This week’s “what we are reading” naturally has an election theme:

First, I briefly touched on the threat the Republican takeover of the Senate poses to the President’s Clean Power Plan in my reaction to the elections on Tuesday. This article over at Scientific American (reprinted from Environment & Energy Publishing) goes into much more

With this week being the week that world leaders met in New York for the United Nations Climate Summit 2014, our “what we are reading” update naturally focuses on climate issues.

First, researchers here in Seattle published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that concludes the ~0.5 to 1

Climate change deniers continue to be with us. But the release on June 25 of “Risky Business,” a comprehensive report on the risk to American business and political life from climate change, suggests that the reality and risk of climate change is increasingly clear to intellectual leaders of both parties. The committee that commissioned the report included three former secretaries of the treasury, two of whom served Republican presidents. When cap and trade becomes perceived as a threat to business and the economy, it will have a better chance of generating bipartisan concern.

The core question, of course, is what to do about climate change, once you recognize it’s a problem. Assuming one doesn’t stop with “throw up your hands, go hide under the covers and hope somehow in the morning it will have disappeared like the boogeyman,” the compelling need is to convert from a fossil fuel dependent economy to an economy that both promotes conversion to alternative sources of energy and spurs the development of not-yet-imagined technologies to make life without fossil fuels work.

And the next core question is how do you do that? There, the mantra “think globally, but act locally” probably has a fair amount of credence. There have been in the past, and will need to be in the future, global treaties governing climate change. In the absence of global cooperation, the actions of any one state or nation will be overwhelmed by the greenhouse gas emissions from other countries. China is now the world’s largest emitter of carbon, with India and other parts of the world that are developing a growing middle class fast behind. The United States cannot limit greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid the worst effects of climate change without the cooperation of the world’s other large and growing economies.

But, one of the persistent arguments of the developing world is that unless and until the United States takes significant action to limit its carbon emissions, they will not compromise the development of their own middle class. The reality is that much of our standard of living has depended on cheap and unrestricted use of fossil fuels, and developing countries very much want to provide their people with the same standard of living that the United States has achieved. In 2012, the United States emitted 17.31 tons of carbon dioxide per person, while China emitted 5.43 tons per person and India emitted 1.39 tons per person. China has a lot more people – but to bring China and the other major emitters to an international solution, the United States will have to make major progress in reducing its per capita emissions.


Continue Reading Cap and Trade versus a Carbon Tax: Where is Bill Gates Sr. When We Need Him?

Back before the recession, there was a major push in Washington State to adopt a state carbon cap-and-trade program as part of Washington’s membership in the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).  The argument was heated, and like most things these days tended to split on party lines with a gulf between the two.  Democrats generally argued