E.A.W.H. van den Hoven, Franziska Hartung, M. Burke, Roel M. Willems
Style is an important aspect of literature, and stylistic deviations are sometimes labeled foregrounded, since their manner of expression deviates from the stylistic default. Russian Formalists have claimed that foregrounding increases processing demands and therefore causes slower reading – an effect called retardation. We tested this claim experimentally by having participants read short literary stories while measuring their eye movements. Our results confirm that readers indeed read slower and make more regressions towards foregrounded passages as compared to passages that are not foregrounded. A closer look, however, reveals significant individual differences in sensitivity to foregrounding. Some readers in fact do not slow down at all when reading foregrounded passages. The slowing down effect for literariness was related to a slowing down effect for high perplexity (unexpected) words: those readers who slowed down more during literary passages also slowed down more during high perplexity words, even though no correlation between literariness and perplexity existed in the stories. We conclude that individual differences play a major role in processing of literary texts and argue for accounts of literary reading that focus on the interplay between reader and text.
{"title":"Individual Differences in Sensitivity to Style During Literary Reading: Insights from Eye-Tracking","authors":"E.A.W.H. van den Hoven, Franziska Hartung, M. Burke, Roel M. Willems","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.39","url":null,"abstract":"Style is an important aspect of literature, and stylistic deviations are sometimes labeled foregrounded, since their manner of expression deviates from the stylistic default. Russian Formalists have claimed that foregrounding increases processing demands and therefore causes slower reading – an effect called retardation. We tested this claim experimentally by having participants read short literary stories while measuring their eye movements. Our results confirm that readers indeed read slower and make more regressions towards foregrounded passages as compared to passages that are not foregrounded. A closer look, however, reveals significant individual differences in sensitivity to foregrounding. Some readers in fact do not slow down at all when reading foregrounded passages. The slowing down effect for literariness was related to a slowing down effect for high perplexity (unexpected) words: those readers who slowed down more during literary passages also slowed down more during high perplexity words, even though no correlation between literariness and perplexity existed in the stories. We conclude that individual differences play a major role in processing of literary texts and argue for accounts of literary reading that focus on the interplay between reader and text.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
F. Forman, G. Solomon, R. Morello-Frosch, Keith Pezzoli
Climate change is projected to cause widespread and serious harm to public health and the environment upon which life depends, unraveling many of the health and social gains of the last century. The burden of harm will fall disproportionately on the poorest communities, both in the U.S. and globally, raising urgent issues of “climate justice”. In contrast, strategies for climate action, including those of an institutional, and cultural nature, have the potential to improve quality of life for everyone. This chapter examines the social dimensions of building carbon neutral societies, with an emphasis on producing behavioral shifts, among both the most and the least advantaged populations. In support of Bending the Curve solutions 2 and 3, the case studies offered in this chapter rely not only on innovations in technology and policy, but innovations in attitudinal and behavioral change as well, focused on coordinated public communication and education (Solution 2), as well as new platforms for collaborating, where leaders across sectors can convene to tackle concrete problems (Solution 3).
