Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
THE BACKGROUND AND FACTS ABOUT THAT 12-YEAR DEADLINE FOR AVERTING CLIMATE CHANGE: A host of Democratic presidential candidates have cited a specific time frame when the world would reach a point of no return on climate change — 12 years.
“Science tells us that how we act or fail to act, in the next 12 years will determine the very livability of our planet,” front-runner Joe Biden said upon releasing his plan to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Jay Inslee, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Beto O’Rourke are among other candidates who have also used the 12-year framing.
“Science tells us that we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate,” Buttigieg said at last month’s debate.
I asked climate scientists and other experts to interpret what the candidates mean by this rhetoric and whether they are accurately portraying the urgency of climate change and the consequences of not acting.
The IPCC report was the instigator: All of them agreed the candidates are referring to conclusions from a report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in October 2018. The report is often credited with generating more attention to climate change and inspiring the rise of the Green New Deal.
The main take-away of that report was that the world must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 in order to limit temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the more ambitious target of the Paris agreement. Countries in the Paris deal pledged to hold total global warming to “well below” 2 degrees and agreed to “pursue efforts” to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.
Most previous reports have looked at the implications of the 2 degrees scenario, but this one zeroed in on 1.5 degrees, finding that avoiding this temperature threshold is necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, such as extreme heat, water scarcity, mass deaths of coral reefs, and significant sea level rise.
Here’s where there 12 years comes into play: The report says for the world to have a chance of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, we would need to cut emissions by about 45% by 2030 (12 years from the report’s release, in 2018).
Drew Shindell, a Duke University climate scientist who worked on the U.N. report, told me the best way to interpret that finding is to say the world must be reducing emissions substantially beginning now in order to secure a “down payment” by 2030 that puts the world on pace to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
“The report showed that if we are not on a greatly different path by 2030 than our current trajectory we cannot keep within the 1.5C warming target,” Schindell said. “There’s nothing particularly special about 2030 relative to other years, but we often look at changes decade by decade for simplicity. We are not going to change enormously by 2020, and waiting until 2040 is too late, hence 2030 is a good timescale to talk about.”
Schindell says candidates citing the 12-year figure are making a “reasonable characterization” of what the report said, even if they risk oversimplifying the problem.
“Of course, being a scientist, I’d prefer more detail on what exactly the candidates mean by taking action by 2030, but I think this is a sensible slogan that reflects the spirit of the IPCC report,” he said.
What the 12-years time frame is not: ‘The world will end as we know it’: Diana Liverman, another author of the U.N. report, told me candidates should be careful in how they use the 12 years framing.
“I don’t have a major problem with the ’12 years to act’ discourse as it is one message from the IPCC report as it conveys the urgency of what we need to do if we want to avoid the more severe impacts of climate change,” said Liverman, who studies environmental issues at the University of Arizona. “What creates fear is when this is linked to ‘or the world will end as we know it’ idea.”
She, and other climate scientists, said it would be more accurate to say that the U.S. — as a leading per-capita contributor to emissions — must begin reducing its share of global emissions starting now in order for the world to cut them at least 45% by 2030.
“I don’t know that the 12-year framing is particularly helpful,” Joseph Majkut, a climate scientist at the center-right Niskanen Center, told me. “It requires specific context to be accurate and has a precision to it that betrays how complicated it will be to manage climate change. It’s enough to say that we have dallied too long and we need to make up for lost time.”
Nat Keohane, vice president for international climate at the Environmental Defense Fund, credits Democratic candidates for using the UN report to generate more attention to climate change.
But he worries about the impact of using rhetoric that could be interpreted as over-dramatizing the problem.
“I do worry that some people look at that report and go from complacency to despair,” Keohane told me. “We go straight from not paying attention to the climate crisis to, ‘oh my god it’s too big to solve.’”
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writer Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe). Email [email protected] for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email, and we’ll add you to our list.
PARTING CLIMATE CHANGE THOUGHTS FROM JOHN HICKENLOOPER: With John Hicklooper reportedly quitting the Democratic presidential race, I thought it would be timely to empty the notebook on some reporting I’ve done on his climate change agenda.
Hickenlooper, the former centrist governor of Colorado, is one of several candidates who I’ve reached out to in recent weeks to ask about their plans for net-zero emissions by midcentury, and whether the Senate needs to rid of the filibuster to achieve their climate change goals.
Hilary Steiner, a Hickenlooper spokeswoman, happened to return my questions this week (after a bit of delay).
