easier to find than we recognize …
a
b
Energy
Expenditure (j)
Weight Loss
(kg)
Walking
3.9 X108
12.2
Cycling
8.4 X108
26.0
$117
Policy-makers face trade-offs
• Climate protection vs price minimization
– Cap & trade (fixed emission quantities, permit prices vary)
• Climate protection if mitigation is costly but at higher energy prices
• Climate protection weaker if mitigation is cheap but at low energy
prices
– Carbon fee (fixed prices to emit, quantities vary)
• More climate protection if mitigation is cheap but less if expensive
– Cap & trade w/ price safety valve (limits permit prices)
• Protects energy and transportation prices but limits climate
protection
– Fee w/ climate safety valve (limits emissions quantities)
• Ensures best climate protection, but also highest energy prices
Sample climate bills
• Waxman’s Safe Climate Act (H.R. 1590)
– One of ~10 bills that will mitigate by putting a price on
greenhouse gas emissions
• The Climate Pollution Reduction Act (a mock bill)
• Thoughts on bill that could build adaptive capacity &
responsibly explore geo-engineering
• Visit http://thomas.gov for submitted bills & analysis
The Climate Pollution Reduction Act
•
Charges a fee to emit GHGs beginning in 2010 at $10 per ton (CO2e)
•
PHASE 1 (2010 and 2020): fee increases by $1.00 each year
–
–
•
PHASE 2 (2021 and 2050): fee increases by $2.00 each year
–
–
•
If less than 55% (40%) of global emissions are covered, the fee increases by $1.50 ($1.00)
If more than 70% (85%) of global emissions are covered, the fee increases by $2.50 ($3.00)
Includes a trade penalty for non-cooperation
–
•
If less than 55% (40%) of global emissions are covered, the fee increases by $0.75 ($0.50)
If more than 70% (85%) of global emissions are covered, the fee increases by $1.25 ($1.50)
All exports from countries that fail to charge a pollution fee will face border tax adjustments
that equal the amount of pollution released during manufacture and shipment of that product
Revenue recycling
–
–
25% of all collected pollution fees will be used to offset disaffected parties such as displaced
workers, low-income members of society, and heavy energy consumers
75% will be available to
• reduce taxes on income or investment
• reduce the budget deficit
• fund low-emission technology development and deployment
What impacts do we face?
• Some possible positive outcomes
– Reduced cold stress
– Improved agricultural productivity in high latitudes
– Better shipping lanes
• But there are substantial risks of negative impacts
– Human health (more heat stress, worse smog, changes to water
quality/supply, impacts from severe storms, changes in vector
borne diseases)
– More intense storms
– Rising sea levels
– More floods and droughts
– Ocean acidification (i.e., coral and the fish that depend on them)
– Stress to other biological systems that we depend on
Will global warming be good?
• It’s possible:
– We could get lucky
• Feedbacks mostly negative
• Impacts mostly small or beneficial
– Human ingenuity could help us cope & find new opportunities
• But it’s unlikely, in my view
– We might get unlucky
• Feedbacks mostly positive
• Impacts mostly large and harmful
– Human society, and the systems that we depend on, are highly
adapted to current climate conditions
– Unlimited downside risk but only minor upside potential