This blog feature amusing and heartwarming stories about our late Leonberger dog Bronco, as well as other Leonbergers. It also has a lot of information about the Leonberger breed, the history, care, training, Leonberger organizations, etc. I also wrote a Leonberger book, which I am featuring in the sidebar.
An economic externality or external cost is an indirect cost or benefit to an uninvolved third party that arises as an effect of economic activities. They are unpriced components of market transactions. An example is the gasoline you buy. Burning the gasoline causes pollution that harms other people including those who do not own cars, future generations, and it harms the environment including animals. Society incurs a cost from that pollution that you don’t pay for at the pump. The gasoline producers and vendors do not pay for it either. Unless you add a tax or make other adjustments the act of polluting is free of charge, even though there is a real cost associated with it. It is a cost that is invisible to unfettered “free markets”. It is a market failure. Note I am putting “free markets” in quotes because the free market does not exist all by itself. It exists within a framework of societal norms, culture, laws, a banking system, and entities such as limited liability corporations, etc.
Pollution is an example of a negative externality. Photo by Chris LeBoutillier on Pexels.com
The existence of economic externalities is entirely uncontroversial among economists, including laissez-faire (libertarian) economists such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and Ludwig von Mises, even though Ludwig von Mises said that they arise from lack of “clear personal property definition.” In fact, Milton Friedman, Nobel prize winner in economics, and leading anti-tax champion, stated that pollution met the test for when government should act, but that when it did so, it should use market principles to the greatest extent possible — as with a pollution tax. However, in my experience the existence of economic externalities is unwelcome news to market fundamentalists who lack education in economic science, including many libertarian leaning politicians. If you bring up the subject you might be dismissed, scoffed at, or labeled as a leftist. I don’t have a Gallup poll to back this up, but I believe it is correct to say that economic externalities are controversial among significant portions of the public despite being a universally accepted and fundamental concept of economic science.
This simplified supply and demand graph shows two different graphs in blue. One for the private/production cost per unit of a goods and a second that also includes the cost of the externality.
In the simple supply-demand graph above we see how the price of a product per unit (private cost / or production cost) increases with the increased quantities produced. The increase in price could be because resources become increasingly scarce as more must be produced. The curves are typically not simple straight lines like this. It is just an illustration. As the price goes up demand goes down (the red demand curve/line) because fewer people want to buy the product or can afford the product. An equilibrium is reached where the curves meet. According to classical economics (micro-economics classes, or macro-economics classes) this equilibrium represents the optimum benefit for society assuming consumers and producers are perfectly rational (with respect to their self-interest) and there are no externalities.
Unfortunately, in this example, there is an externality and as we know the unfettered free market does not account for it. Let’s say that we know the cost of the externality and we find a way of adding that cost to the price, perhaps via a tax. The price is higher and fewer units will be sold and we have a new equilibrium. Now the economically optimal point is the ideal equilibrium that reflects social cost. In the 1920’s an economist Arthur Pigou argued that a tax, equal to the marginal damage or marginal external cost on negative externalities could be used to reduce their incidence to an efficient level. Notice this tax is not for redistributing wealth or bringing revenue for the government but to reduce economic harm to society. There are other ways to address the problem, but this type of tax is called a Pigouvian tax.
How a Pigouvian tax can reduce economic harm to society. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
Finally, I would like to give a few examples of negative and positive externalities. Negative externalities could be :
Pollution
Climate Change
Depletion of fish due to overfishing
Depletion of other resources
Overuse of antibiotics
Spam email
Some positive externalities are :
A beekeeper keeps the bees for their honey, but a side effect or externality is the pollination of surrounding crops by the bees.
Education (societal benefits beyond the individual).
Research and development
Innovations
Scientific discoveries
Vaccination
When a beekeeper keeps bees for their honey, a side effect is the pollination of surrounding crops by the bees. This is an example of a positive externality.. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
As I previously mentioned I would like to launch a second blog featuring small facts or insights that are widely disbelieved despite being known to be true by the experts in the relevant field or facts that are very surprising or misunderstood by a lot of people. These facts shouldn’t be trivia but important facts that are somewhat easy to understand despite their status as being unthinkable to many. They are not scientific theories or complex sets of facts or information, but facts that you can easily state. I’ve decided to call these facts super facts (is that a stupid name?). This is the last super fact I am posting on my Leonberger blog. I will create a list of hundreds of super facts but that is for my upcoming blog. To see the other four super fact posts so far check the list below:
I have not posted in a while, and I have not read blog posts either because I’ve been focused on the annual Citizens Climate Lobby (CCL) conference and lobby days in Washington DC. Part of this event was about 1,000 CCL volunteers having meetings with more than 400 congressmen and senators. I organized and participated in a meeting with senator Ted Cruz’ office (Texas) and I participated in a meeting with Senator Wicker’s office (Mississippi). I also had a small one-man (just me) meeting with the office of another Texas congressman and a delivery to my own congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (Texas district 24).
