1 of 64

Climate Change and Rotary Club

Katy Rotary Club

November 14, 2019

[The first half of the presentation is a ‘head and heart’ approach intended to grab people. It borrows from Climate Reality’s use of graphic pictures, local as possible, and your own personal reasons for being a climate advocate, something you hope the audience can share. Slide #12 makes the key pivot to policy, but does so with another graphic showing the U.S. all lit up]

Hello! I’m [....], I’m here as a concerned citizen and I volunteer with Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

I’m so glad to have to opportunity to present to you today.

My talk is not about the science of climate change, but focus instead on how we can meet the challenge. But in fact I’m not to wanting so much to give a talk, but have a conversation with all of you. We’ll have some time to engage.

Our challenge with climate is to find a climate solution that we as Rotarians and all others can all live with? I use our Rotary Four Way Test as a guide.

2 of 64

http://bit.ly/36Z4UVF

Slides and Notes (on my idiotprogrammer blog)

3 of 64

Introductions

Robert Nagle

Katherine Argueta

4 of 64

Why I am so smart (not!)

Not a scientist/expert
Information Overload
Different Hats

Scientist
Policymaker
Business
Citizen

5 of 64

Consequences of New Technology

"New occasions teach new duties, Time makes ancient good uncouth.”

Poet James Russell Lowell

6 of 64

Thomas Midgley (1889-1944)

Inventor, chemist
Removed knock by adding lead. Developed leaded gas
Improved efficiency & safety of refrigeration by using freon
Died of polio, 51
Tackling dangers

Catalytic converters to phase out use of lead (1970s)
Hole in ozone → phaseout of freon

7 of 64

8 of 64

9 of 64

The underlying problem

Fossil fuel + biofuel pollution cause 4-7 million premature air pollution deaths per year worldwide ($20-25 trillion/year)

(WHO Report, 2014; Lancet Commission, 2017)

US: Air pollution causes about 200,000 early deaths each year. Emissions from road transportation are the most significant contributor, causing 53,000 premature deaths, followed closely by power generation, with 52,000.

( MIT’s Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment, 2013)

10 of 64

11 of 64

Climate Change: Effects of rising CO2

Has both global and regional effects (US → Bangladash, China → US)
Depend on each country’s political and economic systems
Delayed consequences

Initially, heat from CO2 emissions goes into oceans, then distributes across the world over a 30-70 year period
By the time we can understand a tipping point, we might have already passed the point at which we can make changes to prevent it.

12 of 64

Carbon Dioxide? Guilty?

It is colorless and odorless.

We breathe it out.

So do all animals.

Plants need it for photosynthesis.

It makes up only 0.04% of our atmosphere.

How can it possibly be a problem??

13 of 64

14 of 64

High Confidence

Increasing CO2 leads to higher temperature
global impacts
ice-free North Pole
Carbon buried underground in Iceland and Siberia -- if released -- could accelerate global warming even more
humans can adapt, but plants and animals will have a harder time

15 of 64

Less Confidence

Regional impacts
impacts over 4 degrees C
Unknown Tipping Points

Antarctic

How quickly we can transition to renewables
Climate Sensitivity

16 of 64

Climate Sensitivity

What is the effect of doubling CO2 in the atmosphere over preindustrial levels?

IPCC 5 2014: Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1 °C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6 °C (medium confidence).

best guess: 2.0 -2. 5

IPCC 6 2021 (preliminary) -- 4-5 degrees?

:

Climate Scientist Michael Mann

“There is a great asymmetry in risk between the high and low end estimates. Uncertainty cuts both ways and is not our friend.”

17 of 64

But what if we tripled our CO2 emissions?

18 of 64

Source:

NASA Website

19 of 64

20 of 64

21 of 64

Is climate change fair to all concerned?

22 of 64

Justice and Climate Change

Rich vs. Poor

cars, where to live, who should pay more in taxes?
countries: which should pay more for past pollution?

Young vs. Old
Companies vs. Consumers

who bears the liability?

Urban vs. Rural

rural -- need cars, more agriculture

Compensation

who should be compensated for their losses? How?

23 of 64

24 of 64

Maldive Islands

World Earth Day

Children moving plants to higher ground

25 of 64

Impacts upon Poorer Populations

Poorer Countries are most affected (Bangladesh, Vietnam, India,African countries, Island countries). They also have the least money to spend to improve resiliency.
Deaths from Heatstroke (Record temperatures 129+ degrees)
Poorer countries depend more on subsidence farming (Central America, Africa)
More mosquito-borne illnesses

26 of 64

Here’s the reality of climate change...