{"title":"Chapter 8. Bending the Curve and Closing the Gap: Climate Justice and Public Health","authors":"F. Forman, G. Solomon, R. Morello-Frosch, Keith Pezzoli","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.67","url":null,"abstract":"Climate change is projected to cause widespread and serious harm to public health and the environment upon which life depends, unraveling many of the health and social gains of the last century. The burden of harm will fall disproportionately on the poorest communities, both in the U.S. and globally, raising urgent issues of “climate justice”. In contrast, strategies for climate action, including those of an institutional, and cultural nature, have the potential to improve quality of life for everyone. This chapter examines the social dimensions of building carbon neutral societies, with an emphasis on producing behavioral shifts, among both the most and the least advantaged populations. In support of Bending the Curve solutions 2 and 3, the case studies offered in this chapter rely not only on innovations in technology and policy, but innovations in attitudinal and behavioral change as well, focused on coordinated public communication and education (Solution 2), as well as new platforms for collaborating, where leaders across sectors can convene to tackle concrete problems (Solution 3).","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879597","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the developed world, discussions of climate change mitigation and adaptation tend to focus on technological solutions such as decarbonizing electric grids and regulating emissions of methane, black carbon, and so on. However, an often overlooked strategy for reaching greenhouse gas reduction targets in much of the developing world is rooted, not in new technologies, but in vegetation management. Trees and other vegetation absorb carbon as they grow and release carbon when they are burnt, so landscapes function as carbon sinks and carbon storage sites when forests are growing, on one hand, and as carbon sources when forests are cleared, on the other. Since greenhouse gas emissions from such land use changes rival emissions from the entire transport sector, trees and vegetation are essential to efforts to slow and adapt to climate change. Under the right circumstances, vegetation recovery and its carbon uptake occur quickly. Moreover, carbon uptake can be strongly affected by human management of forests; the right kinds of management can improve rates of recovery and carbon sequestration substantially. This chapter reviews carbon dynamics in mature forests, secondary forests, agroforests and tree landscapes in urban areas to point out the variability of these systems and the potential for enhancing carbon uptake and storage. Furthermore, vegetation systems have many additional benefits in the form of other environmental services, such as improving livelihoods, subsistence insurance habitat, microclimates, and water systems. Finally, by managing forests better, we can also make significant contributions to climate justice because most global forests and forested landscapes are under the stewardship of small holders.
{"title":"Chapter 10. Trees have Already been Invented: Carbon in Woodlands","authors":"S. Hecht, Keith Pezzoli, S. Saatchi","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.69","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.69","url":null,"abstract":"In the developed world, discussions of climate change mitigation and adaptation tend to focus on technological solutions such as decarbonizing electric grids and regulating emissions of methane, black carbon, and so on. However, an often overlooked strategy for reaching greenhouse gas reduction targets in much of the developing world is rooted, not in new technologies, but in vegetation management. Trees and other vegetation absorb carbon as they grow and release carbon when they are burnt, so landscapes function as carbon sinks and carbon storage sites when forests are growing, on one hand, and as carbon sources when forests are cleared, on the other. Since greenhouse gas emissions from such land use changes rival emissions from the entire transport sector, trees and vegetation are essential to efforts to slow and adapt to climate change. Under the right circumstances, vegetation recovery and its carbon uptake occur quickly. Moreover, carbon uptake can be strongly affected by human management of forests; the right kinds of management can improve rates of recovery and carbon sequestration substantially. This chapter reviews carbon dynamics in mature forests, secondary forests, agroforests and tree landscapes in urban areas to point out the variability of these systems and the potential for enhancing carbon uptake and storage. Furthermore, vegetation systems have many additional benefits in the form of other environmental services, such as improving livelihoods, subsistence insurance habitat, microclimates, and water systems. Finally, by managing forests better, we can also make significant contributions to climate justice because most global forests and forested landscapes are under the stewardship of small holders.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Auston, S. Samuelsen, J. Brouwer, S. Denbaars, W. Glassley, B. Jenkins, Per Petersen, V. Srinivasan
Technology is a centrally important component of all strategies to mitigate climate change. As such, it encompasses a multi-dimensional space that is far too large to be fully addressed in this brief chapter. Consequently, we have elected to focus on a subset of topics that we believe have the potential for substantial impact. As researchers, we have also narrowed our focus to address applied research, development and deployment issues and omit basic research topics that have a longer-term impact. This handful of topics also omits technologies that we deem to be relatively mature, such as solar photovoltaics and wind turbines, even though we acknowledge that additional research could further reduce costs and enhance performance. These and other mature technologies such as transportation are discussed in Chapter 6. This report and the related Summit Conference are an outgrowth of the University of California President’s Carbon Neutrality Initiative, and consequently we are strongly motivated by the special demands of this ambitious goal, as we are also motivated by the corresponding goals for the State of California, the nation and the world. The unique feature of the UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative is the quest to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 at all ten 10 campuses. It should