Today, we present a guest post written by Jeffrey Frankel, Harpel Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and formerly a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. An earlier version appeared at Project Syndicate. He would like to thank Kim Clausing, Rob Stavins, and Catherine Wolfram for useful comments.
May 27, 2024 — The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) has begun asking EU importers to report data on emissions of greenhouse gases by their foreign suppliers (direct, but also indirect, i.e., embodied in the electricity they use). The first round of reports were due January 31 of this year. European importers are required by July to have established access to the data on emissions embedded in their suppliers’ products. The full CBAM regime, with European penalties against imports from countries that don’t price carbon as the EU does, will go into operation on January 1st, 2026. It will have a major impact on producers of carbon-intensive products among EU trading partners.
The new European regime may look like an unwanted source of international discord, another item on the world’s already overcrowded agenda of daunting international problems. But closer consideration suggests that CBAM could in fact offer the most practical path toward achievement of the ambitious global climate goals of the Paris Agreement.
Thirty years ago, at the 1994 start of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, it was evident that:
(i) the road to getting countries to agree to, and comply with, limits on greenhouse gases (GHGs) would be long and difficult, in light of the substantial economic costs;
(ii) the way to minimize costs is market mechanisms like carbon pricing or tradable emission permits; but it was thought that Europe and most other countries would never agree to such mechanisms, because their public attitudes were less friendly to markets than American attitudes.
(iii) No plausible mechanism to incentivize or enforce carbon-cutting agreements across countries was on the table, it being understood that many countries would refuse the implied violation of their national sovereignty. Considering the free-rider problem, international proclamations of ambitious climate goals would prove largely empty.
Thirty years later, the situation has changed. Europe has successfully instituted a system of tradable emission permits (its Emissions Trading System, which dates from 2005). (Meanwhile, it is the US where domestic politics have proven especially resistant to taxing carbon.) One can now discern a possible path under which the carbon pricing regime might spread globally. The key is the EU’s CBAM, designed to complement the burden of a carbon price on intra-EU trade, so as to forestall leakage to the rest of the world. (Leakage occurs when tight environmental regulation in one country induces the regulated industry to contract production there and to expand in countries with less stringent regulation.) Countries that don’t price GHGs (expressed in tonnes of carbon equivalent) will in effect face tariffs on their exports to Europe in six carbon-intensive “pilot” sectors: aluminum, iron and steel, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen, and electricity, with other sectors to be added by 2030.
Technically, the importer has to buy import certificates (permits), the cost of which is equivalent to a fee or tariff. These fees will be substantial, equal to the contemporaneous market price of carbon within the EU: 77 euros per tonne, as of May 23, 2024 (= $84), and expected to rise in the future[1]), minus any carbon price the supplier is deemed to have paid in its own country.
CBAM will give Europe’s trading partners that export carbon-intensive products a powerful incentive to respond by implementing carbon pricing and CBAMs their own. Joining the club will allow countries to collect revenue that is otherwise being collected by European governments. That revenue can then be used to compensate domestic constituencies, or finance green development projects, or close pressing fiscal gaps. As more countries join, economic pressure on the holdouts to join will grow.
One might worry that such trade penalties are incompatible with existing international trading rules under the WTO; and there is indeed a danger that they could be implemented in a protectionist manner. But the EU claims that its CBAM will be consistent with WTO rules and it may well turn out to be correct, given the EU’s non-discriminatory design. There are precedents that use the WTO’s environmental exceptions, which are allowed under Articles XX so long as foreign firms are treated equally. The trading rules have come a long way since 1991, when a US ban on Mexican tuna imports to help dolphins was torpedoed by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Most foreign countries are only beginning to formulate their responses to the EU CBAM. In December, the United Kingdom, which has its own domestic emissions market, decided to follow its continental neighbors and adopt a very similar CBAM. Australia and Canada are studying, and Turkey is developing, carbon border adjustment measures.
What about the US? CBAM-type legislation has been proposed in the Senate. It could be a stepping stone in the right direction. But, when not paired with the adoption of a domestic carbon price, it would be discriminatory.
American industry would like to think that it already pays a high implicit price for carbon, in that its average emissions are lower than those of some other major trading partners. In the steel sector, for example, US firms mostly use electric arc furnaces, which generate much less carbon than the blast furnaces of many other exporting countries (notably, China, Russia, Ukraine, South Korea, India, and Canada). But in the absence of an explicit national price on carbon, US carbon policy is unlikely to be judged as equivalent to Europe’s and its CBAM is unlikely to be consistent with international trade rules.
The CBAMs of the EU, UK, and any others who join, will have major impacts on the exports and GDP of Emerging Market and Developing Economies. Some (including China, India, and South Africa) have challenged the new European regime. Nonetheless, it will put pressure on them to develop their own versions of carbon pricing.
CBAMs may turn out to be mere excuses for protection of industry from imports. But if all goes well, countries that are on the receiving end of CBAM charges will, over time, however reluctantly, respond by adopting serious carbon pricing regimes of their own. This, in turn, may offer the best hope of inducing in their economies the changes in technology, consumption and production that are needed to head off catastrophic climate change.
[1] The price of EU emission permits has been well above 50 euros a tonne ever since May 2021. (“Tonne” signifies a metric ton.)
