Climate Change M152 Final

Carbon removal trilemma:✓

(Parson) Three conditions are required for success in meeting Paris targets: 1) Scalability 2) Acceptable impacts 3) Low cost Identified methods have fulfilled at least two of these conditions: Forestation measures: benign and cheap, but not scalable BECCS: cheap and scalable, but heavy land-use impacts DAC: low impact and scalable, but expensive Despite a lot of research, nothing has been identified Possible solution: Taking one of the expensive technologies and mass deploying it to lower the prices

Traceability:✓

(Sovacool) Another policy recommendation: Acknowledge the limits of traceability There is a great deal of attention on fostering transparency and accountability of "ethical" mineral mining by means of voluntary traceability Ex: "Responsible sourcing" of raw materials for batteries A lot of minerals come from places with terrible labor and environmental conditions Ex: Cobalt mining can be done with serious ethical issues Solution: Only buy minerals from certified operations Only if you can trace where and how those minerals come from Hard to enforce → only effective if consumers and regulators differentiate between products

Artisanal and small scale mining:✓

(Sovacool) One policy recommendation: Diversify mining enterprises for local ownership and livelihood dividends: While large-scale mining is economically efficient, it poses several social and environmental problems Instead → Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) ASM = traditional labor-intensive mechanisms of mining that are possible to take without major capital and investments Provides livelihood potential in areas of extreme poverty Diversifying mineral supply chains allows for greater coexistence of small and large-scale operations ASM can increase productivity and mechanize production Thus, its adoption would enable it to meet the increased demand for minerals in the future

Barnes et al., "Learning from California's Ambitious Climate Policy":✓

California utilizes a science-based, whole of government approach to climate policy Reduced harmful emissions, prioritized environmental justice, and built partnerships across the state Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 - landmark climate legislation CA has gone to propose and adopt progressively more ambitious goals that address emissions economy-wide, continuing through 2050 While decoupling GHG emissions from economic growth → creates jobs, saves money, reduced environmental inequities, and ensures that progress benefits disadvantaged communities Thus, one of the most comprehensive and responsive climate policy landscapes in the world Resulted in policy innovations that range from direct regulations to inclusive interagency climate action and multijurisdictional carbon market CA's climate leadership has benefited from bipartisan political support for decades Climate action is popular in CA (according to a 2019 study by the Public Institute of CA) Recommendations: Things to try and learn from CA's subnational policy to try and implement as a national climate policy 1) Build a strong, science-based foundation for effective climate policy Requires employing the best available science, setting targets based on that science, and understanding and collecting data to gauge and report progress Provide the scientific foundation for policy making As seen in CA's Climate Change Assessments and state's Indications of Climate Change reports Set science-based climate targets Ex: CA Gov. Brown's 2018 Executive Order B-55-18: calling for the state to achieve carbon neutrality ASAP (no later than 2045), exceeding the previous 2005 target of 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050 (Executive Order S-3-05) Root climate policies in reliable GHG emissions data and trends CA's annual statewide GHG emissions inventory is a critical tool for determining historical emissions trends and tracking the state's progress towards its GHG reduction goals 2) Be ambitious and aggressive in setting targets and goals Experience from CA shows that, over time, what might have been seen as an impossible long-term target becomes imminently achievable CA's Scoping Plan provides plan for success and how to achieve aggressive targets Use executive authority (good way to establish long-term targets and have been used effectively to set short and medium term targets as well) CA's climate goals have often been established iteratively: first by executive order and later enshrined in legislation Give regulators room to follow adaptability Ex: Global Warming Solutions Act granted CARB broad authority to develop regulations and market mechanisms that meet the act's specific emissions targets but left it to the agency's technical experts to elaborate on the details of the implementation, rather than having these negotiated politically Allowing expert agencies broad ability to work out details through a robust, public rule-making process gives policies the necessary durability to meet ambitious climate commitments yet the flexibility to iterate continuously and check back where appropriate (as seen with CA legislature) 3) Prioritize environmental justice Design and center climate policies on equity, justice, and human dignity 4) Take a whole-of-government approach and communicate about it effectively (Reflect on and adjust policies over time) CA has taken an approach to reducing GHG emissions that integrates works across agencies and programs, ensures a whole-of-government approach to climate change, and implements a broad, economy-wide suite of complementary policies that tackle emission sources from multiple angles 5) Forge Partnerships Ex: In the lead-up to the 2015 Paris Agreement, CA built the Under 2 Coalition, which has since grown to more than 200 state and regional governments across the world

Waxman-Markey Bill (2009):✓

Cap and trade bill to bring about a great reduction in CO2 emissions → 83% reduction in CO2 by 2050 Mandates: Also included clean energy and efficiency standards Compensation for coal workers

Climate Leadership Council, "Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends":✓Extra Study

Climate Leadership Council, "Economists' Statement on Carbon Dividends":✓ Assert that climate change is a real problem, and defend their proposed economic policy decisions to address the national threat 1) Support a carbon tax: Cost effective way to reduce carbon emissions Powerful price disincentive 2) Annual gradual increase in carbon tax Encourages innovation 3) Rising carbon tax is most effective solution Ensures long-term investment in clean-energy alternatives 4) Border carbon adjustment system Makes economic-efficient companies more competitive carbon levies and taxes on imports to stop carbon leakage 5) Generated revenue will be distributed back to citizens Through equal lump-sum rebates Will benefit financially by receiving more in "carbon dividends"

Feed-in tariffs:✓

Example of government mandate Solar panels are affordable in California due to feed-in-tariffs Says that utilities must buy the energy that we produce and pay us a certain price for them If it was up to the utilities, they wouldn't want to give us anything, or pay us much less Thus, if you want to incentivize people to install solar panels, then it is really helpful to have a feed-in-tariff to force utility companies to pay households for the energy they produce RE providers (like homes) are guaranteed a payment

Paris Agreement:✓

Following the failures of Kyoto Protocols, there were a number of efforts to create something better → Paris Agreement (the new critical agreement) 2015: Countries came together to replace Kyoto Protocol "Bottom-up" approach: Each member country makes a pledge and, voluntarily, announces what it is going to do Thus, avoiding the problems of the "top-down" approach of Kyoto Goal: Limit global warming to 2*C, while aspiring to limit temperature rise to 1.5*C Signed by all countries Included pledge and review system Has it made a difference? Countries still meet Every 5 years, countries attempt to "up" their pledges However, atmospheric CO2 continues to rise

Kyoto Protocol:✓

General framework of 1992 UNFCCC at Rio Conference was codified into a specific protocol at Kyoto in 1997 Established targets that countries had to make However, only wealthy Western countries had binding targets China, India, and all others: no limits Thus, US did not ratify as they viewed it as "unfair" "Top-down" approach: An agreement that tells countries what to do Kyoto Protocol was an enormous failure Countries like Canada, who had difficulties in reaching their targets, dropped out Countries like Russia and Australia, who were given enormous loopholes to sign on to the agreement, were granted "weak" obligations (did meet their targets though) Emissions are rising in countries that are not under any obligation (i.e., China)

