Climate 411

International trading of emissions reductions could greatly increase global climate ambition

The Arc de Triomphe following the signing of the Paris Agreement. Each party set a Nationally Determined Contribution for emissions reductions.

This post was authored by Gabriela Leslie, Pedro Piris-Cabezas and Ruben Lubowski

For more information, read our factsheet, The Power of Markets to Increase Ambition.

Update: the analysis in this blog has been published in the journal World Development (open source).

Carbon pricing is steadily growing worldwide and increasingly recognized as a way to achieve emissions reductions at lower cost than with standard regulations. A recent economic analysis from Environmental Defense Fund found that these cost savings from international trading of emissions could translate into direct gains for the atmosphere – and could produce nearly double the climate ambition at the same overall cost as countries’ complying with their Paris Agreement targets without international markets.

Read More »

Posted in Carbon Markets, News, REDD+ / Comments are closed

Clean Cars Are Safer and Cheaper to Drive

This post was written by EDF consultant Chester France, who served as a Senior Executive at EPA and led the development of vehicle standards at the agency

 

Very soon, the Trump administration is expected to propose dramatically weakening America’s Clean Car Standards under the Orwellian title “The Safer and More Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule.”

Actually, a decade-long record shows lower-polluting cars are safe and can contribute to a continuing reduction in traffic deaths. Strong Clean Car Standards also save Americans money at the gas pump.

The misleading title of the expected proposal — and the findings it insinuates — is just the latest example of the Trump administration manipulating analyses to achieve its desired result. A February 2017 email from Trump transition team member and professional climate denier David Schnare describes a White House order to set these rollbacks into motion, underscoring that this decision was preordained and not based on any analysis of facts or law.

Here are some facts you should know about clean cars, savings, and safety.

Read More »

Posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Four ways the Trump administration’s Clean Cars rollback would harm Americans

U.S. Air Force photo/Don Branum

The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of America’s Clean Car Standards is bad news — for your pocketbook, climate security and clean air, auto sector jobs, and state leadership.

A leaked draft of the administration’s proposal recommends gutting the existing Clean Car Standards — even though they’re already in place, delivering pollution reductions and saving Americans’ hard-earned money.

The draft recommends flatlining the standards at 2020 levels through 2026, and also includes an attack on states’ long-standing authority to enforce more protective clean car standards.

This proposed rollback is the wrong move for America. Here are four reasons why: Read More »

Posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Read 1 Response

Americans save hard-earned money with Clean Car Standards that Trump may soon roll back

The latest rumblings indicate the Trump administration is poised to advance a proposal that would dramatically roll back America’s Clean Car Standards, one of our biggest climate success stories.

Thanks to the Clean Car Standards, we’ve made major strides in reducing climate pollution while at the same time spurring fuel efficiency gains that save Americans money at the gas pump. But the Trump administration’s proposal reportedly would recommend flatlining the standards at 2020 levels through 2026, and would also include an attack on states’ long-standing authority to enforce more protective clean car standards.

A new analysis shows that this proposal would cost Americans in every state. With the anticipated rollback, an average family will spend $200 more per year, and could spend as much as $500 more every year if gas prices continue to rise — with low-income and long-commuting Americans particularly hard hit.

Here’s what you need to know about this reckless attack:

Read More »

Posted in Cars and Pollution, Clean Air Act, Economics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Policy / Comments are closed

Hansen was right: Marking an anniversary by misleading the public

Dr. James Hansen testifying before Congress in 1988

With the thirtieth anniversary of former NASA scientist Jim Hansen’s landmark testimony to Congress on the urgent need to address climate change, numerous articles marked the occasion by demonstrating that his 1988 predictions have proven to be accurate.

Inevitably, some writers seized the opportunity to revive long-debunked arguments in an attempt to cast doubt and confusion on the threat.

Perhaps the most misleading – and certainly the highest profile – was a June 21st op-ed in the Wall Street Journal written by Pat Michaels and Ryan Maue. Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, a think tank financially linked to the fossil fuel industry. And Michaels has been found to have previously misled Congress by presenting a doctored graph of Hansen’s projections during public testimony before the House Small Business Committee.

Four decades of climate model projections have fared well

Their latest effort implies that U.S. climate policy is based on Hansen’s forecasts in 1988, and therefore we must “reconsider environmental policy” according to an evaluation of “how well his forecasts have done.”

In reality, climate policy is based on hundreds of years of collective research and an overwhelming amount of observational evidence gathered from all over the world.

Climate model development began as early as the 1950s, and projections from 1973 to 2013 (including Hansen’s 1988 paper) have been compared to observed temperatures by multiple institutions. All showed reasonably accurate surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016, Hansen’s 1988 study included.

Read More »

Posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, News, Science, Setting the Facts Straight / Comments are closed

The path forward for net-zero emissions climate policy

By Nat Keohane and Susanne Brooks

This post originally appeared in The Hill

Climate change is a defining threat of our generation. But the way forward has never been clearer. Electric power generation is being transformed by the rapid deployment of wind, solar and utility-scale storage. Technological innovation is reshaping transportation and industry. New means of capturing and storing carbon are on the horizon.

Even so, the challenge is monumental. To have a reasonable chance of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, the world must achieve “net-zero emissions” — taking as much carbon out of the atmosphere as we put into it — in this century. Here in the United States, we are currently emitting carbon pollution at seven times the rate that we are soaking it up. We must take advantage of every cost-effective opportunity to cut climate pollution now, while investing in the innovations that will put us on course for net-zero emissions as soon as possible.

Economic and technological trends alone won’t do the trick. Waiting to act only deepens the challenge and increases the cost and pace of reductions needed. To unleash the full potential of breakthrough clean energy technologies, we need well-designed policies that accelerate the low-carbon transition rather than hinder it.Encouragingly, action is already underway: cities, states, and businesses are forging ahead to enact policies and undertake initiatives to reduce pollution, building on momentum from the plummeting costs of clean energy technologies. Those efforts are crucial. But the world won’t solve climate change without American leadership at all levels. To cut climate pollution at the scale and pace that science tells us is necessary requires national action.

Read More »

Posted in Basic Science of Global Warming, Climate Change Legislation, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Policy / Comments are closed