GeoLog

GeoPolicy

GeoPolicy: What will a Trump presidency mean for climate change?

GeoPolicy: What will a Trump presidency mean for climate change?

The US Presidential election this month saw Republican Donald Trump, a fierce climate sceptic, be elected into office. In wake of the election results, this month’s GeoPolicy post will take a look at Trump’s proposed actions on climate change, how likely these are to happen, and what the climate and clean technology communities could do to limit the damage.

 

This tweet, written four years ago, has come to surmise Donald Trump’s views on climate change.

Beyond scepticism, reaching into the realms of conspiracy, it provides a dark outlook on what a Trump presidency might mean for global activities preventing climate change.

In his energy policy speech during his presidential campaign, Trump stated that he wants to re-ignite the US coal industry and expand oil and gas resources to strive for energy independence. Additionally, he has expressed a wish to “cancel” the Paris Agreement and retract Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which requires companies to lower their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions1.

As President-elect, one of Trump’s first actions has been to appoint the renowned climate sceptic, Myron Ebell, to lead his US Environmental Protection Agency transitional team. Ebell has written much about climate change “alarmism” (as he describes it), has been quoted calling the Clean Power Plan “illegal” and the Paris Agreement “unconstitutional”2. Additionally, Trump favours Harold Hamm, Chief Executive of the oil company Continental Resources, to be his energy secretary3.

Perhaps in no surprise, the day after the election results, stock markets saw share prices rocket for coal companies and plummet for renewable energy firms4.

But will these plans be realised?

A recent news article from Science has tried to assess the possibility of Trump implementing his plans. Some are easier said than done5. The Paris Agreement was ratified by President Obama and entered into force on 04 November 2016. Legally, this means that Trump cannot immediately pull out of the Agreement, it would take several years. He could, however, remove the US from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which would take effect in one year. The article states that this is the most likely action Trump will choose to take. The US currently makes up 17.89 % of global GHG emissions6. It is the second largest contributing nation. Failing to reduce these emissions, or even increasing them, would be a substantial blow to the Paris Agreement.

 Entry Into Force of the Paris Agreement. Credit: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/)

Entry Into Force of the Paris Agreement. Credit: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/)

The Clean Power Plan, being domestic legislation rather than international, could be more difficult to revoke, as it has already undergone a lengthy review process. The article interviews Jody Freeman, director of the Environmental Law Program at Harvard Law School. Courts would have to approve the de-regulation of the Clean Power Plan and this would require ‘sound scientific or technical reasoning’, Freeman says5.

 

Beyond Paris

During the same week as the elections, COP22 was being held in Marrakesh. This meeting discussed the implementation of the Paris Agreement. The US Presidential announcement happened on the second day of the conference. Scientists’ responses were mixed. But a clear message resounded: with or without the US, the Paris Agreement will go ahead7.

Dr Philip B Duffy, former senior policy analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, states in the video below, that there is an international momentum to tackling climate change that can’t be stopped. If the US government steps back then other countries must step up and do more.

One example of going above and beyond, is Germany, who has recently announced an agreement to cut carbon emissions by 95 % by 20508.

 

Another side to the argument?

It is clear that Trump does not care about climate change. What he has said, multiple times throughout his presidential campaign, is that he is a business man. Trump cares about making money.

Perhaps by putting the subject of climate change to the sidelines and focusing more on the economic arguments for transforming to a low-carbon technology it is possible to continue addressing this issue. Several economic arguments for tackling climate change exist9:

  • The cost of renewable energy sources have substantially decreased over recent years and the share of energy being produced by these methods is increasing10;
  • Natural disasters, like flooding and hurricanes, cost millions in damages and could become more frequent and severe due to climate change11. The rising damage and insurance costs are becoming more competitive with the investments needed to mitigate/adapt to climate change;
  • In the US, subsidies for traditional energy resources are four-times as large as they are for renewables12.

Several reasons now exist for switching to low-carbon energy supplies, which, in the process, reduce GHG emissions and mitigate against climate change. Additionally, a spokesperson from the Trump campaign did not disregard the possibility of developing renewable energy sources. They were quoted to say:

Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels.  A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption.13

Many of Trump’s environmental policies focus on de-regulation: leaving it up to the individual States to choose whether they want to partake in mitigation policies. One small positive to this is that not all of the US shares Trump’s views, and although national policies may be changed, many States will continue to implement regional policies that promote clean technology and reduce GHG emissions5. But this will not be enough. If the US fails then the rest of the world must step up to limit rising global temperatures.

