US Climate Change Policy-Learning from the European Union

While debate on the merits of scientific evidence of climate change and its potential costs and effects continues to persist in the United States (US), contentions that concerns are unwarranted appear to be waning as public support for a national climate change policy strengthens. In May of 2008 a poll commissioned by the non-partisan Presidential Climate Action Project and conducted by Harris Interactive found that 66 percent of Americans believed that the next President of the US should have a policy that addresses climate change. Public support for actions on climate change, the recent change in presidential administrations to one favorable of such measures, the increasing number of local and state climate change actions, and the increasing number of climate change-related bills proposed at the federal level all demonstrate the high likelihood that the US Congress will pass and implement a comprehensive climate change policy during the next few years (although the economic recession facing the US has made such major policy less likely). The majority of the bills proposed in the last US Congressional session (13 of 15) proposed some form of a cap and trade system for reducing GHG emissions while two bills proposed a tax on emissions [1]. This follows concerns over the political unattractiveness of a carbon tax despite assertions that a tax provides a stronger market mechanism to reduce GHG emissions.

The Future of US Climate Change Policy
As it appears that the US is likely to pass some form of federal carbon regulation in the coming years and this form of regulation is most likely to come in the form of a cap and trade system it is necessary to identify and assess the issues involved in designing an effective cap and trade system. Although the US has been ardently criticized, as the world’s greatest emitter of GHGs (although China has reportedly passed the US recently in terms of annual emissions), for its inaction on this matter its status as a laggard in establishing national climate change policy presents the opportunity to analyze the effectiveness and learn from the first major international attempt to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (the most significant GHG) with a cap and trade model, the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). While the ETS has received much acclaim for its efforts to tackle climate change, criticism abounds regarding its actual effectiveness in achieving emission reductions, its ability to keep costs manageable, and its ability to ensure the economic competitiveness of those affected. It is important for the US to address such concerns prior to designing such policy as it has been estimated that such a policy could entail costs estimated at 1-2 percent of national income [1].

Structure of European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
The ETS uses a cap-and-trade model similar to that used by the US to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. Under the ETS national authorities for each EU-25 member state determine the number of allowances and distribution of allocations to each installation. The individual and collective “cap” placed on the number of allowances by each member state establishes a limit on emissions for each country and the entire regime. This cap intends to create a limited supply of allowances, allowing the market to generate a price for allowances that will lead to intended emission limits. Allowances can be traded by regulated entities with excess allowances for a given year or period to entities that fail to meet their emission limits through their own allowance allocation. Entities covered by the ETS can also use emission credits generated by emission-saving projects [2]. Therefore, market drivers for the choice of method for meeting emission goals include the cost of allowances, the cost of carbon credits, and the cost of failing to meet emission limitation or reduction requirements for a particular year.

Experience and Effectiveness of the EU ETS to Date
In order to assess the effectiveness of the ETS one must first identify its goals. Essentially, the ETS has two primary goals; to develop an effective carbon market and to abate emissions at capped amounts. Additionally, the intention of the warm-up phase (of which most current analysis is based) was to learn from both the successes and failures of the program and adapt policies to ensure future success. In this regard, it appears that Phase I has been useful for discovering program weaknesses particularly with regards to allocation changes that have been enacted for Phase II with National Action Plans (NAPs) providing fewer allowances [3]. While many critics point out the crashing of the trading price of carbon in 2007 as an indication of the failure of ETS this criticism fails to recognize that one of the primary purposes of Phase I was to determine the appropriate number of allowances to allocate. Only if member states failed to adjust allocation after such findings were made could one conclude failure.

Implications of the EU ETS for US Climate Change Policy
As the US designs its climate change policy it should draw heavily on the experiences of the ETS to avoid similar growing pains in developing effective climate policy. Lessons that can be learned from the ETS follow:

A “warm-up phase” can provide valuable insight for climate policies that deviate substantially from the EU ETS. If the US were to implement climate policies that deviate significantly from the EU ETS, particularly if a significant portion of allowances are auctioned or additional sectors such as transport are included in regulations the US should initiate a preliminary regulatory phase prior to the first commitment period. This would allow the US to exhibit a cautious initial approach and learn from its policies in a manner similar to that of the EU. If US climate policy aligns with that of the ETS such a preliminary phase may be unnecessary.

