How Nepal’s Earthquake Could Be a Climate Change Game Changer

Posted on September 11, 2017 by

On April 25, 2015, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit the Gorkha district of Nepal. During the months afterward, the country experienced hundreds of aftershocks, many with a magnitude greater than or equal to 4.0 and some greater

Aftermath of the earthquake in Sankhu, Nepal.
Laxmi Prasad Ngakhusi, UNDP Nepal, 28 Apr. 2015.

than 6.0 (Shrestha 1). The event had a devastating effect on Nepal’s population. The International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) reports that “Within Nepal, there were more than 8,800 casualties, 22,000 people reported injured, and 100,000 people displaced” (Shrestha 2). This level of destruction demonstrates the need for an extensive recovery process, and for measures to prevent such devastation in the future. The way that Nepal carries out the recovery process and prepares for future disasters could heavily impact the security of its people in the face of climate change.

Although the earthquake was not a climate related disaster, its effects are likely to interact with those of climate change and make climate-related challenges even more difficult. According to an assessment by Nepal’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, the destruction caused by the earthquake has increased the vulnerability of many people to other natural disasters (Nepal Earthquake 20). One reason for this increased vulnerability is that the earthquake has created conditions for greater destruction. A case study from Dartmouth College notes that climate change is the suspected cause of fluctuations in the monsoon season, which have disrupted agriculture and caused food insecurity. The earthquake has exacerbated this problem by destroying crops and disrupting the hillside terraces where many people grow their food. The disrupted terraces are also more likely to collapse during future storms (“Monsoons”). In this way, the earthquake has made the difficulties already caused by climate change even more dangerous and complex.

Many people also find themselves less prepared to respond to these challenges. A report by the the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) finds that the earthquake has worsened the country’s already high level of poverty, forcing an estimated 700,000 people below the poverty line (Shrestha 2). Without the economic resources to meet their basic needs, these people do not have the reserves necessary to endure future hardships. Similarly, relief efforts responding to urgent needs in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake may not account for challenges down the road. As people construct new homes in the wake of disasters, they tend to ignore environmental consequences and fail to incorporate sustainable practices. As a result, they may not use natural resources effectively and may experience poor living conditions and more severe exposure to environmental threats (Nepal Earthquake 21). In addition, the need to move thousands of people’s homes to new locations creates a risk of further environmental disturbance and an additional need for natural resources (Country Environment Note 20). This situation compounds the limits on resources which climate change already poses and leaves people more vulnerable to unexpected weather events.

Although the recovery process presents many challenges, it may lead to much better conditions if approached in the right way. Nepal’s Ministry for Science, Technology and Environment argues that the rebuilding process provides an opportunity to recreate communities in ways that take environmental concerns into account, better preparing people for future challenges and accelerating the process of  “ecosystem-based sustainable development, economic progress, and poverty reduction.” (Nepal Earthquake 19). By upsetting existing systems, the earthquake has cleared the way to design more effective ones. The need for discussion of recovery efforts invites reconsideration of the way communities have been designed in the past. Possible solutions include training sessions and policy reviews to help people manage resources more effectively. It would also be helpful to track environmental threats and set up warning systems (22). These actions would help people adapt to climate change. If responders also make an effort to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, they could help to lessen the effects of climate change directly. In the aftermath of the earthquake, Nepal’s situation may be grim, but there is still room for hopeful possibilities.

References

Country Environment Note: Nepal. Asian Development Bank, 2014, https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/154702/country-environment-note-nepal.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept. 2017.

Nepal Earthquake 2015: Rapid Environmental Assessment. Government of Nepal: Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, Nov. 2015.

“Monsoons.” Nepal Earthquake Case Studies, Dartmouth College, http://sites.dartmouth.edu/NepalQuake-CaseStudies/monsoons/. Accessed 10 Sept. 2017.

Shrestha, Arun Bhakta, Samjwal Ratna Bajracharya,Jeffrey S. Kargel, Narendra Raj Khanal. The Impact of Nepal’s 2015 Gorkha Earthquake-Induced Geohazards.  ICIMOD Research Report 2016/1. Kathmandu: ICIMOD, 2016, http://lib.icimod.org/record/31937/files/icimod-2015-Earthquake-InducedGeohazards.pdf. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Timeline and the Gorkha Earthquake

Posted on September 11, 2017 by

40-50 Million Years Ago: Collision between Indian and Eurasian Plate

1255: First recorded earthquake in Nepalese history

August 15th, 1950: Assam- Tibet Earthquake

January 15th, 1934: Nepal- Bihar Earthquake

September 18th, 2011: Sikkim Earthquake

August 21st, 1988: Nepal- India Earthquake

April 25th, 2015: Gorkha Earthquake

Timeline of 2015 earthquake events: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/world/china-watch/society/nepal-earthquake-timeline/

One of the biggest events in recent Nepali history is the Gorkha Earthquake, which occurred on April 25th, 2015. It struck the capital city of Nepal, Kathmandu, around 11:25 am and had a magnitude of 7.8. The earthquake was felt throughout Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Bhutan, and Tibet. Approximately 9,000 people were killed, with thousands more injured and several million displaced, as nearly 600,000 structures were degraded to rubble. The earthquake also resulted in aftershocks within the next few hours and days, causing additional damage (Rafferty).  

