解读拜登的通胀法案·上-科普气候议题｜Tom叔聊美国

时事

2022-09-14 23:09

陌上美国

Telegram channel，欢迎订阅(下载app修改privacy设置；拷贝地址用浏览器打开（微信打开无效）；点击“join/进入”):

https://t.me/MoshangUS

电报读者群

https://t.me/+KY6EeBC-aXYzNmMx

陌上美国推特

https://twitter.com/MoshangUsa

陌上美国YouTube频道（email登录YouTube，订阅）：

https://www.youtube.com/c/MOSHANGUSA

今天(最迟明天)会发布Tom叔对IRA(Inflation Reduction Act)即拜登政府所谓的“消除通胀法案”的解读，和对于气候变化问题及解决思路的科学探讨。

首先我们需要回顾这个科普视频。

01.视频

能上的请直接扫码在邮管观看：

https://youtu.be/FLaHI_uN06A

02.内容摘要

一款由“气候互动”、MIT斯隆商学院等实力机构联手开发的强大气候预测模型，En-ROADS，普通人即可学会操作使用，颠覆你对绿色新政(Green New Deal, GND)、更好重建政策(Build Back Better, BBB)、电动车、屋顶装太阳能、植树造林、核能等原有认知。

如果没有时间，可以看这几个关键要点处：

第5分&第8分，点评分析绿色新政(GND)：根据该预测模型，许多对于延缓温度上升的要素，并没有被GND采纳进去；
第6分&第12:30分，分析了电动车、太阳能-譬如屋顶安装太阳能板，等等，对于气候变化和温室气体排放是否有显著效果。结果发现，改善非常有限；
第10分，点评更好重建政策(BBB)的缺陷和不足，真正对于应对气候变化的最有效措施，譬如减排甲烷气体、增强建筑物的能源使用效率、碳去除和适度的碳税，BBB并没有包括或者只是肤浅地提及；
第14:15分，过去的气候数据很好地检验了该款模型的精确性，发现该模型与实际变化的数据拟合度相当高；
视频还通过模型模拟，揭示了核能、植树、降低人口数量，都对控制温度变化影响有限。这些都打破了许多人的固有认知，非常值得了解。

03.能源是战时的武器

能源完全可以成为战争时期限制、对付敌人的强大武器，而能源政策已经与气候变化学说强势捆绑。因此，增强公众对气候科学的基本了解，才能让我们选择支持合适的政策，而不是误入歧途。

本期节目由设计拦截导弹、无人机系统的专家，毕业于MIT的汤姆·翰佛(Tom Hafer)先生，跟我们科普一些气候科学事实。

这是翰佛先生写的对应的科普文章（首发BigThink，经作者授权发布全文，如需翻译，您可以直接看本文开头的视频）：

https://bigthink.com/the-present/en-roads-climate-model/

En-ROADS: A powerful, interactive climate model for predicting temperature rise

Driving Teslas and planting trees are nice, but methane reduction, industrial efficiency, carbon removal, and a moderate carbon tax are the most efficient ways to fight climate change.

Tom Hafer and Henry Miller

Understanding climate is a tricky proposition because it is a long-term phenomenon that involves so many variables that they cannot possibly all be evaluated or even measured. For example, we cannot really predict cloud formation or volcanic activity. Therefore, we must rely on models that make many unverifiable assumptions. At best, they can take into consideration some of the physics that influences climate and a consensus of the assumptions regarding climate.

As a result, there are a number of models that predict a variety of outcomes, depending on how the modelers selected variables. This can be baffling even to real scientists, let alone to politicians chosen for that elusive quality of “electability.”

So, what are concerned citizens to do? Should we compost our food scraps, buy a Tesla, or what? Fortunately there is a well-regarded, scientific model that lets us answer some of those questions: the En-ROADS model, developed by Climate Interactive, Ventana Systems, and MIT’s Sloan School.

The En-ROADS climate model

What is unique about En-ROADS is that it is interactive, with a simple interface that allows each user to explore most of the variables that are thought to affect climate. The figure below shows the En-Roads interface.