Global Warming has become “Global Weirding”

For instance:

Global High T records are broken almost annually
Seasonality is no longer dependable for many
Droughts are sometimes followed by massive floods
Forest fires are 5 times as frequent, over 6 times the area
Sea levels are rising and oceans are acidifying

An interesting comparison:

Climate is like your net worth in the bank. Weather is like how much cash you have in your pocket.

You don’t need to say any of what is below, but it is here as a reference.

Note that this is ‘global mean temperature’ . .

97% of climate scientists agree that the increase in Earth’s temperature is caused by humans mostly by burning fossil fuels. Recent article in Nature Climate: 99.9999% certain
More that 80 National Academies of Science around the world agree, including our own National Academies of Science
The role of carbon dioxide as a potent greenhouse gas was conclusively proven in the 1860’s century by Scottish Scientist
The first attempt to calculate the Earth’s temperature rise if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was undertaken by a Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius in 1896
We have increased carbon dioxide more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution that started about 1900. . More than 25% of this increase has come from the U.S.
Warming that we’re now seeing is that it’s 10x faster than what’s occurred in 800,000 year, and possibly 10x faster than what’s been seen in 65 millions of years
We are already seeing the impact of higher greenhouse gases everywhere.

More high temperature records will be broken. In fact, the 20 hottest years on record have all been in the past 22 years, and the last 4 years are the hottest ever!

------------------------------------

Background

The 20 warmest years on record have all come in the past 22 years.

World Meteorological Organization: https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-climate-statement-past-4-years-warmest-record

The last 5 years (2014–2018) have been the 5 hottest on record.

Here's the NASA data.

Because it was a monster El Niño year, 1998 throws things off a bit. It was quite hot, then 1999 and 2000 cooled. Those 2 are the ones not included in the hottest 20.

27 of 64

How Much Time Do We Have?

The IPCC reports we have 12 years to cut global emissions�by more than 40%

�

It’s not fun or easy to face the facts of what what we are up against, yet it’s the first and the most important step we can take to create a better future.
Scientists tell us we need to move away from business as usual, because our current carbon consumption is leading us beyond a tolerable average temperature increase.
How long do we have to change the trend? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the worldwide body of respected scientists who are experts at this stuff say we have 12 years to change our carbon consumption patterns before the damage is so extensive that it’s impossible to reverse in our lifetimes or even our grandchildren’s lifetimes.

And the next 6 years are especially critical, because the longer we wait, the harder it is to make up for lost time. 6-12 years. That’s a very short time to tackle such a big problem.

**********************************************

https://www.carbonbrief.org/six-years-worth-of-current-emissions-would-blow-the-carbon-budget-for-1-5-degrees

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html

28 of 64

Paris Accord is not enough

�

Voluntary global agreement which all parties agreed was inadequate.
Even if the world met its Paris Accord targets, it would still require lots of carbon removal ($$$$$$) by midcentury
Rationale: Once we create a global framework for reducing emissions, we could have a mechanism to reduce even more later on, as needed.

It’s not fun or easy to face the facts of what what we are up against, yet it’s the first and the most important step we can take to create a better future.
Scientists tell us we need to move away from business as usual, because our current carbon consumption is leading us beyond a tolerable average temperature increase.
How long do we have to change the trend? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the worldwide body of respected scientists who are experts at this stuff say we have 12 years to change our carbon consumption patterns before the damage is so extensive that it’s impossible to reverse in our lifetimes or even our grandchildren’s lifetimes.

And the next 6 years are especially critical, because the longer we wait, the harder it is to make up for lost time. 6-12 years. That’s a very short time to tackle such a big problem.

**********************************************

https://www.carbonbrief.org/six-years-worth-of-current-emissions-would-blow-the-carbon-budget-for-1-5-degrees

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html

29 of 64

Projects noncompliant with Paris Accords

30 of 64

31 of 64

32 of 64

33 of 64

Electric plants in Texas (population 25 million) emit as much CO2 as electric plants in the COMBINED states of New York, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Oregon (population: 86 million)

Source: EIA data, 2012

34 of 64

Test Yourself #1

Rank what you believe proves to be the biggest effect against climate change

Cook over clean stoves
Eat a plant based diet
Compost your waste
Throw away less food

35 of 64

Test Yourself #1

Answers:

Throw away less food
Eat a plant based diet
Cook over clean stoves
Compost your waste