Emission abatement is heavily impacted by allocating allowances that accurately reflect emission limits. Several pressures led to the over-allocation of allowances by ETS member states [3]. By allowing member states to set their own allocation amounts and distribution, domestic pressures from industry and the public to lessen the negative impacts of climate policy has influenced allowance allocations. Although the European Commission is required to assess the NAPs of member states this has been inefficient overall in identifying allocation of allowances. A centralized approach to CO2 regulation should lead to greater ambitiousness and success in meeting emission limits [4].This demonstrates that the US should, at least initially, develop its domestic policies independent of an international climate regime and ensure integrity and transparency in its initial allocation of allowances through a delegated entity.

Accurate data on emissions is required to set an effective emissions cap and prevent over-allocation of allowances. ETS experienced high transaction costs and much delay by having a baseline emission cap set at 1990 levels because adequate data on emissions levels did not exist at that time [5]. It is widely agreed among researchers and experts that data availability limits allocation choices and partially contributed to the drop in ETS allowance prices to near zero [6]. It is essential for the US to set its baseline cap to a more recent year to avoid similar data limitations. For this reason, the baseline year of 2005 has been commonly used in proposed federal climate bills.

It is unclear if allowance pricing failures can be resolved through a partial or full auctioning of allowances. The initial failure of the ETS to price CO2 at levels sufficient to achieve emissions limits or reductions under a full allowance system suggests that some degree of auctioning could be necessary. This argument has been expressed by many ETS member states and has led to the concession in Phase II for member states to auction up to 10 percent of their allowances [5]. Some researchers have noted that downstream consumers should bear roughly the same energy costs under a cap with a 100 percent auction, 100 percent free allocation, or a tax on CO2 because the price of the allowance or tax represents the opportunity cost of emitting another unit of CO2 [1]. The primary disadvantage of auctioning is that it creates immediate substantial costs to regulated entities that could create economic turmoil. The primary advantage of auctioning is such immediate pricing signals should lead to more immediate actions to limit or reduce emissions. Additionally, free allocation can create and transfer new wealth to some participants while an auction can generate revenue that the federal government can use for purposes related to carbon reduction goals and to ensure industries or individuals are not unequally burdened by carbon regulation.

As this appears to be the most contentious issue among economists and policymakers in the US regarding a cap-and-trade carbon regulatory scheme such a decision should take a cautious approach [7]. While President Barrack Obama has shown support for a 100 percent auction system the impacts of such a system are unclear. The US should consider the initial experimentation of a partial auction system with the flexibility to adjust the number of allowances auctioned periodically.

The ETS provides clear evidence of impacts of carbon regulation on some sectors, but not all, particularly the transport sector. The ETS does not appear to have had significant negative effects on regulated industries. However, not all industries or sectors are covered. The EU’s decision not to include the transport sector in the ETS indicates the apprehension that is felt with regulating this industry. This indicates that inclusion of the transport sector US climate change policy will be similarly contentious and difficult to manage during the first stages of such policy. It is unclear what impacts CO2 regulation will have on this and other sectors not regulated by the ETS.

Transparent monitoring and verification is essential to successful carbon regulatory policy. As expected, independent verification of monitoring and compliance of regulated entities under the ETS has provided assurance that reported emissions are accurate and allows for accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the cap and trade system. The US should follow such a scheme.

A cap and trade program must cover a long enough time period to influence technology investment decisions. During the three-year preliminary phase of ETS little adoption of carbon-reducing technologies or less carbon-intensive power generation technologies was exhibited. It appears important for the US to set long term emission reduction goals to influence such investment decisions.

Linking nations in an emissions trading scheme causes inefficiencies and difficulties with emissions trading. This finding indicates that the US should develop a centralized approach to carbon regulation initially rather than linking with the EU-25 or other nations. Success has resulted from emissions reduction credit schemes when projects have been available, but this has not always been the case under the ETS. Price harmonization of carbon prices among countries provides an alternative to direct linkage by harmonizing marginal costs among countries with carbon regulatory schemes [8].

Conclusion
The EU ETS provides significant insight into the challenges faced in developing successful carbon policy. According to initial findings from the ETS it appears that ensuring optimal allocation of allowances is the primary determinant of the success of a CO2 cap and trade system in terms of effectively pricing carbon allowances and abating emissions. By adopting a centralized domestic approach, the US can overcome many of the difficulties felt by the EU’s multinational approach. By learning from the initial successes and failures of the ETS the US has the opportunity to avoid incurring high costs without achieving significant results.