Mandates:✓

Government regulations that mandate reduced fossil fuel use and/or increased renewable use Ex: Fuel-efficiency standards (cars sold in 2025 have to average 'x' miles/gallon) Car manufacturers must meet these fuel-efficiency standards If companies don't adhere to these mandates, there will be penalties Two important types of mandates: Renewable energy standard: Utility must use 'x'% RE Ex: California utilities must use 50% renewables by 'x' year Feed-in-tariff: RE providers (like homes) are guaranteed a payment. long term low payment Mandates can help decrease adoption of fossil fuels and increase adoption of low-carbon energy Through performance standards and quantity mandates

`Cost abatement curve:✓

How much should we spend to mitigate climate disaster? → Cost abatement curve Graph: Each column represents a specific policy Organized from most to least cost effective Cheapest policy (left) to most expensive (right) Thickness of columns tells us how much abatement/reduced emissions we could get (abatement potential) from a specific policy "Abatement" = width of column Thick = a lot ; Thin = a little Vertical height tells us how much it is going to cost (abatement cost) Some things cost more than $0, others cost less than $0 (since implementing it will save us money) Less energy-intensive → saves us money Above the line → more expensive

Fossil fuel industry in Los Angeles:✓

LA = Oil-producing city Ex: Inglewood Oil Field Inglewood = predominantly low income community of color Extraction of fossil fuels still disproportionately affects low-income communities Oil was a major force in LA history Late-19th century: people began to experiment with how to extract the oil 1910-20s: LA was known for being an oil boom town La Brea Tar Pits: Early Spanish visitors commented on the presence of pools of tar that seeped through the ground Signal Hill: Where the original oil wells were Much of the city was dominated by the oil industry Newspaper advertised employment → Brought in many jobs, despite how dangerous it was (many people died) Land of opportunity because people came to work in the oil industry Oil had an effect on the city → made gasoline cheaper and an exploited source

UNFCCC:✓

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Umbrella organization under which all subsequent agreements have occurred (connected with the UN) Treaty that tries to find ways to combat human interferences with the climate system Serves as the basic framework that sets the background for other international climate agreements The treaty was the basis of subsequent treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement Goal: To stabilize GHG concentrations "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" Guiding principles: "Precautionary principle": take action, even with scientific uncertainty, if threat of serious or irreversible damagelkm

California Global Warming Solutions Act (2006):✓

Did not specify how it was to be done, but it did say that major action was going to be taken by the state to reduce emissions by 2020 "Here's what we are going to do, here's our goal, we're going to give the responsibility to CARB" Delegated authority to California Air Resources Board (CARB) Goal: Back to 1990 levels by 2020 Bipartisan support 1) Every California politician must be "environmentalist", given overwhelming public support (since 1970s) 2) California citizens are, on average, rich and can afford to pay for things that other states' citizens cannot Thus, tolerance and wealth of population and state Focus on popular and simple laws (10 page bill) Regulators (CARB) figure out details, with flexibility Combination of cap-and-trade and mandates Including renewable energy portfolio standards 2020 goal met by 2016 Goals raised, carbon neutrality by 2045

Difference between carbon removal and avoided emissions:✓

Difference between carbon removal and avoided emissions is that carbon removal occurs after emissions have already been dispersed throughout the atmosphere Avoided emissions occurs before the fact → thus preventing emissions from being dispersed before they occur

Oxford principles for carbon offsetting:✓

Effort to develop principles to use offsets Principle 1: The priority is to reduce your own emissions as much as possible, instead of relying on offsets Offsets = easy way out Principle 2: If you are to use offsets, prioritize carbon removal, not avoided emissions Avoided emissions relies on counterfactuals Principle 3: Prioritize projects with long-term storage Carbon removal: make sure that carbon is removed for a long time Protecting forest: make sure to protect the forest for a long time Principle 4: Develop a market for carbon offsets

Distinction between the energy intensity of income, and the carbon intensity of energy:✓

Energy intensity of income (Energy/GDP): How much energy it takes to support 'x' amount of income Appliance efficiency in using energy Carbon intensity of energy (CO2/energy): How much CO2 is produced during 'x' amount of energy production Where energy is coming from Both energy intensity and carbon intensity can be reduced Both have decreased over the years but they need to decrease more Can compensate for rising incomes and populations Change in energy intensity and carbon intensity is possible through policy options

"Electrify everything" approach:✓

Ensures fast progress And then when everything is running on electricity, make that electricity "green" Medallion Home: National program in the 1950s and 60s to electrify everything When electric companies had so much power, that people weren't using enough of it So, they made an idea to create model homes that ran entirely on electricity (kitchen, heating, cooling, etc.) Not a new idea, nor a hard one The faster we can move to electrifying everything, and then making that electricity green → the sooner we can reduce emissions Given the fact that the power/energy sector is responsible for ¾ of global emissions, "electrifying everything" can certainly help reduce emissions

Carbon offsets:✓

Reduce total emissions + offset remaining emissions Many offsets sounds good, but are badly flawed Allow you to balance out your emissions Some entity pledging to reduce carbon emissions if you pay them Ex: a company can only reduce their emissions so far, thus they have to pay another company (ex: logging company) to stop logging → so as to reduce emissions that it otherwise would've produced Thus, if you count those as your emissions, you can show net-zero emissions Ex: Alaska timber CA gave them a huge sum of money to "offset" their emissions but it's difficult to prove that the company was going to clearcut the land anyway Not a really obvious benefit here Two types: Carbon removal: Companies that are building technology to "suck" out carbon out of the atmosphere and store it elsewhere Avoided emissions: Avoid emitting emissions that you were planning to emit Ex: not cutting down trees you were planning to cut down (deforestation) Pay logging company not to cut down trees (which releases emissions) Cheaper (and easier) than building carbon removal emissions Problem of truly avoiding emissions: Relies on counterfactuals, which are harder to validate Guess what would happen in the absence of something Ex: Would the logging company actually have removed these trees? In the counterfactual world: the trees were in inaccessible areas, wouldn't have been cut anyways, but will pretend like they were about to cut it, and sell the company the offset Problem of leakage: Do reduced emissions in one area lead to increases in another Maybe because one area was protected, some company saw the value in logging and moved their project to another area Thus, just as much CO2 was emitted Thus, can never be 100% sure that you are really avoiding emissions Ex: They may clear out another forest to meet market demand

Texas Railroad Commission:✓

Runs an enormous part of Texas and America's economy Texas Legislature initially did regulate the railroad industry → but then was also given the power to regulate the emerging oil and gas industry (obscuring its function) → no longer regulates railroad industry Multiple failed Texas Legislature bills to rename the agency Why? Oil and gas industry has been lobbying behind the scenes to prevent the name change Want to keep its true function obscure, and thus maintain control over the industry Since nobody knows the agency's true function Example of "quiet politics" *Texas provides 40% of the USA's oil and gas*

Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions:✓

Scope 1: Direct Emissions from company-owned and controlled resources (a.k.a., what a company does) Ex: Emissions that come from heating buildings and powering vehicles Ex: Direct emissions from UCLA's cogeneration plant Scope 2: Indirect emissions that come from the energy you buy (a.k.a., company) for electricity, heating, cooling Ex: Buying power that is created from these gasses Scope 3: All indirect emissions linked to the firm's activities Ex: Emissions from employees commuting, waste disposal, purchased goods and services, investments, usage of products Ex: UCLA tracks two main sources of Scope 3 emissions (commuting and air travel)

Climate tipping points:✓

There are dangers that we will pass a tipping point, and instead of a straight-line projection, we will reach a kink, such that passing a threshold (a certain level of warming) will lead to catastrophic outcomes that we cannot anticipate that will have enormous consequences far beyond the straight-line projections Ex: Massive dieback of Amazon Rainforest, Rapid melting of Arctic sea ice, Atlantic circulation of overturning waters, etc.