Because the Himalayas are a highly seismically active area, lying along the Indian and Eurasian plate boundary, high magnitude earthquakes have previously been common throughout history. The last major earthquake took place in 1988, with a magnitude of 6.9. However, there were several notable others, including a 8.0 magnitude earthquake in 1934, which killed nearly 2,000 people (Rafferty).

Extreme damage was caused a result of the 2015 earthquake. Along with the structural devastation, the quake triggered thousands of landslides throughout rural Nepal and Kathmandu, devastating once-bustling areas. It also caused an avalanche on Mount Everest killing 19 climbers (Rafferty).

Massive assistance was needed to aid Nepal, both physically and financially. Immediate damage costs were estimated to be about 5 to 10 billion dollars, with thousands of hours of cleanup required. The international community, through the United Nations, provided financial assistance by setting up a relief fund for Nepal raising several hundred million dollars within hours (United Nations). According to their website, USAID also provided assistance on behalf of the United States through a Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART), which coordinated efforts to conduct disaster assessments, search and rescue deployments, and assist with safe food, water, and shelter (2015 Nepal Earthquake).

This event is extremely relevant to our course. While the earthquake itself may not be directly linked to climate change, it is the most prevalent example of how Nepal has responded to an extreme weather event in the past and how they might respond in the future. It is also likely that this will be a frequent topic of conversation during our interviews, therefore, we should be informed and empathetic on the topic. In addition, despite the passage of time, Nepal is still far from a full recovery. Therefore, we will likely see some the structural destruction and recovery efforts throughout our travels, particularly in rural areas. Additionally, it is important to understand their relationship with foreign aid and how we might trigger different responses as westerners.

Interactive map: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32479909

Sources:

Hart, Tom. “Nepal: A Timeline of Tragedy – Geographical.” Geographical Magazine, 28 Apr. 2015, geographical.co.uk/nature/tectonics/item/1000-nepal-timeline.  Accessed 9/10/17.

Rafferty, John P. “Nepal Earthquake of 2015.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 24 Apr. 2017, www.britannica.com/topic/Nepal-earthquake-of-2015. Accessed 9/10/17.

“UN Allocates $15 Million in Emergency Funds for Nepal Earthquake Response.” UN News Center, United Nations, 28 Apr. 2015, www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=50708#.WbXMztN940o. Accessed 9/10/17.

“2015 Nepal Earthquake.” U.S. Agency for International Development, www.usaid.gov/nepal-earthquake. Accessed 9/10/17.  

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Reversing US Leadership in Climate Talks: Donald Trump and the Paris Agreement

Posted on September 11, 2017 by

“America has led the world in carbon dioxide reductions even as we have continued to expand our energy production.”

Truth-O-Meter: Half True (partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context)

On June 1st, 2017, United States President Donald Trump announced his decision to pull the country out of the Paris Climate Accords. The agreement aims to keep global temperature rise well below two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by bringing all nations together to work on reducing their individual carbon footprints. President Trump has repeatedly argued that climate change is a hoax and international efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions unfairly burden American middle-class workers. As one of the wealthiest, most developed, and historically one of the most polluting countries on the planet, the United States is vital in combating fossil fuel overuse and carbon dioxide emissions. Under the previous administration, the Environmental Protection Agency pushed power sector carbon regulations. Continued efforts to reduce emissions, particularly from electricity production, are dependent on actions being taken to shift to cleaner fuels and renewable sources of energy.

The United States is the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide (16% of global emissions), preceded by China (28%) and followed by India. Both the latter nations have substantially larger populations, but emit less carbon dioxide per capita. Per capita emissions in the United States have fallen 16%, starting in the mid- to late-2000’s. In 2005, it released a total of 5,702 metric tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but reduced that by 9.2% by 2014, when the country emitted 5,176 MtCO2 (IEA). A major factor in this decrease is the declining use of coal. Hydraulic fracturing has led to a steady supply of cheap natural gas, which is not as carbon intensive as coal, and renewables have been meeting an increasing percentage of the energy demand as well. Warmer winters lessened the need for heating (EPA). There has also been an overall decline in energy consumption in the United States (Rapier).