According to Project Drawdown’s analysis, food waste counts towards 8% of carbon emissions, so reducing the amount of food we throw out greatly helps the planet. Cutting down on meat consumption also proves to be a great way to reduce carbon emissions, as the New York Times states that cattle contribute to 14.5 to 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

36 of 64

Test Yourself #2

Rank what you believe proves to be the biggest effect against climate change

Harnessing wind energy on land
Invest in nuclear power
Capture the power of waves
Build solar farms

37 of 64

Test Yourself #2

Answers:

Harnessing wind energy on land
Build solar farms
Invest in nuclear power
Capture the power of waves

Project Drawdown indicates that investing in onshore wind farms provides the most reduction in CO2 emissions, even though solar energy is on the rise of becoming a dominant energy source. Land utilized from these wind farms can also be used for grazing as well as farming, not to mention that wind farms are built in a quick process.

38 of 64

Test Yourself #3

Rank what you believe proves to be the biggest effect against climate change

Cut down on food waste
Restore our tropical rainforests
Manage Refrigeration Chemicals
Eat more plants and eat less meat
Install onshore wind turbines

39 of 64

Test Yourself #3

Answers

Manage Refrigeration Chemicals
Install onshore wind turbines
Cut down on food waste
Eat more plants and eat less meat
Restore our tropical rainforests

In 2016, the United States, along with 167 other countries, adopted an amendment to phase out these refrigerants over the next 30 years, but the amendment has not yet been ratified by the Trump administration. Please contact your senator or representative in order to address the importance of this issue.

40 of 64

41 of 64

Climate and Texas

Coastal -- hurricanes (stronger?)

Central Texas -- Drought (Fires?) Water Shortages

Southern Texas -- agriculture, climate refugees

42 of 64

43 of 64

44 of 64

Current Average Summer Temperature for Texas: 81.1

45 of 64

Heat-related Deaths

46 of 64

47 of 64

48 of 64

We have a three-part puzzle to solve

Policy

Personal

Technology

49 of 64

Cost of Delay

International Energy Agency:

For every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions.” (International Energy Agency)
“The world will have to spend an extra $500 billion to cut carbon emissions for each year it delays implementing a major assault on global warming.”
the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes to transform our energy system.”

Naomi Oreskes (science historian)

Historians call this the “infrastructure trap.” The aggressive development of natural gas, not to mention tar sands, and oil in the melting Arctic, threaten to trap us into a commitment to fossil fuels that may be impossible to escape before it is too late.

50 of 64

Possible Solutions

No regrets/Low hanging fruit -- conservation
Let the market solve the problem?
Remove subsidies for fossil fuels and high-emitting activities?
More research
Better Education
More laws & regulation?
Geoengineering (Yuck!)
Tax breaks for good behavior (electric cars, etc)
Carbon pricing -- Polluter pays?

51 of 64

Technology first...

Technology first…

compare unsubsidized costs, 2009-2018

52 of 64

Personal options next… so many choices

c.f., https://www.drawdown.org/ http://tinyurl.com/Evernote-What-I-can-do

�

53 of 64

Business: Dollars and Cents

Personal long-term investment (heating/cooling systems, car)
Lifestyle: air travel, local products, diet
Impact on Real Estate
Investment Opportunities (“Stranded Assets”)
Business Opportunities

Tracking Energy Use
Competitive Advantage of Sustainable Practices

54 of 64

Policy last but most necessary...

Technology

√

Personal

√

Policy

55 of 64

What makes for a good climate policy?

Fair to All
Beneficial for All
Economy-wide change
Effective in reducing emissions
Market-driven
National program that is “sticky”
International reach

Rotarians, following the Four-Way Test, would certainly make the case for a policy that is Fair to All and Beneficial to All.
The policy needs to affect the entire economy. It needs to be big enough to match the scale of the problem. Marginal improvements are insufficient. On a technical level, we need to transform our trend line from adding carbon to reducing carbon in the atmosphere.
The policy needs to be effective in reducing emissions sufficiently rapidly. It also needs to be market-driven, such that people have a choice, rather than government getting to choose winners and losers among promising technologies.
It needs to be a national program that is “Sticky”, i.e. durable - it needs popular support so that a change in political leadership can’t easily overturn an effective Policy.
Finally it needs to have a built-in program for extending its reach on an international basis. Every economy and every country in the world needs to be involved in reducing CO2 emissions.

56 of 64

Consider this policy approach...