be emphasized that a zero emission target is enormously demanding and requires careful strategic planning to arrive at a mix of technologies, policies, and behavioral measures, as well as highly effective communication – all of which are far more challenging than reducing emissions by some 40% or even 80%. Each campus has a unique set of requirements based on its current energy and emissions. Factors such as a local climate, dependence on cogeneration, access to wholesale electricity markets, and whether a medical school is included shape the specific challenges of the campuses, each of which is a “living laboratory” setting a model for others to learn and adopt. An additional aspect of a zero GHG emission target is the need to pay close attention to system integration – i.e., how the various elements of a plan to achieve carbon neutrality fit together in the most cost effective and efficient way. This optimization imposes an additional constraint, but also provides an important opportunity to capture the synergies that can arise from those choices. For example, one of the themes that has been proposed is the complete electrification of energy supplies, residential & commercial building operation, and transportation. The deployment of storage technologies such as batteries and/or hydrogen for both transportation and for load balancing of grid and distributed generation may provide some synergistic opportunities for integrating these systems that will accelerate the deployment of each. A specific example is the use of on-board batteries in electric vehicles for load balancing the electric grid. On-site residential storage as is now being developed by Tesla M
{"title":"Chapter 5. Assessing the Need for High Impact Technology Research, Development & Deployment for Mitigating Climate Change","authors":"D. Auston, S. Samuelsen, J. Brouwer, S. Denbaars, W. Glassley, B. Jenkins, Per Petersen, V. Srinivasan","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.64","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.64","url":null,"abstract":"Technology is a centrally important component of all strategies to mitigate climate change. As such, it encompasses a multi-dimensional space that is far too large to be fully addressed in this brief chapter. Consequently, we have elected to focus on a subset of topics that we believe have the potential for substantial impact. As researchers, we have also narrowed our focus to address applied research, development and deployment issues and omit basic research topics that have a longer-term impact. This handful of topics also omits technologies that we deem to be relatively mature, such as solar photovoltaics and wind turbines, even though we acknowledge that additional research could further reduce costs and enhance performance. These and other mature technologies such as transportation are discussed in Chapter 6. This report and the related Summit Conference are an outgrowth of the University of California President’s Carbon Neutrality Initiative, and consequently we are strongly motivated by the special demands of this ambitious goal, as we are also motivated by the corresponding goals for the State of California, the nation and the world. The unique feature of the UC Carbon Neutrality Initiative is the quest to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 at all ten 10 campuses. It should be emphasized that a zero emission target is enormously demanding and requires careful strategic planning to arrive at a mix of technologies, policies, and behavioral measures, as well as highly effective communication – all of which are far more challenging than reducing emissions by some 40% or even 80%. Each campus has a unique set of requirements based on its current energy and emissions. Factors such as a local climate, dependence on cogeneration, access to wholesale electricity markets, and whether a medical school is included shape the specific challenges of the campuses, each of which is a “living laboratory” setting a model for others to learn and adopt. An additional aspect of a zero GHG emission target is the need to pay close attention to system integration – i.e., how the various elements of a plan to achieve carbon neutrality fit together in the most cost effective and efficient way. This optimization imposes an additional constraint, but also provides an important opportunity to capture the synergies that can arise from those choices. For example, one of the themes that has been proposed is the complete electrification of energy supplies, residential & commercial building operation, and transportation. The deployment of storage technologies such as batteries and/or hydrogen for both transportation and for load balancing of grid and distributed generation may provide some synergistic opportunities for integrating these systems that will accelerate the deployment of each. A specific example is the use of on-board batteries in electric vehicles for load balancing the electric grid. On-site residential storage as is now being developed by Tesla M","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1525/COLLABRA.64","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879453","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Allison, Daniel M. Press, Cara Horowitz, A. Millard‐Ball, S. Pincetl
California is one of the least greenhouse-gas intensive states in the United States, and one of the most energy efficient economies in the world. Its success is partly an accident of geography, due to a temperate climate, and its service-based economy with little emissions-intensive industry. But California’s governors, state legislators, and local agencies have also shown a willingness to enact climate legislation and implement mitigation policies, far ahead of the federal government and most other states. In part, climate action in California is rooted in the legacy of the air quality and energy efficiency programs from the 1970s and 1980s, which bequeathed state agencies with a depth of technical, regulatory and legal expertise. However, California has also legitimized climate mitigation as a matter of state action, and demonstrates high public accountability and enlists powerful coalitions by providing substantial and enduring incentives. This article discusses the range of mitigation policies, from cap-and-trade to vehicle efficiency and green building standards, that California has implemented, and the political coalition that has enabled their introduction. It also highlights challenges, particularly the difficulty in passing down mandates and incentives for emissions reduction to local government agencies, which retain a monopoly in land-use planning.