This post written by Jeffrey Frankel.
It should be noticed that the use of electric arc furnaces in the US was done to make our industry competitive. It is simply a more efficient and lower cost alternative to the old fashioned blast furnaces. The US revival of metal industries required better efficiencies and it was a mere side-effect that we also lowered the carbon emissions per ton of steel produced.
However, the old blast furnaces we are competing with in other countries have already sunk in the cost of construction, and as long as they have a lower production cost (labor and raw materials) they will keep producing (and polluting). By adding to the product cost we will make it more likely that those old plants get an early retirement and are replaced with new more efficient plants – either in this country or in the foreign country.
This is somewhat similar to what happened with coal fired power plants (although less from cost increases and more from reduced cost of competing technologies). Combined cycle natural gas power plants converts about 85% of the input hydrocarbon energy to electricity, and alternative energy basically has no fuel cost. The old style coal fired power plants simply cannot compete with that (even if they have paid off the original construction loans/bonds). Many of them are simply closing or (those in good shape) converted to natural gas plants to remain competitive.
You feel sorry for countries like India, whose ignorant authoritarian leader is pushing ahead with coal plant construction although any knowledgeable experts will tell you that such plants will become stranded assets in a decade or two. Whoever owns or provide loans for such plants better prepare to hold the bag. That was the main reason construction of coal fired plants stopped abruptly in the US in 2015 – investors realized the loans would eventually default. Even worse for Indias ambition to compete with China in manufacturing is that India will be saddled with electricity costs that are substantially higher than those in China.
The same problem of businesses being saddled with higher electricity costs is happening in the southern states that gets power from TVA. That regional power producer is hopelessly behind on switching from hydrocarbon to sun and wind energy. They are building a lot of natural gas power plants with lifespans of 25-35 years instead. That means that for the next 25-35 years their costumers will be stuck with power that will have an increasingly excessive and unpredictable cost compared to the regions of our country where alternative energy provides most of the electricity.
You may have noticed that the above case for reducing CO2 emission was all based on cost, and did not mention saving the planet from global warming. You don’t even have to believe in the reality of global warming to understand that we need to move away from the old inefficient CO2 producing approaches.
Couple of things –
My (imperfect) understanding is that U.S. steel plants use steel, rather than iron, as feedstock – they recycle existing steel. That means the carbon is already present. Turning iron into steel through the addition or carbon is, I’m told, a big reason coking coal is used in steel production.
You may know otherwise.
I think TVA may be worse than you have described them. I believe they have plans for a new coal-fire electrical generation plant. Mind-boggling, if true.
It is true that US is doing more recycling of steel than making it from iron. That is in part because we are competitive on recycling (very little shipping involved in recycling here vs shipping back and forth to recycle abroad).
Its my understanding that Electric Arc furnaces are used both for scrap steel and for iron. It’s basically a more energy efficient way to heat up the material to the melting point. But you are right that the carbon footprint of recycling steel is much lower than the carbon footprint of making it from iron.
I did not hear about TVA planning a coal plant, but it would not surprise me. Their leadership is polluted with old style corrupt southern GOP white men. Building a coal plants to help one of the old boys make some money off the public electricity supply, would not be surprising – it would also feed right into the political narrative of those right wing morons that run the show down south.
The future is coming right at TVA but they close their eyes and say “we see nothing”. My guess is that within a decade the TVA electricity delivered by local power companies will be costing more than it will cost for most homes to go off grid. Home solar with (dirt cheep) second generation home batteries will provide security against grid and power line disruptions – and be cheeper than TVA power. The reason being that TVA will have huge legacy costs ($1 billion just in cleanup at the old Kingston coal plant) and they will be locked into either writing off fossil fuel plants or producing power at such plants – at a much higher cost than what the latest solar panels will be able to do. As more and more individuals realize that they can save money by going off grid, the legacy costs will be shared by fewer TVA costumers, and you got yourself a vicious circle.
Is there an equivalent choice of technologies for concrete production akin to the electric arc vs blast furnace choice in steel production? Where simple cost considerations point to the less-CO2-intensive technology?
“it is the US where domestic politics have proven especially resistant to taxing carbon.”
VP Gore tried to push this but to no avail. But didn’t Bush41 do something back in 1990?
Economists discussing climate. Should climate scientists discuss economics? Why not?
https://judithcurry.com/2024/05/26/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers-on-my-prager-u-video/
… and before pgl has a snarky comment about Dr. Curry:
https://judithcurry.com/about/
… but, but, but 97%!
Are you suggesting that we should ignore economics when making climate policy? Cool! No more concern for the price of pollution abatement. No more thought about industries that might be damaged by pollution regulation.
This will remove all kinds of barriers, real and made up, to taking action to deal with climate change. Excellent idea.
Quite the contrary Macroduck. Economics should be paramount when making policies that are based on a high degree of uncertainty about risk.
You’ve just made a complete about face regarding your comment above. At least try to make a coherent point.
Curry is not exactly a respected climate scientist even if MAGA MORONS like you love to quote her irrelevant gibberish. Now James Hansen is a respected climate scientist as ltr used to remind us but even Hansen did not get the economics here. Oh wait – neither does MAGA MORON like you. So I presume Dr. Frankel’s excellent post here went over your little pea brain just like every other discussion of economics.
