[MCN] Scientific American Feb 24, 2020 Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Must End

[Lance Olsen]

Scientific American   Feb 24, 2020

Fossil-Fuel Subsidies Must End
Despite claims to the contrary, eliminating them would have a significant effect in addressing the climate crisis
By Geoffrey Supran <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/geoffrey-supran/>, Peter Erickson <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/peter-erickson/>, Doug Koplow <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/doug-koplow/>, Michael Lazarus <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/michael-lazarus/>, Peter Newell <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/peter-newell/>, Naomi Oreskes <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/naomi-oreskes/>, Harro van Asselt <https://www.scientificamerican.com/author/harro-van-asselt/> 
<<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsidies-must-end/ <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsidies-must-end/>>>

1st 3 paragraphs

When it comes to tackling the climate crisis, ending $400 billion <https://www.iea.org/commentaries/fossil-fuel-consumption-subsidies-bounced-back-strongly-in-2018> of annual subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry worldwide seems like a no-brainer. For the past decade, world leaders have been resolving and reaffirming the need to phase them out. All of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have committed <https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/fossil-fuel-subsidies/> to eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies, and the vast majority <https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/do-americans-support-or-oppose-subsidies-for-fossil-fuels/> of the American public supports doing so. International financial institutions such as the World Bank <https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2017/11/21/reforming-fossil-fuel-subsidies-for-a-cleaner-future> and International Monetary Fund <https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/Environment/energy-subsidies> have joined the chorus, pointing to the benefits of reform.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsidies-must-end/ <https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/fossil-fuel-subsidies-must-end/>
In 2018, however, a group of researchers questioned the magnitude of the climate benefits of subsidy reform, reporting <https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25467> that their simulations showed its effect would be “limited” and “small.” Stories in the press <https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/maybe-cutting-fossil-fuel-subsidies-wouldnt-do-much-good/552668/> began asking <https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-study-questions-impact-ending-fossil-fuel-subsidies> whether such subsidies are such a big deal after all.

We think this is wrong. In a new paper in the journal Nature, we make the case <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__perma.cc_KTF4-2D239S&d=DwMFaQ&c=vh6FgFnduejNhPPD0fl_yRaSfZy8CWbWnIf4XJhSqx8&r=1fzmffI58KtZ2pDBBDolw6rafQBw7LqTj9gz0pSFkEU&m=ennqQS2uEEmnVr2RWVh1sfy2PzQVusSiHnX3C0RXV9I&s=Czkrc-lWjaGN0U-ubS1vjBNn_h1W18lyGmCgPx2cwZs&e=> that they do matter—a lot. In the 2018 study, emissions reductions from subsidy removal were calculated by the researchers to be five hundred million to two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030. This figure is by no means “small.” It amounts to roughly one quarter of the energy-related emission reductions pledged by all of the countries participating in the Paris Agreement (four to eight billion tons). Hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 reductions is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when it can be achieved by a single policy approach that also brings strong fiscal, environmental and health benefits.


***********************
#2. HOTTER HEAT AS A DONE DEAL, FELT AFTER A DELAY

Environmental Research Letters Published 2 December 2014
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002/pdf <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002/pdf>

Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
Katharine L Ricke and Ken Caldeira

50,622 Total downloads
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002/pdf <https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002/pdf>
Abstract

It is known that carbon dioxide emissions cause the Earth to warm, but no previous study has focused on examining how long it takes to reach maximum warming following a particular CO2 emission. Using conjoined results of carbon-cycle and physical-climate model intercomparison projects (Taylor et al 2012, Joos et al 2013), we find the median time between an emission and maximum warming is 10.1 years, with a 90% probability range of 6.6–30.7 years. We evaluate uncertainties in timing and amount of warming, partitioning them into three contributing factors: carbon cycle, climate sensitivity and ocean thermal inertia. If uncertainty in any one factor is reduced to zero without reducing uncertainty in the other factors, the majority of overall uncertainty remains. Thus, narrowing uncertainty in century-scale warming depends on narrowing uncertainty in all contributing factors. Our results indicate that benefit from avoided climate damage from avoided CO2 emissions will be manifested within the lifetimes of people who acted to avoid that emission. While such avoidance could be expected to benefit future generations, there is potential for emissions avoidance to provide substantial benefit to current generations.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bigskynet.org/pipermail/missoula-community-news_bigskynet.org/attachments/20200224/a7c34d90/attachment.html>