{"title":"Chapter 7. Paths to Carbon Neutrality: Lessons from California","authors":"J. Allison, Daniel M. Press, Cara Horowitz, A. Millard‐Ball, S. Pincetl","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.66","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.66","url":null,"abstract":"California is one of the least greenhouse-gas intensive states in the United States, and one of the most energy efficient economies in the world. Its success is partly an accident of geography, due to a temperate climate, and its service-based economy with little emissions-intensive industry. But California’s governors, state legislators, and local agencies have also shown a willingness to enact climate legislation and implement mitigation policies, far ahead of the federal government and most other states. In part, climate action in California is rooted in the legacy of the air quality and energy efficiency programs from the 1970s and 1980s, which bequeathed state agencies with a depth of technical, regulatory and legal expertise. However, California has also legitimized climate mitigation as a matter of state action, and demonstrates high public accountability and enlists powerful coalitions by providing substantial and enduring incentives. This article discusses the range of mitigation policies, from cap-and-trade to vehicle efficiency and green building standards, that California has implemented, and the political coalition that has enabled their introduction. It also highlights challenges, particularly the difficulty in passing down mandates and incentives for emissions reduction to local government agencies, which retain a monopoly in land-use planning.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A. Barnosky, T. Matlock, J. Christensen, Hahrie Han, Jack Miles, R. Rice, Leroy Westerling, L. White
The key message of this chapter is that solving the climate problem will require motivating social and behavioral changes through effective communication. More and better communication about climate issues is needed so people will mobilize solutions. Currently most people in the world do not believe that climate change is worth doing anything about, if they have even heard of it at all. Despite the efforts of many journalists, scientists, educators, and politicians to convey the science behind and urgency of climate disruption, about a third of Americans still deny that climate is changing or that humans cause it, and nearly 60% feel that climate change is not a problem serious enough to affect them. What is more, in many parts of the world, at most 35% of adults have even heard of climate change. This general lack of recognition about the magnitude of climate disruption and the urgency of dealing with it is slowing down the process of implementing solutions. Even if high-level decision makers want to put in place the policies, incentives, and ready-to-be-deployed technologies required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are unable do so to the extent needed because they have to answer to their constituencies. Put another way, only if the majority of the global society sees the need to mitigate climate change, and the feasibility of doing so, will decision-makers be able to enact the policy changes needed to jumpstart a global energy transition. The good news, however, is that most people—for example, around 60% in the United States—have not yet made up their minds about the need to fix the climate problem. Reaching these individuals with the right information in the right way offers great opportunity to boost societal awareness and effect necessary change. In this chapter we briefly review the information that supports these statements, and summarize the key pathways of communication about climate change that have prevailed so far, including where they have been successful and where they have fallen short. We focus on the United States, because of its high-emitter status and consequent influence on attitudes about climate mitigation worldwide. We then discuss findings from recent research on communication strategies that suggest an effective way forward—namely, that much remains to be done through appropriate framing of the issues for diverse constituencies that have not been effectively reached. We suggest that by targeting specific audiences with appropriately framed information, the societal balance can be tipped from the current condition of a majority who are apathetic to a majority who become receptive to the reality of harmful climate disruption and the need to avoid it. For example, strategies may include peer-to-peer interactions that communicate how climate change and associated impacts fit with existing value systems that define various religious, political, and economic spheres. To this end, we recognize four general communicat
