Tag Archives: climate change

the current carbon price

Leave a reply

According to academic meta-analyses, the carbon price should be in the range of $100-165 per (metric) tonne of carbon dioxide (equivalents, including other greenhouse gases adjusted for their impacts) emitted. Our World in Data found that about 30% of the world’s emissions are priced, which is up significantly but obviously still low. Uruguay, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Hungary have charges in this range. The typical price across Western Europe is $65-90. Many countries that have a carbon price charge $10 or less. Still, I imagine getting a legal and administrative system in place is a big hurdle, and once you have one the price can be adjusted over time.

June 2026 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The latest paper from Johan Rockstrom and company lays out climate scenarios through the year 3,000. There is plenty still to be figured out about the scientific details, but some major uncertainties are the sensitivity of the climate to greenhouse gases – in other words, how much warming will occur per unit of emissions – and how likely the major feedback loops are, such as melting permafrost releasing massive amounts of methane, loss of sea ice reducing reflection of sunlight in an accelerating loop, and major shifts in ocean currents that distribute and rebalance heat across the planet. These are existential risks, and they can potentially reinforce each other in multiplicative ways. So even though there is scientific uncertainty over whether it will get bad, or really catastrophically bad, there is no logical or moral case for not taking precautionary action now to reduce the risk of these outcomes.

Most hopeful story: If AI does in fact accelerate productivity and create significant new wealth, there are many well-known effective policy options for redistributing this wealth. Some of these have the word “tax” in their names, but there are also less efficient but perhaps more politically palatable options like baby bonds. Perhaps if the rate of new wealth creation is really a major departure from the past, our system may have a chance at implementing some of these.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: I wanted to teach my own children not only some basic financial literacy concepts (Johnny wants ice cream today but is trying to save for a new bike) but also how those relate to the idea of a capitalist economy (why does interest exist, what causes inflation, and what the heck is money anyway?) and the real physical world (yes, little Johnny, the consequences of taking natural resources out and putting pollution back into our biophysical system are in fact intertwined with our human economy). A daunting task, considering that Nobel laureates have struggled with this. But the Nobel laureates aren’t going to explain it to the children, so your intrepid blogger waded in and came up with something.

Global Justice?

Leave a reply

Here’s a report called the GLOBAL JUSTICE REPORT: A Plan for Equality & Prosperity Within Planetary Boundaries. The big name on the report is Thomas Picketty. This is an academic report – despite their insistence that it is concrete and practical, it is definitely more of a vision along with a catalog of policies that could be pursued to support that vision. Part of it is about a global wealth tax funneling into a global sovereign wealth fund, and in fact I came to the report through a brutal take-down of the political achievability of that particular idea. Nonetheless, if there is a clear vision, countries that want to can start to review and try to align policies with the vision over time. And if a large enough group of countries agreed to band together to pursue the policies collectively, perhaps they could move the needle.

The idea I found most interesting was an idea they call “targeted sufficiency”, which goes like this:

Sufficiency includes a sharp reduction in labour hours and material footprint, a large shift in consumption from material to immaterial sectors (education/health), and a substantial change in food habits, allowing for a strict deforestation ban and a gradual return of global forest cover to the 1900 level…global convergence of all countries to 60k Euros 2025 PPP in per capita GDP by 2100

So you implement income/wealth redistribution policies; reduce working hours, shift remaining working hours from transportation, food, manufacturing, and construction to health and education; reduce the environmental footprint of those high impact industries, which may require reducing their actual magnitude; and persuade (or force?) people to shift their increased leisure time to experiences and services rather than consumption of physical goods. I think it’s a nice vision, and just pointing policies in this direction and achieving some small fraction of it in the near term would be an achievement. That’s the thing about changing the course of a large vessel – if they had just given the steering wheel on the Titanic a little tweak early enough and stuck to the new course, it would not be at the bottom of the ocean.

To me, value added tax at the individual country level, a portion shifted into either individual accounts for citizens, baby bonds, or a sovereign wealth fund (these all amount to mathematically, economically, roughly the same thing, although vastly different politically); and another portion shifted into sustainable infrastructure and incentives for that shift in labor to education and health, could be an achievable way to steer toward this vision. You can tax (or cap and trade, which amounts to the same thing mathematically and economically…) carbon and/or other forms of pollution, both to raise revenue and provide incentives for sustainable choices. Because these are all real policies being successfully pursued by some countries in the world right now. If technology and market forces deliver large productivity gains at the same time, it might be more politically palatable to phase in these policies. I doubt it is politically feasible to ask wealthy and powerful interests to give up any of their absolute wealth and power. It may be possible to ask them to give up a portion of their relative share while the tide is rising, in exchange for some stability and predictability. This has been achieved in many societies, and even in the United States during the middle of the 20th century.

the latest from Rockstrom et al.