Sustainability initiatives at UCLA:✓

UCLA is aiming for carbon-neutrality by 2025 Through: Green Building Green Energy Climate Protection Sustainable Transportation Sustainable Operations Recycling and Waste Management Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Sustainable Food Service Sustainable Water Systems Policy to phase out single-use plastics Cogeneration facility allows for CO2 waste to be reused → generate electricity Sustainability is about taking waste from one action and reuse it to fuel some other process Despite being a sustainable innovation, it is still a large source of fossil fuel emissions That being said, the cogeneration plant is able to power strategic parts of the university in the event of a blackout, for example Solutions: Biogas (short term); New infrastructure (long term) UCLA is aiming for carbon-neutrality by 202reusing

Irfan, Fossil Fuel Subsidies:✓

2018 report shows that to limit global warming to 1.5*C this century we need to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 Difficult given government's carbon lock-in 2017 IMF Assessment shows that the fossil fuel industry got $5.2 trillion in "pre-tax" subsidies (6.4% of global GDP) 2015: Value of $5.3 (demonstrates that political will to take on fossil fuels hasn't materialized) Fossil fuels get preferential support from governments (critical in keeping mining and drilling operations) Takeaways from 2017 IMF paper: Carbon polluters are dumping their waste in the atmosphere for free Vast majority of IMF's subsidy tally comes from failing to price GHG emissions ("post-tax" subsidies) 87% of GHG emissions don't face any kind of carbon price at all Signifies how the world has "grandfathered" in a lot of the inherent risks of fossil fuels Tremendous security cost: large part of foreign policy and military strategy for many countries involved protecting shipping lines for fossil fuels Direct subsidies for fossil fuels do serve a purpose, but they're really inefficient While they keep prices low, their consequences disproportionately hit the poorest the hardest Counterproductive social welfare programs, since poor people care more about food than energy Better options include pricing the negative externalities of burning fossil fuels Ex: Carbon tax and dividend scheme: redistributes money raised from fossil fuel companies to low-income households Boost incomes; Raising price of fossil fuels; Stronger incentive to pursue energy efficiency and consume less overall Ex: Alaska's Permanent Fund: funded by state's oil industry and serves as universal basic income Help address inequities of climate change; but, global redistribution mechanism requires unanimous drive by a sense of justice and mutual benefits Graph demonstrating that post-tax subsidies are increasing, with pre-tax subsidies decreasing Putting a price on carbon to account for its harm to the climate is one of the easier fixes on the table Set fuel prices would have reduced global CO2 emissions and fossil fuel air pollution deaths, and increased tax revenues and net economic benefits Thus, pricing fossil fuels would significantly reduce GHG emissions Carbon pricing isn't sufficient enough of a tool to fight climate change; however, it is the easiest fix And, the emissions that have been priced often give a value far below their impact on the world It's a matter of policy, not inventing a new energy system Doesn't require expending much political capital

Net zero pledges:✓

A feature of these NDCs: net-zero pledges/commitments That by a certain year, that they will bet net-zero GHG emitters Recent developments in which countries are now making net-zero pledges 2021 (5 years after Paris): Countries gathered in Glasgow and revised their pledges, many adopting net-zero pledges About half of all countries stated that by a certain year that they would not be emitting any net-greenhouse gasses Often by target year 2050 Not all net-zero pledges were equal Some were extremely vague Some were extremely detailed Some net zero targets have been adopted into laws Ex: Canada 83 countries have made these net-zero pledges Account for 74% global emissions Many companies/municipalities have also made net-zero emissions Net-zero emissions → reduce total emissions, and offset remaining emissions Week 8 Wednesday: Graph. Slide 43: "Status of net-zero carbon emissions targets": Achieved: 6-7 very small countries In law: Canada, some European countries, Japan, New Zealand In policy document: China, India, some European and South American countries Pledge: USA, Russia, Australia, some African countries If countries adhere to the net-zero pledges they are making, we will get closer to the targets detailed in Paris that will help us limit temperature rise to 1.5-2*C

Carbon neutrality pledges:✓

A pledge is just a promise How reliable is it? There is no consequence to not reaching their pledges Net zero pledges is the same as carbon neutrality pledges Means that we are still emitting GHG, but the amount we emit is not higher than the amount being taken out of the atmosphere by carbon sinks (i.e., forests) "Net zero" is NOT the same as "zero" - combinations of reducing total emissions and offsetting remaining emissions Many offsets sound good but are really badly flawed Ex: Alaska timber CA gave them a huge sum of money to "offset" their emissions but it's difficult to prove that the company was going to clearcut the land anyway Not a really obvious benefit here Ex: ExxonMobil's pledge to go carbon neutral (net-zero greenhouse gas emissions) by 2050 Net-zero/carbon neutrality pledges are important but rely on offsets and future policymakers which are never a given

Indirect fossil fuel subsidies:✓

A.k.a., "Post-tax" subsidies Difference between tax on carbon/GHG emissions and optimal tax Most carbon taxes that exist are well below optimal tax The majority of global energy subsidies are indirect, post-tax forms of support, like failing to price greenhouse gas emissions (Irfan, Graph) The vast majority of the IMF's subsidy tally comes from failing to price GHG emissions (post-tax subsidies) Post-tax subsidies = cost of fossil fuel pollution

Direct fossil fuel subsidies:✓

A.k.a., "Pre-tax" subsidies Subsidies given to consumers, not producers Ex: Gas tax, electricity consumption Most common subsidy Government funding to reduce the retail price of fuel Fossil fuel companies receive a significant amount of this type of subsidy In fact, direct pre-tax subsidies are on the rise again after years of decline (Irfan, Graph: "Value of fossil fuel consumption subsidies")

Tvinnereim and Mehling, "Carbon Pricing and Deep Decarbonization":✓

Although carbon pricing is the most effective tool for reducing GHG emissions incrementally, meeting temperature targets within defined timelines as agreed under the Paris Agreement requires achieving net-zero emissions within a few decades Little evidence that carbon pricing has produced deep emissions reductions Rather, technology mandates and targeted support for innovation can be helpful assets Thus, deep decarbonization efforts shouldn't solely focus on carbon pricing Focusing solely on carbon pricing contributes to stranded assets and higher costs to both emitters and society at large Carbon Pricing Track Record: Evidence shows carbon taxes ability to lower emissions Emissions are 11% lower in an average year due to carbon taxes compared to the counterfactual Carbon pricing is also effective through cap-and-trade systems EU emissions trading system experienced 3% decline in first 5 years of operation Limitations: Emissions under carbon taxes have grown Cap-and-trade systems have seen marginal reductions Geophysical limits: Goal is to decarbonize the economy and phase out all emissions Climate policy cannot limit itself to reducing emissions incrementally, but ceasing emissions entirely Requires a systematic transformation of the economy rather than the gradual optimization of emitting technologies Political Economy Constraints: High carbon prices suffer from 2 problems: 1) No evidence for deep reductions in carbon, even given high pricing 2) Carbon prices make the cost of compliance visible and impose this cost disproportionately on emitters and disperse the benefits among many diffuse and poorly organized constituents Susceptible to regulatory capture and general failure of collective action in the common interest Research shows that carbon pricing is best utilized as a complementary policy From marginal reductions to deep decarbonization: Carbon lock-in: Carbon pricing fails to set in motion the necessary step to achieve decarbonization in the medium and long term Phasing out obsolete technologies: Through multi-instrument approaches including incentives for technological development, performance and technology standards, technology phase-out mandates Authors support this method for deep decarbonization Conclusion: Carbon pricing may be most effective in incentivizing marginal optimization (fuel switching) Provide revenue and serve as a backstop policy to incentivize abatement Calls for more research in the use of regulations, financial incentives, and public and private investment

