Leading Academic Economist Offers Optimism about Climate Change Policy

Over the past three years, I’ve had the pleasure of engaging in podcast conversations with some truly outstanding scholars who have carried out important research in the realm of environment, energy, and resource economics, and recently was no exception, when my guest was Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago.  You can listen to our conversation in the latest episode of my podcast, “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.”  Our full conversation is here.

In our conversation, Michael Greenstone talks about his graduate work in economics at Princeton, the path that took him to faculty positions at the University of Chicago, MIT, and then back to Chicago, as well as his time in government during the Obama administration at the Council of Economic Advisers.  In the process, Michael identifies both some high points and low points of his time in government, as well as some of the changes he has seen over the past twenty years in environmental economics scholarship.

When Michael reflects on his time serving as chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers, he describes his work on regulatory policy, in particular trying to find a way to estimate in economic terms the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions.

“So, I had this idea, why shouldn’t the government have a coherent and uniform social cost of carbon? And I suggested it to [then Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs] Cass Sunstein at lunch one day, and we decided to set off on this journey to set a social cost of carbon for the U.S. government,” he remarks. “And we co-ran an inter-agency process and one thing led to another, and there was a U.S. government social cost of carbon at the end.”

Related to this, in recent years Michael helped launch and now co-leads the Climate Impact Lab at the University of Chicago, which is building a comprehensive body of research quantifying the impacts of climate change.

Interestingly, when I ask him to comment on the explosion of youth climate activism in recent years, although Michael voices some disappointment with young activists who have tried to turn climate change into a moral issue rather than an environmental, technological, and economic one, he notes that the energy and passion that young people have brought to the climate debate has been very effective in making others pay attention to it.

“These youth movements have been incredibly successful, in my view, in raising political consciousness in ways … that cold blooded cost benefit analysis somehow [doesn’t] seem to hit the mark. And I give them a lot of credit for that,” he says. “A second reaction is, I do not think that the right way to confront climate change is by treating it as a moral issue, or as an issue that is beyond economics. I think it’s a really interesting economic question that has all kinds of subtleties, but I do not think that the tools of cost benefit analysis and or economic analysis are inappropriate for climate change.”

Having worked extensively and intensively on climate change in both the scholarly and policy worlds, he voices considerable optimism about where we are now, and what the future is likely to bring.  He points to two trends he feels are most critical for building momentum in climate change policy debates. The first, he says, is that opportunities to leverage technology to reduce CO2 emissions are becoming more realistic as the costs of alternative energy sources continue to fall compared with the costs of fossil fuel sources of energy. The second, he says, is that people are beginning to experience in real time the impacts of climate change.

“I do think a real game changer has been that we can see the fingerprints of climate change now, in ways that we couldn’t 10 or 15 years ago,” he says. “I think the two things that we can see – the fingerprints and that it’s not as economically challenging a bar to jump over – have come together in a reinforcing way, and helped with the youth activism [by underscoring the fact that] we don’t have only infeasible responses.”

For this and much more, I hope you will listen to this 40th episode of the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Thinking About and Measuring Another Greenhouse Gas – Methane

            In my podcast series of “conversations on policy and practice,” whenever we have talked about global climate change, the focus has been on one very important greenhouse gas – carbon dioxide (CO2), linked primarily with the combustion of fossil fuels.  And nearly all of my guests have been economists, political scientists, legal scholars, policy makers, or industry leaders.  Only one guest has come from the academic world of the natural sciences, and that was early in 2020, when David Keith was with me.  In my most recent podcast, I finally break the mold, by hosting Daniel Jacob, the Vasco McCoy Family Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Environmental Engineering at Harvard, a world leader in the development of powerful inverse methods to infer from satellite observations of atmospheric concentrations reliable estimates of emissions of another very important greenhouse gas – methane. 

My conversation with Professor Jacob is featured in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. Our complete conversation is here.

In the podcast, Daniel Jacob explains how we should think about the relative importance of methane, compared with carbon dioxide (CO2), in regard to impacts on climate change.  He also provides insight about:  why there is great uncertainty regarding methane emissions; how technologies for detecting atmospheric concentrations of methane with satellites have been improving; and – importantly – how he and his research team use such satellite observations to infer spatially and temporally differentiated estimates of ground-based methane emissions.

Daniel explains that methane comes from a variety of sources: “There’s a natural source from wetlands. That’s about one third of the total source of methane right now. Two thirds are sources from human activity, and those sources include livestock, and in particular cattle, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, coal mines, oil and gas operations, and rice paddies.”

He goes on to explain that as a greenhouse gas, methane has impacts on climate similar to CO2, but there are very significant differences between the two.  First, methane is a vastly more potent greenhouse gas.  Its global warming potential is about 30 times that of CO2 over a 100-year period, and measured over a 20-year period that ratio grows to about 80 times the effect of a unit of CO2. The reason for the difference when measuring impacts over varying time scales is the significant difference in the atmospheric residence times of the two gases.

“Methane has a 10-year lifetime in the atmosphere because it gets oxidized.  CO2 is more complicated, but you can think of it as having about a 200-year lifetime,” Jacob explains. “What that means is that methane is responsible more for near term climate change, but also it means that acting on methane can give us a short-term response to climate. So, if we are trying to address climate change over the next decade or two, methane is a very powerful lever.”

