The US drop in CO2 emissions is almost entirely due to trends in electric power, mostly improvements in energy efficiency and the growth of renewable energy. Emissions in the transportation, industrial, residential and commercial sectors are either flat or going up - and the price of oil appears to make little difference in projections for the next 30 years. Makes me doubt the efficacy of a carbon tax in changing people’s behavior, unless of course it’s a huge carbon tax. But a huge carbon tax is likely to backfire.
California farmers have a water crisis. Not enough of the stuff and the supply keeps shrinking. The coastal urban dwellers aren’t all that sympathetic. A common sentiment: they shouldn’t be growing crops that need so much water, not in such a drought-prone state. Tear up those almond orchards!
The earth’s biosphere is in the middle of a mass extinction event, thanks mostly to the loss of wild habitat to agriculture. We need to shrink the amount of land used for agriculture to expand wild habitat and protect endangered species. Since livestock farming destroys more habitat than other types of agriculture and cattle are the most destructive of livestock animals, it would make sense to go after cattle ranchers and their enablers, aka those who eat beef.
The growing demand for beef is coming mostly from Asia and Africa and no matter how impassioned the pleas from environmentalists and vegans, the people in those regions aren’t going to change their food preferences any time soon - not when memories and stories of widespread hunger still linger in their collective minds.
But demand is only half the equation….
The studies and density advocates are assuming that driving and residential energy use will continue to rely on energy sources that emit greenhouse gases. But what about remote work, online shopping, electric vehicles, renewables, smart nuclear, and carbon-capture? Aren’t these (and other) technological developments going to change the equation in the not-so-distant future? As within a decade or so?
Actually, a good number of Americans still want to live in cities. But that doesn’t mean they want to live in high-density urban areas. After all, most American cities have car-friendly residential neighborhoods, which aren’t all that different from suburbs.
Ok, electric vehicles clearly emit less over their lifecycle than conventional gas-only cars, at least in Europe and except for Germany. What’s wrong with Germany, anyway? In a word: coal.
Despite California large and growing economy, the state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been declining steadily since 2007 - thanks in large part to the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), otherwise known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB32 required the state to adopt a plan to limit GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. It achieved that goal four years early. These four charts pretty much tell the tale…
“Grasslands evolved with bison, pronghorn and other animals whose hooves and grazing open new areas for plants to grow. The above-ground stems of prairie grasses and flowers rebound quickly after they’ve been eaten, much as pruning backyard trees or shrubs creates healthier plants. When managed carefully, domestic animals such as cattle or sheep can have the same positive impact on grassland ecosystems.” - Pulse of the Heartland by Brianna Randall/National Wildlife Magazine, October-November 2021
President Biden's national “clean energy standard” aims to zero out greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the power sector by 2035. This would be mostly achieved through through a mix of renewable energy, carbon capture, and nuclear power. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have the technological know-how to make this happen.
Other than climate change, at least four factors contribute to the growing cost of weather-related events in the US: increasing density of coastal populations, exceptionally high inflation in the construction industry, rising value of assets, and changes in crop insurance.
So, what does one do with this assertion of fact? Some options: 1) investigate the claim and remain noncommittal about its truth-value until questions are answered to your satisfaction (if they ever are); 2) register the claim as a possible fact but remain noncommittal about its truth-value. Reject further investigation as too time consuming: 3) accept the claim as true or true-enough, and leave it at that: and, 4) accept the claim as plausible, which is good enough to present it as established fact in the service of some higher purpose… Reject further investigation as quibbling about details and overlooking the bigger picture.
Are the costs of weather-related damage going up because the weather in the US has gotten worse? For example:
Are hurricanes more powerful or frequent?
Are heatwaves longer or more intense?
Are droughts getting longer or more frequent?
Are high precipitation events wetter or more frequent?
The Our World in Data website has tons of data pertinent to these questions, summarized in a series of charts. First, trends in hurricane activity…
Both articles seemed to suggest that, thanks to climate change, weather-related damage is on the rise in the US and the increased cost of this damage is due mostly to changes in the weather and not to factors unrelated to the weather, such as trends in population density or the value of assets in climate-vulnerable areas. Is this actually the case?
As part of its discussion of possible climate futures, the 2021 report assesses the climate response to five illustrative scenarios called shared socio-economic pathways, or SSPs. The SSPs differ in their estimated trajectories of emissions and consequent global warming…
The Biodiversity Framework should be finalized later this year. For more info on the Draft version, go here or check out my post, The UN's New Strategic Plan to Increase Biodiversity and Save Endangered Species: Highlights. This post will be about the money side of the Framework, specifically how much the US should be willing to spend to do its part.
The UN has recently released its First Draft of The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. As with the 2010 Plan, this latest version includes multiple targets for urgent action over the coming decade. They include…
This time around I’m going to address what more the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) can do to protect the environment, increase biodiversity, and combat climate change. The USDA already has several programs that help agricultural producers and foresters adopt and maintain conservation systems that protect water and air quality, reduce soil erosion, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, forests and wetlands, conserve water, and sequester carbon. Here are some of them…
Thanks to political pressure from farmers and various industry groups, and despite abundant evidence that increasing biofuel production would do the planet more harm than good, the federal government continues to spend billions on biofuel subsidies every year. This has got to change.
Non-native species are typically described as “invasive” species, clearly not a term of endearment. However, many biologists and conservationists are having a change of heart regarding these much-maligned “aliens” (another common descriptor): they’re not all bad - and some may even help native species survive and thrive, especially in biological communities under stress from habitat loss and a changing climate. A zero-tolerance approach to non-native species makes no sense when their effects are often neutral or positive.