Environmental Economics

We need a better word than 'anomaly' to describe rising temperatures: WTF?

At times scientists can be their own worst enemy.  In an attempt to be accurate, scientists sometimes forget the most basic rule of communicating: know your audience.  In the case of explaining climate change, and in particular, explaining rising global temperatures, scientists have chosen to use the phrase 'global average surface temperature anomaly.'

Here's an exchange between 'FiveThirtyEight.com science editor Blythe Terrell and Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at the Earth Institute at Columbia University and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.'

blythe: So 2016 was officially the hottest year on record on Earth. Gavin, can you tell us what that means?

gavin: We have a dense enough network of weather stations and ocean records since about the mid-19th century to be able to estimate the global average surface temperature anomaly, and 2016 is the warmest we’ve seen in that entire period.

That comes on top of records in 2015, and before that, 2014.

Scientists who already know what a 'global average surface temperature anomaly' is will nod in agreement at Schmidt's explanation.  But, the general readership of FiveThirtyEight will do one of two things: 1) Wonder what the hell a 'global average surface temperature anomaly' is, or 2) Stop reading because scientists use fancy language to try to cover up a bunch of magic and handwaving leading to the inevitable conclusion that scientists are making shit up to fool 'the deplorables.'  

Fortunately, FiveThirtyEight knows their audience so they ask: 

blythe: And when we say “global average surface temperature anomaly,” what do we mean?

gavin: Good question. What we do is we take each of the weather stations and other records and calculate the difference from what you expect at each month and year — that’s the anomaly. It turns out that the anomalies from one station to another are highly correlated — much more so than the absolute temperature. There’s a good explainer of this at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies “Surface Temperature Analysis” website.

Which raises my main point: why call it an anomaly?  Scientists know that when they use the word 'anomaly' they are referring to 'the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.' (definition 6 on Dictionary.com). But, I have a hunch that most people, when they think of an anomaly, think of definition 1, 2 or 3: something, odd, or peculiar, a one-off event that can be thrown away, an outlier,...  

So if the goal is to try to communicate the science behind and reality of the global temperature trend, calling it an anomaly seems counterproductive: we don't expect anomalies to happen year after year.  

I propose that we call it the 'Worldwide Temperature Figure,' and abbreviate it WTF.  

Then we can write headlines like "NOAA says WTF Temperature Readings are at an All Time High."      

Env-Econ: Real or Fake News?

Apparently when it comes to Alternative Energy Blogs, we are the 9th ranked blog in the 'News' category.  

Graphic of the Day (er, millenium?): Those Liars at NOAA are at it Again*

Source: The Fake News Experts at the Washington Post*

*Facetiousness alert

Chinese hoax? Fake news?

This is on the front page of today's NY Times:

Global temperatures have continued to rise, making 2016 the hottest year on the historical record and the third consecutive record-breaking year, scientists say. Of the 17 hottest years ever recorded, 16 have now occurred since 2000.

We're dreamers around here so I point you to the "the merits of an economy-wide carbon tax."

 

"The Paris Agreement under Trump and the Merits of an Economy-Wide Carbon Tax"

Marc Hafstead and Yunguang Chen:

The election of Donald Trump has cast significant uncertainty over the future of the Paris Agreement to combat global climate change, as the president-elect actively campaigned to pull the United States from the international accord. Under this agreement, which officially went into force in November 2016, the United States (under President Obama’s leadership) pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26–28 percent relative to 2005 levels by 2025. Despite his assertion that climate change is a “hoax” created by China, however, Trump has moderated his hardline approach since the election by stating that he would keep an open mind on the agreement.

Should the president-elect choose to pursue policies to meet the US pledge, as urged by over 600 US companies, what options exist to reduce greenhouse gas emissions below projected business-as-usual levels? A regulatory approach through the Clean Air Act is likely out of the question, given Trump’s nomination of Scott Pruitt (a vocal critic of the Clean Power Plan) to lead the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Still, if we assume that EPA’s Clean Power Plan is upheld in the court system or not dismantled by the incoming Trump administration, US emissions in 2025 are projected to be only 14 percent below 2005 levels under current law. Even with additional regulatory measures that have been proposed by the Obama administration ... US emissions levels in 2025 are projected to be only 19 percent below 2005 levels, still well short of the 26–28 percent target.

Yet Trump’s nomination of Rex Tillerson for secretary of state suggests a possible alternative policy approach—a revenue-neutral, economy-wide carbon tax.  As CEO of ExxonMobil, Tillerson has publicly backed the idea since 2009. Using the Goulder-Hafstead E3 model, we investigated how such a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from combustion (representing about 75 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions) could be designed to meet the US target at a relatively minimal cost. ...