Look – we have reminded you that this is an economist blog so maybe you can take your pre-school trash somewhere else. And I have specifically asked you to learn a little economics before wasting my time and invoking my name for some dumbass reason.
“Well, here’s what all climate scientists actually agree on:
The average global surface temperature has increased over the last 150 years.
Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
And carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet.”
Well she got this right. Oh wait – liars like you and CoRev deny each and every thing she happened to get correct. Go figure!
You seem to be proud of this 97% figure. As usual our favorite MAGA MORON did not get what his own link said:
“Isn’t it true that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change?”
In other words, this 97% agree Bruce Hall is one dumb liar. Thanks for mentioning this figure little Brucie boy.
Bruce Hall You need to reread Frankel’s post. It wasn’t an economist discussing climate; it was an economist discussing the economics of dealing with global warming. As to Judith Curry, well…every profession has its crackpots. Her appeal is to geezers who are looking for excuses to evade responsibility for what future generations will have to endure.
2slug, every profession has its crackpots.
That’s kind of harsh given what she wrote which I see as quite reasoned and reasonable. But if you look at it from a climate apocalypse viewpoint, then I guess her failure to cry “the sky is falling” at every turn can be seen as being a “crackpot”.
The real economic issue is that the billions of dollars… trillions… will have little to no climate “mitigation”. It may have an environmental impact (which may or may not be good), but little climate impact.
Even if Americans still used mostly gasoline/diesel autos, America would save a lot of emissions and show their own “seriousness” about the issue, by switching from tank sized gas guzzling SUVs that 98% of them have no damned need for (The “deep need” of soccer practice for “Mia”, after Mom sits in the Starbucks drive-thru with the motor idling for 20 minutes going nowhere for $6 cup of cream and sugar put to the side for the moment) and instead purchasing Japanese sedans. Don’t expect that anytime soon though, because for all of Americans’ flapping of the jaws, editorials, and fake concern, Americans just couldn’t possibly care less.
EU Emissions Trading System
https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-action/eu-emissions-trading-system-eu-ets_en
Question about EU carbon permit prices. Your link shows they remained below 40 Euros per tonne from 2005 to 2020 but spiked to 100 Euros before retreating a bit to the current levels. So what drove the rise in these prices?
“So what drove the rise in these prices?”
Main contribution: The war in Ukraine led to a temporary switch from NG to coal which is “taxed” higher, the price is now down to 56 EUR/t again.
Minor contribution: The number of certificates is also reduced which adds pressure.
Thanks!
Off topic but this is not how to celebrate Memorial Day:
Trump Commemorates Memorial Day With Unhinged Rant Targeting ‘Human Scum’
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-commemorates-memorial-day-with-unhinged-rant-targeting-human-scum/ar-BB1n8SbG?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=a9bad4766d5c4214a062656350361fab&ei=14
Given Trunp’s disdain for our brave soldiers – are we sure he was not referencing veterans with this remark?
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4235005-john-kelly-confirms-trumps-suckers-remark-about-war-dead/
Former White House chief of staff John Kelly confirmed several remarks his former boss, former President Trump, reportedly made during his time in the administration, including one where Trump referred to dead U.S. service members as “suckers.”
In a statement to CNN, Kelly, the longest serving chief of staff in the Trump administration, confirmed to network anchor Jake Tapper a number of details published in a 2020 article by The Atlantic, including remarks made by Trump during an official visit to France in 2018.
“A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them,’” Kelly told CNN in his lengthy statement about Trump. “A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’”
“A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family – for all Gold Star families – on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.”
Several senior staffers told The Atlantic at the time that Trump did not want to visit the graves of the American soldiers buried at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France, saying, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.” The former president also referred to the 1,800 U.S. Marines killed in World War I’s Battle of Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed
Think about this, whenever you hear trump’s phony playing of the Lee Greenwood song. Hope Lee Greenwood is enjoying the residuals on his song, which supports a man who doesn’t care Americans died so he could commit adultery with porn girls and waste days on end at golf courses.
Remember kids, this is Bruce Hall’s personal idol, and the same life form that Steven Kopits yearned to be on his White house staff. Same creature they love.
Since Republicans/MAGA have decided they would eventually rather send American soldiers, Navy men and Airmen over to die by the thousands in East Europe rather than spend a small ratio of that cost to help Ukraine defend themselves, I give you, this always special Memorial Day, an update on the war in Ukraine which Republicans believe is a “small problem” when compared to harmless Mexicans jumping the border to clean their houses, their toilets, and pick fruits and vegetables on farms. Oh!!! Oh!!! The “Mexican Plague” on our land continues!!! Sharyl trump Asskiss’n, Save us from the evil Mexicans!!!
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-26-2024
The U.S. SEC recently adopted climate disclosure rules. Those rules were immediately challenged in court and a stay has been imposed:
https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/sec-adopts-climate-change-disclosure-rules-court-imposes-temporary-stay
That’s how far off in left (make that “right”) field the U.S. is in taking climate change seriously. We cannot even require that investors be informed of the risk that climate change represents to financial performance. Climate change is being treated as a special class, different from financial risk, interest-rate risk, tort risk, currency risk, risk of labor action, risk of supply interruptions. It’s ideogical nonsense.