CO2 emissions dial. Shutter stock Photo ID: 1928699927 by NicoElNino
Some technical background. The United States congress consist of two houses, the house of representatives with 435 congressmen, and the Senate with 100 Senators, two from each state. Each proposed law or bill/act has a number in the house of representatives on the form H.R.xxxx and S.xxxx in the Senate. To become a law, a bill/act must be approved by the house of representatives with a vote of at least 50% as well as approved by the Senate with a vote of at least 60% (filibuster rule) or 50% if you can make it part of a budget bill (so called budget reconciliation). I can add that the president can also veto a bill that has passed both houses.
How it looked like when I arrived at the Capitol building in Washington DC the early morning of Tuesday June 11, 2024.
The majority of the house of representatives is Republican and the majority of the Senate is Democratic, but the split is very even. Unfortunately, the current congress is also very partisan, and pretty much war like, making passing any laws nearly impossible. Most bills are introduced to impress respective side’s partisan base and for grandstanding, not with the intention of it becoming law. I’ve read that the current congress is the most dysfunctional in United States history. Into this mess CCL is proposing or supporting climate related legislation that is bipartisan, or introduced jointly by Democratic and Republican congressmen, and therefore has a chance of passing. CCL is a bipartisan organization and has good relations with both Democrats and Republicans.
The CCL group meeting with Senator Ted Cruz’ office. The staff member, Jackson Tate, is standing the furthest to the right. I am standing in the middle, immediately to the right of the flag.
Our favorite piece of legislation is the carbon fee and dividend, but we did not discuss it for reasons I will soon explain. The carbon fee and dividend policy consist of three parts. First, a price/fee/tax is placed on carbon emissions. This makes sense because ruining the atmosphere for everyone on earth should not be free of charge. Second, the proceeds are returned to people/consumers on an equal basis, as a dividend, a check or a direct deposit. Most people will receive more money than they lose from paying higher prices, while the incentive to buy less carbon intensive products will remain. You are rewarded for polluting less than the average. Thirdly, a carbon border adjustment, or a fee at the border, will be enacted on imported carbon intensive products that are produced with higher carbon emissions than the average for the United States. A subsidy is applied to exported products created using less carbon emissions. According to economists, a carbon fee and dividend is a very effective policy in reducing emissions. In fact, an optimal way of reducing carbon emissions. At the same time, it does not harm the economy. This is why CCL loves it.
Unfortunately, it is currently not politically viable. In Canada something similar has been implemented and even though 80% of Canadians come out ahead financially from this policy, almost no one believes it because doing the accounting is not easy. It is also incorrectly blamed for inflation. Add the fact that the Republican party has turned against it, thus making it a partisan policy (no longer bipartisan). Therefore, we have to wait.
This graph is showing US annual carbon emissions. The black line is the actual US emissions up to the end of 2023. The multicolored graphs are estimated emissions reductions resulting from different policies. The blue triangle corresponds to a specific quite reasonable form of carbon fee and dividend, but we can’t use it right now. The second largest triangle, the dark red triangle, correspond to clean energy permitting reform, a policy area that is very bipartisan and viable.
For this year we had four “Asks”. Four policy proposals or areas for which we are asking support from congress.
Prove It Act S.1863
Energy Permitting Reform
Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023 S.1164 / H.R.5015
Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 S.1400 / H.R.3036
The CCL group meeting with Senator Wicker’s office. The staff members were Julia Wood, Flannery Egner, and Wade Roberts. Julia and Flannery are standing front left and Wade middle back. I am standing on the far right.
Below are the summaries of our four asks. Below each short summary I have included the full text from our flyers. I don’t expect anyone to read the full text, but naturally you can if you are really interested.
Prove It Act S.1863
This bipartisan act introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) would require the Department of Energy to study the emissions density of certain emissions intense products, cement, aluminum, steel, fossil fuels, etc., in the United States and in other countries. US products are much cleaner than the same products from many other countries such as China and India. Having the data will help us capitalize on this advantage, for example, in trade negotiations and attracting foreign buyers of these products. It is good business for the United States.
Full CCL text of Prove It Act S.1863
The bipartisan Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable, Emissions Intensity and Transparency Act of 2023 (S.1863), or PROVE IT Act, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), would require the Department of Energy (DOE) to study the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of certain products — including aluminum, cement, crude oil, fertilizer, iron, steel, plastic, and others — that are produced in the United States and in certain covered countries. The PROVE IT Act is not a carbon tax or carbon border tariff.