Although President Trump’s statement is not entirely false, it both exaggerates the nation’s attempts at mitigating climate change and downplays the urgency and seriousness of the global issue. If President Trump attempts to bring back the coal industry, as he promised on his campaign trail, carbon dioxide emission levels could jump. The upsurge in coal-fired power plant closures was mainly brought about by stricter air pollution standards that came into effect in 2015 (PBL Netherlands EAA). Lessening or nullifying those regulations would end much of the progress the country has made. One things is certain: By leaving the Paris Climate Accords, the United States will certainly not be leading in carbon dioxide emissions. Just because the last decade has seen an improvement in US emissions does not guarantee a continued decline in greenhouse gas release.

Works Cited

International Energy Agency. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Highlights. 2016.

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Trends in Global CO2 Emissions. The Hague, 2016.

Rapier, Robert. “The U.S. Leads All Countries in Lowering Carbon Dioxide Emissions.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 June 2016.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2015. 2017.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Timeline and Nepalese Civil War

Posted on September 11, 2017 by

Timeline

1768: Prithvi Narayan Shah, a leader of a small hill state called Gorkha or Gurkha, united the small kingdoms of Kathmandu, Patan, and Bhaktapur in the Katmandu Valley creating the sovereign state of Nepal.

2001: The population of Nepal grew about 4 times in comparison to 1911. In 1911, there were 38.3 people per square kilometer, and in 2001 there were 157.3 people per square kilometer (Matthew and Upreti 145).

June 2001: Prince Dipendra killed member of his royal family, including King Birendra, and attempted suicide. After that incident, Gyanendra, the king’s brother, became the next king causing a bumpy transition of power (Rademacher 11).

2004:  There was a skewed distribution off land suitable for agriculture. Only 20% of the country is suitable for agriculture and 78% of the total population depends that area for subsistence. The Nepal Human Development Report 2004 states that 29% of people are landless and more than 70% of peasants own less than one hectare of arable land. It also indicates that the bottom 47% of households own 15% of the total arable land while the top 70% own 37% (Matthew and Upreti 146).

2006: This marked the end of the Civil War which started in 1996, also referred to as the People’s War, where Communist Party of Nepal- Maoists (CPN-M) fought against the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). The war killed more than 13,000 people, internally displaced more than 200,000, and led to the emigration of about 1.8 million people (Rademacher 13; Matthew and Upreti 142).

2007: Human welfare had not improved in many areas of Nepal and the Human Development Index ranked Nepal as the 142nd country and last country in South Asia (Matthew and Upreti 145).

April 2008: Elections were held establishing Nepal as a new republic. To the surprise of many people, the (CPN-M) won a large number of seats in the new republic.

April 2015: A 7.8 magnitude earthquake hit Kathmandu killing more than 8,000 people and leaving people displaced (“Nepal Profile-Timeline”).

 

Nepalese Civil War

One very event that has had a significant impact on Nepal is the Nepalese Civil War, which was also called the People’s War. This event arose because of frustration the CPN-M had “in response to this failure of development” by the governing leaders (Matthew and Upreti 142). The violent conflicts with state authorities began in 1996 at first with Nepal police and then later with the RNA (Rademacher 13). This civil war claimed more than 13,000 lives, internally displaced at least 200,000 people, and was responsible for the emigration of about 1.8 million (Matthew and Upreti 142).

Children, caught in between the chaos of war, are impacted greatly by the tolls of war. Education was disrupted while children were recruited to provide military services to both sides. They encountered physical threat to personal security, such as landmines, which killed approximately two hundred children a year (143). NGO Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict reported that during the war “twelve thousand girls were trafficked across the border [from Nepal] into India each year” (143). The movie, Sold, directed by Jeffrey D. Brown in 2016 sheds light about this issue (“Sold”). Telling the story of a thirteen-year-old girl, who like many other children, gets caught up in child trafficking, this movie based on true stories brings you into the disturbing realities people face.

Not only were people’s lives in danger, but other aspects of human security were affected during the war. Exacerbated environmental degradation was the result of failed official river restoration initiatives (A riverscape undone 15). This shows how political stability is tremendously important and interconnected to areas including the environment. Without first establishing human security and “living in a society that honours their basic human rights”, you cannot create a society dedicated towards the resiliency of a community and sustainable development. (Human Development Report 32; Matthew and Upreti 151). This event holds relevance to us in this course because it shows us the resiliency of the Nepalese communities and the ways that Nepal has been challenged. Through all the human security threats civil war brings, we see how systems were impacted as a result. The effects of the Nepalese Civil War played a major role in shaping Nepal and by understanding the impacts of this war we can better understand the current structures and threats to human security.

Works Cited

Matthew, Richard A., and Bishnu Raj Upreti. “Environmental Change and Human Security in Nepal.” Global Environmental Change and Human Security, PDF ed., pp. 137-54.

“Nepal Profile-Timeline.” BBC News, BBC, 8 June 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12499391.

Rademacher, Anne. “A Riverscape Undone.” Introduction. Reigning the River: Urban Ecologies and Political Transformation in Kathmandu, PDF ed., 2011.

