Friday, April 13, 2012

3376.txt

cc: <lempertatXYZxyzd.org>, <lempertatXYZxyzwood.net>, Daniel Sarewitz <Daniel.SarewitzatXYZxyz.edu>, Andy Revkin <anrevkatXYZxyzimes.com>, <p.jonesatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <wmwatXYZxyzr.edu>, <jmahlmanatXYZxyzr.edu>, <manabeatXYZxyzash.princeton.edu>, <m.hulmeatXYZxyz.ac.uk>, <thomas.loweatXYZxyzt.edu.au>, <penneratXYZxyzch.edu>, <covey1atXYZxyzl.gov>, <wallaceatXYZxyzos.washington.edu>, <jholdrenatXYZxyzc.org>, <hjacobyatXYZxyz.edu>, <jhansenatXYZxyzs.nasa.gov>, <wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov>, <omichaelatXYZxyznceton.edu>, <hareatXYZxyz-potsdam.de>
date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 14:37:03 -0500
from: Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>
subject: Re: a query to all...
to: "Stephen H. Schneider" <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>, Michael Schlesinger <schlesinatXYZxyzos.uiuc.edu>

Dear Steve--Even though this is after Andy's sort of cutoff, the issue is
about regional aspects in the US.

Indeed, my results, which were derived from EIA and EPA, are based on
combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas within each state (or at least for
vehicles, put into their tanks in a state). So, electricity made from coal
in one state and exported to another counts in the source state, not the
user state (and I thought CA actually imported quite a bit of coal-fired
power from Four Corners area, etc.). This way of counting is a bit unfair,
but the alternative, to my mind, becomes totally imipossible.

Recall that the Montreal Protocol done for CFCs proposed to keep track of
the responsibility for CFC use--so the rules were that one would count
production plus imports minus exports in three categories: (1) bukl
tankloads, etc.; (in products like refrigerators and air conditioners); and
(c) to make products that cross borders (so, for example to clean computer
circuitry--counted against the country of the computer purchaser). This is
all well and good, but as it turned out, never had to be done as the Ozone
Hole led to calls to phase it out and further conventions/amendments
implemented that instead.

So, imagine trying such an accounting for fossil fules. Let's just try for
the coal used to make electricity in, say, Wyoming, going to another state.
So: (1) we'd count the carbon in the coal to make the electricity that went
across the line (though fungible as electricity is, this could get a bit
contentious); but also would we count, for example: (2) the carbon in the
gasoline for the worker to get to the plant, the diesel fuel for the
machines that got the coal to the plant, etc.; and (3) the carbon involved
in construction and operation of the worker's home and the products that the
worker and his family buy, the carbon released when the coal mine was dug
out, and so on? And might one deduct the carbon emitted if what the
electricity was used for was run a methane from sewage plant or to sequester
carbon underground.

And what are you going to say to the argument that Californians use less
carbon because, for example, they are fortunate enough to live where there
is hydropower whereas others don't, yet in our interdependent world we need
products or resources from that other region.

To my mind, all this becomes so complex that is it must be viewed as
impossible, and this is why, rather than trying to do an accounting, the
easiest way to do this is some sort of tax on or required permit for carbon
release--then the price signal all happens through the economy. When it is
necessary for some entity to then use more carbon than someone else, they
will pay a price for this--but trying to somehow mandate a personal level of
use seems to me much too complex and unproductive.

