Category Archives: Web Article Review

more on Americans for Carbon Dividends

This group, which includes Exxon Mobil, is proposing a four-part plan:

  1. A $40 per ton tax on carbon rising annually at a gradual rate;
  2. Tax revenues generated would be refunded to all citizens (hence the name, “Carbon Dividends”);
  3. This plan would terminate the EPA’s regulatory authority over carbon emissions and specifically terminate the recently enacted Clean Power Plan;
  4. Require “border carbon adjustments to level the playing field and permit American competitiveness.” (Other relatively high CO2 emitting countries apart from the US are China and Russia).

This article I am linking to is highly skeptical, as are some prominent environmental groups, due to the restrictions it would place on EPA regulation. I’m not sure yet whether I would support it. So far EPA regulation has not accomplished anything. Oil and gas companies must be afraid that it eventually will, and see this as a choice between a predictable and manageable business cost versus an unknown but potentially unlimited risk. What isn’t mentioned here is protection from litigation, which I have heard might also be part of the deal. They might be afraid of that too.

I support pollution taxes in general. I have made a career of helping regulated entities (water utilities in my case) deal with EPA regulations, and I don’t see them as particularly rational, effective, or economical even when the underlying laws are well-thought-out. It might be worth trying something different. Once we have a carbon tax on the books, the actual amount can be adjusted until it is effective, and the concept can potentially be applied to other types of waste and pollution.

The Onion weighs in on Saudi killings

This one is pretty brilliantly on the mark, in my opinion.

“The potential murder of a high-profile journalist critical of their regime raises grave concerns for us, and we appeal to the leaders of Saudi Arabia to restrict their extrajudicial murders to Yemeni people who don’t have any public platform,” said President Trump, adding that the White House would not sit idly by as the Saudis caused the deaths of innocent people unless they were Yemeni children in a school bus or a group of Yemeni people attending a wedding. “The United States asks Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to content himself with killings that don’t affect business deals or call our diplomatic ties into question, such as airstrikes on Yemeni infrastructure, fueling mass cholera outbreaks, or blocking food and medical supplies from reaching civilians. Look, we don’t even mind if you dismember and murder people inside the Turkish consulate, as long as they’re unknown Yemenis whose deaths won’t cause an international scandal. For the sake of all parties, we demand that the Saudis only kill people who hardly anyone in America cares about.”

democrats likely to run for President in 2020

Five Thirty Eight has a list of who they think is currently serious about a run for President in 2020. It’s a long list. I’ve added their ages in parentheses.

  • Lawyer Michael Avenatti (47)
  • South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (36)
  • Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (52)
  • former Vice President Joe Biden (75)
  • New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker (49)
  • former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro (44)
  • Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (66)
  • Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (47)
  • New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (51)
  • California Sen. Kamala Harris (53)
  • Former Attorney General Eric Holder (67)
  • former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (58)
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon (61)
  • former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (55)
  • Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts (39)
  • Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio (45)
  • Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (77)
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell of California (37)
  • businessman and pro-impeachment activist Tom Steyer (61)
  • Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren (69)

To break it down a little:

  • 20 candidates
  • by age: 3 in their 30s, 5 in their 40s, 5 in their 50s, 5 in their 60s, 2 in their 70s
  • by gender: 3 women, 17 men
  • by ethnicity: 4 black or Hispanic people, 16 white people (from a very quick scan, and I could easily have missed someone)

I can really only say I am familiar with five of these names: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Eric Holder, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker. At least there is some variety in the list. Maybe the DNC learned a lesson last time – not to put their thumb on the scale and try to force a particular candidate, rather than just letting the primary process play out.

Trump still has a number of challenges between now and when he faces one of these people in two years: criminal prosecution of close associates and possibly even family members or himself, possible impeachment by a majority Democratic House of Representatives, and possible challengers in the Republican Primary. It seems like a lot, but you have to admit Trump is a man who has tended to get his away against the odds and I have learned not to underestimate him.

making people disappear is wrong

This article in Project Syndicate is called The New Disappeared and is about dictatorships around the world that are making political opponents disappear, including Saudi Arabia. It’s certainly wrong, but it’s not only dictatorships doing it. Let’s not forget “extraordinary rendition”, where the U.S. kidnapped people off the street in friendly democratic countries, drugged them and bundled them onto airplanes, then delivered them to be tortured and murdered in secret prisons in places like Thailand and Egypt, all without any sort of due process.

can we use energy again and again?

I’ve had a few colleagues mention this story on making jet fuel out of industrial waste.

“This fuel takes waste, carbon-rich gases from industrial factories, and gives them a second life so that new fossil fuels don’t have to be taken out of the ground,” Virgin Atlantic founder Richard Branson told The Guardian. He added that this flight was a big step toward making the new fuel blend part of the mainstream…

Jennifer Holmgren, LanzaTech’s chief executive, said that her company has shown that recycling waste carbon emissions into jet fuel is possible. She added that we should look at waste carbon as an opportunity, because it can be reused again and again.