California Climate Policy Dashboard:✓

Climate Progress: Ex: Cap-and-Trade Program, Climate Change Scoping Plan, RPS, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, Green Building Standard, GHG Reduction Fund Climate Policies: Ex: GHG Reduction, Renewable Energy Procurement Climate Regulators: Ex: CA Air Resources Board (CARB), CA Energy Commission What policies to choose (prices, mandates, investments)?: 1) Deep decarbonization, not incremental decarbonization: Carbon lock-in: The economic dependence that society has on fossil fuels, due to its influence over a variety of sectors (i.e., the economy and government) 2) Cheap vs. expensive (a.k.a., cost effectiveness): Rather than spending a lot of money on fewer, more expensive things (ineffective. because won't get a lot of reduced emissions); We can purchase a lot of the cheaper things to bring about more reduced emissions Hence, where cost abatement curve comes in handy However, cheap things are sometimes politically impossible... 3) Politically possible vs. impossible: People prefer spending to taxation Carbon taxes = pay now → maybe benefit later Green investment = benefit now → pay later For all the efforts to reduce fossil fuel subsidies, it just doesn't seem to happen Why? Because people don't like paying more for fuels So, something that seems cost-effective is just politically impossible

Sovacool, "Sustainable Minerals and Metals for a low-carbon future":✓

Climate change mitigation will create new natural resource and supply chain opportunities because substantial amounts of raw materials will be required to build new lower carbon energy devices Low-carbon economy will demand immense amounts of sustainable materials and metals "Clean energy transition will be mineral intensive" "Critical raw materials"/"technologically critical elements" Indicative that they are at higher risk of supply shortage or price volatility However, their mining poses grave social risks (DRC), severe environmental impacts and community dislocation (Chile) Policy Recommendations: 1) Diversify mining enterprises for local ownership and livelihood dividends: While large-scale mining is economically efficient, it poses several social and environmental problems Instead → Artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM) ASM = traditional labor-intensive mechanisms of mining that are possible to take without major capital and investments Provides livelihood potential in areas of extreme poverty Diversifying mineral supply chains allows for greater coexistence of small and large-scale operations ASM can increase productivity and mechanize production Thus, its adoption would enable it to meet the increased demand for minerals in the future 2) Acknowledge the limits of traceability: There is a great deal of attention on fostering transparency and accountability of "ethical" mineral mining by means of voluntary traceability Ex: "Responsible sourcing" of raw materials for batteries Hard to enforce → only effective if consumers and regulators differentiate between products 3) Explore new resource streams: Need for primary resource extraction owing to clean-energy infrastructure demand In addition to resource efficiency and recycling → extend and enhance the lifetimes of products and also stretch out mineral reserves New resource streams also hold promise for diversifying supply actions, as long as they maintain environmental sustainability and protect worker safety Extended producer responsibility (EPR): producer is responsible for the entire lifespan of a product Encourages durability and extended product lifetimes 4) Incorporate minerals into climate and energy planning Need for materials security to be incorporated into formal climate planning (i.e., NDCs) Could be included in cost-benefit analyses Would enable improved mapping of mineral supply chains Conclusion Emphasis on sustainability: where mining will have the largest positive development footprint, while also having more manageable environmental impacts Governance will decide whether the impending mining boom will lift communities out of poverty, accelerate technological innovation for decarbonization, and further the realization of energy and climate targets

Climate engineering - reasons to support or oppose it:✓

Climate engineering (CE): geoengineering, climate intervention, climate remediation, etc. "Intentional manipulation" ... Intentionality distinguishes climate engineering from inadvertent human activities that emit greenhouse gasses Most environment issues are the inadvertent consequences of legitimate socially accepted activities that humans pursue for other reasons "... of global-scale processes" Scalability is necessary to distinguish this from gardening, ecosystem restoration, small-to-regional weather modification "to control climate, offset disruption from elevated GHGs" Importance of Climate Engineering (now): Due to recent failures Increased recognition of: Severity of climate-change risks (worse now, more widely recognized now) Limits to main responses (Mitigation, Adaptation) Gaps between goals, commitments, actions... Reasons to support it: Effective way to avert climate change action Solar geoengineering and carbon removal Reasons to oppose it: Not enough research on topic Can pose some environmental effects Governance issue Climate engineering poses severe problems to global governance, but it is essential to reversing the damages of climate change

Parson, "Climate Policymakers and Assessments must get serious about climate engineering":✓

Climate engineering: intentional, global-scale modification of the environment to help offset the effects of elevated GHG Appears to be able to reduce climate change risks → in fact, large scale CE may be necessary to limiting temperature rise Forms of CE: Carbon removal, sunlight-scattering solar geoengineering However, they also pose some risks; Therefore, prior to utilizing CE, there must be more research done 3 Reasons that Policy and Assessment Bodies Must Take Better Account of CE: 1) CE might prove crucial in managing climate change risks 2) As climate change impacts mount, vulnerable states will likely propose, demand - or simply start - operational CE interventions Better to examine CE and its implications before this happens 3) Decisions have already been made, in Paris and elsewhere, that implicitly rely on future development of some forms of CE Having committed to the ends, knowingly or not, states must now take stock of the means Taking these into account → the IPCC will have to make a decision on CEs Engineering Climate Risk Reduction Two types of CE: 1) Actions that increase the scattering of incoming sunlight (solar geoengineering) 2) Actions that increase the emission of thermal radiation to space (carbon removal) Different technologies, but both serve the same effect of decoupling future climate from cumulative CO2 emissions Integrated Assessment Models found that cost-effective levels of mitigation (renewables) wouldn't be sufficient to reach 2*C target Thus, modelers added CE in the form of two carbon-removal methods: 1) Afforestation 2) Bioenergy (carbon capture and sequestration) "Negative emissions" technologies included, models allowed overspending the carbon budget over the next few decades, then repaying the resultant debt by removing previously emitted CO2 from the atmosphere later on Given how early in development CE technology was, their introduction into the climate process meant that they were not debated enough Thus, generated misconceptions that carbon removal is achievable through land and forest stewardship measures However, such a huge land-use footprint is likely to have unacceptable environmental and socioeconomic impacts A Carbon Removal Trilemma Three conditions are required for success in meeting Paris targets: 1) Scalability 2) Acceptable impacts 3) Low cost Identified methods have fulfilled at least two of these conditions: Forestation measures: benign and cheap, but not scalable BECCS: cheap and scalable, but heavy land-use impacts DAC: low impact and scalable, but expensive Why Not Just Cut Emissions Faster? Given the gamble on carbon removal, we must look to the limits of feasible mitigation Paris Agreement assumes rapid expansion of efficiency and non carbon energy sources Carbon removals were mainly driven by cost-minimizing processes in models that favored later removal over more expensive, nearer-term emission cuts, not by explicit judgements that faster cuts were not feasible Studies that show how to achieve steeper mitigation without carbon removal are just as suspect as relying on large future carbon removals Solar, The Other Geoengineering Solar geoengineering must be considered given the shortcomings of other strategies Less developed and less researched However, it is shown to have a faster impact, allowing the temperature effects of increased GHG concentrations to be offset as they happen, rather than decades later However, the benefits are not completely understood, and solar geoengineering poses some environmental risks Not addressing CE's ability to narrow the gap between climate targets and mitigation prospects doesn't protect policy decisions from relying on CE - it merely obscures them Expanded Research, Responsible Assessment Governments need to stop avoiding CEs; rather, they need better information which can advise them about CE action (now and in the future) Ex: World Commission on CE with required mandates, stature, and resources (could be a good source of advice and input) CE also needs expanded research and increased attention The IPCC must examine CEs potential contributions, impacts, risks, and uncertainties for it to be integrated into the mainstream (to inform policymakers) CE is not even considered in list of alternative pathways Integrating CE into climate change assessments will enable policymakers to make more informed choices Accepting CE's potential contributions could help identify new research priorities and begin defining new scenarios consistent with CE options