The PROVE IT Act was approved by the Senate EPW Committee in a large bipartisan vote (14-5) in January and is expected to be introduced in the House by Reps. John Curtis (R-UT-03) and Scott Peters (D-CA-50) in the coming weeks.
Greenhouse gas emissions are a global issue, and trade and the power of the American market are some of the best tools we have to reduce global emissions. Since many U.S. industries are among the least carbon intensive in the world, producing products here is good for the U.S. economy and good for the climate. In addition, U.S. industries have had to unfairly compete with industries from higher-polluting foreign countries with lax labor and environmental standards. As Sens. Coons and Cramer have said, “The PROVE IT Act would put high-quality, verifiable data behind these practices and bolster transparency around global emissions intensity data to hold countries with dirtier production accountable.”
The PROVE IT Act is endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, American Conservation Coalition Action, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, American Iron and Steel Institute, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Climate Leadership Council, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, Environmental Defense Fund, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Third Way, Progressive Policy Institute, Independent Petroleum Association of America, Steel Manufacturers Association, and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
The PROVE IT Act is an important bipartisan step to protect American industry and drive down global carbon pollution. Citizens’ Climate Lobby urges all members of Congress to cosponsor the PROVE IT Act and take action to pass the bill this Congress.
Energy Permitting Reform
The biggest obstacle to expanding the utilization of clean energy isn’t building clean energy but building the power lines needed to bring the power from the clean energy sources to households. It takes 10-20 years to get a powerline approved while building a wind power facility takes months. There are also energy technology specific hurdles for building, for example, nuclear power stations and renewables including endless judicial reviews and several layers of bureaucratic approval processes. We can’t wait decades for yes or no. It is important to speed up the process for building America’s clean energy infra structure. Some has been done but more needs to be done. This is an area that will make a big difference that both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on.
Full CCL text of Energy Permitting Reform
Citizens’ Climate Lobby believes it is critical to speed up the process for building America’s clean energy infrastructure. Changes to the current process for permitting energy projects must be made so America can lower greenhouse gas emissions and ensure American households have access to affordable clean energy. CCL appreciates that the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 included some provisions that will help streamline clean energy permitting and several new agency and FERC rules intended to speed the energy permitting process have been finalized. However, more comprehensive permitting reform is still needed and should be done in a way that protects communities, preserves their ability to provide input, and maintains environmental standards. We also know that further changes to our permitting process will need to have bipartisan support.
In each of the past three years, at least 84% of the new energy capacity built in the United States was clean energy. More than 95% of new energy projects currently awaiting permits are solar, wind, and battery storage. Building a new electrical transmission line, on average, takes over a decade and solar, wind, and transmission projects are litigated at higher rates than other infrastructure projects. If construction of energy infrastructure continues at this pace, we will not be able to lower our emissions at the speed and scale necessary and ensure Americans have affordable and reliable energy in the 21st century.
We still need key reforms to our energy permitting process, such as but not limited to:
Allow transmission lines to be permitted and built much faster: We must permit, site, and build interregional transmission and require that regions be able to transfer significant power between regions.
Reasonable timelines for judicial review: There are new time limits for NEPA reviews, but litigation still has the potential to delay needed energy projects almost indefinitely. We need a reasonable statute of limitations that allows impacted communities to have a voice and stop bad projects but does not allow for infinite delays.
Ensuring robust and early community engagement: Any permitting reform must still provide a thorough, accessible process for community engagement and input.
Technology-specific permitting: There is also a critical need to modernize permitting for specific technologies like nuclear, hydropower, and geothermal power.
We urge Congress to work in a bipartisan manner to enact needed changes to our energy infrastructure permitting process. We believe both parties must come to an agreement on reforms that can pass both the House and Senate and be signed into law.
Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023 S.1164 / H.R.5015
The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act was introduced by Texas Senator John Cornyn (R), and a couple of Democrats jumped on board as well. It will authorize the secretary of agriculture to carry out eco system restoration activities particularly the development of seedling nurseries, which will significantly aid forest recovery from wildfires. It is part of CCL’s Healthy Forest initiative.
Full CCL text of Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act of 2023 S.1164 / H.R.5015
The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and in the House by Rep. Leger Fernandez (D-NM-03). The legislation ensures that funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law of 2021 is available to support the development of seedling nurseries to improve and expand reforestation efforts.
Specifically, the bill would:
Authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service, to enter into contracts, grants and agreements to carry out certain ecosystem restoration activities.
Clarify that funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is available for the development of seedling nurseries at state forestry agencies, local or non-profit entities and institutions of higher education.
The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act has the potential to significantly aid in forest recovery from wildfires. From 2001 to 2021, the nation lost 11.1 million hectares of tree cover from wildfires and 33.1 million hectares from all other loss. Although the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides funding for replanting programs, it does not address the need for expanded nurseries. The Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act rectifies this omission by providing funding for crucial seedling nurseries to further our nation’s progress toward resilient forestry. The bill complements another one of CCL’s secondary asks, the Save our Sequoias Act, through aiding its regeneration efforts.