“Sold.” IMDb, IMDb.com, www.imdb.com/title/tt1411956/.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Important Events in the History of Nepal

Posted on September 11, 2017 by

 

1814-1816: This was the period of the Anglo-Nepalese war, which left Nepal with the small amount of land it has today. This war proved the strength of the Nepalese army, and gave them their independence. (1)

1950: This was the year the Delhi Compromise was reached, which was a collaboration with India to overthrow the Ranas, which were under power. This compromise led to elections in Nepal. (1)

1954: This was the year that the Koshi Tappu wetland was leased to India. This led to an influx of Indian workers, who helped construct a dam in the area, so economic benefits that could have come for an increased need in labor were not given to the Nepali people. They also were restricted by the conversion of this area into a Ramsar site, unable to use a majority of the resources the wetland provided.  (1)

1962: King Mahindra instituted the controversial panchayat system where the King maintained rule but had input from councils. This seemed to go under the new democratic nature of Nepal. (1)

1990: Student led protests forced the government to draft a new constitution, pushing Nepal to a multiparty democracy. There were more than 100 political parties and nongovernmental organizations began to get more involved in advocating for policies. (1)

1996: The Communist Party of Nepal- Maoists (CPN-M) launched the peoples war, which was a civil war that lasted 10 years. (1)

2015: The 7.8 scale earthquake struck Nepal and is estimated to have effected over 8 million people. The results of the earthquake were catastrophic: 8,700 deaths, 22,200 injured, 505,000 homes destroyed. The damages are still being felt two years later as many people are still displaced.

The political history of Nepal is perhaps one of the most interesting; after two centuries of monarchical rule led to violent conflict with a struggle for democracy has led to an increasing amount of human security issues. One of the most important issues out of the few selected was the 10 year civil war led by the Maoist communist party. The resulting damages are comparable to the earthquake, although the earthquake displaced many more people. The impact on human security, which Matthew and Upreti define as “something that is achieved when and where individuals and communities have the options necessary to end, mitigate, or adapt to threats to their human, environmental and social rights; have the capacity and freedom to exercise to these options; and actively participate in pursuing these options” (140). The civil war disrupted social rights, as many schools were destroyed in this violent outbreak, as well as young women (an estimated 12,000) were trafficked. 13,000 people were killed over this ten year period and 200,000 people were displaced (1). The connection between this civil war and impact on the environment is also worth noting, as many rural places specifically were destroyed as a result of the violence. This led to an increase in rural to urban migration, as people were forced to relocate. This influx of people can have an influence on air pollution, as well as energy consumption. It can lead to an increase in informal settlements which put stress on the surrounding environments, in terms of resource management, overconsumption as well as contamination. The effect of the CPN-M is still seen as they have recently held the positions of Prime Minister in Nepal, they did not dissipate with the treaty signed but they in fact gained political sway as they took a majority of the seats. Their focus on social equality however does not seem to align with the violence that was a result of their actions. Yet it seems that the party has gained support as they shed light on class inequalities specifically, and unequal distribution of housing among the wealthy elite and the poor.

As we prepare to travel to Nepal and speak with community members in several different wards, it will be interesting to see if there is any long lasting damage in the community, or to note how the people felt about the overthrow. I also think it will be a challenging thing to ask questions about, and the underlying impacts might not be so obvious. To really assess the way climate change has effected these people, we must also consider political instability that disrupted the national security of Nepal, as well as the individual security of community members.

 

Works Cited:

(1) Matthew, Richard A, and Bishnu Raj Upreti. “Environmental Change and Human Security in Nepal.” Global Environmental Change and Human Security Account, The MIT Press, 2010, pp. 137–152.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Donald Trump’s Statements: True or False?

Posted on September 10, 2017 by

Although the evidence provided by scientists proves that global warming is real, president Donald Trump believes that it is not. At every stage of his campaign he openly and shamelessly declared that he did not believe in climate change. During his first 100 days as president he declared that, “the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,” and those that were combating climate change began to worry. The Paris Agreement was significant because it was the first time that all countries came together, with the exception of Syria and Nicaragua, to make an accord to combat climate change.

In a letter from the Whitehouse written to Prof. Neil Leary, when regarding his comment about the Paris Agreement and the United States’ decision to withdraw, the POTUS stated that part of the reason that the U.S. withdrew was because, “It [the Paris Agreement] would require the transfer of billions of their hard-earned dollars to other countries through the Green Climate Fund.”

Established by the countries who are parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2010, the Green Climate Fund was formed to help underdeveloped nations develop measures for adaptation to effects of climate change and mitigation. In 2015, when the accord was reached, it was given the role of using the funds wisely to create projects that will contribute to the environment in positive ways. Projects such as The Universal Green Energy Access Programme and the Saïss Water Conservation Project in Morocco, among many others, have been developed. There is a large number of countries, developed and undeveloped, that altogether have pledged to give 10.3 billion (US dollars). One knows however that developed countries are able to give more than underdeveloped countries due to their GDP being much higher. Underdeveloped nations are unable to take the steps necessary on their own due to the fact that they simply don’t have the resources.