Leave a reply

Johan Rockstrom and company have a new paper talking about possible trajectories for the climate through the year 3000. There is a fair amount here, but one thing I find interesting is that while they are not talking about the highest emissions scenarios anymore (SSP3 under the CMIP6 framework), they are looking at a range of equilibrium climate sensitivities (ECS), and this makes a big difference. ECS, if I remember correctly, is the amount of global warming that occurs from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. If this value is 4 degrees C rather than 3, our situation gets much worse, with a peak of around 5 degrees C above preindustrial temperatures rather than the 3.5 expected under the lower ECS value. They show the peak sometime between 2200 and 2300. If this sets off catastrophic feedback loops, the system could get to a point well outside human control, even if we found the capacity and geopolitical will to get our act together.

That might happen, for example, in the case of large-scale dying or burning of forests (Reyer et al., 2015), or when carbon release from thawing permafrost (Turetsky et al., 2020) or gas hydrates on the ocean floor (Minshull et al., 2016) increases beyond current expectations. If such “natural” carbon release exceeds a potentially modest threshold (compare residual emissions experiment, Figure 1), warming may continue even if human forcing from GHG emissions or further land-use changes are virtually stopped. These human efforts would then be thwarted by the Earth system itself.

An important point is we don’t know the correct value of ECS yet – that should become clear with more data collection and research in coming decades. But the risk is existential enough that a species and civilization able to act together in a rational manner would be managing it now.

first hints on CMIP7

Leave a reply

This is the first story or post I personally have read on the IPCC’s Coupled Intercomparison Project (CMIP) round 7. I’m sure people who do climate science for a living are all over it. But I am not exactly a layperson – I’m an engineer who should aware of and probably incorporating climate science into my daily work. And not to brag but I am an engineer who has done Ph.D.-level research on how to use climate science and climate modeling outputs in daily engineering work. So if this is only on the periphery of my awareness, it is nowhere in the awareness of the typical intelligent and educated engineer out there designing the infrastructure that is going to be in place for the next decades to century in our cities.

As climate folk will know, the community is currently embarking on a new round of climate model simulations to support analyses and projections for the next IPCC report (due in 2028/9). This new effort has been dubbed CMIP7, because it is the sixth iteration of the CMIP effort (IYKYK), that started in the late 1990s. For each of these iterations, a new set of projections has been formulated for the modeling groups to use and the ones for this round were just published (van Vuuren et al., 2026).

For those who don’t know, the scenarios mentioned here are the inputs to the global circulation models that actually give us projections of what the global climate might look like under various…er…scenarios. Here is the abstract of the reference mentioned above:

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7 (ScenarioMIP-CMIP7)

Scenarios represent a critical tool in climate change analysis, enabling the exploration of future evolution of the climate system, climate impacts, and the human system (including mitigation and adaptation actions). This paper describes the scenario framework for ScenarioMIP as part of CMIP7. The design process, initiated in June 2023, has involved various rounds of interaction with the research community and user groups at large. The proposal covers a set of scenarios exploring high levels of climate change (to explore high-end climate risks), medium levels of climate change (anchored to current policy action), and low levels of climate change (aligned with current international agreements). These scenarios follow very different trajectories in terms of emissions, with some likely to experience peaks and subsequent declines in greenhouse gas concentrations. An important innovation is that most scenarios are intended to be run, if possible, in emission-driven mode, providing a better representation of the earth system uncertainty space. The proposal also includes plans for long-term extensions (up to 2500 AD) to study slow climate change-related processes, and (ir)reversibility. This proposal forms the basis for further implementation of the framework in terms of the derivation of climate forcing pathways for use by earth system models and additional variants for adaptation and mitigation studies.

May 2026 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: The people running Palantir and other companies focused on military/security/surveillance applications of information technology seem to have, at best, a faith-based belief that the United States can do no wrong. At worst, their beliefs are based on eugenics and white Christian nationalist attitudes which simply have no basis in fact or logic. I don’t believe the technology itself is good or evil, but pair in with these irrational beliefs and there are many frightening, depressing, dystopian paths I can imagine our country going down.