On April 16, 2024, the House version of the Seedlings for Sustainable Habitat Restoration Act was voted out of the Committee on Natural Resources by unanimous consent. It now awaits action by the full House. The Senate companion was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on March 3, 2023, where it awaits review.
Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 S.1400 / H.R.3036
There is a current Technical Service Providers Shortage that needs to be addressed. Farmers and ranchers need help with resilient and climate smart practices, and this bill streamlines and improves the certification process. It was introduced by Senators Mike Braun (R-IN) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the Senate and Representatives James Baird (R-IN-04) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) in the House. It is a small step forward but easy and inexpensive to do.
Full CCL Text of Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 S.1400 / H.R.3036
The bipartisan Increased TSP Access Act of 2023 has been introduced by Sens. Mike Braun (R-IN) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) in the Senate and Reps. James Baird (R-IN-04) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) in the House. The bill would address the current Technical Service Providers (TSPs) shortage, which is impacting the ability of agricultural producers to fully utilize current conservation and climate programs.
As extreme weather events increase in frequency and strength, we are seeing increasingly devastating effects throughout our agricultural and food systems. Farmers, ranchers and forest-owners are on the front lines of climate change and can also mitigate its effects through resilient and climate-smart practices.
TSPs help producers to access USDA conservation programs through one-on-one assistance. For example, TSPs can help producers to develop grazing management plans, nutrient management plans and sustainable forestry plans. TSPs will be key to leveraging the recent $20 billion investment in agricultural conservation programs and conservation technical assistance.
USDA’s current TSP program has failed to adequately train and certify TSPs, even though the 2018 Farm Bill included language (Section 2502) that would allow USDA to approve non-Federal entities to certify TSPs. The Increased TSP Access Act would address the TSP shortage by expanding on the framework first envisioned in the 2018 Farm Bill.
Non-Federal Certifying Entities: The bill directs USDA to establish a process to approve non-Federal certifying entities within 180 days of enactment. The bill ensures that USDA’s process will allow agricultural retailers, conservation organizations, cooperatives, professional societies and service providers to become certifying entities. It also puts clear deadlines on USDA to ensure that the agency is responsive in administering the program.
Streamlined Certification: The bill directs USDA to establish a streamlined certification process for TSPs who hold appropriate specialty certifications (including certified crop advisors) within 180 days of enactment. This guarantees that applicants with other certifications aren’t burdened with duplicative training, but are still trained in the competencies needed to serve as a TSP.
Parity in Compensation: The bill ensures that TSPs—who are often paid using conservation program dollars—are paid the fair market rate for their services.
The Increased TSP Access Act was referred to the House Agriculture Committee, Subcommittee on Conservation, Research and Biotechnology, and to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry on May 2, 2023, where it awaits consideration.
But wait a minute! That’s not what the bill says.
I should mention that the full CCL texts of the aforementioned bills above are still summaries of the real bills that are even longer. This makes the Senators and the Representatives job difficult, which is why they have their staff read and summarize the bills for them. The staff is often young kids making this a little bit risky.
One of the Senators that we (including me) met with had voted no on one of the bills above in committee. The bill had still passed out of committee to be voted on in the Senate later, but we wanted to know why he voted no. The reason given made no sense. He had misunderstood the bill. This was a great opportunity for us to correct the misunderstanding. Hopefully, he will vote differently in the Senate.
Would you be willing to visit your representatives regarding matters you would like to address?
Responding once more to CCL’s (Citizen Climate Lobby) request to start conservations about climate change I am posting about three Conservative/Republican friends who are engaged in climate change solutions. Well, Bob Ingliss, the former Republican Congressman from South Carolina is not a personal friend, but I’ve met him, seen him speak several times, and I am a member of his organization. The other two, Larry Howe and Jack Zimanck are personal friends, and they have blogs (but not on word-press). I am posting this with their permission. If you don’t mind perhaps, you could check out their blogs a little bit (links below).
I should mention that Citizen Climate Lobby is a non-partisan / bipartisan volunteer organization promoting climate solutions. CCL does a lot of things but one of our main focuses is to speak to politicians, which is where “Lobby” comes from. However, we are just regular citizens / constituents. We don’t have money, unlike other lobbyists, not even donuts, but we vote, and we are many (200,000+). RepublicEN is an organization for Republican Environmentalists, and they are also promoting climate solutions.