Co-benefits of climate change mitigation:✓

Co-benefits = the benefits that go along with the benefits we gain from decarbonization Ex: Innovation, Transportation, Moving to Electric Vehicles Ex: Build Back Better Bill: Talked about co-benefits rather than climate change (way to sell climate change mitigation) More immediate and popular, given their tangibility Less conflict, less inequality The "oil curse": less wealthy countries that have oil (Middle East) have seen more conflict associated with the resource Better health (public health) Less air pollution Moving to renewable/solar energy is also cheaper → can help the economy

Kaya identity:✓

Decompose sources of climate crisis into 4 different units A valuable way to focus on 4 input drives of carbon emissions CO2 emissions = Population x GDP/Population x Energy/GDP x CO2/Energy GDP/Population = Income/Capita Energy/GDP = Energy intensity of GDP How much energy it takes to support 'x' amount of income CO2/Energy = Carbon intensity of energy How much CO2 is produced during 'x' amount of energy production Since all units are multiplied by each other, the closer we get the units to zero, the closer we can get CO2 emissions closer to zero Think about what can/can't be readily changed "Green growth": Growth that is energy neutral (income w/o energy → factor goes to 0) Energy that is carbon neutral (energy from renewables → factor goes to 0) Certain terms are canceled out → leaving just CO2 Recent trends: Increasing CO2 emissions (+250%) Increasing GDP/capita (+250%) Increasing population (+150%) Decreasing carbon intensity (not significant enough rate, however will continue to fall) Decreasing energy intensity (not significant enough rate, however will continue to fall) How should we change it? Population: Growth rate has gradually been decreasing (peaked in the 1960s) Population is taking care of itself → no need for population control Economic growth: No reason to reduce economic growth and incomes (wrong) New technology and energy transitions will not occur if we aren't generating money and growth) Given that CO2 emissions and GDP are coupled, the problem is how to reduce emissions without reducing incomes Solution: Finding ways to reduce carbon intensity and energy intensity can compensate for the continued rise in the other categories (population, GDP, etc.) Change in energy intensity of income and carbon intensity of energy is possible

Coalitions and Feedback:

Green industrial policy (feed-in-tariffs and RPS) have proliferated since 1980s Provide concentrated benefits to the few and well-organized (renewable energy firms, low-carbon industries, investors) While these are the "third or fourth" best option for efficiency, research suggests that GIP nurtures a political landscape of interests and coalitions that benefit from a transformation to low-carbon energy use - even when polluting industries might oppose it As seen by the widespread adoption of FITs and RPSs preceding carbon pricing Ex: Canada and US both failed to create cap-and-trade schemes given lack of strong, prior federal renewable and energy policy Winning coalitions thrive on positive feedback The more green industries form/expand → the stronger coalitions for decarbonizing energy systems become, and the easier it gets to install stronger or more comprehensive regulatory strategies Ex: Germany and California Effects of such measures: 1) Creation of strong regulatory infrastructure 2) Efficiency regulations 3) Decoupling of profits from sales value or utilities 4) Early support for renewables These effects create tolerance for regulation and set the stage for the passage of a RPS and GHG reduction legislation that ultimately resulted in an emissions trading scheme Feedback based strategy broadens political support → which can effectively lead energy systems out of carbon lock in

Social cost of carbon:✓

How can we quantify the cost of climate change (ethical question) The 'optimal tax' or 'social cost of carbon': A way to measure what those negative externalities are (a.k.a., how big they are) Estimate future climate damage (put a money value to it) Add up the economic costs from climate change's effects This quantitatively tells us what the effects of climate change are ("costs of carbon") Apply a discount rate = assessing the value of the future in terms of current costs We must quantify the moral value of the things we're measuring (quantify the moral value of future vs. present generations) → discount rate Taking into account there's a lot of uncertainties and that maybe there will be cheaper future technologies, so we shouldn't spend too much money right now We must make a decision about the non-identity problem: Do we value the future the same/less/more/not at all? → That will tell us the present value of anticipated future damage from given level of emissions From this activity → We can figure out how much each additional ton of CO2 will damage the environment Knowing this damage = the social cost of carbon Social cost of carbon = how much damage is caused from emitting 1 additional ton of CO2 Step 1: We figure that out by making an estimate of the future damage that that CO2 will do Step 2: Then, apply a discount rate (governed by philosophical discussions, economic rules, moral guidance) How big should a carbon tax be? Too small → won't meet 1.5*C target Won't reduce emissions Too large → recession, no money for transition At first revenues will rise, but then it will start to choke off the activities that it is asking → leading to declining revenues (recession) Will prevent economic growth, and disallow funding for new innovation

Sources of the fossil fuel industry's political power

How powerful are fossil fuel companies? They have 3 types of power: 1) Instrumental power: Money spent on lobbying/campaign contributions 2) Structural power: Reliance on fossil fuel industry for jobs, growth, etc. People are afraid of doing anything that hurts their local industries 3) Institutional power: Influence over essential services Power utilities, natural gas, gasoline, "keeping lights on" "Quiet politics" - out of public view Institutional Lock-In: Carbon coalitions: Producers that benefit from the carbon-intensive built environment (fossil fuel companies) and producers whose technologies are energy-intensive (heavy manufacturing) are deeply invested in the existing physical infrastructure Political Lock-In: 1) Our society is built on fossil fuels Coal fuels the industrial revolution (simultaneous rise in World GDP and atmospheric CO2) 2) Fossil fuels are globally widespread (USA, Saudi Arabia, Russia) 3) Oil was a major force in LA history LA can be an example of how fossil fuel industries are politically influential