Most hopeful story: It’s a struggle to find a silver lining to the illegal, unprovoked U.S. war of aggression in Iran, but I mused that the artificial restriction on oil supply might create some long-term gain by accelerating the economic and geopolitical incentives to transition to other forms of energy. Such rational policy almost certainly could not have been achieved through international diplomacy in the current environment. This is not to minimize the very real and very avoidable near-term suffering and death the immoral choices of the Trump administration have caused. Even the cynical economic and financial elites who arguably control most policy have not been served by this irrational violence. In the future, I hope the world has some talented and courageous leaders who can find ways to bring about rational long-term solutions to problems without short-term mass murder.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: On the AI front, I looked at an argument that today’s AIs are pushing people toward the political center relative to social media, which is pushing people toward extreme views. This is true even for AIs like Grok that are demonstrably being trained on data that is intentionally biased toward extreme views. I am not confident this will always be the case, as we are already hearing about a trend toward more customization of AI to whatever the tastes of the paying customer are. And…I looked at David Chalmers’s concept of a “philosophical zombie” which displays all the traits of a human being externally but has no consciousness internally. This would seem to describe today’s large language models pretty well, or at least so the majority of us think at the moment. However, I recall Ray Kurzweil’s argument that there is not and never will be a scientific test for consciousness whether animal/vegetable/mineral (some argue plants are conscious on some level), which is simply a secular counterpart to the idea of a soul, and that over time if AIs act conscious in every respect we will gradually accept them as conscious and stop thinking much about it.

Global Environmental Outlook 7

Leave a reply

The UN has a new UN-speak report on what we need to do to fix the global environment. The simplest take-home message is an economic one – the benefits greatly exceed the costs, but it requires up-front investment blah blah blah. UN-speak is off-putting to many, so talented politicians and other leaders need to translate it to platforms and policies that speak to us, and then do it. There’s a full report, an executive summary, and key messages from the executive summary. I’ll highlight just a few actions here in my own words:

  • Eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies in the energy, food, and mining industries.
  • Internalize external costs – the good old “Pigouvian taxes” that raise revenue and/or encourage behavior, and we win either way.
  • Alternative/supplemental measures of progress besides GDP
  • Circular economy – recycling and reducing waste
  • Renewable energy phase-in and fossil fuel phase-out
  • Electrify everything – transportation, manufacturing, housing/buildings, and agriculture

Nature-based solutions and conservation of natural ecosystems seem to be important things missing from from this list, but those are in other reports of course. Still, I find it strange to make a distinction between “ecosystems” and the “environment”.

Are we forgetting about robots? (or Brute’, where are you when we need you?)

In fast-moving current events as I write on March 15, 2026, the illegal, unauthorized by any legislative body international or domestic, unprovoked US sneak attack on Iran continues to rage. I’ll leave further commentary to others except to say that, in totally unrelated news here on this Ides of March, remember it was SENATORS who had the guts to stab Caesar and try to save the Republic (which didn’t work all that well in the end.)]

Here are a couple headlines we could classify as “things China is doing well”.

China’s Clean Energy Push Has Made It Less Vulnerable to Energy Shocks, Including the Iran War [Is this not obvious? The US could be focusing on ramping up proven technology like electrification of all buildings and transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and battery technology while also funding “moon shot” R&D in areas like materials science and nuclear fusion. We could also be using fission energy and, I hate to say it, domestic fossil fuel production as a bridge to get us over the hump while we scale up in these other areas. If the whole world were doing this we wouldn’t be so dependent on boats moving liquefied dinosaur turds through one little war-torn (by choice of the fools claiming to lead the US government) inlet.]

How China’s AI-Powered Robots Could Reshape the Global Order [Now that disembodied AI has became mainstream, the next somewhat obvious step is to get the AI brains into robots.]

February 2026 in Review

In fast-moving current events as I write on March 1, 2026, the United States (executive branch, which is unconstrained in this moment by the other supposedly co-equal branches or public opinion) has launched an unprovoked military attack on Iran, in crystal clear violation of the UN Charter and domestic law. Theoretically, there are mechanisms both international (International Criminal Court) and domestic (impeachment – which can apply to cabinet members, agency heads, and federal judges in addition to the President and Vice President; and court martial which applies to military officers who follow illegal orders) that could eventually hold the criminals involved accountable for their crimes. Lots of people have lots to say and we will see how this unfolds. I am just documenting that I am present at this particularly sad moment in history.

Most frightening and/or depressing story: I hadn’t heard of mirror life, technology we apparently have right now which can destroy all life on Earth. This new, shocking, theoretically existential threat narrowly edged out the usual stream of depressing climate disaster news, the existential threat known to be currently unfolding, but which I suppose I am somewhat desensitized to.