CO2 emissions dial. Shutter stock Photo ID: 1928699927 by NicoElNino
Larry Howe
Larry Howe is a retired electrical engineer and engineering manager and a lifelong conservative. He embraces free market climate solutions, and he volunteers for republicEn.org and Citizens Climate Lobby Conservative Caucus. After initially being skeptical about climate change, he took a deep dive into the topic/science. He came to realize that he needed to accept the science, and the fact that global warming is happening and that the cause is us. You can read about his climate journey here. This is the link to his home page .
Life before harnessing energy from the combustion of fossil fuels was cold, dark, and short. We owe many of the benefits of our wonderful modern way of life to harnessing energy from burning fossil fuels. However, we now know that the accumulated CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels poses a grave threat to our well-being.
Human society has dumped trillions of tons of excess heat-trapping CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 100+ years by combusting hydrocarbons for energy. That excess CO2 doesn’t just go away. Each year about half of what is emitted adds to the atmospheric concentration which then persists for hundreds to thousands of years. The rest is redistributed from the atmosphere to the land and ocean which are reaching limits of what they can further sequester. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 50% in the last 100+ years trapping more and more heat. We shouldn’t continue doing it…….
This is Larry Howe, a retired electrical engineer and manager. He is a lifelong conservative/republican who promotes climate solutions.
Jack Zimanck
Jack Zimanck is a retired business leader and consultant who is exploring how businesses can be part of the solution to climate change and environmental problems. He is not associated with any particular political ideology. This is what he says in his latest blog post Sustainable Growth | Challenges and Opportunities. The institution of business may be our most powerful force for positive change
Businesses of various types provide the food, shelter, water, energy, and sanitation that allows more people to live safe, comfortable lives than ever before. Business provides the entertainment, transportation, and technology we enjoy each day. In reality, business is the economic framework that enables life in the 21st century.
Yet, it is important to understand that this constant stream of goods, service, and benefits has also brought unintended consequences and challenges to our ability to sustain this remarkable bounty for current and future generations…..to read more click on the link above. This is the link to his blogs main page.
Jack Zimanck, retired business leader and business consultant focusing on how businesses can help solve the climate crises and other environmental problems.
Bob Ingliss
Bob Ingliss, a former Republican Congressman from South Carolina won his district in 1994 and 1996 by 70%. His interest in climate change began after he asked his 11-year-old son if he would vote for him, and he said no because his stance on climate change was bad. So, Bob Ingliss studied the subject, and he came to change his mind. He realized it was a real problem that we humans had caused, and he announced his new stance on the topic publicly. His son was happy. However, despite a 93.5% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union and his endorsements from the NRA Political Victory Fund and National Right to Life Committee he lost his primary election in 2010. Republican primary voters felt that he had moderated his views. Bob Ingliss went onto found RepblicEN and the ECORight. You can read more about him here.
Former Congressman Bob Ingliss. From Wikipedia public domain.
I am a volunteer for an organization called Citizen Climate Lobby, CCL for short. CCL is a grassroots bipartisan organization consisting of 200,000 volunteers from the entire political spectrum, from conservative, libertarian, independent, and liberal / left. Considering that we are volunteers and just regular people the part of our name that says “Lobby” may seem out of place. However, it refers to the fact we visit congressional offices and talk to politicians. We don’t bring any gifts, like real lobbyists, not millions of dollars, not even donuts. What we bring is useful information, our voices, community leaders, our votes, and gratitude and respect for our representatives, whether we agree with them or not.
Citizens Climate Lobby, or CCL, is volunteer organization seeking to create political will for climate solutions. Photo by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels.com
I am the liaison for Senator Ted Cruz office. Despite him not being a “climate champion” he voted Yes on one of the resolutions we supported, the Growing Climate Solutions Act (Senate bill S.1251, house bill HR.2820). They typically meet with us 3 or 4 times a year and they have never turned down a meeting request. We have a good relationship with the vast majority of congressional offices despite the partisanship that’s ripping congress apart. I remember having a really good meeting in one office then having another great meeting with a congress woman who told us about how evil the guy we had just met was. It felt funny getting along well with two people who seemed to hate each other (or maybe that’s just how they talk). So, in addition to the climate question, I think we are helping to heal some of the divisions in congress as well.
A note about the bill numbers. Any law/resolution must pass both houses and they have different numbers in each house even though they are essentially identical. For the senate it is S.####, and for the house HR.####. Even though a bill passes both houses there are things like the filibuster in the senate and Presidential vetoes, so passing a bill is not easy.
Senator Ted Cruz TXJR with Citizens Climate Lobby in 2017. The senator is standing immediately to the right of the American flag, and I am standing immediately to the left of the American flag. My wife and daughter are also there.
I should say that I used to be quite “skeptical” of “global warming”. I knew, of course, that greenhouse gases cause a warming effect (like a blanket), that’s just hundreds of years old basic science, like we breathe oxygen or that the pressure in an enclosed gas container will increase when heated. However, I thought that the issue was politicized, and that there were natural explanations for the warming such as the sun, orbital cycles, cosmic radiation, volcanoes, etc. I was misinformed because at the time I almost exclusively read rightwing media and literature.