Best, Mike

> From: "Stephen H. Schneider" <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 23:40:03 -0800
> To: Michael Schlesinger <schlesinatXYZxyzos.uiuc.edu>
> Cc: lempert@rand.org, lempert@netwood.net, Daniel Sarewitz
> <Daniel.SarewitzatXYZxyz.edu>, Mike MacCracken <mmaccracatXYZxyzcast.net>, Andy Revkin
> <anrevkatXYZxyzimes.com>, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu, jmahlman@ucar.edu,
> manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au,
> penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu,
> jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov,
> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov, omichael@princeton.edu,
> hareatXYZxyz-potsdam.de
> Subject: RE: a query to all...
>
> Hi all again. One minor point--as if any of us have infinite time for any
> more of this fun! First I agree with Dan that the political complexities
> are key--certainly no less than biophysical complexities in climate
> sensitivity--and local makes it even tougher. Mike M, the Wyoming big per
> capita thing may not be "right"--depending on how consistently it is
> calculated. If their coal is charged to them--CO2-wise--where it is dug and
> not where it is burned--most of that in the Midwest I recall (anyone know?),
> but not certain about that, thanks to cheap train rides--then it would seem
> that a low population state would have a tremendous per capita emission if
> liability is at minemouth not at the smoke stack. But if that CO2 is
> credited where it is burned, equation might change dramatically--once again
> local details and assumptions matter. CA imports fairly little electricity
> percentagewise so it wouldn't matter to them much how it is calcualted; but
> for WY--that assumption could be dramatic. Either way, to go back to my
> point about local culture and politics--and again agree with Dan, that
> includes local self-interests--the political & cultural "red-blue"
> dichotomy between CA and WY is probably similar--if not even more
> disjoint--than CA-TX. Same conclusion--regardless of data--isn't "science"
> easy and fun!!
> Cheers and Happpy Chinese (local culture again) New Year to you all, Steve
>
>
> Stephen H. Schneider
> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
> Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
> 371 Serra Mall
> Gilbert Building
> Stanford University
> Stanford, CA 94305-5020
> Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Freeman
> Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
> Ph: 650 725 9978
> F: 650 725 4387
> Websites: climatechange.net
> patientfromhell.org
>
>
> Quoting Michael Schlesinger <schlesin@atmos.uiuc.edu>:
>
>> Rob & Dan:
>>
>> Interesting comments about Leadership.
>>
>> How would you analyze the Leadership of Presidents Lincoln and Roosevelt?
>>
>> Seemingly they were both able to take a 'step beyond' the then
>> conventional wisdom, to do the necessary even though it may have been
>> unpopular.
>>
>> If this is correct, and it may not be, why them, and so few others,
>> most particularly the current U.S. CEO?
>>
>> Is such Leadership another example of a Bifurcation or 'Tipping
>> Point', cum Luck?
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>> Which state would that be? Oh . . . .
>>>
>>> Anyway, agreed; people are not automatons, different people react
>>> differently in similar contexts. The point I wanted to stress, tho, was
>>> that it's a mistake to view "political leadership" as some exogenous
>>> phenomenon.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Robert Lempert [mailto:lempert@rand.org]
>>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:43 PM
>>> To: Daniel Sarewitz
>>> Cc: Robert Lempert; Mike MacCracken; Stephen H. Schneider; Andy Revkin;
>>> Michael Schlesinger; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; wmw@ucar.edu; jmahlman@ucar.edu;
>>> manabe@splash.princeton.edu; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk; thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au;
>>> penner@umich.edu; covey1@llnl.gov; wallace@atmos.washington.edu;
>>> jholdren@whrc.org; hjacoby@mit.edu; jhansen@giss.nasa.gov;
>>> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov; wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov; omichael@princeton.edu;
>>> hareatXYZxyz-potsdam.de
>>> Subject: RE: a query to all...
>>>
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> All true. But within the constraints you mention an individual's
>>> views, experience, and values can affect the leadership position they
>>> take on an issue such as climate change. For instance, both Senators
>>> Kyl and McCain come from the same party and state, but they seem to
>>> take different views on the climate issue.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> At 4:21 PM -0700 1/5/07, Daniel Sarewitz wrote:
>>>> Following up on Rob's parenthetical: you cannot disconnect political
>>>> leadership from the interests, values, and perspectives of the