Carbon Fee & Dividend

57 of 64

This policy has been introduced in Congress

The Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act,

H.R. 763

58 of 64

Carbon Border �Adjustment

Carbon Dividend

Limited

Regulatory Adjustment

Carbon Fee

Agriculture

Exemption

The Protections:

The Basic Elements:

Energy Innovation Carbon Dividend Act

AND

Here’s how it works:

The Carbon Fee is a price per ton of CO2 emissions, based upon well established values for all types of fossil fuels. For instance, 100 gallons of gasoline produces approximately a ton of CO2. The Fee starts at $15 per ton, and rises steadily each year. That way, businesses can adjust their planning for manufacturing, transporting and marketing their product based upon a known increase in price of fossil fuels. Businesses are expected to take the lead in bringing things to market at their lowest price bearing in mind the increasing cost of fossil fuels.
Revenues are paid to a Carbon Trust Fund from which Carbon Dividends are paid in equal shares to all adult citizens and lawful residents of the US, with half shares for children. The administrative cost is estimated to be 7% in the first year, decreasing to 2% in later years.
The Bill has what I call three Protections . . . The Carbon Border Adjustment protects US industry from losing trade to countries with no carbon fee. The Agricultural Exemption is just that. As CO2 emissions will be reduced with the Carbon Fee, the bill limits other Regulatory Rules for carbon dioxide reductions.

[Don’t go into details on the Bill, the discussion on CF&D does the heavy lifting. Just refer to these others as ‘protections’ with one or two sentence rationales]

59 of 64

Effective in reducing emissions

Creates Jobs, builds the economy

Good for People

Bipartisan

Revenue Neutral

These are the very real

Benefits...

Energy Innovation Carbon Dividend Act

AND

Focus on these Benefits

It will be effective, with 40% less carbon emissions by 2030 (12 years) and 90% by 2050

It will be good for people, with an estimated 295,000 lives saved after 10 years (from better air quality) and 2.1 million new jobs after 10 years

Also good for people is the dividend ($3,450/ year for a family of 4 after 10 years), which more than covers increased costs for about 67% of the population.

Now go back and compare the Bill against the likes/dislikes that audience raised in the Climate Solution Attributes discussion exercise (slide 18). . .

Highlight that for conservatives this Bill has a lot to like, namely:

Revenue Neutral, it will not build the size of Government

On the contrary, it will build a new economy based on renewable sources of power

It does not impose a Regressive Tax, falling primarily on our low income neighbors.

It frees up the market, applying a carbon disposal fee for what has heretofore been a hidden (externalized) cost

It has bipartisan support.

The pricing of carbon is already proceeding in many countries around the world.

The introduction of a similar carbon pricing and dividend legislation in British Columbia 10 years ago has been successful in all these ways and has now been adopted by the Canadian Federal Government.

Now set the stage for the concluding discussion session. . . . .

60 of 64

Two Climate Change Plans

Energy Innovation Act (HR 763)

Family of 4 -- receives annual dividend of $3400 (500$/person). Will increase over time.
Distributed automatically every month.
Fee on fossil fuels at the source. starts at $15 per metric ton of CO2, and increases $10 per year.
Border Carbon Adjustment -- Fees on product produced in countries without carbon tax
100% of revenues are returned to households
Each $10 per metric ton carbon fee would add about 11¢ to a gallon of gasoline, about 6¢ to a therm of natural gas, and 0.9¢ to a kilowatt-hour of coal-generated electricity.
Generate 2.1 million additional jobs in the first 10 years.

Climate Leadership Council

Family of 4 receives $2000 on a quarterly basis
Quarterly dividend check.
Sum will grow over time
Fee on fossil fuels at the source
Border Carbon Adjustment -- Fees on product produced in countries without carbon tax
Fee on CO2 emissions starting at $40 a ton (2017$) and increasing every year at 5% above inflation.

61 of 64

Most importantly . . .

We can beat climate change if we all exercise our citizenship
Please contact your Member of Congress.
Urge them to pass effective national climate legislation
Will your company endorse climate change proposals?
Rotarians, we need your help!

62 of 64

Quick Insights & Questions

63 of 64

More information

skepticalscience.com (debunks climate myths)
Wikipedia articles on Climate Change (Really!)
News Source: The Guardian, NYT, vox.com, climatebrief.org
Texas: Texas Climate News
People:

Bill McKibben (environmental writer)
Katherine Hayhoe (Texas climate scientist & poli sci prof)
Mark Jacobson (Stanford U., Youtube “Keynote presentation”)

64 of 64

http://bit.ly/36Z4UVF

Slides and Notes (on my idiotprogrammer blog)