The sharp uptick at the end is not natural, for example, because the distribution of the warming vertically, geographically and temporally (the fingerprint) matches exactly the greenhouse gases we’ve released and contradicts natural causes.
After studying scientific literature and keeping an open mind I came to realize that I was wrong. It had been known for decades that Global Warming, or Climate Change, as it would be called later on, was mostly caused by carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and scientists knew that it was a serious problem. Not necessarily a “we are all going to die” issue, but a serious problem that we should not hand over to our children and grandchildren without trying to mitigate. After reading the book “The Storms of my Grand Children” by the physicist Dr. James Hansen I decided to volunteer. I wanted a non-political organization, if possible, so I chose the Citizens Climate Lobby. You can read more about my Climate Journey here.
Front cover of the Storms Of My Grandchildren by Dr. James Hansen.
CCL is focused on four areas.
Carbon Pricing
CCL’s favorite carbon price policy is what is called a carbon fee and dividend. There is currently a resolution in the house, the Energy Innovation Act, HR.5744 which implements this policy. A senate version S.#### has not yet been introduced.
Carbon Fee: This policy puts a fee on fuels like coal, oil and gas. It starts low and grows over time.
Carbon Dividend: The money collected from the carbon fee is allocated in equal shares every month to the American people to spend as they see fit. The carbon fee would raise the prices on carbon intensive products but since the money is returned to households the dividend would more than make up for the shortfall. This would financially benefit low-income families, specifically the lower 2/3 of income.
Border Carbon Adjustment: To protect U.S. manufacturers and jobs, imported good will pay a border carbon adjustment, and goods exported from the United States will receive a refund under this policy. This also allows American businesses to reap the rewards of their carbon advantage over other countries.
America’s natural resources — forests, grasslands, wetlands and oceans — act as natural climate solutions by pulling carbon out of the air. We can manage these natural resources to maximize their climate change-fighting impacts. CCL has supported a number of forest or agriculture related bills in congress.
By upgrading our homes and buildings to be electric and making them more energy efficient, we can save money and eliminate a major source of carbon pollution.
Building electrical powerlines is very complicated in the United States. Building a wind power station takes months, getting approval for a powerline can take decades. The bureaucracy is daunting. This is a big problem as we try to expand the use of renewables, but it is also a threat to our energy supply regardless of energy source. America’s transmission shortfall is contributing to grid outages across the country and inflating energy prices for American families and businesses.
Permitting reform will make it possible to unlock the clean energy infrastructure that’s waiting to be built, and by getting that clean energy to American households and businesses. About half of the potential emissions reductions delivered by Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in 2030 are lost if transmission expansion is constrained to 1% per year, and roughly one quarter are lost if growth is limited to 1.5% per year. There are bills in congress which address this, such as the the BIG WIRES Act (Senate version of the bill is S.2827, and house version is HR.5551). Note, CCL did not come out in support of IRA because it was a partisan bill, but many of us liked it.
The Conversation
More than 70% of Americans are worried about climate change. But most of us still avoid discussing it because we feel like it’s too political, too doom and gloom, or too overwhelming. But we can’t solve a problem if we don’t talk about it. Therefore, for the month of April CCL have requested that we volunteers initiate 25,000 climate conversations. So that is what I am doing here. Preaching is not conversation and therefore I invite you all to agree or disagree with me, and to consider the following questions.
Are you worried about climate change ?
Would you consider joining a climate organization ?
What’s your impression of CCL ?
What do you think about the four policy areas ? Would you like to add some ? Remove a policy area ?
This is a Leonberger blog but sometimes I post about books that are not about Leonbergers but are books that I want to promote. This is one of those of those books. I want to promote it because it features a lot of important and often misunderstood information regarding the environment. It is based on extensive peer reviewed research and data collection, and it is not controversial among experts, but some content may be surprising to those not entirely familiar with the topic. I recently read Not the End of the World Hardcopy – by Hannah Ritchie as part of climate change book club.
Not the End of the World is a great book on environmental issues written in the optimistic but realistic Hans Rosling style of Factfulness. Environmental issues are very real, and they are very big problems, especially climate change, but we have solved very big environmental issues before (acid rain, ozone) and we are doing it now. Doomism (we are all gonna die) is an unhelpful and not very accurate perspective. This book is based on hundreds of peer reviewed research articles and statistics collected by respected science institutions. The author is a prominent environmental and data scientist.
