Welcome to the second edition of my occasional newsletter on climate and energy issues. As a reminder, my day-to-day research or writing is focused on sports governance and science policy. But I’ve written a fair bit on the topics of climate and energy over the past 25 years, including two books and a boatload of academic papers, and I’m paying attention. So caveat lector!
…snip…
Climate and Energy Policies (truncated)
- So think of the Paris Agreement not as a policy framework, but rather as a potent political symbol.
- As a symbol, here is how the politics work: Trump pulls out of Paris, Trump wins. Trump stays in, Trump wins. Fun game, huh?
- In a perceptive piece, @jmcurtin writes: “The only White House climate debate is between those who want to use the Paris climate agreement as a branding and lobbying opportunity, and those who favour leaving it altogether.”
- The rest of the world should preempt Trump and just kick the US out.
- Similarly, President Trump has made a big deal of reversing Obama’s Clan Power Plan. This too is a symbolic action. According to EIA, the impact of the CPP is pretty marginal:
- In fact, its projected impact of the CPP is far less than market prices for fossil fuels, again according to EIA:
- Consider that the CPP would likely have been tied up in the courts during a Hilary Clinton administration and you get … symbolism.
- Advocates for more aggressive climate action should use the opportunity afforded by the Trump presidency to fundamentally rethink climate policy in a way that would be politically robust.
…snip…
Climate Wars
- Maybe I’m just an eternal optimist, but it does seem that the tide may finally be starting turning against the extremist views of leading climate scientists and their acolytes.
- Sure, there were smart pieces by smart thinkers at CSPO and the Breakthrough Institute: @JasonGLloyd (great piece here) and @TedNordhaus (more awesomeness here).
- But what really was encouraging was Nature magazine writing: “But name-calling and portraying the current political climate as a war between facts and ignorance simply sows division.”
- Perhaps Nature’s editors noticed that in the US, public support for science funding, once a shared, bipartisan priority, has split on partisan lines:
- Did the recent Science March help to bring people together? Early evidence says: probably not.
- After failing to get Bret Stephens fired from the New York Times, the nation’s leading climate scientist, Michael Mann (@MichaelEMann) has focused his vitriol on cartoonist Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame (@ScottAdamsSays).
- I can’t believe I just wrote that. (Seriously, if you are not yet blocked by Mann, go over and read his Twitter feed for a glimpse into the worldview of the nation’s most important climate scientist.)
- Pro tip: If you don’t want to be viewed as analogous to a religious fundamentalist, don’t go after cartoonists.
If Trump stays in is the $ Trillion Paris Pledge are there any fake news outlet going to suddenly go pro Trump ? No .
If he keeps his promise and exits the Obama legacy hoax he keeps voters that got him elected and does the right thing . Hmm what to do ?
Like firing Comey it should have been done when he walked through the door .
Maybe he is waiting for Exxon input .
The whole issue is political. Lefties think fuel should taxed more than it already is. Spend the windfall on entitlements and votes. Right wingers think governments should rein in spending and let cheap energy spur the economy.
Only children believe the scary climate stuff. To most adults climate is weather. Can’t change it, take what you get. We adapted to the seasonal extremes centuries ago. A degree or two, up or down, matters only to environmental zealots.
Don’t let those guys get too close, they’ll mess with your head.
Frankly liberals and three huggers re totaly nuts and out of their minds they cant take the truth