 

Further Reading:

The Trump Effect: Smaller than you think

Climate change a Chinese hoax? Beijing gives Donald Trump a lesson in history 

Sources:

[1] – How President Trump Will Affect Clean Energy and the Climate Change Fight

[2] – Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic to Lead EPA Transition

[3] – Oil mogul Hamm tops Trump list for U.S. energy secretary: sources

[4] – 12 things that already happened within hours of Donald Trump being elected president

[5] – What Trump can—and can’t—do all by himself on climate

[6] – Paris Reality Check – pledged climate futures

[7] – Climate change: Nations will push ahead with plans despite Trump

[8] – German coalition agrees to cut carbon emissions up to 95% by 2050

[9] – Is there an economic case for tackling climate change?

[10] – Half of UK electricity comes from low-carbon sources for first time ever, claims new report

[11] – Tropical cyclones and climate change (Nature Geoscience)

[12] – Felipe Calderón: Economic Arguments Needed to Fight Climate Change

[13] – How President-Elect Trump Views Science

We are hiring: be our next Science Policy Officer!

We are hiring: be our next Science Policy Officer!

Do you have an interest in science policy and the geosciences? Then this post might be just right for you!

We are looking to hire a Science Policy Officer to continue developing the EGU’s policy programme, which is aimed at building bridges between geoscientists and European policymakers, engaging the EGU membership with public policy, and informing decision makers about the Earth, planetary and space sciences. The officer will be tasked with mapping out policy opportunities for the EGU, setting up links between EGU members and European decision makers, and developing training and networking events for scientists to engage with policy.

We are looking for a good team player with excellent interpersonal, organisational, and communication skills to fill this role. The successful applicant will have a postgraduate degree (e.g. MA, MSc), preferably in the geosciences or related scientific disciplines or in public policy. Candidates should also have experience in communicating with policymakers, knowledge of policymaking at the European level and an expert command of English. Non-European nationals are eligible to apply, provided they have some knowledge of the European decision-making system.

To get a feel for what the position involves why not read this post by the current post holder, Sarah Connors? Be sure to also check the GeoPolicy column of the blog for even more insight into the work.

The deadline for application is 15 November 2016. Further details about the position and how to apply can be found here.

Feel free to contact Dr Bárbara Ferreira, the Media and Communications Manager, at media@egu.eu or on +49-89-2180-6703 if you have any questions about the position.

GeoPolicy: Science and the policy cycle

One way to improve the impact of your scientific research is to engage with policy. Doing so can create new opportunities for yourself and your research. The main challenges are knowing when and how to effectively communicate scientific results to policy. If the wrong timing or communication method is chosen then results are less likely to be incorporated into the policy process. This month’s GeoPolicy post takes a look at the policy cycle and how science can be included to strengthen this practice.

 

Why is the policy cycle used?

The policy cycle is an idealised process that explains how policy should be drafted, implemented and assessed. It serves more as an instructive guide for those new to policy rather than a practical strictly-defined process, but many organisations aim to complete policies using the policy cycle as an ideal.

 

Where is science involved?

Science can have a supportive role in every step of the policy cycle. In fact, novel scientific discoveries can sometimes be the instigator to forming new policies. The classic example of this is the ozone hole discovery in 1985 by British Antarctic Survey scientists, Joesph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin. After a series of rigorous meetings and negotiations by scientists, policy officials, and politicians, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer was signed on 16 September 1987. Without scientific evidence the Montreal Protocol would never have been created.

 

What are the stages of the policy cycle?

The policy cycle is made up of roughly 6 stages and science can be incorporated into every step. How science supports these different stages are described below.

The policy cycle and where scientific advice can be given.

The policy cycle showing where different types of scientific advice can be given. Gif created at http://gifmaker.me/.