Why Should the United States Contribute?

The United States is one of the greatest emitters of green house gases in the world. Their consumption of coal, oil, and gas for their main sources of energy, has made a negative impact on the environment. Due to rising temperatures, the ice caps are melting which causes the sea level to rise which causes flooding, the air and the sea is getting polluted which causes sickness and coral briefs to disappear, the air to get warmer which has led to more catastrophic natural disasters, and many other changes to occur. Many of the nations being hurt by the consumption of others are nations that have barely contributed to the GHGs emissions. In the Documentary Before the Flood by Leonardo Dicaprio, the president of Kiribati, a small island in the pacific, stated that he had bought an island from Fiji so that if anyone wanted to migrate they could do so. This shows that they really do not have much of an option. It is the poor of each nation that will be the victims of the first effects of climate change.

Donald Trump claims that the Paris Agreement is only going to affect the United States in negative ways because nations will be taking advantage of the US. However, climate change does not only affect those nations, it affects the entire world, including the U.S. Scientists have put so much effort into trying to explain why it is important that we take action now for such a long time, and there are people that still deny it. It is not about taking advantage, it is a collective effort and most nations are contributing what they can. Even if the rest of the world is making an effort to help underdeveloped nations and are doing what they can to transfer to sustainable energy, the United States is one of the nations that could and should contribute. The U.S. pledged to give 3 Billion Dollars, while up to date they have given 500,000 dollars. In addition, there are many other nations that on a per-capita basis have actually pledge to give more than the United States. Countries such as Sweden, Norway, and Japan will be giving more.

I always thought, the United States would not take action until one of their main cities is destroyed. Currently we are witnessing two of the most catastrophic hurricanes that have hit the United States. Hurricane Harvey which left thousands without a home in Houston, Texas, and Hurricane Irma which will be affecting the entire state of Florida. Although one cannot say that climate change caused the hurricane, the warm temperatures in the atmosphere have caused them to be stronger which leads to more destruction.

Citations

FOUNTAIN, NADJA POPOVICH and HENRY. “What Is the Green Climate Fund and How Much Does the U.S. Actually Pay?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 June 2017, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/02/climate/trump-

Green Climate Fund. (2017). Green Climate Fund. http://www.greenclimate.fund/home [Accessed 9 Sep. 2017].

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “Status of Ratification.” The Paris Agreement – Main Page, 10 Apr. 2017, unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php.

YouTube. (2017). Before the Flood. https://youtu.be/ZFmVRsQho4Y [Accessed 9 Sep. 2017].

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trump Navigates around the Truth on Paris Agreement Costs

Posted on September 9, 2017 by

President Donald Trump justified his rejection of the Paris Agreement with a hot button political issue – jobs. The popular saying goes that the people vote with their wallets. So President Trump also framed his decision around prices. He claimed that “(1a) the escalating electricity prices attributable to the agreement (1b) would increase the cost of goods and services and (2a) put millions of American jobs at risk, (2b) particularly those in manufacturing and other energy-intensive industries”. To break these down, claim 1a is mostly true. Carbon caps or taxes to meet targets would increase carbon prices to sway consumption. The claim leaves out the important details that electricity can be provided efficiently and cleanly through renewable means. Also, fossil fuel prices will inevitably rise as scarcity makes their extraction less profitable.

From WikiCommons

Claim 1b is half true – in the short term, the claim is true but in the long term it is not. Trump’s claim about the price of goods and services is clarified in his assertion that national GDP would lose $2.5 trillion in ten years. This is factually incorrect – the projections that produced this number looked out over 20 years. Even with an accurate figure, the data is displayed in a misleading way. Typically, GDP change is shown as a rate (in this case, .55%) rather than a value (factcheck.org). These claims reflect the impact of a carbon tax on the economy, but research shows that they may be steep. Realistically, the US could meet its targets by 2025 while only reducing GDP by between .1% and .35% per year (Chen and Hafstead). So, in magnitude and connotation, Trump’s claim is wrong. But the point is fair. Certainly, the price of fossil fuels would increase under the Paris Agreement, relative to the recent record lows (Reuters). Since petroleum is an input in a wide range of products and transport of almost all goods relies on fossil fuels, these price changes would ripple through an economy. These are short term costs, though. That being said, the costs of inaction are significant and largely unknown. Ultimately, the economy is notoriously difficult to forecast. Some predict that global average GDP would decline by 23% by 2100, with dramatic variability around the world (Business Insider).The future of innovation remains in alternative energy, though, and the U.S. will lose its competitive edge in these areas if it does not take progressive action.

Explore global change in GDP from climate change here.