>>>> constituencies. This in turn cannot be decoupled from geography,
>>>> economic base, transportation infrastructure, distribution of wealth,
>>>> distribution of population, level of education, etc. etc. etc.
>>>>
>>>> It's easy to be a leader if you can make decisions that don't screw
>>> your
>>>> constituents. "Political will" is not an independent property of
>>>> populations or cultures it is a reflection of context.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Robert Lempert [mailto:lempert@rand.org]
>>>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:49 PM
>>>> To: Mike MacCracken
>>>> Cc: Stephen H. Schneider; Andy Revkin; Michael Schlesinger;
>>>> lempert@rand.org; Daniel Sarewitz; p.jones@uea.ac.uk; wmw@ucar.edu;
>>>> jmahlman@ucar.edu; manabe@splash.princeton.edu; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk;
>>>> thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au; penner@umich.edu; covey1@llnl.gov;
>>>> wallace@atmos.washington.edu; jholdren@whrc.org; hjacoby@mit.edu;
>>>> jhansen@giss.nasa.gov; schmidt@giss.nasa.gov; wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov;
>>>> omichael@princeton.edu; hareatXYZxyz-potsdam.de
>>>> Subject: Re: a query to all...
>>>>
>>>> Mike,
>>>>
>>>> Your message seems quite consistent with the political leadership
>>>> argument (perhaps mediated by the perceived costs of mitigation to
>>>> ones own constituents) as opposed to the argument that willingness to
>>>> act on climate change depends on the extent to which climate impacts
>>>> are common or different across a population.
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>> At 5:03 PM -0500 1/5/07, Mike MacCracken wrote:
>>>>> Steve--I have actually done, though a bit ago, the state by state
>>>> estimates
>>>>> and your analysis is a bit off.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Texas has the highest total emissions of C of any state, about a
>>>> factor
>>>>> of 2 above those of California even though California's population is
>>>>> highest.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. On per capita, California, New Yorkr, and Vermont are roughly the
>>>>> lowest--each about half the US average. The state with the highest per
>>>>> capita emissions, however, is Wyoming, being about 5 times the US
>>>> average
>>>>> and about three times the Texas average.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, as I have mentioned for some time in my talks for some time, if
>>>> the
>>>>> President is from the state with the highest emissions, and the VP
>>> from
>>>> the
>>>>> state with highest per capita emissions (not due to profligate waste
>>> by
>>>>> their people, but because mainly of what they do--dig coal and make
>>>>> electricity--and how few people there are, then should we be surprised
>>>> by
>>>>> the Admin position (given whom they likely talk to)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Stephen H. Schneider" <shsatXYZxyznford.edu>
>>>>>> Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 12:14:05 -0800
>>>>>> To: Andy Revkin <anrevkatXYZxyzimes.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Michael Schlesinger <schlesinatXYZxyzos.uiuc.edu>,
>>> lempert@rand.org,
>>>>>> Daniel.Sarewitz@asu.edu, p.jones@uea.ac.uk, wmw@ucar.edu,
>>>> jmahlman@ucar.edu,
>>>>>> manabe@splash.princeton.edu, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk,
>>>> thomas.lowe@rmit.edu.au,
>>>>>> penner@umich.edu, covey1@llnl.gov, wallace@atmos.washington.edu,
>>>>>> jholdren@whrc.org, hjacoby@mit.edu, jhansen@giss.nasa.gov,
>>>>>> schmidt@giss.nasa.gov, wpatzert@jpl.nasa.gov,
>>> mmaccrac@comcast.net,
>>>>>> omichael@princeton.edu, hareatXYZxyz-potsdam.de
>>>>>> Subject: Re: a query to all...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all. Let me add to Mike and other's points about political
>>>> tipping points
>>>>>> trumping bio-geophysical ones in the policy world--though not
>>> quite
>>>> how
>>>>>> others put it--with one simple question: Why is California the
>>>> lowest CO2
>>>>>> per capita emitting state and Texas the highest? Not primarily
>> the
>>>> weather,
>>>>>> in my view, but the political climate: value systems about social
>>>> benefits
>>>>>> are so different. In CA social benefits are in deeply in the
>>>> political
>>>>>> equation--even the Governator--and in Texas, protection of
>>>> entrepreneurial
>>>>>> rights seems to dominate. California has myriad building codes
>> and
>>>>>> performance standards that have pushed efficiency--and save the
>>>> state some
>>>>>> $5B a year it is estimated. Not Texas by comparison. Classical
>>>> blue-red
>>>>>> state ideological differences, to oversimplify.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The issue gets very interesting at a more collective level where
>>> the
>>>>>> relative power of differeing local ideologies clash and there is
>> a
>>>> need to
>>>>>> work out a deal--under Bush, no meaningful climate deals
>> possible.
>>>> The
>>>>>> social tipping phemenona I mentioned seem to be building: from