{"title":"Chapter 9. Establishing Common Ground: Finding Better Ways to Communicate About Climate Disruption","authors":"A. Barnosky, T. Matlock, J. Christensen, Hahrie Han, Jack Miles, R. Rice, Leroy Westerling, L. White","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.68","url":null,"abstract":"The key message of this chapter is that solving the climate problem will require motivating social and behavioral changes through effective communication. More and better communication about climate issues is needed so people will mobilize solutions. Currently most people in the world do not believe that climate change is worth doing anything about, if they have even heard of it at all. Despite the efforts of many journalists, scientists, educators, and politicians to convey the science behind and urgency of climate disruption, about a third of Americans still deny that climate is changing or that humans cause it, and nearly 60% feel that climate change is not a problem serious enough to affect them. What is more, in many parts of the world, at most 35% of adults have even heard of climate change. This general lack of recognition about the magnitude of climate disruption and the urgency of dealing with it is slowing down the process of implementing solutions. Even if high-level decision makers want to put in place the policies, incentives, and ready-to-be-deployed technologies required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are unable do so to the extent needed because they have to answer to their constituencies. Put another way, only if the majority of the global society sees the need to mitigate climate change, and the feasibility of doing so, will decision-makers be able to enact the policy changes needed to jumpstart a global energy transition. The good news, however, is that most people—for example, around 60% in the United States—have not yet made up their minds about the need to fix the climate problem. Reaching these individuals with the right information in the right way offers great opportunity to boost societal awareness and effect necessary change. In this chapter we briefly review the information that supports these statements, and summarize the key pathways of communication about climate change that have prevailed so far, including where they have been successful and where they have fallen short. We focus on the United States, because of its high-emitter status and consequent influence on attitudes about climate mitigation worldwide. We then discuss findings from recent research on communication strategies that suggest an effective way forward—namely, that much remains to be done through appropriate framing of the issues for diverse constituencies that have not been effectively reached. We suggest that by targeting specific audiences with appropriately framed information, the societal balance can be tipped from the current condition of a majority who are apathetic to a majority who become receptive to the reality of harmful climate disruption and the need to avoid it. For example, strategies may include peer-to-peer interactions that communicate how climate change and associated impacts fit with existing value systems that define various religious, political, and economic spheres. To this end, we recognize four general communicat","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879787","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The story of the University of California’s institutional goal of de-carbonization by 2025, already years in the making, was a key feature of a systemwide Summit on carbon neutrality and climate mitigation in the Fall of 2015. This report, commissioned by the Summit, represents a unique multi-campus, interdisciplinary collaboration, an attempt by one university system to harness its diverse intellectual resources to address the crisis of global climate disruption. This chapter puts the Bending the Curve report into the context of the University of California’s (UC) carbon neutrality and sustainability initiatives and offers one example of how a large organization can become a “living laboratory”— a research, teaching and learning, and innovation testbed—for climate solutions.
{"title":"Chapter 2. The University as a Living Laboratory for Climate Solutions","authors":"Matthew Clair, L. Chiang","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.61","url":null,"abstract":"The story of the University of California’s institutional goal of de-carbonization by 2025, already years in the making, was a key feature of a systemwide Summit on carbon neutrality and climate mitigation in the Fall of 2015. This report, commissioned by the Summit, represents a unique multi-campus, interdisciplinary collaboration, an attempt by one university system to harness its diverse intellectual resources to address the crisis of global climate disruption. This chapter puts the Bending the Curve report into the context of the University of California’s (UC) carbon neutrality and sustainability initiatives and offers one example of how a large organization can become a “living laboratory”— a research, teaching and learning, and innovation testbed—for climate solutions.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
W. Collins, S. Davis, R. Bales, J. Burney, R. McCarthy, E. Rignot, W. Torre, D. Victor
Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use are changing the radiative budget of the Earth and changing its climate. The negative impacts of this climate change on natural and human systems are already emergent. The solution is to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions altogether as soon as possible, but the rate at which these emissions can decrease is limited by human reliance on fossil fuels for energy and the infrastructural, socio-economic, and behavioral inertia of current systems around the world. In this chapter, we discuss the physical impacts as well as the many challenges and obstacles to ‘bending the curve’, and provide a framework of possible solutions.
