The Inflation Reduction Act is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, three independent modeling teams have found. But where exactly are those cuts going to come from?
According to analysis from one of those teams, working on Princeton University’s REPEAT Project, the law will lead to annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions being lowered by 980 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent by 2030. The largest cuts are expected to come from electricity generation and transportation, which are currently the two largest sources of carbon pollution in the U.S.
According to analysis from one of those teams, working on Princeton University’s REPEAT Project, the law will lead to annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions being lowered by 980 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent by 2030.
The article is paywalled so I can’t evaluate it, but the way WSJ and other pro-pollution advocates have done this type of analysis in the past is that they assume no further reductions will occur past 2030, and no other countries will make reductions either. So the conclusions are technically correct, but also completely absurd.
Again, I don’t know if that’s what they did in this case, but it such a common tactic by anti-science groups I would be surprised if they didn’t.
DB2 to finds and post this piece of biased reporting. Leave it to WSJ to publish an opion article by climate skeptic Bjorn Lomborg. We all know that WSJ is in the fossil fuels side of the climate debate.
It seems, however, that the temperature difference (by 2100) from the reduction will be less than 0.016°C. — We all know that WSJ is in the fossil fuels side of the climate debate.
That doesn’t change the modeled result. Do you have a larger projected temperature reduction?
That doesn’t change the modeled result. Do you have a larger projected temperature reduction?
DB2,
You were given very good reason why the model was not adequate. You skipped those reasons to ask for the reasons more or less all over again in a different model.
Cutting emissions has to be done.
Cutting emissions as part of the federal budget is like Ike building out the interstate highway system. It is extremely profitable and a enormous amount of GDP growth.
Are you against that? Or just looking for numbers? The numbers are not accurate. It could be a lot more or a lot less. If that helps.
It seems, however, that the temperature difference (by 2100) from the reduction will be less than 0.016°C.
Bjørn Lomborg has misrepresented numbers in the past. Concerning the cost of net zero, Bjørn Lomborg cited a number regarding the cost of Biden’s Climate Bill out of context; Climate cost study authors accuse Bjørn Lomborg of misinterpreting results.
a key claim made in these columns – and one that appears in other Lomborg articles going back to October in the likes of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post – has frustrated scientists, who are accusing him of taking their modelling work about climate policies in the US out of context.
Bjørn Lomborg is not a scientist. Bjørn Lomborg is not an economist. Bjørn Lomborg is a radio-show personality.
I don’t know about the Princeton University’s REPEAT Project, but I wouldn’t abide Lomborg’s opinion on the study in light of his behavior in the past.
Here is a quick, back of the envelope calculation for the kind of temperature change expected from a reduction in emissions of 980 million tonnes per year.
Human emissions are some 36 billion tonnes per year. The reduction mentioned in the OP represents a 3% change.
The transient climate response (TCR) is how much surface temps will warm if carbon dioxide levels double. 1.7 degrees is a common value for the current generation of climate models. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981
(1.7 degrees) x 0.03 = 0.05 degrees
A more complex approach can be found here https://magicc.org
which can be downloaded for Windows/Linux or run on-line.
The reduction is really an unknown. I did not read the WSJ article to find out where that came from…maybe the CBO? Does not matter. We just have to get down this road.
I was taking the reduction numbers from the OP. The temperature difference was explained above.
It is good to do some sort of cost-benefit analysis. However much we want to spend and whatever we think the changes will be, do not expect a noticeable change from a temperature difference measured in hundredths of a degree.
Here is a quick, back of the envelope calculation for the kind of temperature change expected from a reduction in emissions of 980 million tonnes per year.
Human emissions are some 36 billion tonnes per year. The reduction mentioned in the OP represents a 3% change.
The transient climate response (TCR) is how much surface temps will warm if carbon dioxide levels double. 1.7 degrees is a common value for the current generation of climate models.
980 million tonnes is the reduction in 2030. The reductions will keep growing after 2030.
