Don't just do something, stand there! Reflections on the counterintuitive behavior of complex systems, seen through the eyes of System Dynamics, Systems Thinking and simulation.
I’m too busy to write much, but here are some quick updates.
C-ROADS is in the news, via Jeff Tolleffson at Nature News.
Our State of the Global Deal conclusion, that current proposals are not on track, now has more reinforcement:
Check out Drew Jones on TEDx.
From the CSM on the Gates arrest:
“The rule is, if a police officer stops you in a car or on the street, he’s the captain of the ship, and whatever he says goes,” says Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police’s legislative division. “If you’ve got something to address, do it later. Do what he says, or else only bad things can happen.”
I think I see where this guy’s coming from, but it really sounds bad. If an officer asks me to stop doing something constitutionally protected (say, taking pictures), I can’t argue the case on the spot? I either give up my rights or go downtown?
While the Case-Shiller index is down and the conventional wisdom suggests that housing prices will continue to fall, the RPX composite is up for the first time since 2007. The year-on-year ratio hit bottom in Feb 09. The RPX has a lot less lag than the CSI, but also a seasonal signal, so this could merely mean that seasonally adjusted prices are just falling more slowly, but it would be nice if it reflected green shoots. I’m not holding my breath though.
This just in from CNAS:
ABC News will air Earth 2100, the prime time documentary for which they filmed the war game, on June 2, 2009, at 9:00 p.m. (EST). You can view a promotional short report on the documentary from ABC News online, and hopefully you will all be able to view it on television or via Internet.
In conjunction with the airing of the documentary, CNAS has made the participant briefing book and materials from the game available online. We encourage other institutions to use and cite these materials to learn about the game and to stage their own scenario exercises. I also hope that they will be useful to you for your own future reference.
Finally, we are posting a short working paper of major findings from the game. While the game did not result in the kind of breakthrough agreements we all would have liked to see, this exercise achieved CNAS’s goals of exploring and highlighting the potential difficulties and opportunities of international cooperation on climate change. I know that everyone took away different observations from the game, however, and I hope that you will share your memories and your own key findings of the event with us, and allow us to post them online as a new section of the report.
Visit the Climate Change War Game webpage to view the CNAS report on major findings and background on developing the 2015 world, the participant briefing book, and materials generated from the game.
… is Marty Feldstein’s lame arguments against it.
There is one nugget of wisdom in Feldstein’s piece: it’s a travesty to overcompensate carbon-intensive firms, and foolish to use allowance allocation to utilities to defeat the retail price signal. I haven’t read the details of the bill yet, so I don’t know how extensive those provisions really are, but it’s definitely something to watch.
Well, OK, lots of things are worse than cap & trade. More importantly, one thing (an upstream carbon tax) could be a lot better than Waxman Markey. But it’s sad when a Harvard economist sounds like an astroturf skeptic.
Hat tip to Economist’s View.
Drew Jones of SI just ran a climate policy exercise in Croatia from his desk in NC. Sure, it takes some carbon to keep the servers humming, but a lot less than for a transatlantic flight. Aviation is often regarded as essential to a connected world … but what if it’s not?
My take: It’s a noble effort, but flawed. The best thing about it is the broad, upstream coverage of >85% of emissions. However, there are too many extraneous pieces operating alongside the cap. Those create possible inefficiencies, where the price of carbon is nonuniform across the economy, and create a huge design task and administrative burden for EPA. It would be better to get a carbon price in place, then fiddle with RPS, LCFS, and other standards and programs as needed later. The deep cuts in emissions reflect what it takes to change the climate trajectory, but I’m concerned that the trajectory is too rigid to cope with uncertainty, even with the compliance period, banking, borrowing, and strategic reserve provisions. So-called environmental certainty isn’t helpful if it causes price volatility that leads to the undoing of the program. As always, I’d rather see a carbon tax, but I think we could work with this framework if we have to. Allowance allocation is, of course, the big wrestling match to come.
The WSJ has a quick look
Joe Romm gives it a B+
GreenPeace says it’s a good first step
USCAP likes it (they should, a lot of it is their ideas):
USCAP hails the discussion draft released by Chairmen Waxman and Markey as a strong starting point for enacting legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The discussion draft provides a solid foundation to create a climate strategy that both protects our economy and achieves the nation’s environmental goals. It recognizes that many of these issues are tightly linked and must be dealt with simultaneously. We appreciate the thoughtful approach reflected in the draft and the priority the Chairmen are placing on this important issue.
The draft addresses most of the core issues identified by USCAP in our Blueprint for Legislative Action and reflects many of our policy recommendations. Any climate program must promote private sector investment in vital low-carbon technologies that will create new jobs and provide a foundation for economic recovery. Legislation must also protect consumers, vulnerable communities and businesses while ensuring economic sustainability and environmental effectiveness.
The API hasn’t reacted, but the IPAA has coverage on its blog
CEI hates it.
Rush Limbaugh says it’ll finish us off,
RUSH: Henry Waxman’s just about finished his global warming energy bill, 648 pages, as the Democrats prepare to finish off what’s left of the United States. Folks, we have got to drive these people out of office. We have to start now. The Republicans in Congress need to start throwing every possible tactic in front of everything the Democrats are trying to do. This is getting absurd. Listen to this. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey are putting the finishing touches on a 648-page global warming and energy bill that will certainly finish this country off. They’re circulating the bill today. The text of the bill ought to be up soon at a website called globalwarming.org. The bill contains everything you’d expect from an Algore wish list. Reading this, I don’t know how this will not raise energy prices to crippling levels and finish off the auto industry as we know it. (More here)
Time points out that the Senate could be a dealbreaker:
The effects of the already-intense lobbying around the issue were being felt across the Capitol, where the Senate the same afternoon passed by an overwhelming margin an amendment resolving that any energy legislation should not increase electricity or gas prices.
That’ll make it tough to get 60 votes.
AP has the story. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce has the draft. From the summary:
The legislation has four titles: (1) a ‘clean energy’ title that promotes renewable sources of energy and carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low-carbon transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission; (2) an ‘energy efficiency’ title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry; (3) a ‘global warming’ title that places limits on the emissions of heat-trapping pollutants; and (4) a ‘transitioning’ title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.
One key issue that the discussion draft does not address is how to allocate the tradable emission allowances that restrict the amount of global warming pollution emitted by electric utilities, oil companies, and other sources. This issue will be addressed through discussions among Committee members.
A few quick observations, drawing on the committee summary (the full text is 648 pages and I don’t have the appetite): Continue reading “Draft Climate Bill Out”
I don’t often get to read about my adopted hometown in the national papers; it’s usually pretty obscure. When FAA analysts look for a small-time airport to poke fun at, we’re first on the list. However, today the NYT has covered the gas explosion that destroyed half a block of downtown, including some wonderful historic brick buildings. The blast was so powerful that we heard it from our house, 6 miles away with an intervening ridge. Sadly there’s no recovery for one person, but I hope the rest of downtown bounces back quickly.