Professor Frankel’s briefly mentioned the free-rider problem. This problem is, of course, at the heart of the international climate-change debate. In the U.S. Congress, for instance, there have been many instances of good environmental (and financial and safety and labor) policy being criticized as giving foreign producers an advantage. Some environmental effects are more local than others, but climate change is global, and so creates big free-rider problems. CBAM addresses those problems.
We’ve seen how the creation of environmental standards in an important market can induce improvement outside that market in California’s auto-emmision regulations. Once a plant retools to meet California’s requirements, there is less financial incentive to resist similar regulation elsewhere.
Europe’s CBAM greenhouse gas rules can avoid a free-rider problems, and in doing so, increase the odds that other countries will adopt similar rules. Excellent approach.
Turkey is jockeying for attention from Trump:
https://thehill.com/opinion/4687751-in-syria-we-are-still-paying-down-the-debt-from-obamas-iran-deal/
Reading between the lines, this opinion piece, written by a Turkish politician with strong ties to the U.S., essentially asks Trump to adopt policies toward Kurds, Syria, Iran and Turkey which are in Turkey’s interest. The author tosses a bit of mud on Obama and Biden, which amounts to Trump-bait.
The possibility of a second Trump presidency is a major focus of foreign policy types around the world. His first administration was nearly directionless in foreign affairs in its early days, other than sucking up to Putin and undoing whatever Obama had done. Trump’s admiration for autocrats, while sometimes just an embarrassing matter od style, made him vulnerable to flattery from Saudi Arabia and disdainful of out democratic allies.
Anyhow, Trump is better understood this time, and part of that understanding is that he is intemperate, changeable and transactional. Give him an excuse to do what you want – like tying Obama to a policy you want changed – and he just might do it, without thought to longer-term consequences.
Even more effective give Trump family business some business and he will do whatever you want. Saudis rented a whole floor of the Trump hotel in DC. China gave Ivanka a great deal and suddenly the China bashing became all words no action.
More interesting news on how Russia recruits soldiers to die near Ukraine. Not terribly surprising.
https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/cqvvldzy093o
Off topic – How to sound smart when discussing the unsecured overnight market:
https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2024/05/who-is-borrowing-and-lending-in-the-eurodollar-and-selected-deposit-markets/
Yeah, I know it sounds boring. Here’s the thing – if you are accustomed to thinking in terms of the eurodollar market as “the” market for overnight funds, it’s time to brush up your Shakespeare. “Selected deposits” is now the largest overnight market.
Of topic – in response to recent discussion of the health of the economy, how much stress is there in the corporate debt market? Not much, according to the NY Fed’s Corporate Bond Market Distress Indices:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/cmdi#/interactive
When discussing the neutral or natural interest rate, these indices are instructive. In Q3/Q4 of 2022, stress in the corporate debt market was high, while the Fed funds rate was roughly 220 basis points below today’s rate. Arguably, the neutral rate has risen, given the coincidence of higher rates and lower market stress. Market stress is not the only factor in assessing the neutral rate, but there is a suggestion here that the neutral rate is higher now than two years ago.
It’s no surprise that the stress indices look a good bit like corporate rate spreads. Here’s the BBB U.S. corporate spread:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLC0A4CBBB
Spreads for household debt look quite shabby by comparison:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1oeH2
A couple of questions come to mind: Why are corporate spreads and household spreads headed in different directions? Which sector, and which spread, is a better predictor of future economic conditions?
There are a lot of presumptions, but the two that stand out are:
1) CO2 is harmful to the planet
2) A warming planet is harmful
3) We can buy a solution
Both are speculative. It is known, with certainty, that CO2 has benefitted vegetation and without vegetation all animal life would become extinct.
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25 (2016).
https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/
Of course, there is the politically required speculative doom portion:
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
That presumes, of course, that a warming planet is a less hospitable planet. That’s the speculative part.
It’s as if life thrives most in latitudes above 60º north (or below 60º south). But we know that is not the case. Life seeks heat. And heat is safer than cold.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuacohen/2023/07/19/excessive-summer-heat-can-kill-but-extreme-cold-causes-more-fatalities/
So, of course, the easy solution is to restrict CO2 by forcing the purchase of indulgences… eh, carbon credits of some mechanism… thereby forcing reduction of CO2 emissions.
As an aside, my favorite author/writer is H. L. Mencken. And one of my favorite quotes from him is:
There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat; plausible and wrong.
Once again Bruce Hall mispresents his own links. Let’s try Dr. Curry’s trio (not duo):
Well, here’s what all climate scientists actually agree on:
The average global surface temperature has increased over the last 150 years.
Humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
And carbon dioxide emissions have a warming effect on the planet.
Yes Brucie – Curry disagrees with your global warming denials but hey! The question she raises is that some in the EPA crowd may be overestimating the extent of global warming whereas she is like underestimating it. Now to your absurd trio. NO ONE is suggesting we return to the Ice Age or even get rid of CO2. But even the title of your latest link admits too much heat can be deadly.
It’s sort of like discussing consumption of food. We need food for energy but when one eats like your hero Donald Trump one gets grossly fat which has to be bad for one’s health.