Hardback – Publisher : Little, Brown Spark (January 9, 2024), ISBN-10 : 031653675X, ISBN-13 : 978-0316536752, 352 pages, Item Weight : 1.21 pounds, dimensions : 6.4 x 1.19 x 9.65 inches, it cost $26.03 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Paperback – Publisher : Chatto Windus (January 11, 2024), ISBN-10 : 1784745014, ISBN-13 : 978-1784745011, Item Weight : 15 ounces, dimensions : 6.02 x 0.98 x 9.21 inches, it cost $21.13 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Kindle – Publisher : Little, Brown Spark (January 9, 2024), ASIN : B0C3ZPN6NT, 311 pages. It is currently $14.99 on Amazon.com. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Audio Book – Publisher : Audible.com – Release Date: January 09, 2024, ASIN : B0C5JSZ6H9, Listening Length : 9 hours and 26 minutes. It is free on Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
Front cover of Not the End of the World: How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet Hardcover. Click here or on the picture to visit the Amazon.com page for the hardcopy version of the book.
Amazon’s description of the book
This “eye-opening and essential” book (Bill Gates) will transform how you see our biggest environmental problems—and explains how we can solve them.
It’s become common to tell kids that they’re going to die from climate change. We are constantly bombarded by doomsday headlines that tell us the soil won’t be able to support crops, fish will vanish from our oceans, and that we should reconsider having children.
But in this bold, radically hopeful book, data scientist Hannah Ritchie argues that if we zoom out, a very different picture emerges. In fact, the data shows we’ve made so much progress on these problems that we could be on track to achieve true sustainability for the first time in human history. Did you know that:
Carbon emissions per capita are actually down
Deforestation peaked back in the 1980s
The air we breathe now is vastly improved from centuries ago
And more people died from natural disasters a hundred years ago?
Packed with the latest research, practical guidance, and enlightening graphics, this book will make you rethink almost everything you’ve been told about the environment. Not the End of the World will give you the tools to understand our current crisis and make lifestyle changes that actually have an impact. Hannah cuts through the noise by outlining what works, what doesn’t, and what we urgently need to focus on so we can leave a sustainable planet for future generations.
These problems are big. But they are solvable. We are not doomed. We can build a better future for everyone. Let’s turn that opportunity into reality.
My Amazon Review of Not the End of the World. I expanded my original Amazon review a little bit and added pictures. To see my original Amazon review click here.
A Factful Approach to the Environment
The facts regarding the environment can be confusing. The fossil fuel industry, climate deniers, right-wing pundits and politicians are bombarding us with falsehoods, but poorly informed environmentalists and sensationalist media are misleading us as well. The author takes special issue with doomism, the belief that it’s too late and that we are all going to die. Both denialism and doomism, as well as efforts to minimize the problems lead to inaction. She points out that we need to accept that climate change is happening and secondly that human emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible. We could do better, but we are addressing the problem. What we need is to have the correct information and to be realistic, which will make it possible for us to take the best action.
Climate change is not likely to result in an Armageddon because we are addressing the problem. credit : Marcus Millo, Stock photo ID:1177629542
We have solved big environmental problems before
In the spirit of “Hans Rosling / Factfulness” she tells us about our successes and about our progress by using data. She shows us how things really are and how we can solve our current big problems. She explains that we are reducing malnutrition, eradicating poverty, and extending people’s life span all around the world despite a growing population. She mentions that we successfully tackled pollution in many large cities in the west, as well as the acid rain problem and the ozone layer/hole. Sulphur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain, has fallen by 95% in the US since the 1970’s largely thanks to scrubbers. By 2018 the emissions of ozone-depleting gases had fallen by 99.7%. The list goes on. When we make big environmental problems smaller, we stop talking about them.
Scan of graph on page 44 in the book Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie. Sulphur dioxide (and nitrogen dioxide) pollution causing acid rain has fallen sharply.
Greenhouse gas emissions have fallen in developed countries. It’s a start.
Climate change / global warming is a more difficult problem, but we are having some success here as well. The climate policies we have enacted so far are making a big difference. For example, greenhouse gas emissions in the US have fallen by more than 20% over the last 15 years. From 1990 to 2019 the greenhouse gas emissions fell by 21% despite the economy growing by 55% (in the 1990’s the emissions were still increasing). My native country Sweden is doing even better. Greenhouse gas emissions in Sweden has fallen by 39% over the same period despite the economy also growing by 55%.
Scan of graph on page 83 in the book Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie. Greenhouse gas emissions (mostly CO2) have started to fall in developed countries despite economic growth, and they are starting to flatten out in developing countries. The dashed curve represents the fact that if a consumer buys a product from overseas, he could be said to be responsible for the associated greenhouse gas emissions (trade adjusted).Scan of graph on page 68 in the book Not the End of the World by Hannah Ritchie. Things would be horrible if we didn’t have policies, but we do.