{"title":"Chapter 3: Science and Pathways for Bending the Curve","authors":"W. Collins, S. Davis, R. Bales, J. Burney, R. McCarthy, E. Rignot, W. Torre, D. Victor","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.62","url":null,"abstract":"Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use are changing the radiative budget of the Earth and changing its climate. The negative impacts of this climate change on natural and human systems are already emergent. The solution is to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions altogether as soon as possible, but the rate at which these emissions can decrease is limited by human reliance on fossil fuels for energy and the infrastructural, socio-economic, and behavioral inertia of current systems around the world. In this chapter, we discuss the physical impacts as well as the many challenges and obstacles to ‘bending the curve’, and provide a framework of possible solutions.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Kammen, Doug Rotman, M. Delmas, D. Feldman, Mike Mielke, Ramamoorthy Ramesh, D. Sperling
Scaling-up solutions require learning and adapting lessons between locations and at different scales. To accomplish this, common metrics are vital to building a shared language. For California, this has meant careful financial, cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment methods leading to carbon accounting in many avenues of government (via the Low Carbon Fuel Standard or the Cap and Trade program). These methods themselves interact, such as the use of carbon accounting for the resources needed to manage water and other key resources; the use of criteria air pollution monitoring to identify environmental injustices; and the use of carbon market revenues to address these inequalities, through investment in best available abatement technologies (BACT) and in job creation in disadvantaged communities anticipated in the emerging clean energy sector. Creating interdisciplinary partnerships across the UC Campuses and the National Laboratories to innovate science and technology is critical to scalable carbon neutrality solutions. As an example, we can build coordinated research and development programs across UC and California, with strong partnerships with the Federal government to coordinate and “multiply” resources that accelerate development and deployment. These partnerships should be strongly goal-focused, i.e., they are created to solve specific, large problems, to enable quantitatively measurable outcomes within energy generation, efficiency and CO2 abatement categories. Intersectoral partnerships should be fostered across campuses, laboratories, with state, federal and multi-lateral organizations funding to develop technologies and deploy solutions at scale. Integrated partnerships with industry are required to influence markets, deploy solutions, and create new industries and jobs. Beyond California, we need to establish consortia with industry and foundations to deploy solutions at the regional, state, national, and international scale to create new industries, new jobs, and further UC and California’s leadership position. Significant economic opportunities exist, such as promoting aggressive electric vehicle programs elsewhere in the world, where California-based companies could play a key role on many fronts, via electric vehicles themselves, but also through building-integrated smart meters, inverters, solar and other clean energy generation technologies. All work must include a focus on environmental justice both at home in California and through global partnerships.
{"title":"Chapter 6. Scaling Up Solutions to State, National and Global Levels","authors":"D. Kammen, Doug Rotman, M. Delmas, D. Feldman, Mike Mielke, Ramamoorthy Ramesh, D. Sperling","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.65","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.65","url":null,"abstract":"Scaling-up solutions require learning and adapting lessons between locations and at different scales. To accomplish this, common metrics are vital to building a shared language. For California, this has meant careful financial, cradle-to-grave life-cycle assessment methods leading to carbon accounting in many avenues of government (via the Low Carbon Fuel Standard or the Cap and Trade program). These methods themselves interact, such as the use of carbon accounting for the resources needed to manage water and other key resources; the use of criteria air pollution monitoring to identify environmental injustices; and the use of carbon market revenues to address these inequalities, through investment in best available abatement technologies (BACT) and in job creation in disadvantaged communities anticipated