BTW – Dr. Frankel’s excellent did not say we can “buy” a solution. He did say we can get market signals right by properly noting negative externalities. Standard economics which is why you apparently decided to not read his post.
“there is the politically required speculative doom portion”
Way to insult the people who cited here. There was no political requirement underlying this paragraph (which rebuts all of your MAGA driven BS). And no – it is not speculative. It is settled science. Even your Dr. Curry agrees with that. BTW you loved that 97% figure but something tells me that you did not realize that this 97% disagrees with your politically motivated dishonesty.
It seems Brucie did it again – skipping the last paragraph of his Forbes link:
‘we shouldn’t read into this that global warming is a good thing. Climate change has long-term impacts on sea levels, animal and plant life, and agriculture, each of which can have lasting deleterious effects on human health and wellbeing. Also, heat exposure deaths disproportionately impact impoverished regions of the world, including poor areas of the U.S. which implies that over time they’re much more affected by temperature-related deaths.’
Climate change is a lot more harmful than simply counting the number of people who die from excessive heat. But of course we all know that Brucie does not care about the death of people who live in impoverished regions of the world so he posts this article as his “case” for ignoring the adverse effects. MAGA!
Assumptions? It is similarly an assumption that seatbelts save lives in automobile crashes, that vitamins are necessary to good health, that asbestos is harmful if inhaled, that ionizing radiation can lead to cancer, that loud noise can lead to hearing loss. Each of those assumptions is accepted as the basis for public policy.
Somehow, it has become a sort of catechism on the right to pretend that perfect knowledge is available and that environmental policy should only be based on perfect knowledge. “Assumption”, as Brucie calls what is otherwise know as scientific cinsensus, is just fine for other forms of policy, but not for environmental policy. It’s compete hypocrisy, but what’s new about that?
I hear Bruce Hall played high school football without a helmet telling the coach concussions were just an assumption.
Funny. I’m stealing that line by the way, for later usage. Not here on this blog, anywhere where I fool them it was my original.
My Dad had very little use for the sport of football (even though I loved it in my teen years) My Dad would have loved that line. “playing high school football without a helmet telling the coach concussions were just an assumption.” my Dad could never understand why intelligent beings would bang their heads against/into each other in a violent fashion. Although I can’t “shake” my affection to football. the older I get I come around more to my father’s thoughts on the sport.
I always had this false notion (certainly as a boy) that if a father and a son could not communicate or show emotion to each other, then they communicated through sports. This tactic of trying to relate to your Dad never worked with my Dad.
M, Assumptions? It is similarly an assumption that seatbelts save lives in automobile crashes, that vitamins are necessary to good health, that asbestos is harmful if inhaled, that ionizing radiation can lead to cancer, that loud noise can lead to hearing loss. Each of those assumptions is accepted as the basis for public policy.
Yes, not only observed, but thoroughly tested. That’s not the same think about the wicked complexity of climate which has been boiled down to “CO2”.
Hurricanes less frequently, but causing more damage because more people are building in hurricane-prone areas.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/27/weather/tropical-cyclone-frequency-21st-century-climate/index.html
Tornadoes have not necessarily been increasing in frequency or intensity, but our ability to detect and count them has improved (especially E0 and E1).
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/13/1063676832/the-exact-link-between-tornadoes-and-climate-change-is-hard-to-draw-heres-why
The trend of temperatures since the 1930s is fairly flat. The confluence of factors that create abnormally hot conditions is not unique to the present.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/07/20/heat-wave-1936/
Dr. Curry may not find favor in this forum, but she has and continues to do important work for both government and industry. The fact that she has a more level-headed approach to our climate/environment is anathema to the great climate change believers who have determined the only course toward salvation is forcing energy and economic privation which will hurt the lower income people the most. Ironically, the spin is that if we can only increase the cost of energy, transportation, and food in order to reduce CO2, we will be making life better for the poorest among us. Let’s hear it for “carbon taxes”.
Bruce Hall: Wow.
I hear the shortage of immigrant labor has boosted wages for cherry pickers. You should apply.
Bruce Hall Yes, CO2 does benefit vegetation; however, that’s only a temporary benefit since all vegetation decays and releases the trapped CO2 back into the atmosphere. Apparently it never occurred to you that temperatures continue to rise despite vegetation uptaking some of the CO2. Think about that.
You keep missing the point about high temperatures. The problem is not the current global temperature. Repeat…the problem is not the current global temperature. Current temps are manageable. The concern is that unless we dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions, we will be handing future generations one helluva a mess. Migration will be utterly unmanageable all across the globe. People who live in certain countries are not going to quietly lie down and drown as sea levels overwhelm them just because Bruce Hall can’t be inconvenienced with slightly higher energy costs. Global warming isn’t about a few more warm days so that self-centered retirees can play more golf; it’s an existential crisis for generations long after those geezer golfers have joined the choir invisible. My advice is that you quit talking with geezers and spend some time with Gen Z kids. You owe them an apology for the kind of mess you’re leaving them.
Try thinking dynamically. I know that’s hard for conservatives, who by definition are prone to static thinking. Try thinking globally instead of parochially. Try thinking about your moral responsibility to future generations with respect to problems that you caused.
Lots of excellent comments. Two caveats.