References not hyperlinked above:

[1] Joseph E. Aldy and William A. Pizer, Resources For the Future, “Issues in Designing U.S. Climate Change Policy,” Discussion Paper, June 2008, RFF DP 08-20.

[2] European Union, “Combating Climate Change: The EU Leads the Way.” Europe on the Move Series, Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2008, p. 12.

[3] Frank Convery, Christian De Perthuis, and Denny Ellerman, “The European Carbon Market in Action: Lessons From the First Trading Period. Interim Report.” MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, March 2008.

[4] Jon Birger Skjaerseth and Jorgen Wettestad, EU Emissions Trading: Initiation, Decisions-Making and Implementation (Ashgate Publishing Company: 2008), p 188.

[5] A. Denny Ellerman and Barbara K. Buchner, “The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: Origins, Allocation, and Early Results.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, vol. I, no. I (Winter 2007).

[6] A. Denny Ellerman, Barbara K. Buchner, and Carlos Carraro, Allocation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme: Rights, Rents and Fairness (Cambridge University Press: 2007), pp. 339-341

[7] T.H. Tietenberg, Emissions Trading: Principles and Practices, Second Edition, (Resources for the Future Press, Washington D.C.: 2006), 127.

[8] Joseph Kruger, Wallace E. Oates, and William A. Pizer, “Decentralization in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and Lessons for Global Policy.” Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, vol. I, no. I (Winter 2007), p. 131.


Note: This blog post is a condensed summary of a research paper previously written by myself. If interested in the full paper feel free to email me at csmitty1983@yahoo.com.

Planes of the Future!

Sorry Alix, but paralleling your title was too tempting.

The aircraft industry emits just 2% of worldwide CO2 according to the IPCC, but that doesn't mean they don't want to cut back. Aircraft industry leaders from around the world are meeting right now in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss their plan of action as they strive to decrease their carbon footprint and eventually become carbon free. Representation includes the President/CEOs of both Boeing and Airbus, the Director/CEO of the International Air Transport Association, and the President/CEO of GE Aviation; definitely some powerful voices (links to some speeches here). There is even an "Aviation Industry Commitment to Action on Climate Change," endorsed by several aviation industry partners including the Austin Dept. of Aviation and Austin-Bergstrom Airport. Disappointing, however, is the lack of support by U.S. airlines.

At face value, this is very good to see. The rhetoric in the climate change declaration resembles oil executives' Congressional testimony in favor of carbon regulations, and it is good to see some level of industry responsibility for and acknowledgment of the climate problems we face.

Of course, with aircraft industry profits being slashed by high fuel prices, these companies and organizations have a strong incentive to support fuel efficiency gains and investigation into alternative fuels. Indeed, a good deal of the emphasis at the Geneva meeting seems to be on efficiency, not only in aircraft technology, but also in air traffic control and efficient management of planes that are already in use. Boeing CEO Scott Carson remarks "Even the most fuel-efficient airplane can’t achieve its highest efficiency levels if it is forced to fly indirect routes and to circle overhead waiting to land." Carson also mentions the pioneering Dreamliner aircraft, biofuels (under the loaded but carefully chosen jargon "sustainable" fuels), and the recent test flight of a hydrogen fuel cell aircraft.

In the end though, I still get the impression that it will take strong policy measures to see substantial emissions reductions even in the aircraft industry, and I don't in any way feel that the aircraft industry represents the "low-hanging fruit" when it comes to cutting carbon emissions. I applaud the gusto of the industry, but we've got bigger fish to fry (ground transportation and power generation, I'm looking at you).

thoughts on bush’s climate change goals and speech

So after seven years in the White House, President Bush has finally proposed a plan to mitigate climate change and curb our greenhouse gas emissions. See here. Unfortunately, the President’s approach and justifications leave much to be desired, and seem more like leaving the problem to future administrations, and leaving us with the impression that his Administration made a (positive) difference.

One of the most startling/puzzling/frustrating things about the speech is that it makes the U.S. out to be the leader on climate change, when in fact we are the laggard. Bush’s speech has an air to it that the rest of the world hasn’t been addressing climate change correctly, and that our way is the solution. This is pretty ridiculous considering that we have failed to regulate CO₂ emissions, join the Kyoto Protocol or any other number of actions the rest of the world has undertaken.

It should be noted that the Kyoto Protocol isn’t perfect, and I partly agree with Bush’s assessment that it does not address India and China, but waiting for over a decade to impose regulations (well, even admit that CO₂ is a problem) is irresponsible.
What’s most disappointing in the speech is the President’s view of the authority and regulations that are in place and how they should be applied to climate change. Take his stance on the Clean Air Act for example:

As we approach this challenge, we face a growing problem here at home. Some courts are taking laws written more than 30 years ago — to primarily address local and regional environmental effects — and applying them to global climate change. The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate.