So 0.05 degrees reduction you calulated and the 0.016 degrees reduction WSJ printed are underestimating the temperature reductions in from 2040 to 2100
So 0.05 degrees reduction you calulated and the 0.016 degrees reduction WSJ printed are underestimating the temperature reductions in from 2040 to 2100.
So, you found Bjørn Lomborg’s twitter page. You’re really going down the rabbit hole when you’re aware that he’s a climate hoaxer.
Back in the 90’s Bjørn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, claimed that global climate change is a hoax. He pointed out that the predictions of glaciers melting, severe drought in Europe, and water levels rising had yet to be proved.
Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson excoriated Lomborg’s book in an editorial in Scientific Am 2002. “Much of the book has an undergraduate quality to it, but is this surprising considering that ecology is the most complex of sciences and that Lomborg has never done a shred of work in the field. I would fail one of my undergraduate students if they were to write such trash”
As I pointed out before, Bjørn Lomborg is not a scientist. Bjørn Lomborg is not an economist. Bjørn Lomborg has a degree in Politics. His twitter account assessment of climate change is just that, internet hoax.
This 0.016 degrees seems like a very misguided analysis. Maybe it’s true if only the US reduces GHG emissions and if the US stops emission reductions in 2030. But that’s like saying you should never travel because one step doesn’t take you to your destination.
The crudest analysis is to look at when we get to net zero carbon emissions. Once we reach net zero, temperatures stabilize. I looked at the graph at Forbes and read some numbers off by eye. https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2022/08/02/the… Extrapolating the curves, without the IRA we get to net zero in 2130. With the IRA, we get to net zero in 2055. WG3 of the AR6 IPCC says that pathways which reach net zero around 2060 result in 1.3C warming in 2100. Pathways that reach net zero after 2080 give 2.1C warming in 2100. So if the world follows the path set out by the IRA we reduce warming by 0.8C, 38%, compared to our current trajectory. Even accounting for all the simplifications and errors in this crude analysis, I don’t see any way that 0.8 becomes 0.016.
This 0.016 degrees seems like a very misguided analysis. Maybe it’s true if only the US reduces GHG emissions and if the US stops emission reductions in 2030.
The analysis looks at the result of US emissions because that’s what the bill that was signed into law last week dealt with and what we will be paying for.
The 0.016 degree reduction is based on ramping up reductions between now and 2031 and continuing reductions of 511 megatonnes every year until 2100.
As I pointed out before, Bjørn Lomborg is not a scientist. Bjørn Lomborg is not an economist.
Lomborg’s degrees are in political science, which is a useful field when you are analyzing policy decisions. Science does not exist in a vacuum, and climate change in particular involves massive policy changes and interactions.
Lomborg’s teaching career focused on policy analysis and scientific knowledge. He also taught statistics for a decade. He was appointed the first director of the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute.
Tucson, I repeat my request – please show us another estimate of temperature reductions resulting from the IRA.
On a side note, looking at Princeton University’s REPEAT Project analysis, their estimate of emissions reductions by 2030 assumes that 100% of vehicles sold in 2030 will be EVs. Not realistic, IMO.
If you stand at the bottom of a mountain and look at all the steps you have to take to get even close to the top, by your analysis you’d say: “if I take this first step I will still be much closer to the bottom of the mountain than the top of the mountain, so why even take that first step?”
So, I’d say, if you know of a better route to get up the mountain, then please share.
Otherwise, let’s take the first step, even though, by itself it may not seem to get us much closer to the top.
So, I’d say, if you know of a better route to get up the mountain, then please share. Otherwise, let’s take the first step, even though, by itself it may not seem to get us much closer to the top.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
On a side note, looking at Princeton University’s REPEAT Project analysis, their estimate of emissions reductions by 2030 assumes that 100% of vehicles sold in 2030 will be EVs. Not realistic, IMO.
California will phase out the sale of gasoline-powered light duty vehicles by 2035; executive order ordering the board to end the sale of gas-powered cars in California by 2035.
Ok, so add five years. As goes California, so goes the car industry.