Read the rest at Common Resources. 

"Why did Beall's List of potential predatory publishers go dark?"

I've used this list a number of times on this blog (most recently here with, I must say, a nice comment on the economics of the industry):

Jeffrey Beall, the University of Colorado, Denver, librarian who has since 2008 chronicled “potential, possible, or probable” predatory publishers, has — at least for now — pulled the plug on his influential, and at times controversial, site.

The decision to take down the site — and Beall’s faculty page at the Auraria Library, where he remains a tenured associate professor — was his own, the University of Colorado Denver tells Retraction Watch.

The site, scholarlyoa.com, which just earlier this month included a list of more than 1,000 such publishers, now contains no information. The sudden change was noted Sunday on Twitter, where questions about the move — cataloged, along with some answers, by Emil Karlsson — swirled for two days. Beall’s faculty page was also taken down.

Some of the speculation surrounded Cabell’s, a publishing services company that had earlier announced it would house a publisher blacklist beginning sometime this year. Cabell’s, however, said it was not involved in the closure, and that it supported Beall. Cabell’s tweets also hinted at legal threats, which Beall has faced in the past.

via retractionwatch.com

Emil Karlsson reports:

BREAKING: Retraction Watch has received a statement by the university indicating that Beall “has decided to no longer maintain or publish his research or blog on open access journals and ‘predatory publishers’.” The statement notes that “Professor Beall remains on the faculty at the university and will be pursuing new areas of research”. Now the only information that we need is additional details about why Beall decided to call it quits. Did he reach his breaking point or where lawsuit threats (or similar) involved? (note added 20170118 01:14 UTC+1).

BREAKING: ScienceInsider reports that the university has stated that the disappearance of the list is not related to legal threats. Now we know the “how” and the “what”, but not the “why” (note added 20170118 01:47 UTC+1).

It is a shame that we have lost this public good. Predatory journals are a problem in academic publishing. I've sent two papers to journals on Beall's list over the past several years. I submitted old, unpublished papers with a made up name and email address. Both papers were accepted for publication in a couple of days with either no or very minor revision. The journals then began asking for money and I closed the email accounts. 

Emil Karlsson posts links to the list:

Thankfully, there are cached copies of his key lists available:

Publishers: Archive.is | Archive.org
Standalone journals: Archive.is | Archive.org
Hijacked journals: Archive.is | Archive.org
Metric companies: Archive.is | Archive.org

Here is the January 13 link on the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20170113114519/https://scholarlyoa.com/2016/01/05/bealls-list-of-predatory-publishers-2016/.

Gas prices were $4/gallon in 2013

To appreciate challenge of decarbonizing transport, see: 16 yrs since intro, hybrids are just 2% US auto sales - and falling from 2013 peak. pic.twitter.com/aFAYIEnbtO

— Teryn Norris (@TerynNorris) January 13, 2017

"Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide"

Here is a good summary of the NAS report from the Washington Post:

How we view the costs of future climate change, and more importantly how we quantify them, may soon be changing. A much-anticipated new report, just released by the National Academy of Sciences, recommends major updates to a federal metric known as the “social cost of carbon” — and its suggestions could help address a growing scientific concern that we’re underestimating the damages global warming will cause.

The social cost of carbon is an Obama-era metric first addressed by a federal working group in 2009. The basic premise is simple: Scientists agree that climate change will have all kinds of impacts on human societies, including natural disasters and effects on human health, productivity and agricultural output, all of which have economic consequences.

The social cost of carbon, then, refers to the monetary cost of emitting a single ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, given that these emissions will further contribute to global warming. The value has been used to aid in cost-benefit analyses for a variety of federal environmental rules. Currently, it’s set at about $36 per ton of carbon dioxide.

But the new NAS report, requested by the federal Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, suggests the methodology used to arrive at this value is in need of updating, both to make it more transparent and more scientifically sound. ...

The method developed by the original federal working group relies on a set of three models which translate current carbon emissions into future temperature increases, factor in the damages that may be caused by the resulting climatic changes in the future and then translate these damages into dollars. The method also applies a discount rate to account for the fact that these damages will occur in the future, rather than right away — the discount rate can be thought of as a kind of interest rate addressing how much the future generation is willing to pay now to avoid climate consequences in the future.