Cook et al., "America Misled: how the fossil fuel industry intentionally misled Americans about climate change":✓ How the fossil fuel

How the fossil fuel industry polluted the information landscape: 1) They knew about the reality of human-induced climate change, but actually funded denial and disinformation to stifle action and protect its status quo interests 2) As scientific consensus strengthened, the industry and its allies also strengthened their views 3) Industry offered no alternative for climate change Rather, it sought to undermine support for action 4) Fossil fuel industry used same tactics as tobacco industry's denial of tobacco control Fossil fuel industry's techniques: FLICC Fake Experts: promoting dissenting non-experts as qualified Logical Fallacies: logically flawed arguments that lead to false conclusions Impossible Expectations: demanding unrealistic standards of certainty before ceding to the science Cherry Picking: selectively choosing data that supports a desired conclusion Conspiracy Theories: Proposing a secret plan amongst a number of people to perpetrate misinformation Purpose: To delay climate action and protect fossil fuel business interests and defend libertarian, free market conservative ideologies Thus, Americans have been denied the right to be actually informed about climate change Climate Disinformation's Negative Effects: Reduces public understanding of climate change; lowers support for climate action; cancels out appropriate information; polarizes the public along political lines; reinforces climate silence Impacts scientific community by forcing them to respond to bad-faith demands, rather than serving the public good Climate denialist arguments are contradictory and offer no explanation for climate change Does not care about scientific evidence → simply care about continuing business Exxon: Cast doubt on the science and use "both sides" approach to confuse people Greenwash: pretend to care about the environment Goal: create uncertainty regarding climate science → undermine public faith in scientists Denial Piece: Highlights the contradictory nature of denialists, as it posits that the effects of fossil fuel burning is unknown (despite reports showing strong effects) Ways to inoculate against disinformation: 1) Communicate facts (insufficient) 2) Reveal misleading sources 3) Explain denialist techniques

Critical minerals:✓

In moving to green economy we will have to make a lot of changes We will need a lot more of certain kinds of minerals To make lithium-ion batteries and wind turbines Need more lithium and cobalt Also nickel, silver, copper, aluminum (other rare earth minerals) In some cases, only small increase in need, in other cases, much larger increase Is there enough? Who is going to control it? What are the social and environmental costs? People adjacent to mining areas can be helped if they are given jobs and better infrastructure, and access to roads In other areas, they can be harmed due to environmental damages In the US, mining takes places in sparsely populated areas Week 9 Wednesday: Graph, Slide 35: "Countries accounting for greatest share of critical raw minerals" China has an enormous fraction of these in its own territories USA has a few things Would have more if it invested more in new mines South Africa, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Russia Democratic Republic of Congo = one of the poorest and most-conflict ridden countries in the world 64% of world's cobalt supply comes from DRC Terrible working conditions → small scale, artisanal mining Workers trying not to die during cobalt mining Lithium mining in Andes (Peru, Bolivia, Chile) Fragile environments in salt flats China and Russia have been very aggressive in making critical mineral grabs in Africa while the US largely ignores this territory Biden Administration: new policy to invest in extracting minerals from US To control own supply chain Not subject to buying from China Produce our own Will cause local damage Not on the global scale of other climate change-related issues

California Air Resources Board:✓

Independent commission/body Was delegated authority to reduce California emissions by 2020 in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006

Investments:✓

Instead of making carbon more expensive and/or demanding industries/consumers to adhere to certain standards Government, in addition, decides to invest heavily in green energy and new innovation Does this through incentivization Ex: The Green New Deal Ex: "Governor Newsom's $300.7 billion blueprint paving the California way forward" Money to accelerate our transition away from fossil fuels Instead of taxing or imposing regulations, the government is building things and spending money Much more popular since people like spending more than taxes Green investment = benefit now → pay later Waxman-Markey Bill (2009):✓

Roberts, "How to drive fossil fuels out of the US economy quickly":✓

Mobilization of US economy towards manufacturing clean-energy technology and infrastructure is necessary to avert the worst of climate change To limit rise of temperature to 1.5*C-2*C, US must reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 Two questions shall guide this process: 1) What is necessary → given the trajectory of global warming 2) What is possible → given the resources in US economy Rewiring America: organization that develops and advocates for policies to rapidly decarbonize the US through electrification Griffith has shown that it is possible to eliminate 70-80% of US carbon emissions by 2035 through rapid deployment of existing electrification technologies Fastest way to decarbonize is to electrify everything His models show 2 conclusions: 1) It is still possible to reduce US GHG in line with 1.5*C pathway 2) To decarbonize in time, substitution of clean-energy technologies for their fossil fuel counterparts must ramp up to 100% ASAP, after a brief period of industrial mobilization "Maximum feasible transition" (MFT) to clean energy: Two stages: 1) Aggressive production ramp-up of 3-5 years 2) Intensive deployment of decarbonized infrastructure and technology up to 2035 Large scale electrification would slash total US primary energy demand in half US only has to produce half the energy with renewables that it is currently producing from fossil fuels Industry is not as big a carbon problem as it appears The alleged difficulty of decarbonizing heavy industry → one reason often offered for why large-scale negative emissions will be needed Griffith disagrees: Large chunk of carbon emissions attributed to industry are devoted to fossil fuels and will disappear as they do There's no way to accomplish a rapid energy transition with market-based policies To drive the MFT, 100% adoption rate is only achievable through mandate Government-backed, low-interest rate loan of mortgage interest rates of 3.5-4% Full electrification will bring all kinds of political benefits 1) Massive industrial mobilization creates jobs 2) Full electrification would practically eliminate most sources of air pollution 3) Energy costs will be lower and US household will save money 4) "Cooler" from consumers' perspective This is the Green New Deal technical manual Green New Deal made lofty demands for rapid industrial mobilization and decarbonization Critics responded by claiming that it lacked a detailed roadmap to accomplish its goals Griffith provided that roadmap "Standards and investments approach"

Nationally determined contributions (NDCs):✓

Non-binding national plans highlighting climate change mitigation, including climate-related targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, policies and measures governments aim to implement in response to climate Pledges that countries make to address climate change Each country sets their own goals Countries all report regularly on their process and update their NDCs every 5 years (hopefully to become more ambitious overtime) Pledge and review strategy is the mechanism by which NDCs may work Paris Agreement: 1.5*C Paris Agreement compatible emissions reduction to ~25 gigatonnes a year Reality: Pledges and targets have emissions reductions to ~52 gigatonnes a year New pledges and targets have emissions reductions to ~48 gigatonnes a year 2020-2021 NDCs narrow the gap by 3.3-4.7 gigatonnes a year However, still 19-23 gigatonnes a year from reaching the Paris Agreement compatible to limit warming to 1.5*C by 2030 Regardless, big gap in Paris Agreement pledges and what countries agreed to do This same pattern is also seen with the 2100 warming projections Emissions and expected warming based on pledges and policies Current policies and actions will lead to warming of 2.5-2.9*C by 2100 Whereas, Paris Agreement will limit warming to 1.5*C

