[Robert Stavins' blog] I have been writing essays at this blog for over seven years, and throughout that time, through perhaps 100 more-or-less-monthly essays, I have tried very hard to keep politics at bay, and to view each and every issue I discussed from a politically neutral, yet analytical economic perspective. But I find it difficult to remain neutral in the current U.S. Presidential election cycle. Read more about This is Not a Time for Political Neutrality
[NPR ]...STAVINS: Well, actually if I had to choose one word to describe the Paris agreement, it would be the one you just used, Steve. I would say it's “pragmatic”. It's not the type of aspirational agreement that the Kyoto protocol was. It is pragmatic. It is based upon what's politically feasible in each of the countries.
[The Hill ]...Most officials expected the climate deal, negotiated in December in Paris, to take effect no earlier than next year. A similar international climate accord, the Kyoto Protocol, wasn’t ratified for five years.
But the specter of a Trump presidency appears to have spurred the deal along.
[The Washington Diplomat ]...A study by Joseph Aldy, a Harvard University associate professor and former White House energy policy advisor, found the elimination of subsidies would have a negligible impact on U.S. oil and gas production, which is more closely linked to technological advances and the price of oil. Since 2014, U.S. oil and gas companies have eliminated more than 100,000 jobs as the price of oil plummeted, even though they were still receiving subsidies.
[Vox ]...Co-founders Trisha Shrum and Jill Kubit are asking people to create messages, photos, and videos to be opened in the years 2030 and 2050. The idea came about after Shrum heard a speech by Christiana Figueres, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Figueres said she had a dream where children look at her and ask, "You knew about climate change. What did you do?"
[Bloomberg View ] Cass Sunstein: A federal court this week upheld the approach that the government uses to calculate the social cost of carbon when it issues regulations -- and not just the cost imposed on Americans, but on people worldwide. It’s technical stuff, but also one of the most important climate change rulings ever.