What could have been: She said Hickenlooper wants to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, with a plan to invest in R&D for innovation in renewables and other “climate-friendly technologies,” while also using market forces and regulation to “curb” — note, not eliminate — usage of fossil fuels.
His main tool to reduce emissions would be working with Congress to pass a carbon tax and dividend that returns the revenue to taxpayers. Hickenlooper, who was once a geologist for an oil company, also wants to impose tough restrictions on emissions of methane from oil and gas operations, similar to the first-in-the-nation rules he implemented in Colorado.
To achieve these things, Hickenlooper would be open to eliminating the filibuster, but generally not inclined to do so.
“With the potential for a closely divided Senate, Hickenlooper recognizes the possibility that Republicans will be able to filibuster meaningful law as a means of preventing it from passing. While he generally supports the filibuster as a measure that forces compromise and bipartisanship, Hickenlooper would consider making an exception in extraordinary circumstances,” Steiner said.
Note: Hickenlooper may run for Senate, where he might have a say in the filibuster.
MURKOWSKI RELEASES PLAN FOR ‘STRATEGIC ENERGY DOMINANCE’: Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska released a plan Thursday for the U.S. achieve “strategic energy dominance” in order to compete with countries like China and Russia.
Murkowski, the chairwoman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said upon releasing a draft of legislation called the “Strategic Energy for America Act” that the U.S. must “strengthen our tools of statecraft” to compete in global energy markets that “may be dominated by cartels, state-sponsored enterprises, and trade finance agencies.”
The legislation would enable the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to provide foreign aid for nuclear energy projects in developing countries, aiming to compete with Russian and Chinese companies that are seeking to build reactors overseas. It would also direct the Treasury Department to oppose policies at multilateral development banks — such as the World Bank — seeking to impose restrictions on providing assistance to fossil fuel projects in developing countries.
Murkowski’s bill also would promote U.S. exports of natural gas and advanced nuclear energy through the Export-Import Bank by forcing it to establish a “strategic energy portfolio” focused on providing financial assistance for gas and nuclear infrastructure projects overseas.
INTERIOR CHIEF DAVID BERNHARDT SHAKES UP ETHICS PROGRAM: Interior Secretary David Bernhardt is taking action to improve on a record of ethical “lapses” at the agency over recent years that has led to investigations of top staff.
Bernhardt issued an order Wednesday that consolidates Interior’s ethics programs, which sprawl across 13 various departments and central headquarters.
The order realigns Interior ethics programs so that ethics officials at the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and other departments, some of which lacked sufficient personnel, report to Interior’s Departmental Ethics Office rather than to individual department directors.
“It is making the program across the department a lot more accountable and consistent across all bureaus and offices,” Scott de la Vega, director of Interior’s Departmental Ethics Office, said in an interview. “We had a situation before where some bureaus and offices would give different advice to our employees than others. That does not serve employees very well.”
Critics, however, said Bernhardt is an inappropriate messenger for the ethics program restructuring given he is under investigation himself by the Interior Department’s inspector general’s office, along with other Trump administration political appointees.
Bernhardt has rejected allegations of wrongdoing, telling senators during his confirmation hearing in March that he has implemented “incredibly robust” screening processes to ensure he doesn’t meet with former oil and gas firms or clients on “particular matters.”
ENERGY DEPARTMENT LAUNCHES DEMONSTRATION CENTER FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS: The Department of Energy announced Thursday it launched the National Reactor Innovation Center at the Idaho National Laboratory to test new advanced nuclear reactor technologies.
The center is intended to give private sector nuclear technology developers support to test and demonstrate their reactor concepts and assess their performance.
“NRIC will enable the demonstration and deployment of advanced reactors that will define the future of nuclear energy,” said Energy Secretary Rick Perry. “By bringing industry together with our national labs and university partners, we can enhance our energy independence and position the U.S. as a global leader in advanced nuclear innovation.”
The Rundown
Politico De Blasio exaggerates fossil fuel claims on the campaign trail
New York Times Lead crisis in Newark grows, as bottled water distribution is bungled
Washington Post An ambitious energy policy could bring Maryland acres of solar farms. Where should they go?
Associated Press Iowa Republican governor stopped state’s attorney general from challenging Trump’s coal rule
Bloomberg Massive Softbank fund bets on using concrete blocks as batteries
Calendar
FRIDAY | August 16
American Wind Week 2019 continues, lasting through August 17. During Wind Week, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) and supporters of wind energy highlight the “many ways that wind powers opportunity” at dozens of events across the country and online with #AmericanWindWeek.