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR):✓

One of two types of climate engineering → altering carbon cycle Remove and dispose of carbon, other GHGs Removing GHG emissions in the atmosphere, after the fact, and "placing" them somewhere else Only way to reverse climate change Takes the cause back out of the environment and puts it elsewhere Slow and expensive "Fabulous, will make a huge difference; but, it is slow and expensive" Low leverage ("draining lake through straw" → slow process) Not scalable CDR will be the world's largest public works program Requires thousands to ten thousands of CDR plants to make a huge difference Optimistic projections are greater than likely contribution (especially nature-based solutions) Happy projections are baked into scenarios (NDCs) Reasons to support it: Feels like mitigation: Comfortable, familiar analogs Huge assumed reliance since AR5, Paris Agreement So, it's great, it's essential, but... Reasons to oppose it: Hype cycle/gold rush: tech claims from strong to fraudulent Huge assumed reliance post 2050 - Appeared from nowhere Based on two scenarios using only two methods: BECCS and AR Scale, Implications: Not communicated, not understood in Paris Result → Major misconceptions: "IPCC showed that 2*C, and even 1.5*C, is feasible with just mitigation" "CDR is just good husbandry practices" "Impacts of BECCS and AR at this scale will be OK" Environmental, social-economic impacts, scale constraints Present trilemma: Scalable, Benign, Cheap Can only pick 2 More promising methods: early days... "let's hope it works" Scalability is too slow CDR is a huge benefit, but it doesn't come soon enough

Solar radiation management:✓

One of two types of climate engineering → radiation balance Alter radiation balance (solar geoengineering, SRM) Change the radiative energy balance between the earth and the sun/space Through blocking/scattering visible wavelengths (as opposed to absorbing it → thus getting hotter) Multiple methods: clouds (low or high), atmospheric aerosols, space shields The most promising method involves flying modified airplanes over the low-to-middle stratosphere, and spraying a large amount of reflective "spray" that will block/scatter incoming sunlight Thus, slightly reducing the incoming wavelengths of the sun that is absorbed Some less promising methods (i.e., cirrus thinning) make it easier for infrared to get out Some methods = high leverage Fast, Cheap, Imperfect Controversial, rightly so (maybe too much?): Risk vs. Risk Dilemma Reasons to support it: ★Only way to slow or stop global-average heating in years not decades Cheap and fast★ Only response (imperfect) to impending or realized severe changes ★Early model results: Shockingly uniform benefits, small harms★ Even if lowering temperature is judged imprudent, huge value to lowering change in temperature over time Can target important regional processes: Arctic sea, hurricane intensity In integrated response can "shave peak", reduce max near-term heating Upshots: ★May reduce risks in ways Cuts, Adaptation, CDR alone cannot Studies have shown this★ Impacts, Promise, Weak control → on agenda, like it or not Must address governance, whatever your view of the merits The knowledge of how to do this is pretty widespread → a lot of states will be able to do this Will resort to solar engineering if desperate (and know how to implement) "If the world were rationally governed: CE in optimal Integrated Climate Response" (Week 9 Monday, Graph Slide 11) Demonstrates that SRM can most effectively reduce climate impacts (immediately) Reasons to oppose it: ★Imperfect correction for harms of elevated GHG (alters the climate by a different radiative mechanism than GHG are heating the environment) It doesn't fully correct the environmental effects of elevated GHG★ Time mismatch: must manage ~100s years, risk termination shock Must continually spray aerosols into the atmosphere given the short lifespan of these particles in the atmosphere (CO2/GHG emissions last for a longer time in the atmosphere)​​ Termination shock: We continue to emit at our current pace, and we offset all of the heating with solar engineering Impossible to revert back to original climate, but some cooling occurs Direct environmental impacts - ozone, acid, sky appearance, ?? Will adjust stratospheric ozone chemistry, sulfuric acid, lighter sky appearance Worst case, with crazy, malevolent, or suicidal use → much worse Excess reliance ("silver bullet") may weaken political emissions cuts ("moral hazard") Conflict over whether, when, how, who (especially with regional control) Governance issue Global injustice - Assuming regional control by present elites Anti-democratic: requires control by technocratic elites Non-consequential objections: tech fix, hubris, bad anthropocene The treatment of solar geoengineering is not ideal: Less debate on solar geoengineering; Ton of opposition to research on this topic 10 years debate in small community (scientists, analysts, NGOs) Trickle of research → all climate modeling, lab studies, passive observation Push for more research, small field trials: Opposition, Obstruction, Fear Largely ignored; Marginalized in AR5, Scenarios, COPs Critiqued as too uncertain and dangerous in 1.5 Report However, it is getting better: Since 2018: research proposals, debates, getting more active: Small research programs, a few countries, first savvy research promotion group Queensland GBR emergency - developing operational MCB + 2 others NAS report March 2021 proposed US program, Cong mandate, OSTP planning Establishment of "Global Commission on Governing Risks from Climate Overshoot", May 17

Keohane and Oppenheimer, "Paris Accords":✓

Paris Agreement = decisive break from unsuccessful Kyoto Protocols Instead of targets and timetables, it established a Pledge and Review system, under which all states will offer Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reducing GHG emissions However, to achieve this, the laws were intentionally vague and offered substantial discretion to governments Enables governments to limit the scope/intensity of their actions The success of the Pledge and Review system depends upon governments' willingness to take on costly action, and for OECD countries to financially assist poorter countries International success is dependent on the enactment of domestic policies The Paris Agreement itself won't make a significant impact on climate change Its effectiveness can be measured by the generation of change in the behavior of actors with resources that can be allocated and reallocated The Difficulty of Action on Climate Change and the Dead-End of Kyoto Inherent difficulties of climate change action: No overarching government to force countries to act in a specific way (anarchy) and large, wealthy countries are disincentivized to take climate change action given its negligible effects on its own country 1) Every country has an incentive to free ride on others 2) Prisoner Dilemma: The option of not cooperating is more attractive than cooperation (costly) Burden-sharing: "fairness" (a reasonably equitable apportionment of the costs and benefits of implementation) Two factors that affect the efficacy of global institutions: 1) The benefits and costs of cooperation 2) Whether the agreement can be enforced Contingent exchanges: idea of reciprocity in self-enforcing agreements and only receiving benefits following proper performance/obligations by one party States that fail to fulfill their commitments face withdrawal by others Flaws of the Kyoto Protocol: 1) No agreement in the UNFCCC process on how to utilize voting → default rule of consensus was used Gave disproportionate power to states that sought to block acts 2) Relied on a "top-down" model of targets and timetables 3) Exempted developing countries from any emissions reduction obligations Pledge and Review at Paris and in the future Discretion: Each state was to submit its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions Advantageous for negotiations as it ignored the topic of burden-sharing and apportionment Enabled countries to develop NDCs in a manner that responded to the interests and views of domestic constituencies Vagueness: No binding obligation actually to implement the plans indicated in the NDCs Pledge and Review system can only be successful through making it more transparent and demanding Dependent on the incentives that governments face Incentives for Governments for Transparency: 1) To achieve domestic purposes (not directly related to climate change) 2) To respond to pressure from domestic constituencies 3) To gain specific benefits from other states (specific reciprocity) 4) To gain diffuse benefits from other states/peoples 5) To impress domestic constituencies; avoid blame; cultivate international reputation Post-Paris Climate Policies as a Two-Level Game: "Two-level game": involving a combination of international strategic interaction and domestic policies One level = international negotiation Second level = coalition-building in domestic politics Three types of actors: 1) Committed governments in OECD countries need to act in a way that enhances their ability to persuade other states to make commitments (negotiation reciprocity) Must maintain and bolster domestic support 2) Governments of major emerging market countries (BRICs) are affected by climate change and therefore have some reason to act on these issues Principle focus = economic growth, thus seek to minimize their own costs 3) Governments in small, poor states have an interest in free riding without detection or at least punishment Unlikely to be the principal targets of actors seeking to ensure the efficiency of climate agreements Negotiation assets of each player: 1) Rich, OECD countries: Ability to limit their emissions and willingness to provide financial and technical assistance 2) BRICs: Huge current and prospective emissions and their ability to decide on what extent to reduce them 3) Poor countries: Appeal to fairness and deny legitimacy to any made deals Conclusion: Paris Agreement "opens the door" to progress on climate Success of Pledge and Review system depends on transparency of governments and willingness to push states who fail to reach obligations Domestic politics can pressure countries to take climate action Transnational movements and organizations can play an important role in mobilizing support within countries