in the emerging clean energy sector. Creating interdisciplinary partnerships across the UC Campuses and the National Laboratories to innovate science and technology is critical to scalable carbon neutrality solutions. As an example, we can build coordinated research and development programs across UC and California, with strong partnerships with the Federal government to coordinate and “multiply” resources that accelerate development and deployment. These partnerships should be strongly goal-focused, i.e., they are created to solve specific, large problems, to enable quantitatively measurable outcomes within energy generation, efficiency and CO2 abatement categories. Intersectoral partnerships should be fostered across campuses, laboratories, with state, federal and multi-lateral organizations funding to develop technologies and deploy solutions at scale. Integrated partnerships with industry are required to influence markets, deploy solutions, and create new industries and jobs. Beyond California, we need to establish consortia with industry and foundations to deploy solutions at the regional, state, national, and international scale to create new industries, new jobs, and further UC and California’s leadership position. Significant economic opportunities exist, such as promoting aggressive electric vehicle programs elsewhere in the world, where California-based companies could play a key role on many fronts, via electric vehicles themselves, but also through building-integrated smart meters, inverters, solar and other clean energy generation technologies. All work must include a focus on environmental justice both at home in California and through global partnerships.","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879114","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Auffhammer, C.-Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, J. Bushnell, O. Deschenes, Junjie Zhang
In this chapter we discuss the economics of climate change. We begin with a discussion of economic considerations that are important to take into account when designing and evaluating climate policy, including cost effectiveness and efficiency. We then discuss specific policies at the state, national, and international level in light of these economic considerations. We have several recommendations for the path forward for climate policy. First, the goal of climate policy should be to reduce the damages caused by greenhouse gases. In addition to mitigation policy to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, one can also reduce the damages causes by greenhouse gases by adaptation measures that reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts. Second, policy-makers should use incentive- (or market-) based instruments as opposed to command and control policies (including quantity-based mandates) whenever possible. Whenever unpriced emissions are the sole market failure, incentive-based instruments such as a carbon tax or cap and trade program are more likely to achieve the social optimum and maximize social net benefits [1, 2]. Lin and Prince [3] calculate that the optimal gasoline tax for the state of California is $1.37 per gallon. Our third recommendation is to address the risk of emissions leakage, which arises when only one jurisdiction (e.g., California) imposes climate policy, but not the entire world. One way to reduce emissions leakage is to use the strategic distribution of emissions allowances to local producers. This method, known as “output-based allocation” or benchmarking, effectively subsidizes local producers and at least partially offsets the increase in their costs caused by an emissions cap [4]. Importantly, only local production is eligible for an allocation of valuable allowances, providing a counterweight to the incentive for emission leakage. Our fourth recommendation is that if they are used instead of incentive-based instruments, quantity-based mandates such as the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, renewable portfolio standards, and the Clean Power Plan should be combined with a cost containment mechanism. The findings of Lade, Lin Lawell and Smith [5] suggest that pure quantity-based mechanisms leave policies susceptible to large increases in compliance costs, particularly in the presence of capacity or production constraints that are inherent in energy markets. Given the experiences with the federal RFS2 in 2013, anticipating and designing climate policies in a way that can contain compliance costs is imperative. Our fifth recommendation is that for international leverage, we should develop a climate club backed by border tax adjustments to non-participants. University of California at Berkeley Professor Larry S. Karp has been proposing an agreement between the top 10 emitters as an alternative to the UN framework [6]. Without international leverage or cooperation,