Most hopeful story: Falling consumer prices in China might represent a new industrial revolution analogous to the age of railroads and electricity in the west in the late 1800s, rather than a textbook financial recession which seems to be the (propaganda-tainted?) conventional wisdom. I put this in the win column because if it is true, I am hopeful we will see it spread peacefully to the rest of the world rather than representing a threat.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: Ray Kurzweil predicts broad consensus that Artificial General Intelligence has arrived by 2029 (defined as AI equal to the leading experts in all fields), “longevity escape velocity” in 2032 (which would reverse the US slipping in recent decades), universal basic income in the U.S. sometime in the 2030s, and the Singularity in 2045 (defined as 1000X human intelligence – always pronounced TIMES according to me), but most importantly and the only thing that truly matters, robots doing my dishes in a couple years.

lies, lies, and more lies to the U.S. public about greenhouse gas emissions

The “endangerment finding” through the Clean Air Act may not have been the ideal way to incentivize clean energy technology in our country. But it was one dial we had to turn, and now it has been turned back. This is just a temporary giveaway to the short-term interests of corporate donors in the automobile and fossil fuel industries. In the case of the auto industry, it is not in their long term interests to subsidize inefficient outdated technology, then use propaganda to swindle the public. The lie about “affordability” is particularly egregious.

Affordable vehicle ownership is essential to the American Dream and a primary driver of economic mobility out of poverty in the United States. The Endangerment Finding led to vehicle and engine regulations with an aggregate cost of more than $1 trillion and played a significant role in EPA’s justification of regulations of other sources beyond cars and trucks, resulting in additional costly burdens on American families and businesses. Americans rely on vehicles to reach jobs, education, health care, and essential services. This is especially true in rural areas and regions without robust public transit. The costs imposed by these climate policies have placed new cars out of reach for many American families and harmed Americans’ ability to climb out of poverty or reach essential services. The Trump EPA is expected to deliver Americans over $1.3 trillion in cost savings, which includes reduced costs for new vehicles and avoided costs of purchasing equipment related to EVs. This action will result in an average cost savings of over $2,400 per vehicle. By lowering vehicle and regulatory compliance costs, EPA is improving affordability and expanding consumer choice and ultimately advancing the American Dream by making it easier to reach jobs, grow small businesses, and participate fully in the transportation and logistics systems that power the U.S. economy.

Here is what Gemini has to say about this. And the analysis below is true in the United States. In China, most new vehicles being sold are electric and you can buy one for $10,000. We are being lied to, and as we have withdrawn even more from the world, we are even less aware what is going on elsewhere, but still U.S. consumers are intelligent enough that we will catch on even if there is some delay. Our legacy auto companies will fail again and again, and eventually need to be bailed out again and again, until eventually the economics of electrification is just too obvious to lie about and get away with it.

While the sticker price of an EV is typically higher, the savings in fuel and maintenance usually “pay back” that difference within 3 to 7 years. By the time a car reaches the end of its life, an EV owner in the U.S. has typically saved between $6,000 and $11,000 compared to a gas-car owner. [generated by Gemini]

There’s another sleight of hand. There is rock solid scientific and economic work showing the costs of air pollution, and here I am talking about good old fashioned toxic smoke from factories and tail pipes. There is also solid (but controversial) economic work over decades quantifying the economic value that people place on a year of worker life. For example, a construction worker on a roof might get paid more than one doing the same job on the ground, because there is a greater statistical risk of death on the roof. Aggregate these numbers over many workers, jobs, and time, and you can say the “value of a statistical life” is a certain number of dollars. It seems cold, but it provides a sound data point when a new regulation with some cost is being considered. Put these two things together and you have the scientific and economic basis to compare the costs and benefits of a policy decision. This is old school environmental economics and really a basis for some pretty conservative policy because you are acknowledging it may be rational to sacrifice some human health and life for economic production. And we are not really assigning the environment any intrinsic value in this equation, unless knowing the environment is a little better brings people some pleasure which some value can be placed on, which economists sometimes try. Of course, real world policy decisions are some combination of science, economics, and politics, as they probably should be in a democracy. But what the EPA has recently suggested it is prepared to do is set the value of a statistical life to zero when analyzing costs and benefits of air pollution. [See pp. 214-217 of the document I link to above. I acknowledge this not a crystal clear policy directive, then again, it may be intentionally buried to try to avoid scrutiny, when in fact if you dig deeper EPA is departing from official directives of the federal government, including the President’s own Office of Management and Budget.] In other words, they propose to assume the cost of pollution is zero. This is wrong, fake, naked propaganda! Their policies are killing us AND stealing our money. It is time to get rid of these immoral people claiming to lead us.