EV Cars Really Are Really Helping to Save us
The origins of the world’s carbon emissions are: 25% Electricity and Heat, 24% Agriculture and Forestry, Industry 16%, Transport 14%, direct from buildings 6%, and other energy 10%. In the US Transportation is 28% and Agriculture 10%. Agriculture includes the effects of deforestation.
The good news is that the price of renewables is dropping, and they are now the cheapest while EV cars have become affordable. In Norway 88% of new car sales in 2022 were electric. In Sweden, my native country, 54% of car sales in 2022 were electric. The author urges people to switch to electric vehicles – they really are more climate friendly, contrary to what many will tell you here in Texas where I live. Even if their electricity comes from a dirty grid, they are cleaner than gasoline cars due to their higher efficiency, and the higher emissions caused by the production of the battery and other components is quickly neutralized by the lower emissions. With respect to minerals, mining, and land use their impact is much smaller than that of the gasoline cars they replace. Contrary to what is often asserted here in Texas where I live, electrical cars are indeed better for the environment and especially for slowing down global warming.
She also suggests that we try to avoid driving big SUV, fly less, try to use or support renewables, eat less red meat, depending on our circumstances (absolutism and judgmentalism is counterproductive). She advocates for carbon prices as an effective means to reduce emissions. Things that don’t matter or are counterproductive are recycling, not using plastic bags when shopping, turning off your laptop when you don’t use it, buying local (often makes emissions worse), buying organic food (often greatly increases land use), etc.
She mentions that landfills in the US and Europe are very well managed and are not a big environmental problem, unlike the developing countries. 1% of the plastic in the Ocean comes from Europe and I read elsewhere that 1% comes from the United States. The plastic in the ocean originates mostly in Asia and Latin America. A fact she mentions that may not sit well with some environmentalists is that nuclear power is a safe and clean source of energy, just like renewables, but without the problem with intermittency.
Landfills in the developed world are well managed largely avoiding the problem with plastic in the ocean. The same is not true for developing nations. Photo by Catherine Sheila on Pexels.com
Death rates from natural disasters have fallen
Another interesting fact is that death rates from natural disasters have fallen since the first half of the 20th century. And not just by a little bit. They have fallen roughly 10-fold. That is even though certain types of natural disasters have become worse and more frequent. The explanation is that science, technology, and economic development has allowed us to better protect ourselves and prevent the famines often associated with natural disasters in the past. The author explains that as nations begin to develop, they pollute more and their populations grow, but as it continues this trend reverses. As desperation subsides the environment and living conditions start to matter more, and the population growth subsides as well. She explains that trying to solve climate change by reducing growth or by trying to control population growth is a bad idea.
Better warning systems, shelters, logistics, modern medicine, prevention of famine, etc., have drastically reduced deaths from natural disasters.. Photo by Ralph W. lambrecht on Pexels.com
The Sixth Extinction is off to a roaring start but is slowing
There is no doubt that we’re destroying biodiversity at record rates. It is often said that extinctions are natural, and that is true, it is part of evolutionary history. In fact, 99% of the estimated 4 billion species that have lived on Earth are now gone. However, the extinction rate matters. Over the last 5-600 million years there’s been five mass extinctions. A mass extinction event is when 75% of all species go extinct in a short period of time, set to 2 million years. During recent human history species have gone extinct at a rate that is thousands of times faster than normal, and many more species are threatened. We are heading towards the sixth extinction very fast. On the other hand, our recent conservation programs have been quite successful, and it looks like we are turning things around. The author also points out that if the panda or the rhino go extinct, we will be OK, but the same cannot be said if certain worms and bacteria go extinct. She admits that is a bit cynical to say, but we also need to consider species that really matter to our survival.
In this review I mentioned a few facts from the book to give a taste of the content. Naturally, there is a whole lot more. All these claims and stats, as well as hundreds of other sometimes surprising claims that she makes she supports by referencing reliable sources and peer reviewed research. The book contains 100+ graphs, 335 references, hundreds if not thousands of interesting facts. I can add that Hannah Ritchie (PhD) is a young Scottish data scientist, senior researcher at the University of Oxford in the Oxford Martin School, deputy editor at Our World in Data, and she is the head of research at Our World in Data. She is quite an impressive young lady. I think this book is one of the most informative books on the topic of the environment that I have ever read. I think most of us will learn something important from this book. If there is a fact from the book that I’ve mentioned in my review that you doubt, why don’t you buy the book and find out the details and where it comes from. Maybe you will see the world with new eyes.
A final note is that the statement in the title “How We Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet” comes from the fact that using UN’s definition of sustainability we humans have never been sustainable, but with science, technology and good policy we can be sustainable.
Back cover of Not the End of the World. Click here or the picture to visit the Amazon.com page for the kindle version of the book.
Leonberger Life 