Claim 2a, that the agreement put millions of jobs at risk, is half true. President Trump expanded this claim in a speech to specify that changes in the energy sector after the Paris Agreement would cost the American economy 2.7 million jobs, including 440,000 fewer in the manufacturing sector. These losses are more realistically attributed to automation and new alternative energy sources. Claim 2b is mostly false. Coal employs only 160,000. To balance, jobs in these emerging sectors are rising – natural gas employs about 400,000, solar employs 374,000, and wind employs 102,000 (USA Today). Major corporations, including fossil fuel companies, endorsed US participation in the agreement (PBS). These growing sectors would expand, not contract, from participation in the Paris Agreement. The benefit of these new industries could be enormous.

From WikiCommons

President Trump’s claims are not patently false. With the communications and research capabilities of the White House, the President is able to add credibility to his spin. Outright lies on the campaign trail become blurrier when teams of staffers erode context. President Trump cites figures from conservative think tanks and fossil fuel lobbies to add authority. In perspective, President Trump’s justifications seem short sighted even if they are credible in the short term. The line between truth and lie is unclear. Reframing an issue can deceive in the guise of truth.

della Cava et al. “What the Paris Climate Agreement Withdrawal Means for US Economy” USA Today June 2, 2017

Pujol-Mazzini, Anna. “Could Companies be Made to Pay for Stoking Climate Change?” Reuters Sept. 8, 2017.

Rotman, David. “Climate Change is Going to be Very Bad for the Global Economy” Business Insider Jan. 1, 2017.

Schipani, Vanessa. “Trump on the Paris Agreement” FactCheck.org June 7, 2017

Stavins, Robert. “The Economics (and politics) of Trump’s Paris Withdrawal” PBS June 6, 2017

 

 

Posted in Trump & Paris Agreement | Leave a comment

Fact Checking Trump

Posted on September 9, 2017 by

What line am I checking: while little would change for our climate under the Paris  Agreement, our electricity prices would significantly increase

Before fact checking the entire statement I decided to break it into pieces, first looking at “While little would change for our climate under the Paris Agreement” and then looking into if under the Paris Agreement “our electricity prices would significantly increase. I will be using  Truth-O-Meter: created by the Tampa Bay Times, in order to determine whether this statement from Donald Trump is truthful or not. Under their criteria I believe that his statement is false.

While it is not clear how Donald Trump came to this statement “little would change for our climate under the Paris  Agreement”, the Paris Agreement held the United States accountable to reduce emissions about 25% below 2005 levels. This accountability came with no consequences if that was not met. This goal to reduce emissions was extremely important in order to meeting the limit of only a 2 degree rise. Holding the United States to a certain standard came with the Paris Agreement and we are currently on path to reduce 15% below 2005 standards which is not enough to limit the 2 degree rise but with new reductions in climate change policy we may only reduce 10% below the 2005 standards. Under the Paris Agreement we were held somewhat accountable for climate change and now that we are not under it our reductions will grow beyond what we expected them to, diminishing previous work by Obama to reduce our emissions.

His statement regarding our electricity prices increasing under the Paris agreement raises questions in that it is not clear what will increase. Donald trump defends pulling out of the agreement to create more jobs in the coal industry when really it is not shown that it will do that. Instead there has actually been a decline in the industry due to power people switching to natural gas, whose prices continue to decrease, as well as other renewable sources such as solar and wind energy. With more interest in solar and wind energy those technologies could continue to get cheaper. Trump’s chief economic advisor advised him that pulling out of the agreement will not save the coal industry because it is already being put out of business due to new types of energy. Not joining the agreement we also stopped the United States became further from the idea of using clean coal.  Clean coal required the coal companies to come up with sequestration opportunities.

While I would state that Trumps statement is False under the Truth-O-meter, there is ambiguity around this subject. There is no absolute knowing to how the economy will go and whether electricity prices will go up or not. What is hopeful is that while we are no longer apart of the agreement there still continues to be a shift in the industry towards natural gas and solar and wind energy.

Perkins, Madeleine Sheehan. “Here’s how leaving the Paris Climate Agreement would affect the US.” Science, Business Insider, 31 May 2017, www.businessinsider.com/paris-climate-agreement-trump-decision-2017-5. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

Staff, NPR. “5 Changes That Could Come From Leaving The Paris Climate Deal.” NPR, NPR, 1 June 2017, www.npr.org/2017/06/01/531056661/5-things-that-could-change-when-the-u-s-leaves-the-paris-climate-deal. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

DiChristopher, Tom. “Fact-Checking the energy claims in Trump’s Paris Agreement speech.” CNBC, CNBC, 2 June 2017, www.cnbc.com/2017/06/01/fact-checking-the-energy-claims-in-trumps-paris-agreement-speech.html. Accessed 8 Sept. 2017.