From my perspective, Daniel Jacob’s work with satellite observations of methane is extremely important, because under the terms of the Paris Climate Agreement there is a need to accurately assess the national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories that are reported by individual countries. Accurate measurements are also necessary under the terms of the new Global Methane Pledge, in which 119 countries have agreed to cut global emissions by 30 percent by 2030. But there has been tremendous uncertainty regarding the quantity and location of emissions.

As I noted above, Professor Jacob and his Harvard team use satellite observations of methane concentrations in specific locations at particular points in time, combined with additional information, to infer statistically, geographically and temporally differentiated emissions patterns.

“One of the things we can do uniquely from satellites is to look at recent changes in emissions, because the emission inventories that are coming out of individual countries are based on statistics that will typically be two or three years old,” Professor Jacob remarks. “But if we’re going to try to change the emissions rapidly, and to verify those changes in emissions, the only way that I can think of is to do it from satellites.”

Jacob recognizes that his satellite observations research could have substantive impacts on climate policy in the years ahead:  “What I would like to see is that we can contribute to continuous monitoring of emissions, to be able to detect changes in emissions, particularly if those are correctable, and point to the need for action. Say for example, if you have a flare that goes off, we should be able to see it from space, and then be able to take action on that.”

You can also see a brief video of Daniel Jacob talking about his research.

For all this and much more, I hope you will listen to my compete conversation with Daniel Jacob, which is the 39th episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share

Regulatory Skepticism and Technological Optimism from a Prominent Environmental Lawyer

Although I’ve featured economists in my podcast, I’ve also been privileged to host some top environmental lawyers and legal scholars, including:  Sue Biniaz (now at the U.S. State Department), Ricky Revesz (at NYU Law School), Dan Esty (from Yale Law School, now at the World Trade Organization in Geneva), Jody Freeman (of Harvard Law School), and Jonathan Wiener (of Duke University’s School of Law).

That’s a diverse group in terms of gender, but I will acknowledge that it is not a very diverse group politically.  In my latest podcast, I begin to make up for that with an environmental lawyer who has worked closely and held important positions in Republican administrations.  But I did not invite him to the podcast because of his political background and viewpoint, but simply because he is one of this country’s leading and most prominent environmental lawyers.  As I assume people of all political stripes will readily acknowledge, he’s both smart and articulate.

I’m talking about Jeffrey Holmstead, who served as Associate Counsel to the President in the George H.W. Bush administration, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the George W. Bush administration, and now leads the Environmental Strategies Group at Bracewell in Washington, DC.  My conversation with Jeff Holmstead is featured in the latest episode of “Environmental Insights: Discussions on Policy and Practice from the Harvard Environmental Economics Program,” a podcast produced by the Harvard Environmental Economics Program. Our complete conversation is here.

Despite his solid Republican credentials, Holmstead praises the Biden Administration’s early efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in two specific ways.

“They have made very clear that climate change is one of their highest priorities, and they’ve actually done a couple of very important things,” Holmstead says. “Their first priority was in the transportation sector, and they finalized much more aggressive CO₂ emission standards for vehicles. And then they have proposed, but not yet finalized, a pretty aggressive approach to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas operations.”

As readers of this blog know, the Biden Administration has also promised to revise the Social Cost of Carbon, but Holmstead argues that its fate may rest with the courts, depending on how it is used.

“I think the courts have correctly said that in and of itself, that alone is not the type of action that is reviewable in court, and it won’t be reviewable until it’s used in a regulation. I think it will depend on the specific contours of the regulation that they’re doing,” he says. “All these regulatory programs have different standards that the agencies have to meet. And if it’s the kind of standard that allows them to consider benefits and costs, I think it depends on the specific context. And I think there will be some interesting litigation about that.”

Holmstead also remarks that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal requiring public companies to provide certain climate-related disclosures in their registration statements and periodic reports is likely to run into significant legal challenges.  

“The idea that the Securities and Exchange Commission would essentially be regulating greenhouse gases and they would do it in the form of a disclosure, but at least as proposed, it would be a pretty intrusive form of disclosure. And so, I think that there’s a fairly good chance that if the SEC finalizes what it proposed, that it’s likely to run into trouble in the courts,” he says.

Yet Holmstead also said in our conversation that he believes there is a “good chance” of having comprehensive climate change legislation in the United States fairly soon.

“I think there are many people in the business community that would like to have the certainty of legislation. And so, I’m still optimistic that we could see something like that in the relatively near future,” he remarks. “But … ultimately it seems to me that it’s a technology question. And until there is a way to provide people with electricity and to power mobility, that is at least close to being cost competitive with coal and oil, I think it’s going to be an uphill battle.

At the end of our conversation, Jeff Holmstead concludes with a note of technological optimism: “I think that there are technological breakthroughs that are at least on the horizon that could help us solve the problem. But ultimately for me, climate change is a technology issue and not a regulatory issue.”

For all this and much more, I hope you will listen to my compete conversation with Jeffrey Holmstead, which is the 38th episode in the Environmental Insights series, with future episodes scheduled to drop each month.  You can find a transcript of our conversation at the website of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.  Previous episodes have featured conversations with:

“Environmental Insights” is hosted on SoundCloud, and is also available on iTunes, Pocket Casts, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Share