It’s a shame that laws designed to protect the environment can’t be applied to a problem that affects the environment (sarcasm).

For example, under a Supreme Court decision last year, the Clean Air Act could be applied to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This would automatically trigger regulation under the Clean Air Act of greenhouse gases all across our economy — leading to what Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell last week called, “a glorious mess.”

Keep in mind that Representative Dingell is from Michigan’s 15th district, which is the heart of American auto manufacturing (Detroit, Dearborn etc…). Of course he would oppose any regulation on GHG emissions on vehicles.

It’s interesting to hear Bush talk about limiting the role of government in terms of the environment, when everything else his Administration has done has increased the role of government in our lives. Not quite the conservative platform.

But for good measure, we get a little scare tactic of the cost of the environment vs. our economy. Surely we don’t want to raise taxes or curb economic growth (which seems to be the only way we measure economic success, for some reason).

The wrong way is to raise taxes, duplicate mandates, or demand sudden and drastic emissions cuts that have no chance of being realized and every chance of hurting our economy. The right way is to set realistic goals for reducing emissions consistent with advances in technology, while increasing our energy security and ensuring our economy can continue to prosper and grow.

The idea is not to cripple the U.S. economy (we’re doing a great job at that through other practices), but to set the rules of the road so industry can adapt their businesses. No power generator wants to install emission capture equipment without knowing exactly what their competitors have to do. Government must step in and set CO₂ limits.

But to keep all of this in perspective, Bush’s plan might be a pretty realistic assessment of what the U.S. will have to do to reduce emissions. This is not necessarily a good thing, because I think it implies/reinforces the idea that the U.S. is lazy. While setting goals of capping emissions by 2025 seems far off, it might be the only practical solution, or at least the most reasonable.
David Victor, head of Stanford’s program on energy and sustainable and development spearheads this idea:

That is a pessimistic assessment, but it may be realistic. Look, for example, at the E.U. where, after getting all the credit for the unification of Germany and for the shift to gas in the U.K. (all of which lowered emissions), total E.U. emissions are now, once again, inching back up. I am sure that the Bush goal is achievable; a more aggressive goal is probably also achievable, but at higher cost. My sense is that a more aggressive goal would be worth that cost; I don’t know if the American people are yet prepared to pay for it.

Maybe it’s a case of better late than never, but it’s insulting to hear President Bush urging action on climate change when the rest of the world has been waiting on us to act. As with other real problems, this Administration is leaving this up to the next one to deal with.

CNN's Glenn Beck: Fighting for Climate Change Confusion

I came across this Glenn Beck (CNN) article last week hoping for a refreshing counterpoint to the usual portrayal of "sinister Big Oil," but what I really discovered was some of the most misleading journalism I've ever seen. After using decent logic in countering the typical media depiction of oil companies as "villains," Mr. Beck launches into a tirade about the media's equivalent criticism of the "climate change denier," of which Mr. Beck prides himself on being.

One statement: " Despite the media's one-sided view ... ,only 21 percent of Americans say "the release of greenhouse gasses is the most important factor causing global warming" according to a 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll."

I hope that I do not offend anyone here, but I honestly think that the statements of experienced climate change scientists far outweigh opinions gleaned from a public poll. A public opinion poll has no relevance in the debate over climate change science! The vast majority of scientists believe global climate change is caused by human action - I'm going to go with them on this one.

Within this article is a link to the web page for Mr. Beck's book "An Inconvenient Book," which boasts one of the more ridiculous pieces of prose I've seen in a while.

Global warming is another issue that’s ripe with lies, distortion and hidden agendas. For example, how many times have you heard that carbon dioxide is responsible for huge natural disasters that have killed millions of people? The truth is, it’s actually the other way around: as CO2 has increased, deaths from extreme weather have decreased. Bet you’ll never see that in Al Gore’s slideshow.

I won't work too hard to mention the obvious flaws in the arguments above, but I will indulge a bit. I actually haven't heard that CO2 is causing natural disasters and effectively killing missions of people. I have learned that rising temperatures caused by more atmospheric CO2 could increase the frequency of extreme and potentially disastrous weather events, but I fail to see the relationship with disaster related deaths! And the revelation that increasing CO2 has been met with less deaths from natural disasters? Could that have to do with better health care or improved emergency response systems?