 

  • Agenda Setting: This step identifies new issues that may require government action. If multiple areas are identified they all can be assessed, or particular issues may be given a priority.
  • Scientific Input: As described above, new scientific results can be the foundation for forming new policies. Additionally, new focus areas can be anticipated through so-called ‘horizon / foresight scanning’ events that aim to identify emerging issues of policy-relevance.
  • Example: The government may want to increase energy production from renewable sources. This could be through increased solar panel production and usage.

 

  • Formulation: This step defines the structure of the policy. What goals need to be achieved? Will there be additional implications? What will the costs be? How will key stakeholders react to these effects?
  • Scientific Input: Science can be incorporated in this stage through Impact Assessments, which aim to comprehensively assess what effects will occur from a potential policy. These assessments can study multiple strategies to identify the optimum policy.
  • Example: Should governments offer tax-breaks to start-up renewable energy companies? Or should they offer individual subsidies to solar panel buyers? What might be the effects of these actions?

 

  • Adoption: Once the appropriate approval (governmental, legislative, referendum voting etc.) is granted then a policy can be adopted.
  • Science Input: Those in charge of approving a certain policy will often seek external advice that is independent to those who drafted the policy. Scientists can be called upon to offer advice within the decision-making process.
  • Example: A nation-wide policy can be implemented by the national government, but changing a law will require a vote in Parliament.

 

  • Implementation: Establishing that the correct partners have the resources and knowledge to implement the policy. This could involve creating an external organisation to carry out actions. Monitoring to ensure correct policy implementation is also necessary.
  • Scientific Input: Scientific advice can be needed to logistically support the policy being implemented. Scientists can provide methodological guidance to policy workers and advisory bodies who implement the policy.
  • Example: Administration processes to allow organisations and individuals to apply for subsidies / tax benefits need to be created.

 

  • Evaluation: This step assesses the effectiveness and success of the policy. Did any unpredicted effects occur? These assessments can be quantitative and/or qualitative.
  • Scientific Input: Scientists can evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of policies. This can be done independently or working with policy implementers.
  • Example: The UK and Germany introduced highly popular solar energy policies. Energy production at certain times of the day and year have substantially increased. Occasionally more energy is being produced than is needed, which now leads to further questions about how to handle the ‘excess’ energy.

 

  • Support / Maintenance: This step studies how the policy might be developed, or provides additional support for its continuation. Additionally, the policy can be terminated if deemed redundant, accomplished, or ineffective.
  • Scientific Input: As a policy is continued, scientific advice may be needed on an ad-hoc basis. Updated feedback can be given when needed to help maintain and improve policies.
  • Example: Even if a policy is considered a success, should it be continued? Should solar panel policies be continued, or should policies now focus on improving national electric grids, or should energy storage policies be developed instead?

Remember that scientists should only offer a supportive role to the policy cycle. They should present only the current state of scientific knowledge. Policy officials are the decision makers.

 

Policy cycle shortcomings

The policy cycle has been described as a theoretical concept that it not fully translatable to real world applications. Sometimes, some stages of the cycle are never delivered. Without scientists some of the stages are difficult to accomplish, therefore scientists are in a position to strengthen the policy cycle’s structure through expert advice and assistance.

 

Sources / Further reading

Policy Concepts in 1000 Words: The Policy Cycle and its Stages

GeoPolicy: 8 ways to engage with policy makers 

GeoPolicy: How to communicate science to policy officials – tips and tricks from the experts

The Ozone Hole

GeoPolicy: How do Members of European Parliament learn about science?

GeoPolicy: How do Members of European Parliament learn about science?

Only ~5% of Members of European Parliament, or MEPs, have a background in the physical sciences1, yet many political challenges require an understanding of the science surrounding these issues. Issues such as locating and extracting mineral resources, understanding climate change impacts, and developing new low-carbon technology. The European Commission (EC) and the European Parliament (EP) have structures in place to ensure drafted policy can be supported using scientific evidence. This GeoPolicy post takes a closer look at how the EP gathers and requests scientific evidence.

 

The EC and the EP have different mechanisms to ensure policy workers and MEPs are briefed on scientific material. The EC conducts in-house scientific research within the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and has recently constructed the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) to ensure that the latest academic research is heard. This post focuses on how science supports the EP as last month’s GeoPolicy post discussed SAM in more detail.