You want Bruce to re-read the post but Brucie never read the post in the 1st place.
And this is wisdom for sure “Try thinking dynamically.” I’m still waiting for Bruce to simply think.
If you insist that CO2 is a problem rather than a benefit, that will frame your reaction to earth’s greening.
We know for certain, that increased levels of of CO2 have increased earth’s vegetation, including growth of food stocks, which is a definite benefit. It is still a debatable issue whether more widespread warmth is harmful or beneficial. We know that ice ages are not beneficial.
Oh gee Brucie – could make it more obvious that you neither read the post nor what the rest of us have said. Try reading what 2slug said as it was in plain English. Oh wait – you do not understand even preK English.
Look – we gave up a long time ago on you making an honest contribution on this or any other issue. So do us a big favor – stop repeating your clearly retarded statements.
“We know for certain, that increased levels of of CO2 have increased earth’s vegetation, including growth of food stocks,…”
We know? Really? You expect us to take you at your word, given what we know about your behavior here?
Tell ya what. Here are some real sources, offering real information. Check out the second one, dealing with “stressed vegetation on all continentants.” Oh, and crop losses, leading to the threat of famine. C’mon, Brucie, just a shred of decency when millions are at risk:
“Southern Africa is on the brink of a devastating hunger crisis as a relentless drought tightens its grip. El Niño has led to searing heat that led to massive crop failure causing water sources to dry up. As a result, millions of people in Malawi, Zimbabwe, and Zambia have been driven towards starvation.”
https://www.care.org/news-and-stories/press-releases/immediate-action-is-needed-as-southern-africa-grapples-with-worsening-drought/#:~:text=April%2022%2C%202024%2D%20Southern%20Africa,have%20been%20driven%20towards%20starvation.
“A significant portion of the world’s agricultural lands was still suffering from low soil moisture and groundwater levels — especially in the Americas, Africa, eastern Europe, and parts of Asia — and satellite observations showed stressed vegetation on all continents.”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/global-drought/202404#:~:text=Global%20Drought%20Overview,and%20Central%20America%2C%20and%20Mexico.
Rising temperatures are also excellent for melting permafrost, and “we know” melting permafrost is beneficial, right?:
https://interestingengineering.com/science/permafrost-alaskas-orange-waterways
Acid released by melting permafrost is coloring Alaskan rivers in a way that’s visible from space. Methane is invisible, thank goodness, or we’d have to look at that leaking from melting peafrost, too.
And just so you stop lying about the thinking of those of us who actually care about the future, allow me to note that I’m talking about methane here. See? Not fixated on CO2 at all.
…. correction but the three that stand out are:
….
The last one, of course, presumes that Dr. Curry was incorrect in her presentation about risks and predictability and human generated CO2 is certain to make our planet more like Venus.
Bruce Hall in his usual MAGA motivated dishonest way insults the author of a paper that Brucie relied on for his spin simply because it noted climate change leads to global warming. I guess if one is a MAGA hack one has to accuse people telling the truth as being politically motivated. But never mind that trash as nature.com has a lot of really good papers (none of which Brucie will cite) including this on point paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-024-01993-5
Current national proposals are off track to meet carbon dioxide removal needs
William F. Lamb, Thomas Gasser, Rosa M. Roman-Cuesta, Giacomo Grass, Matthew J. Gidden, Carter M. Powis, Oliver Geden, Gregory Nemet, Yoga Pratama, Keywan Riah, Stephen M. Smith, Jan Steinhauser, Naomi E. Vaughan, Harry Smith & Jan C. Minx
Huh – so many Socialist scientists so little time I guess if one wears a MAGA hat.
Nature Climate Change (2024)
More Republican fiscal LA-LA_land:
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/republicans-4-trillion-question-should-they-pay-for-extending-trump-tax-cuts-ebbe67f3?st=jb9naqt7nurgfn2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
‘Republicans want to extend the Trump-era tax cuts that lapse after 2025. A big point of debate now: Should they cover any or all of the $4 trillion cost—and how?
The question pits the party’s fervent belief in the economic power of tax cuts against many GOP lawmakers’ oft-repeated concerns about federal debt and budget deficits. Many Republicans argue that tax-cut extensions are so important for strong growth that they don’t need to be fully paid for. Some are exploring ways to trim the net cost of a tax-cut extension, such as repealing electric-vehicle tax breaks or reducing federal spending.’
First of all tax cuts do not raise long-term growth so the idea that they pay for themselves is a blatant lie. Unless they maintain the payroll tax cut eliminate Social Security benefits, the only significant spending cuts would be defense spending and we know they are not cutting that budget.
Repealing electric-vehicle tax breaks is not just bad policy but is not going to cover the massive hole from extending the 2017 massive tax cut for rich people. But while we are on the topic of things like carbon tax – adopting that could raise significant revenueas.
Off topic but Killers of the Flower Moon, which premiered at the 76th Cannes Film Festival on May 20, 2023, is a good movie. OK it stars De Niro who I have already noted is my favorite actor.
I mention this only because De Niro and Don Trump Jr. made dueling speeches just outside the Manhattan Trump trial. De Niro noted Trump Sr. does not belong in his city (can you blame him).
Don Jr. fired back that De Niro has not made a good movie in a long time. Yea – Jr. prefers cartoon character films to actual movies.