>>>> Katrina,
>>>>>> Gore movie, high roller corporate support for policy growing fast
>>>> and media
>>>>>> covering less of the crazies is all contributing to positive
>>>> movement
>>>>>> towards some policy at aggregate level--whether it is more than
>>>> band-aid
>>>>>> remains to be seen, but we are finally moving.
>>>>>> Hope this is useful, Cheers, Steve
>>>>>> PS I agree that palpable biophysical events in one's backyard
>> help
>>>> with
>>>>>> social tipping--like earlier snowmelt in CA Sierra got the
>>>> attention of the
>>>>>> State Hydrologist and farmers. But why then isn't stronger
>>>> hurricanes and
>>>>>> heat waves in the Gulf doing the same in Texas? Ideology of the
>>>> beholder,
>>>>>> perhaps? Happy New Year All.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephen H. Schneider
>>>>>> Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary
>> Environmental
>>>> Studies,
>>>>>> Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
>>>>>> 371 Serra Mall
>>>>>> Gilbert Building
>>>>>> Stanford University
>>>>>> Stanford, CA 94305-5020
>>>>>> Also: Co-Director, Center for Environmental Science and Policy,
>>>> Freeman
>>>>>> Spogli Institute; and Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the
>>>> Environment
>>>>>> Ph: 650 725 9978
>>>>>> F: 650 725 4387
>>>>>> Websites: climatechange.net
>>>>>> patientfromhell.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting Andy Revkin <anrevk@nytimes.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a very very very poignant and true point, michael.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i have a song called "a very fine line" that explores all those
>>>>>>> facets of life like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At 01:58 PM 1/5/2007, Michael Schlesinger wrote:
>>>>>>>> Andy:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Despite the large climatic diversity of the United States,
>> which
>>>>>>>> ranges from arctic Alaska to tropical Hawaii, had the 5-to-4
>>>>>>>> 'hanging-chad' decision of the U.S. Supreme Court swung the
>>> other
>>>>>>>> way, the U.S. would have confronted the challenges of
>>>> human-induced
>>>>>>>> climate change these past 6 years, rather than deny and avoid
>>>> them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, we would not now be mired in Iraq.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this'll be refreshing after our recent back-and-forths.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> a quick question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> given that climate, for most folks, remains local... doing a
>>>> short
>>>>>>>>> piece for weekend assessing thesis that it's harder to build
>>>>>>>>> momentum for climate action in USA because we're so darned
>>> large
>>>>>>>>> and climatically variegated (epic snow in rockies, balmy in
>>>>>>>>> northeastern states, etc) compared to, say, Europe (which
>> tends
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> experience a 'common' climate, to some extent...)...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> anyone thought about that much before?
>>>>>>>>> happy to hear your thoughts (but promptly!)
>>>>>>>>> ANDREW C. REVKIN
>>>>>>>>> The New York Times / Environment
>>>>>>>>> 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036
>>>>>>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkinatXYZxyzimes.com / fax:
>>>> 509-357-0965
>>>>>>>>> Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here:
>>>>>>> www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming
>>>>>>>>> Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning
>>>>>>>>> Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ANDREW C. REVKIN
>>>>>>>> The New York Times / Environment
>>>>>>>> 229 West 43d St., NY NY 10036
>>>>>>>> phone: 212-556-7326 / e-mail: revkinatXYZxyzimes.com / fax:
>>>> 509-357-0965
>>>>>>>> Arctic book: The North Pole Was Here:
>>>>>>> www.nytimes.com/learning/globalwarming
>>>>>>>> Amazon book: The Burning Season www.islandpress.org/burning
>>>>>>>> Acoustic-roots band: www.myspace.com/unclewade
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Robert Lempert
>>>> Senior Scientist
>>>> RAND
>>>> 1776 Main St.
>>>> Santa Monica, CA 90401
>>>> ph: 310-393-0411 x6217
>>>> fax: 310-260-8151
>>>> e/m: lempertatXYZxyzd.org
>>>> http://www.rand.org
>>>>
>>>> --------------------
>>>>
>>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
>>>> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
>>>> copies
>>>> of the original message.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Robert Lempert
>>> Senior Scientist
>>> RAND
>>> 1776 Main St.
>>> Santa Monica, CA 90401
>>> ph: 310-393-0411 x6217
>>> fax: 310-260-8151
>>> e/m: lempertatXYZxyzd.org
>>> http://www.rand.org
>>>
>>> --------------------
>>>
>>> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
>>> may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all
>>> copies
>>> of the original message.
>>
>>

No comments:

Post a Comment