在本章中，我们讨论气候变化的经济学。我们首先讨论在设计和评估气候政策时需要考虑的重要经济因素，包括成本效益和效率。然后，我们将根据这些经济考虑因素，讨论州、国家和国际层面的具体政策。我们对气候政策的前进道路有几点建议。首先，气候政策的目标应该是减少温室气体造成的损害。除了减少大气中温室气体浓度的缓解政策外，还可以通过采取适应措施减少我们对气候变化影响的脆弱性，从而减少温室气体造成的损害。其次，政策制定者应尽可能使用基于激励(或市场)的工具，而不是命令和控制政策(包括基于数量的授权)。当未定价的排放是唯一的市场失灵时，基于激励的工具，如碳税或限额与交易计划，更有可能实现社会最优和社会净效益最大化[1,2]。林和普林斯计算出加州的最佳汽油税是每加仑1.37美元。我们的第三个建议是解决排放泄漏的风险，当只有一个司法管辖区(例如加州)实施气候政策时，排放泄漏就会出现，而不是整个世界。减少排放泄漏的一种方法是向当地生产商战略性地分配排放配额。这种方法被称为“基于产出的分配”或基准，有效地补贴了当地生产商，至少部分抵消了排放上限造成的成本增加。重要的是，只有本地生产才有资格获得有价值的配额，从而抵消排放泄漏的激励。我们的第四个建议是，如果它们被用来代替基于激励的工具，那么基于数量的授权，如联邦可再生燃料标准、加州低碳燃料标准、可再生能源组合标准和清洁能源计划，应该与成本控制机制相结合。Lade、Lin Lawell和Smith的研究结果表明，纯粹基于数量的机制使政策容易受到合规成本大幅增加的影响，特别是在能源市场固有的产能或生产限制存在的情况下。鉴于2013年联邦RFS2的经验，以一种能够控制合规成本的方式预测和设计气候政策是势在必行的。我们的第五个建议是，为了发挥国际影响力，我们应该建立一个气候俱乐部，并对非参与者进行边境税调整。加州大学伯克利分校教授拉里·s·卡普(Larry S. Karp)一直在提议10大排放国之间达成一项协议，作为联合国框架协议的替代方案。如果没有国际影响力或合作，单方面的气候政策，如加州的AB 32或美国清洁能源和安全法案，不仅不可能完全应对气候变化，而且还可能产生其他有害影响，如降低经济竞争力，并可能将就业机会从美国转移到没有碳定价的国家。正如加州大学伯克利分校(University of California at Berkeley)教授塞维林·博伦斯坦(Severin Borenstein)指出的那样，我们最后也是最主要的建议是，加州应该把重点放在解决全球气候变化问题上。加州气候政策的主要目标应该是发明和开发可以替代化石燃料的技术，让世界上较贫穷的国家——世界上大多数人口居住的地方——实现低碳经济增长。
{"title":"Chapter 4. Economic Considerations: Cost-Effective and Efficient Climate Policies","authors":"M. Auffhammer, C.-Y. Cynthia Lin Lawell, J. Bushnell, O. Deschenes, Junjie Zhang","doi":"10.1525/COLLABRA.63","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1525/COLLABRA.63","url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter we discuss the economics of climate change. We begin with a discussion of economic considerations that are important to take into account when designing and evaluating climate policy, including cost effectiveness and efficiency. We then discuss specific policies at the state, national, and international level in light of these economic considerations. We have several recommendations for the path forward for climate policy. First, the goal of climate policy should be to reduce the damages caused by greenhouse gases. In addition to mitigation policy to reduce greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, one can also reduce the damages causes by greenhouse gases by adaptation measures that reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts. Second, policy-makers should use incentive- (or market-) based instruments as opposed to command and control policies (including quantity-based mandates) whenever possible. Whenever unpriced emissions are the sole market failure, incentive-based instruments such as a carbon tax or cap and trade program are more likely to achieve the social optimum and maximize social net benefits [1, 2]. Lin and Prince [3] calculate that the optimal gasoline tax for the state of California is $1.37 per gallon. Our third recommendation is to address the risk of emissions leakage, which arises when only one jurisdiction (e.g., California) imposes climate policy, but not the entire world. One way to reduce emissions leakage is to use the strategic distribution of emissions allowances to local producers. This method, known as “output-based allocation” or benchmarking, effectively subsidizes local producers and at least partially offsets the increase in their costs caused by an emissions cap [4]. Importantly, only local production is eligible for an allocation of valuable allowances, providing a counterweight to the incentive for emission leakage. Our fourth recommendation is that if they are used instead of incentive-based instruments, quantity-based mandates such as the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard, renewable portfolio standards, and the Clean Power Plan should be combined with a cost containment mechanism. The findings of Lade, Lin Lawell and Smith [5] suggest that pure quantity-based mechanisms leave policies susceptible to large increases in compliance costs, particularly in the presence of capacity or production constraints that are inherent in energy markets. Given the experiences with the federal RFS2 in 2013, anticipating and designing climate policies in a way that can contain compliance costs is imperative. Our fifth recommendation is that for international leverage, we should develop a climate club backed by border tax adjustments to non-participants. University of California at Berkeley Professor Larry S. Karp has been proposing an agreement between the top 10 emitters as an alternative to the UN framework [6]. Without international leverage or cooperation,","PeriodicalId":93422,"journal":{"name":"Collabra","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66879398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：