 

 

Posted in Trump & Paris Agreement | Leave a comment

Donald Trump and the Cost of Renewable Energy

Posted on September 9, 2017 by

While President Trump’s letter is riddled with incorrect or misleading statements, I chose to check out a statement based on something I don’t know too much about. Trump writes, “While little would change for our climate under the Paris Agreement, our electricity prices would significantly increase.” What interested me about this statement is his connection between the Paris Agreement and electricity prices. I’m assuming he means to say that the energy targets we would create for ourselves (and which would be self-enforced) would require significant investment in renewables, which would increase electricity prices. His idea that switching to renewables would raise electricity prices is the crux of an entire paragraphs argument against the agreement so it seemed worthy of a fact check to me.

Cost is always cited as one of the main obstacles to switching to renewable resources. As I began researching the topic I realized that most articles cite the examples of places like Denmark and Germany and explain that their electricity prices are the highest in the world which is easily attributed to their aggressive renewable transition plans. However, I found that the explanations given are often oversimplified or biased and don’t explain why this is happening. I decided to focus on Denmark as it has the highest electricity prices in the EU. I discovered that while Denmark’s citizens are paying more for their energy, the actual price of the electricity has gone down. The price of electricity is in Denmark is lower than the EU average; however huge taxes have basically tripled the price people actually pay. One of the reasons these taxes are so high is the PSO tax, which helps fund renewable resource development. However, at the end of 2016 the Danish government decided to slash the tax to save companies and taxpayers money and will instead find the money for green projects elsewhere. The completion of offshore wind turbine parks is are also expected to drop the price of electricity. Additionally, energy companies in Denmark are relying less on government subsidies, funding offshore wind projects through selling off the oil and gas divisions of their companies. In fact, Dong Energy has plans to build offshore turbines in Germany without any government subsidies at all. It seems that historically, the high prices of electricity are not due to the energy itself, they are caused by high initial construction costs and taxes imposed by the government to fund other projects.

One of the things that makes it very difficult to compare Denmark to North America is that electricity prices vary a lot across each U.S. state. For example, according to the US Energy Information Administration, in June of 2017 the average price of electricity in my home state of New York cost 18.77 cents per Kilowatthour but it Washington it cost just under 10 cents per Kilowatthour, the cheapest of any state in that time frame. It turns out the Washington uses far more renewable hydroelectric power than any other type of energy. They generate so much that some of their hydropower is used in neighboring states. An NPR article about electricity prices explains the reasons for similarly low prices in Idaho, “Idaho generates much of its electricity from hydroelectric dams, which require virtually no fuel. Also, the cost of constructing the dams have been spread out over many decades. This all has kept electricity prices in Idaho low.” Right now, hydropower is an efficient source of energy because dams require little maintenance and so many have been built already. Since using wind power on a mass scale is relatively new (especially using offshore wind) the technology has been changing a lot. New innovations are lowering construction costs and increasing production capabilities. Additionally, as more and more renewable energy becomes available it will make natural gas and coal less competitive Trump’s statement is technically correct in that in many places, sudden investment in renewable resources has risen electricity prices. However, he ignores the many aspects that contribute to this issue and they ways that new technologies and different government policies could and will bring prices down.

Bibliography

Amin, Adnan Z. “The Falling Costs of Renewable Energy: No More Excuses.” Huffpost. 30 November, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adnan-z-amin/post_10557_b_8600240.html.

Clark, Pilita. “Dong Energy breaks subsidy link with new offshore with new offshore wind farms.” Financial Times. 14 April, 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/f5b164a6-20f8-11e7-b7d3-163f5a7f229c.

Cusick, Daniel. “Energy Costs at Record Lows Thanks to Natural Gas and Clean Energy.” Scientific American. 8 February, 2017.  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-costs-at-record-lows-thanks-to-natural-gas-and-clean-energy/.

Electric Power Monthly. “Average Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector by State, June 2017 and 2016.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. 24 August, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_5_6_a.

Eurostat. “Electricity prices for household consumers, second half of 2015.” European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Electricity_prices_for_household_consumers,_second_half_2015_(%C2%B9)_(EUR_per_kWh)_YB16.png.

Green, Kenneth P. “Renewable Energy Sources Mean Higher Electricity Bills.” Huffpost. 27 June, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kenneth-p-green/renewable-energy-higher-bills_b_7155666.html.

Trump, Donald. Letter to Neil Leary. 2017.

Jeppesen, Helle. “Denmark Leads the Charge in Renewable Energy.” Deutsche Welle.  2 May, 2014. http://www.dw.com/en/denmark-leads-the-charge-in-renewable-energy/a-17603695.

Jiang, Jess. “The Price of Electricity in Your State.” NPR. 28 October, 2011. http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state.

Levring, Peter. “World’s Biggest Wind Turbine Maker Waves Goodbye to Oil Industry.” Bloomberg. 29 August, 2017. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-29/world-s-biggest-wind-turbine-maker-waves-oil-industry-goodbye.