This post singles out flaws in one skeptic's arguments, but it concerns me greatly that these types of arguments get published at all. This is criticism! Not evidence! Yet these articles do have an affect on public perception. Just ask Frank Luntz.

Is Energy Really an Issue in the Primaries?

Energy and environmental policy is obviously very important to those of us taking Dr. Webber's course, but while public awareness is increasing, I still feel like energy and the environment are on the backburner in these primary elections. Many other blog posts highlight the energy and environmental policies contained on candidates' websites. While this information is easily accessible for those who are interested, is it really what people are talking about when discussing the presidential primaries?

I've felt for a while that the short answer is "No," simply based on how often I notice energy related issues pop up in primary news or debates. To test this hypothesis, I went to the websites of 5 major news outlets (CBS, USA Today, Fox, MSNBC, CNN), searched news articles for "primary" and "policy," and found 5-10 recent (Feb.-Mar.) articles from each site that deal directly with the primaries (43 articles total). To get a rough estimate of how often energy and the environment is in the news relative to other major issues, I counted the frequency of the words "energy," "climate," "environment," "security (national, not social)," and "economy" in each article. I am aware that the news does not conclusively indicate the priorities of the American people, but the media has financial incentive to give the people what they want, so I figure this would make a good litmus test.

Total frequency of each word:
Energy - 11
Climate - 1
Environment - 31
Security - 19
Economy - 82

As could be expected, the economy is a clear winner; it had broad mention over many articles. Environment appears to do a good job making the news; however, all but 3 of these instances came from articles dealing with the NAFTA comments Clinton and Obama made in the Ohio debate indicating a desire to hold Canada and Mexico to stronger environmental restrictions on imports. So the primary reason for mentioning the environment was to promote fair trade and the protection of American industry rather than to focus on environmental policy. Also worth noting is that 9 of the 11 instances of "energy" were contained in just 2 articles, and the word "climate" only showed up once!

We could argue over the validity of my methodology or the quality of my analysis, but I think that this shows some good evidence that energy and the environment is, at best, a second rate issue in this primary election. At the Obama energy panel discussion last week, Dr. Kammen emphasized that in order for major changes in U.S. energy policy to occur, the public must strongly indicate within the first 100 days of the new presidency that we are voting based on energy and environmental issues and that dealing with related challenges is of the highest importance.

I think it's clear that we have work to do.

Look at these maps!

Chapter 7 of "Hot Politics" mentions "The National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts", a document published then suppressed in 2000, presumably for fear of reactions to its warnings. The portion of this document that I found most striking, and most direct to address lingering questions I have had of the predicted effects of climate change, is linked to the title of this post.

My first job out of undergrad consisted almost exclusively of using finite element analysis to model how heat, current, and stress work their way through simple shapes, and what the effects might be, given the material properties. Day in and day out I was building models and running simulations, then trying to figure out if what they told me was anywhere near the truth. Sometimes the excitement of having a model run successfully made it very hard to admit that the results were unlikely.

So when I consider what complexity might be involved in modeling the climate of the earth and predicting to any certainty its future, I am overwhelmed with questions. This document gives a mechanical engineer, and I assume a lot of other laymen, a fighting chance at understanding the scientists' predictions.

We are given an example of a simple model. It includes: ice, water, clouds, and land; evaporation, runoff, heat exchanges, and of course, solar insolation. I wonder what the boundary conditions are, what the predictive equations are, how many versions of the eventual plots were produced and how the "true" ones were selected.

Regardless of which of the models presented actually come to fruition, several possible effects make my skin crawl. We have all seen the predictions that average temperatures will rise somewhere between 1 and 6 degrees F in the next 100 years. The peaks and valleys of that average are my current preoccupation. One map shows the July heat index for most of the U.S. increasing by more than 25 degrees F. Remember that mostly 100 degree summer in 2006? But then there is the matter of summer soil moisture, which considers Austin may become a veritable swamp. It looks like a lot of the quantities and types of trees will change, mostly increasing, but Florida will lose those beautiful pine forests, and the Rocky Mountains will sacrifice its glorious Alpine meadows.

Can We Staff a Cleaner Energy Industry?

This article brings up a side of the climate change mitigation effort that doesn't get a whole lot of attention. If we want to make all of these changes to how we create and use energy, who is going to do the work? For some efforts, changes to the labor force may be simple, such as farmers switching to fuel crops or grid operators learning to better handle intermittent power supply from renewable energy sources. For others, entire new industries need to be created, recreated, or grown at astronomical rates.