I guess we have forgotten about Nikki Lightweight Haley since she lost to Trump except for the sad little fact that she now endorses Trump. But Nikki has decided to go to the Middle East to advocate for the killing of all Palestinians:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nikki-haley-s-4-word-message-on-israeli-bomb-sparks-outrage/ar-BB1ndwAc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1a431908990e490495a65546d2a2450b&ei=6
Co-director of Standing Together, a Jewish-Arab movement for peace, equality and social justice in Israel, Alon-Lee Green wrote on X, “Dear Americans, Nikki Haley visited us today: She went to the West Bank settlements and then went to sign on a bomb “finish them”. Just disgusting. Can you please take her back? We already have one Ben Gvir & we don’t need your filthy death promoting politicians as well. Thanks!”
Oh wait – Nikki wants to be Trump’s next Sec. of State and the destruction of Palestine and its people is high on Trump’s agenda.
“Finish them” is just ambiguous enough…maybe.
Netanyahu’s government keeps saying it want to “finish” Hamas, while making Gaza unlivable an killing non-combatant Palestinians in large numbers. Some of the more right-wing members of Netanyahu’s cabinet are overt exterminationists, calling for the death or forced expatriation of Palestinians in Gaza – like they’d stop with Gaza.
Haley is overtly aligning herself with Israel’s disgusting “take no prisoners” policy, but leaving room for exterminationist dog-whistle. And let’s not pretend Haley could have missed the ambiguity of her statement. She was a freakin’ UN ambassador, after all. She’s advancing her own political prospects by advocating mass murder, plain and simple.
Off topic – China and Taiwan:
Bloomberg is using China’s recent naval exercises aroun Taiwan to speculate that China may attempt to blockade Taiwan:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-05-25/bloomberg-new-economy-china-blockade-simulation-raises-5-trillion-risk
There is an unfortunate “we’re smarter than we look” schtick to the article – inferiority complex? – but if you can get past that, it raises some interesting issues.
The same ballistic missiles and aircraft carriers which put U.S. forces in Guam at risk in any future shooting war could just as easily be used in an effort to prevent a combined blockade run by accompanied merchant convoys and Berlin-stye airlift. Point being Beijing is building the capacity to invade, blockade and intimidate, without kibbiters at Bloomberg or anywhere else having a way to know which is the more likely.
If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that a life-long politician who has spent decades in Congress and well over a decade in the White House has a reasonable grasp of both politics and policy, then something like this makes sense:
https://heatmap.news/politics/biden-climate-policy
The upshot is that Biden is compromising on the speed of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to establish a stable political coalition in support of reducing emissions.
Now, I know lots of Democrats have decided that Biden is a lightweight, a nice old man with good intentions but no ability to win a second term, that he has been insufficiently:
A) Progressive
B) Moderate
C) Dogmatic
D) Willing to Compromise
E) Willing to Fight
F) You Name It
Republicans have instead, individually thought for themselves about Biden, and without coaching or tribalism, have all come to the identical conclusion that Biden stole the 2020 election (especially in Republican governed states) took bribes from Hunter and was on coke when he dilivered that State of the Union address.
But for the sake of discussion, just for fun, let’s consider whether Biden’s actions regarding climate change could be those of a mature politician, attempting to lock down a good policy before he heads off into the history books.
Agree- Macroduck – My son works in the solar/renewable energy industry and says Biden administration investment in renewable energy to spur the energy transition/reduce emissions – has been historic and massive – and it boggles the mind that other than the trade press – media is not even talking about this https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-82-million-investment-increase-domestic-solar
When does the GOP start explaining to their base that climate change is real and start pushing policies to address climate change adaptation and mitigation ( https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/mitigation-and-adaptation) rather than performative B.S. like banning lab-grown meat (reference – Florida Gov Desantis) or performative B.S. legislation like “Liberty for Gas Stove Tops (reference – current GOP House of Representatives) or keep throwing out the same dingbat physicist that says – nah – we are in a transition to the another Medieval Climatic Anomaly or something?
Extreme heat will stifle US economy, Fed study says – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/extreme-heat-stifle-us-economy-194612228.html
One of the areas that will be impacted the most by extreme weather events will the Southeastern U.S. (reference – violent storms that killed 12 at last count, knocked out power to 10,000s and millions in damage to homes/structures in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma)
Alito neighbors contradict his story of how a pro-insurrection flag ended up outside his home
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/alito-neighbors-contradict-his-story-of-how-a-pro-insurrection-flag-ended-up-outside-his-home/ar-BB1ngSKd?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=0de9a379f048446d9867d612a3efce68&ei=6
Feb. 15, a couple living across from Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito’s home called Fairfax County police to complain that his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had been harassing them. According to The New York Times, the Alitos were in an escalating feud over the other couple’s decision to display a yard sign that used profane language to denounce former President Donald Trump. Initially, Justice Alito claimed that the decision to fly an upside-down flag outside his Virginia home was a response to the couple lobbing a vulgar insult at Mrs. Alito following the Jan. 6 insurrection, an encounter in which both sides accused the other of aggression. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” the justice claimed earlier this month. “It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” However, Fairfax County authorities confirmed that the incident with the neighbors actually happened on February 15, per the Times, long after the inverted flag — a sign of distress and a symbol the pro-Trump movement to overturn the 2020 election — was first raised outside the Alitos’ home. Emily Baden, one of the neighbors, told the Times that she and her then-boyfriend were taking out the trash that February day when Mrs. Alito herself used an expletive and called them “fascists” as her husband, the Supreme Court justice, looked on in silence. Baden said she in turn yelled at Mrs. Alito, using an expletive and reminding her that she was “representing the highest court in the land.” Another time, Baden alleged, Mrs. Alito appeared to spit towards her vehicle as she drove past the Alitos’ home.