Alternative types of policies: prices, mandates, and investments:

Policy options to change carbon and energy intensity Prices:✓ Carbon taxes: Everything taxed according to carbon emissions Polluter pays Incentive to switch to lower-carbon activities Many options for using the money raised [Government sets the tax] Cap and trade: Government sets a cap on emissions Issues permits to companies Companies can sell excess permits [Government sets the emissions standards, businesses negotiate amongst themselves] Both policy options use market forces to reduce emissions Both = higher costs for consumers Roughly similar in ideas and net effects Prices, for example, increase the cost of fossil fuels (through carbon taxes and cap-and-trade) and decrease the cost of low-carbon energy (through subsidies) Week 8 Monday: Graph, Slide 33

Pinto-Bazurco et al., "Precautionary Principle":✓

Precautionary principle: "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation" Core elements: Need for environmental protection The presence of threat or risk of serious damage A lack of scientific certainty should not be used to avoid taking action to prevent that damage In the past, the preventative principle was used (utilizing available scientific knowledge) Critics view the precautionary principle as overregulating or limiting human activity and that it halts progress Another counterargument is that the need of economic development trumps the need for environmental protection However, many multilateral and regional agreements, as well as national laws, include precautionary actions Ex: 1972 Stockholm Convention, 1982 World Charter for Nature, 1985 Vienna Convention, 1987 Montreal Protocol Integrated the precautionary principle into international environmental law Article 5 of the UNFCCC The precautionary principle serves as a tool that contains the necessary elements to achieve that balance between caution and risk; rather than slowing down development or obstructing decision-making, its application promotes reflection in the face of uncertainty → leading to better outcomes Guiding principles (continued): "Common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR): all states must act but with different responsibilities Answer to the question of why should a small country, 'x', sign on to a climate treaty when big industrializing countries have been creating the problem Shouldn't those who create the problem be responsible for fixing it, why should the smaller countries be penalizes Some countries have a much greater responsibility than others to address climate change Regular reporting on emissions and policies: ensures baseline on where countries stand globally The onus should be on developed, richer countries (Western countries [North America + Central European] and Russia) They would have to bear most of the responsibility to: 1) Reduce emissions 2) Help fund costs of energy transitions in low- and middle-income countries

Cap-and-trade (also known as 'emissions trading'):✓

Step 1: Government sets a cap on emissions Government regulates emissions so as to not exceed that cap Step 2: Issues permits (that add up to that cap) to major power companies Step 3: Companies can sell/"trade" excess permits Ex: Clean energy plant can sell its excess permits to heavily-polluting fossil fuel plants Government sets the emissions standards, business negotiate amongst themselves Market "decides" the size of "tax" (i.e., cost of tradable emissions permits) Problem: Government sets the emissions cap so high that nobody does anything Painless way to pass the law without forcing anyway to change their behavior Since companies and citizens do not want to pay more Plan in California and Europe sets cap at a certain level, and gradually lower the cap each year Forces companies to pay more if they want to exceed that cap Permits will become more scarce and, hence, more valuable Thus, acts as an increasing tax on carbon pollution Operates like a carbon tax (carbon intensive activities are more expensive, green activities are cheaper) "Carbon tax by another name" But it operates through a different mechanism Opposed by environmental justice advocates

Policy Implications:

Strategies: 1) Adopt initial policy suites of targeted sector-specific policies Provide concentrated benefits and can link climate policies with local issues (i.e., targeted GIPs, subsidies, tax rebates, renewable energy standards) Specificity can be tailored to provide side benefits Allows for greater leverage in policymaking (ex: EU climate policy) 2) Send direct, high-leverage policy signals rather than broad, shallow ones Unlike carbon pricing, FITs and RPSs provide strong incentives for growth of cohesive green industry groups, and thus are more likely to drive industrial shifts in investments and revenues that can realign interests in industries Expands coalitions for low-carbon policy and provides support for experimentation with policy and technology 3) Sequence policies strategically First, climate policy must create constituencies that provide support for subsequent policy moves (i.e., early high-leverage measures) Politically stable give support from constituencies and coalitions they create Then, broader policy signals targeted at polluters, such as carbon pricing, can be introduced and strengthened Broader policy succeeds when carbon policy is more entrenched into system Strategic sequencing requires adaptive policy design to prevent lock-in of technical-institutional paths that fail to increase political support and/or to decarbonize the energy system Future research needs to note the context of successful strategies and to specify potential policy interventions Real test for effective climate policy is the extent to which governments are capable of building and growing domestic coalitions for low-carbon energy that support implementation and strengthening of these international commitments over time

Pledge and review:✓

Strategy formulated during the Paris Agreement Countries were responsible for making pledges These pledges could be anything Could be as weak or stringent as any country decided No binding or specific commitments → each country sets its policies, no penalty for non-compliance

Meckling et al., "Winning coalitions for climate policy":

Wide gap in implications of climate science and achievements of climate policy Current and planned policy remains weak and will allow for long term temperature increase of 3.6*C Goal: building winning coalitions for decarbonization of domestic economies Green industrial policy provides direct incentives for growth of green industries which builds political support for carbon regulation False assumption that climate agreements emerge from bottom-up domestically driven policies, rather than top-down negotiations Solution: Providing economic benefits supports effective policy making in a way that penalizing industrial polluters does not Green industrial policy creates and enhances low-carbon industries, which brings economic constituencies into coalitions for decarbonization As well as giving feedback that drives progress toward better climate policy Carbon Pricing, Marginal Change: Economists favor regulating emissions by putting a price on GHG emissions Pricing through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade seems to be the most efficient solution However, there are political barriers to implementing an effective carbon price Progress is slow because carbon regulations imposes costs on the few/powerful (energy-producers) and provides dispersed benefits to the weak (public) These regulatory "losers" have greater incentives and capacity to organize politically and prevent policy implementation Even when carbon pricing schemes succeed, they accommodate the demands of polluters → thus, only marginally successful/effective Thus, carbon pricing may be ineffective for cultivating coalitions for stronger low-carbon policy Weak vs. Strong carbon pricing: Weak → marginal changes (supplementary equipment and fuel switching in existing industries) Strong → fundamental changes, but politically costly More direct measures (Renewable Portfolio Standards) have had more support