According to the linked article, we are building wind turbines faster than we can train technicians with the knowledge of weather and wind power and the grit to climb and service the 200ft towers in day, night, rain, sleet, and snow. Some of these issues may be unique to the wind power industry, but it is not the only technology that could suffer such a shortage. I have also heard Dr. Bryant, PGE Professor at UT and head of that department's CO2 Storage research group, speak strongly for the dire need to educate and train an entirely new breed of engineer if CO2 storage is to be feasible at a large scale. This issue is entirely separate of any concerns with the technology itself. I read an article in Manufacturing & Technology News a while back that stressed that even if public perception and policy barriers to new nuclear power were removed today, the U.S. no longer has the level of expertise or the manufacturing capability to drive a rapid resurgence in that industry.

However the world decides to approach climate change mitigation over the course of this century, it will involve a major restructuring of our material infrastructure as well as of our labor force. A breakthrough technology can be created by one team in a lab, but it takes an army to commercialize it. Lack of a properly trained workforce can be as big a hurdle as any in commercializing new technology, so it will be interesting to see if labor shortages prove to rival other technological and political barriers to energy technologies that seek to mitigate climate change.

Emerging "Clean" Energy Leader: Abu Dhabi?

I found this BBC article very interesting. Oil rich Abu Dhabi just announced that it's going to spend $15 billion over the next 5 years to build a "clean energy" (how do they define clean?) city for 50,000 people that uses a variety of cleaner (since nothing can be declared clean) energy technologies along with the world's first power plant that reforms hydrogen from natural gas and captures the resulting CO2 for storage or enhanced oil recovery. For a little perspective, the entire U.S. Dept. of Energy budget is about $23b, and it's only $13.5b if you subtract money specified for national defense.

Now there is no time line specified in the article, and I am certainly skeptical of the feasibility of the project, but hey, if anyone is going to spend $15 billion, I'd hope that they're serious about what they're getting for it (though I guess if you look at the US budget...). I also find it funny that the article quotes the Abu Dhabi goverment as declaring the initiative "the most ambitious sustainability project ever launched by a government." So you may not be emitting CO2 at your hydrogen plant, but you are using natural gas to make it... doesn't sound so sustainable (or efficient) to me.

But personally, I think that we're going to have to live with unsustainable energy sources for quite some time, so lets work on cutting their emissions before all the ice melts. It's going to take lots of big investments like these all over the world to prove the technologies that can help us mitigate climate change, and I applaud any individual, company, or government that takes such a bold step.

Climate talk cancelled in Montana high school

Interesting article in the NYTimes today about how a talk on changes to the earth's climate due to the warming of the Earth was cancelled at a high school. See here. The speaker was Steven W. Running, lead author of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change given to the U.N. last year. This is same U.N. group that shares the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

Opposition to the talk at a school in rural Montana arose because another side of the global warming argument was not going to be given. Too bad Steven Running is a scientist and not a political figure with an agenda. Unfortunately for the students and town members an informative talk on a critical issue was not given. Moreover, they missed out on a chance to have a Nobel laureate to speak to the students.

You can also look at this in terms of education in our country and how we are falling behind in the sciences and mathematics. One of the greatest strengths of our country is having innovation and technology that can lead us into the future, giving us an edge over the rest of the world. Its disturbing that a Nobel laureate can be turned down from talking to a group of potential leaders of our nation. It may seem like a stretch, or an isolated incident, but it is indicative of a larger problem.

We should care about China's emissions

It was reported today in the Wall Street Journal that Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate. The U.S. needs to engage China on emissions related to air quality and climate because there are no borders in the atmosphere between our countries. Their pollution arrives in the U.S. with only a few days' delay.

An outpouring of dust layered with man-made sulfates, smog, industrial fumes, carbon grit and nitrates is crossing the Pacific Ocean on prevailing winds from booming Asian economies in plumes so vast they alter the climate. These rivers of polluted air can be wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon.

We care about this river of fumes because they land in L.A. and San Francisco.

On some days, almost a third of the air over Los Angeles and San Francisco can be traced directly to Asia. With it comes up to three-quarters of the black carbon particulate pollution that reaches the West Coast, Dr. Ramanathan and his colleagues recently reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

As long as we continue to ignore climate change, it gives China a free pass to ignore their emissions, for which we pay the price.