Off topic – consumer confidence:
The Michigan and Conference Board measures of consumer mood often give contrary readings, and May data have so far been a great example. Yesterday’s Conference board measure rose to 102 from 97.5:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-confidence-unexpectedly-improves-may-2024-05-28/
This follows a preliminary drop to 67.4 from 77.2 in April for Michigan:
https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-consumer-sentiment-slides-six-month-low-may-2024-05-10/
Two things – 1) The Conference Board index is somewhat more reflective of labor market sentiment than Michigan, which is more reflective of financial market conditions. 2) Michigan is preliminary.
The 10-year Treasury yield rose by roughly 20 basis points, apparently in response to the Conference Board data, putting a fresh dent in equity prices. So the Conference Board reading may reinforce the divergence with Michigan when Michigan’s final May reading is published.
A couple of dismal headlines regarding Israel’s war on Palestine:
Israel National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi says fighting in Gaza will last at least through the end of 2024:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-sends-tanks-into-rafah-raids-amid-gaza-wide-offensive-2024-05-29/
“It will take three to five years to stabilize [Gaza] and then many more years to build an alternative to Hamas” says Gadi Eisenkot, former head of Israel’s military:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-minister-says-netanyahu-failing-calls-elections-2024-05-29/
Keep in mind that Israel doesn’t have a plan for dealing with Gaza after the war (’cause who cares, right?) and the U.S. State Department is angling for the “top senior advisor” role for whatever security apparatus runs Gaza once the war ends. We could be in the hook for whatever Israel has done and whatever it does over the next seven or more months of violence against Gaza.
The only realistic alternative to Hamas is something even worse. Or Hamas being rebranded and called Humus. They have no plans for after the war “ends”. And that may be a feature not a bug.
I missed this when it came out:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/egyptian-soldier-killed-in-clash-with-israeli-troops-at-rafah-crossing/amp/
Not good, whatever the details may be.
There is always tension between Egypt’s leaders and the rank-and-file military, especially over relations with Israel. Anwar Sadat was, after all, killed by members of Egypt’s military. I can imagine this being started by disaffected Egyptian soldiers. I can just as easily imagine Israeli soldiers opening fire on Egyptian soldiers objecting to what they were seeing happen in Rafah.
During Putin’s war crimes on Ukrainians, one of the vilest things was how Russian soldiers were raping Ukrainian women. Now the victims include the men:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/30/europe/russia-sexual-violence-occupied-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html
Within an hour of being arrested by Russian security forces, Roman Shapovalenko was threatened with rape. On August 25, 2022, the day after Ukraine’s Independence Day, he said three armed, masked officers from Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) stormed his home in the southern Ukrainian port city of Kherson, which was occupied by Russian forces at the time. They turned his house inside out searching for incriminating evidence. A message in Shapovalenko’s phone that called Russian soldiers “orcs” — a derisive reference to the evil forces in J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle-earth books and a popular Ukrainian slur for the Russian army — was enough for them. He said he was tied up, blindfolded and stuffed into an unmarked car. For days after, Shapovalenko said he was repeatedly electrocuted in his genital area, threatened with being raped with a glass bottle, and was even made to believe he could be sterilized. “They seemed to have a fetish for genitalia. Sometimes the door would open, and they would say: ‘We’re going to take out our batons and we’re going to rape everyone here,’” the 39-year-old farm manager told CNN.
Raw data: Corporate profits for banks and non-banks
https://jabberwocking.com/raw-data-corporate-profits-for-banks-and-non-banks/
I realize our former troll who would lie about this issue 24/7 is no more, but Kevin Drum’s inflation adjusted chart over the past several years is at least honest if not informative.
OK, I promise I’ll take a break after this…
Mexico will elect a new president on Sunday. Claudia Sheinbaum seems set to win:
http://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/5/29/who-is-claudia-sheinbaum-the-frontrunner-in-mexicos-presidential-race
In a particularly nasty coincidence, “day zero” for Mexico City’s water supply may also arrive in June:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/0424–kinard-mexico-city-run-out-of-water/#:~:text=The%20global%20press%20recently%20warned,although%20dire%2C%20is%20more%20nuanced.
As Scientific American indicates, June is the earliest possible “day zero” with a later date more likely. Still, the problem for Mexico City’s 9 million residents is quite serious. Bogota faces a similar “day zero” water shortage. Check out what happened in Cape Town for a preview of “day zero” conditions:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Town_water_crisis
It’s too late to warn Ms. Sheinbaum to be careful what she wishes for.
To citizens of El Norte, times awasting. Stop bickering over immigration and start preparing for what climate change will bring.
Trump found guilty on all 34 counts.