I did a little more research and what is happening here is that “waste” from the factories contains hydrocarbons that can be distilled into ethanol. This is a good idea, clearly. I just want to point out that there are only two possibilities here: either these people have come up with a perpetual motion machine allowing the same fuel to be “reused again and again”, or else the second law of thermodynamics is still in effect. I would tend to bet on the latter. Snark aside, what it must mean is that the energy source was always there, but technology has improved to the point where it can now be recovered economically. If that’s the case though, I wonder why the factories involved wouldn’t want to make use of the technology to improve their own efficiency while reducing their waste. If that is now an economical thing to do, it seems like that might be more efficient to do onsite rather than capture the waste somehow, concentrate it, transport it, process it, then transport it again. Unless there is some significant economy of scale involved that makes it all work. Anyhow, you can’t really be against energy efficiency or reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, so bravo everyone.

more on internment camps in China

A while ago I linked to a Der Spiegel article on surveillance and internment camps in certain provinces in China. This article in Breitbart is the first coverage I have seen of this story in any U.S. press outlet, and all the sources they link to are sources outside the U.S. The only good news is that the Der Spiegel reporters couldn’t seem to find anyone who has returned from the camps, whereas Breitbart actually has. I’m not sure exactly what Breitbart’s motive is for covering the story, but I’ll give them some credit.

the new IPCC report

Here’s the new IPCC report, Global Warming of 1.5 °C. I guess the idea is to show that this amount of warming, which most nations of the world have tentatively agreed to target, is still pretty bad. And the world is not even remotely on the path toward limiting warming to this level.

The report estimates the world has already warmed by about 1.0 degree C on average due to emissions that have already happened. If we stopped emissions today, the world would continue to warm, but warming would peak somewhere between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C. I think this is an important concept to grasp – the effects that are beginning to be felt now are not the result of emissions happening now, but of past emissions including emissions decades ago. They would continue and get worse even if we stopped emitting today, and not only are we not lowering emissions, we are continuing and even accelerating them. So the problem is potentially one of runaway, exponentially growing consequences and we are only at the very beginning of the curve.

I find the report difficult to distill into key messages. Here are a couple paragraphs on impacts (starting on p. 1-29 if you are following along at home):

 Impacts of climate change are due to multiple environmental drivers besides rising temperatures, such as rising atmospheric CO2, shifting rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, increasing ocean acidification, and extreme events, such as floods, droughts, and heat waves (IPCC, 2014e). For example, changes in rainfall affect the hydrological cycle and water availability (Schewe et al., 2014). Several impacts depend on atmospheric composition, for example, increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels leading to changes in plant productivity (Forkel et al., 2016), but also to ocean acidification (Hoegh Guldberg et al., 2007). Other impacts are driven by changes in ocean heat content, for example, the destabilization of coastal ice-sheets and sea-level rise (Bindoff et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2017), whereas impacts due to heat waves depend directly on ambient air or ocean temperature (Matthews et al., 2017). Impacts can be direct, for example, coral bleaching due to ocean warming, and indirect, for example, reduced tourism due to coral bleaching. Indirect impacts can also arise from mitigation efforts such as changed agricultural management (Section 3.6.2) or remedial measures such as solar radiation modification (Section 4.3.8, Cross-Chapter Box 10 in Chapter 4).

Impacts may also be triggered by combinations of factors, including ‘impact cascades’ (Cramer et al., 2014) through secondary consequences of changed systems. Changes in agricultural water availability caused by upstream changes in glacier volume are a typical example. Recent studies also identify compound events (e.g., droughts and heat waves), that is, when impacts are induced by the combination of several climate events (AghaKouchak et al., 2014; Leonard et al., 2014; Martius et al., 2016; Zscheischler and Seneviratne, 2017).

The rest of the report goes into various scenarios and pathways for achieving the 1.5 degrees C limit.

The Summary for Policy Makers has some attempts to convey these concepts in a more graphical way.

detecting submarines with satellite lasers

The latest idea in detecting submarines involves using powerful lasers mounted on satellites to penetrate to much greater depths than previously thought possible. As far as I can tell, the lasers don’t actually zap the submarines, they just tell you where they are. This could still be a big deal because undetectable submarines with nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. A first strike on an opponent’s land- and air-based nuclear forces can never succeed in wiping out the ability to retaliate, as long as the subs are out there. There is even a solid argument that a few submarine-based weapons are all the nuclear weapons a country really needs strategically. So if someone gets ahead in the sub-detection game, a first strike could become more thinkable.

more reasons to worry about the global financial system

William White, formerly with the Bank of Canada among other jobs, has another cheery list of reasons to worry about a new financial crisis.

  • large increases in dollar-denominated debt in the private sectors of emerging market economies,
  • high property prices in many countries,
  • asset-management and private equity firms acting as lenders in place in traditional banks, with less regulation and fewer limits on risk taking,
  • disparities in interest rates between countries leading to capital movement
  • flash crashes,
  • algorithmic trading,
  • passive investing, and
  • the possibility of slower growth, higher inflation, and political meddling in monetary policy in the U.S. caused in part by Trump’s misguided policies.