There are 751 MEPs (including the UK) within the EP. All MEPs are required to sit on at least one of the 20 committees that focus on a particular area of governance. Each committee is responsible for assessing legislation proposals and negotiating edits to legislation with the Council of the EU. Additionally, they can organise meetings with experts and commission internal reports that focus on their relevant policy areas. A full list of the EP committees is shown below.

 

EP Committees
AFET Foreign Affairs EMPL Employment and Social Affairs CULT Culture and Education
DROI Human Rights ENVI Environment, Public Health and Food Safety JURI Legal Affairs
SEDE Security and Defence ITRE Industry, Research and Energy LIBE Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
DEVE Development IMCO Internal Market and Consumer Protection AFCO Constitutional Affairs
INTA International Trade TRAN Transport and Tourism FEMM Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
BUDG Budgets REGI Regional Development PETI Petitions
CONT Budgetary Control AGRI Agriculture and Rural Development
ECON Economic and Monetary Affairs PECH Fisheries
 Special committees
TAX2 Tax Rulings and Other Measures Similar in Nature or Effect (TAXE 2)
 Committees of inquiry
EMIS Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector

PANA Money laundering, tax avoidance and tax evasion

 

 

The European Parliament Research Service (EPRS)

The EPRS is the in-house research centre for the European Parliament (not to be confused with the JRC who are the in-house research service for the European Commission).  If science communication within the EP were a concert taking place in a park, the EPRS is the gazebo in which the band is playing. They operate as the main provider of science to the EP; usually carrying out secondary research or commissioning primary research in response to requests made by MEPs, committees or other EP bodies. They also carry out joint projects with the JRC for example the Science Meets Parliaments scheme (see below).

Many of their subsequent reports and resources are available online for the general public to read. Additionally, they have an active blog in which they post a variety of different types of articles3. These include updates on ongoing legislation being drafted by the EU, information briefings about a science policy topic, more in-depth analyses, infographics, and factsheets.

An infographic showing the continental contributions of historical CO2 emissions available on the EPRS Graphics Warehouse webpages. )

An infographic showing the continental contributions of historical CO2 emissions available on the EPRS Graphics Warehouse webpages.

 

Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA)

MEP committee representatives can sit on cross-committee panels, which look at interdisciplinary topics. The Science and Technology Options Assessment, or STOA, is a cross-committee panel that focuses on providing Parliament’s Committees and other parliamentary bodies with independent and impartial scientific advice for science-related issues. The panel was established in 1987 and is made up of 23 MEPs that span eight permanent Committees of the Parliament: AGRI, CULT, EMPL, ENVI, IMCO, ITRE, JURI and TRAN. STOA also employs secretariat staff to help with projects and events2.

STOA (who meet monthly) have budget to fund research projects totalling 650,000 euros per year. Together with the EPRS they fund more substantial projects to provide scientific evidence for topics of policy-relevance. A study can have a maximum amount of 100,000 euros funding.

STOA work very closely with the EPRS. Together, the types of projects conducted are:

  • Impact Assessments. These usually have a timeframe of <1 year and a resulting report is written for the requesting committee.
  • Technology Assessments have a shorter time frame. The usual result is a short report summarising the current state of affairs for a specific topic.
  • Scientific Foresight Unit carries out projects that look at 30-50 years into the future. Activities include horizon scanning, scenario building, and legislative back-casting (to accomplish an end goal, i.e. 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, what legislature is needed in the near future to achieve this).
  • Short written documents include “awareness documents” and “What If” documents, which are all available on the EPRS blog.
  • The Scientists-MEPs pairing scheme entitled Science Meets Parliaments, which is co-organised by the Joint Research Centre. This year there was over 30 pairs and there are already plans to hold the scheme again in late 2016. A summary of the experience can been found here.
  • Discussion workshops in which external experts can be called into present scientific research on a particular topic. Previous topics have been on volcanic eruptions and mitigation of earthquake effects.

Current projects being conducted focus on ‘future agriculture’ (precision farming), ‘assistive tech for the disabled’, and ‘3D printing and additive manufacturing’. Possible future topics will cover: energy resistance, employments, new technologies, regional policy, and language development within the information era.

 

Sources

1 – http://www.eubusiness.com/Members/michaelterberg/MEPs

2 – http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/panel

3 – https://epthinktank.eu/about/