Credit: Climate Interactive

The top row shows the sources of energy over time (first graph), greenhouse gas emissions (second graph), and the expected temperature rise through the year 2100 – that is, through the end of this century.

The slider bars in the lower half of the figure allow the user to manipulate a variety of variables to see what their effects are. Clicking on the variable allows the user to see what assumptions are made for each action and reveals more slider bars that change variables. For example, clicking on “Renewables” reveals, in part, this explanation: “Encourage or discourage building solar panels, geothermal, and wind turbines,” and the slider bars allow the user to change parameters such as the imposition of a tax or subsidy.

The variables assume that the actions are taken globally, not just in the United States. Thus, any actions that are implemented only in the U.S. will have much smaller effects. The current values for each variable are the baseline and result in a predicted rise of 3.6° C by 2100 if no new actions are taken. The accuracy of this model is unlikely to be better than ±10%, in other words ±0.36° C. So, in this article, we will call any effect that results in less than a change of ±0.36° as being negligible.

What are the best climate policies?

The Biden administration wants trillions of dollars to enact the “Green New Deal,” which includes large cash incentives for wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars. Therefore, it is instructive to see what the effect would be if we subsidized renewable energy globally to the maximum extent possible. If we slide the slider for “Renewables” all the way to the right, the temperature drops only 0.2° C by the end of the century. That’s negligible. How about electric cars? Slide the “Transportation Electrification” bar all the way to the right. The drop is 0.1° C — again, negligible. How about punitive taxes on coal? Still negligible at 0.2° C. Planting more trees – negligible. Bioenergy has no effect at all. Thus, the important bottom line: Much of what is in the Green New Deal has little scientific justification.

Which measures could have an appreciable effect? There are a few. Extreme reductions in methane emissions result in about half a degree drop. This would not be easy to accomplish but is worth exploring. Carbon removal could result in a drop of about 0.4° C. Unfortunately, we do not currently have scalable technologies for this, but again, exploration could be useful; science and technology are powerful when they are focused and well-funded. Highly improved industrial energy efficiency would also result in a 0.4° C drop.

The big winner according to En-ROADS is a very large carbon tax. At a price of $250 per ton of CO2 generated, En-ROADS predicts a reduction of a full degree. But a carbon tax is not part of the Build Back Better proposal and for good reason: such a tax likely would stifle the economy and would disproportionately impact the poor.

The good news is that investing in reasonable methane reduction, industrial efficiency, and carbon removal technologies, along with a moderate carbon tax on a global scale could result in a drop of 1.3° C in the expected temperature rise. The figure below shows the effect of these changes.

Credit: Climate Interactive

An inconvenient truth

The bad news is that this still means a rise of 2.3° C. And that is if the entire world were to implement these actions; acting alone, the United States will spend trillions and have a negligible impact.

The hard choices involve creatively and fairly implementing a carbon tax, telling the truth to the public, and providing for adaptation. We know that flooding can be abated; Amsterdam and much of the rest of Holland have been below sea level for centuries. Drought can be abated through efficiency and better water management, including desalination and long-distance pipelines. Buildings can be hardened against storms, and better warning systems can alert people to approaching adverse weather.

Finally, it must be noted that the temperature rise, while significant, will be gradual and will not have sudden inflection points. Thus, the notion that we are approaching some “tipping point” beyond which there will be a global catastrophe resulting in human extinction is simply insupportable. Let’s not panic but put our heads together and work.

Tom Hafer developed systems for neutralizing rockets and drones. He currently coaches teenage robotics teams. Henry I. Miller (@henryimiller), a physician and molecular biologist, was a Research Associate at the NIH and the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Henry and Tom were undergraduates together at MIT.

(请把我们公号置顶，这样不会错过每次新的更文；另一方面，大家还是早做准备，去电报、YouTube、twitter等墙外平台寻我们吧。)

电报教育生活群（大陆区之外可用），入群方式：

1. 已经有电报的请扫码加入（用手机相机功能对着二维码几秒即可）