The new report recommends a new framework that unbundles the various steps of the calculation process and addresses them in separate modules, all of which feed into and inform each other. The report suggests that, over the next two-to-three years, these modules be shaped to rely on the most relevant and up-to-date science in each area — and it also suggests that estimates of the social cost of carbon be updated every five years.

These recommendations address a growing concern in the scientific community that our increasing scientific understanding of the consequences of climate change isn’t adequately represented in the current methodology. In fact, climate scientists and economists alike have begun to argue that the current models may actually be underestimating the social cost of carbon. ...

There are several major ways the new report’s recommendations could cause this to happen, said Richard Revesz, a law professor and dean emeritus of the New York University School of Law, who also served as a reviewer on the new report. For one thing, accounting for certain climate damages that were omitted in the older models could drive the value up, he said.

A second factor involves the report’s approach to the use of discounting. When calculating the social cost of carbon, applying a higher discount rate causes the cost to decrease, and vice versa. Critics who favor a lower social cost of carbon have sometimes argued that the current discount rate used by the federal government — 3 percent, in most cases — is too low. ...

Revesz added that the current estimate of the social cost of carbon is a global estimate — that is, it applies to the entire world, not just the United States. Some critics have argued for a U.S.-specific estimate in the future, which would be a smaller value than the global estimate. This argument is also addressed in the new report, which recognizes the many uncertainties and difficulties that would be associated with making such an estimate.

The article also addresses the political implications. My translation of this part is that the benefits of addressing climate change will soon be considered zero as with other government regulations. 

You can get the page proofs for free here: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24651/valuing-climate-changes-updating-estimation-of-the-social-cost-of. 

Economists [not] in the new administration

Justin Wolfers (Why most economists are so worried about Trump):

If the November election was intended as a rejection of elites, of expertise and of the sort of technocratic advice that economists often give, it’s a punch that has landed.

In somber analyses, huddled hallway conversations and pointed asides during endless panel sessions at the annual conference of economists last weekend in Chicago, the major theme was a sense of anxiety about the incoming Trump administration. This foreboding was evident in roughly equal measure among conservative and liberal economists. But it is in direct contrast with the feelings of small-business owners and Wall Street traders.

Most of my fellow economists remain convinced that university-trained economists can offer useful insight to the new administration. Few believe it will matter. The life force that animates the econ tribe — that what they’re doing matters — has been drained away.

Few see useful channels for influence. Partly this reflects President-elect Donald J. Trump’s legislative plans. On issues like restricting trade, directly intervening to assist specific industries or corporations, targeting tax cuts to the wealthy, his agenda stands as a rejection of the advice that mainstream economist have typically offered.

And partly this reflects Mr. Trump’s appointments. Few of his key economic advisers have any economics training, and the only official who identifies as an economist — Peter Navarro, who earned a Harvard Ph.D. in economics and will head up the newly formed National Trade Council — stands so far outside the mainstream that he endorses few of the key tenets of the profession.

Concern about the role of economic advice translated into concern about the economy. Over three days of intense discussions, I didn’t encounter a single economist who expressed optimism that Mr. Trump’s administration would be good for the economy. The optimists were those who thought Mr. Trump would not have the energy to actually implement his agenda; the pessimists’ thoughts veered toward disaster. ...

Count me among the pessimists and as one of those "economists [who] remain convinced that university-trained economists can offer useful insight to the new administration."

"VW agrees to $4.3B settlement in emissions scandal"

This is a lot of money:

Volkswagen has agreed to a $4.3 billion draft settlement to end a legal fight with federal regulators over its diesel emissions scandal. 

The company said it would pay the fine and also plead guilty to criminal misconduct as part of a criminal and civil settlement with regulators, Reuters reports. VW's board is meeting this week to approve the settlement deal.

According to the report, VW will now commit to spending more than the $19.2 billion it had previously earmarked to deal with legal issues arising from the scandal.

In 2015, federal officials revealed that Volkswagen was deliberately skirting emissions testing for some of its diesel vehicles. Regulators said VW had equipped up to 11 million vehicles with “defeat devices,” or software allowing the cars to emit more toxic chemicals than is allowed under federal law. 

The company has settled a handful of complaints against it related to the scandal, including a $14.7 billion deal covering owners of 2-liter diesel vehicles and environmental violations and a $1.2 billion deal with U.S. franchise dealers. The company is also planning to buy back 3-liter diesel vehicles that include the defeat device software. 

via thehill.com

Hopefully, this will increase the perceived probability of getting caught doing something illegal and reduce the criminal behavior. Of course, we can't hold everything else constant between then and now.