Richardson, Jake. “Half the Price of Coal and Natural Gas: Wind Power in Denmark.” Clean Technica. 28 July, 2014. https://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/28/half-price-coal-natural-gas-wind-power-denmark/.

W, Christian. “Government agrees to cut PSO tax.” CPH Post. 18 November, 2016. http://cphpost.dk/news/government-agrees-to-cut-pso-tax.html.

“Washington: State Profile and Energy Estimates.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. 17 November, 2016. https://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.php?sid=WA

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Trump’s Statement on Paris Agreement is “Mostly False”

Posted on September 9, 2017 by

President Donald Trump stated, in a letter received by Professor Neil Leary, that “little would change for our climate under the Paris Agreement”.  Under the rankings used to gauge the accuracy of statements by Politifact this on can be considered “mostly false”.

Two major “Truth-O-Meter” principals that are used in their rulings are the statements wording and context.  When examining the wording of Trumps statement, it becomes hard to qualify his statement as completely false.  He states that “little would change” when regarding the climate.  In some regards he is right, the changes in global temperatures that the Paris Agreement hopes to achieve occur within the range of a handful of degrees Celsius. However, in the complex system of the climate a small, or little, change can mean a lot.  The Paris Agreement may not drastically change the climate but it could reduce the amount that it warms by a few degrees Celsius which is enough to make a difference.

One of the main goals of the Paris Agreement is to keep global warming “no more than 1.5 ℃ above preindustrial levels” by 2021 (Blau p. 23).  Studies predict that, under the current climate policies, the “global average temperature could increase by 4.8 ◦C” (Bhore p. 1).  For President Trump, the difference of three degrees in may be considered a small change.  However, the impact that each could have are very different.

Chart Created by Bhore

Chart Created by Bhore

When examining the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC’s) set by each state in the United Natioans, the inaccuracy in President Trump’s statement can be seen.  The Paris Agreement lead countries to promise to reduce their harmful ways, “Brunei pledged in 2015 to reduce total energy consumption by 63% by 2035, and to increase the share of power generated by renewables to 10% by 2035; Ecuador committed to an unconditional 20.4% to 25% reduction in energy sector emissions by 2025; Japan to a 26% reduction in emissions on 2013 levels by 2030; and the United States to a 26% to 28% domestic reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025” (Blau p. 25).  Although the United States has backed out of its NDC, other states commitments show how the Paris Agreement will positively impact the environment.  Reductions in energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and investments in solar energy will all effect the global climate by reducing the amount of GHG in the atmosphere.  This relationship is explained by Dr. Subhash Janardhan Bhore, “taking everything into account, greenhouse gas emissions and the rise in global temperature does directly affect the atmosphere”, he wrote (Bhore p.1).

The Paris Agreement is strong as it sets up a system that holds all parties accountable for achieving their NDC’s, as every state will benefit from others compliance as well as their own. This international treaty “sets a course for all countries to limit global temperature increase by taking bold steps towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to strengthen resilience with respect to the inevitable impacts of climate change” (Bhore p.4).

The context of Donald Trump’s statement in his letter is also important.  Directly after claiming that there will be little impact on the climate he states the Paris Agreement will cause “significant increases” in prices of electricity as it would create a shift away from the harmful fossil fuels industry.  This context makes his statements even more inaccurate as he understates the impact that the Paris Agreement will have on the climate while insisting that it will create a large negative impact on the energy prices in the United States.  If the demand and technology  for renewable clean energies increase then their prices will naturally decrease.

Politifact’s website, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/,  describes a statement as mostly false “if the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression”.  This definition perfectly describes President Trumps statement in this letter.  The accuracy of Trump’s statement relies on the definition of the word little.  If in this statement, he is regarding the fact that only small amounts of temperature changes will happen due to the Paris Agreement then he is in fact right. However, these “little” changes can have huge consequences, the difference between doing nothing in regards to mitigating climate change and achieving the goals of the largest international environmental treaty can be reflected in a difference of just over three degrees Celsius.  Even if President Donald Trump was referring to the magnitude of temperature change as little he would be wrong as small changes, either increasing or decreasing, to temperatures has extreme impacts.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Blau, Judith. The Paris Agreement : Climate Change, Solidarity, and Human Rights, Springer International Publishing, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central.

Bhore, Subhash Janardhan. “Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Booster to Enable Sustainable Global Development and Beyond.” International Journal Of Environmental Research And Public Health 13, no. 11 (November 14, 2016): MEDLINE with Full Text, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2017).

Savasan, Zerrin. “A Brief Assessment on the Paris Climate Agreement and Compliance Issue.” International Relations / Uluslararasi Iliskiler 14, no. 54 (April 2017): 107-125. Political Science Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 8, 2017).

 

Posted in Risk and resilience, Trump & Paris Agreement | Tagged , , | 1 Comment