New Forest Service Guidance for E-Bike Use

by

Here’s the link to the press release.

**************

Washington, –

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service is announcing that internal guidance on how future e-bike use is managed on national forests and grasslands has been finalized. The updated guidance clarifies existing policy and provides guidelines to local Forest Service employees that may be considering expanding e-bike access at site-specific locations.

The Forest Service currently allows e-bikes on all Forest Service roads that are already open to motorized vehicles, as well on 60,000 miles of motorized trails, which represent 38% of all trails the agency manages. Today’s finalized guidance allows e-bikes to continue to operate on currently-authorized roads and trails, and lays out a process to evaluate future requests for expanded access. The updated guidance also outlines the required environmental analysis and public input required before making future decisions to expand local e-bike access.

“National forests and grasslands are a place for all people to recreate, relax and refresh,” said Forest Service Chief Randy Moore. “The additional guidance will help our district rangers and forest supervisors better serve their communities with a policy that allows managers to make locally based decisions to address e-bike use. This growing recreational activity is another opportunity to responsibly share the experience of the outdoors with other recreationists.”

The Forest Service manages nearly 160,000 miles of trails in 42 states and Puerto Rico for a variety of activities. E-biking is one of many legitimate recreational activities, such as horseback riding, snowmobiling, mountain biking, cross-country skiing, hiking and backpacking, that the agency manages under its multiple use mission. The clarified guidance will support local Forest Service decision-makers as they consider opportunities to expand access for this emerging user group.

Other land management agencies, including the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service, allow for e-bike use on 18,000 miles and 16,000 miles of trails, respectively.

It also says: Read the e-bike policy here.

The links are in the middle of that page under “directives.” Hopefully someone can parse through and summarize.

A “serious game” to explore alternative forestry futures

by

The March 2022 Journal of Forestry has an article about ‘A “serious game” to explore alternative forestry futures.’ The lead author is David Bengston, a futurist at the station who always has though-provoking takes.”My current research is in the transdisciplinary field of Futures Research (also called Strategic Foresight or simply Futures). Futures Research uses a wide range of methods and techniques to explore possible, plausible, and preferable futures. The goal is to develop foresight — insight into how and why the future could be different than today — to improve policy, planning, and decision making.”

The article is behind a membership wall, but the article also is available from the Northern Research Station.  The abstract:

Serious games are designed to achieve specific educational or other practical purposes beyond pure entertainment. These games take many different forms—from card decks to massive multiplayer online games—and have proliferated across diverse fields. This note introduces IMPACT: Forestry Edition, a serious board game designed to help forestry professionals and stakeholders think more broadly, critically, and creatively about the future of forestry. We describe the game and feedback from beta testing and discuss the advantages and potential drawbacks of gaming methods. A “print and play” version of the game is included as supplemental material. Serious games can make an important contribution to forestry by engaging and informing diverse stakeholders and generating insight that other methods cannot.

Maybe we can have an in-person Smokey Wire meeting and play this game. Hawaii might be an ideal location….

Burn severity explained

by

This story map is an excellent resource for folks wanting to learn more about how and what wildfires burn. I plan to use it as a reference for wildland fire students.

Burn severity explained

Shovel Creek: an example of burn severity assessment and ecology in interior Alaska

By Zav Grabinski, Alaska Fire Science Consortium, and Chris Smith, Geographic Information Network of Alaska

Across FS in 2021, Prescribed and Beneficial Fire Produced 67% of Total Fuels Reduction: E&E News Story

by



From the 2023 Budget Justification Statement

I’m sure there are plenty of interesting things in the Forest Service 2023 Budget Justification Statement. You all are welcome to point them out in the comments. Marc Heller of E&E News wrote a story on the prescribed fire and hazardous fuel numbers that I excerpted above.  To simplify another way, Beneficial wildfire (BW) acres were equivalent to 36% of the PB.   If the sum of BW and PB were lumped together though (fire-based hazardous fuel treatments), they would be 67% of the total acres accomplished.  It would be interesting IMHO to see BW broken out by Region.

“The success of the program was primarily a result of favorable weather creating more opportunities for burning and a concerted effort to improve coordination among regions to mobilize resources to support seasonal burning,” the Forest Service said in its budget justifications to Congress as part of the spending request for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

“The Forest Service achieved this level of accomplishment while also managing a significant wildfire response workload, providing support to the national COVID-19 response, and overcoming challenges for performing work in a COVID-19 environment,” the agency said.

In fiscal 2021, the vast majority of prescribed fires occurred in the Forest Service’s Southern region, where the agency reported more than 1.2 million acres burned, or 81 percent of the hazardous fuels work there.

In the Pacific Southwest, which includes California, the Forest Service used prescribed fire on 45,501 acres, or 25 percent of the total hazardous fuels work.

The percentage was lowest in the Intermountain region, which covers parts of six states in the northern and middle Rockies, Great Basin and Colorado Plateau. There, prescribed fire accounted for 16 percent of hazardous fuels treatment, or 33,378 acres.

The total of 1.8 million acres across the forest system beat the 10-year average of 1.4 million acres of prescribed burns, the agency said, an indication of officials’ increased embrace of the practice, as well as conditions favoring it. Congress asked for the report in an appropriations measure.

In the South, the Forest Service said, a lack of snow as well as intermittent drying between rains makes favorable conditions for prescribed fire. Forests there grow fast and need treatment every few years, the agency said.

But in Alaska, wet conditions and snowfall make prescribed burning less needed, the Forest Service said. That may change in the future, the agency added, because spruce beetles have been killing trees in the Chugach National Forest, possibly raising wildfire threats.

For the forthcoming fiscal year, the Forest Service didn’t state an acreage goal for prescribed burns but said it plans to use various treatments on 3.8 million acres, which would include thinning and planned fire. The national forest system totals 193 million acres, and the agency has acknowledged that far more land needs hazardous fuels removal than can be done in the short term.

There’s also a discussion of the prescribed fire “controversy” which I’ll take up in another post. Again, there’s plenty of interesting facts and examples in the Budget Request so please highlight any of interest below.

A California Assembly Bill, Canadian Lumber, NRDC and Indigenous Rights

by
Roughly 30% of the lumber consumed in the U.S. last year was imported, and more than 85% of the imports came from Canada.

I found this Saanich News story interesting (thanks to Nick Smith!).

A poll showing most Canadians believe their governments aren’t doing enough to protect forests from logging is being coordinated with efforts to block purchases of Canadian forest products in the U.S., the president of the Forest Products Association of Canada says.

Derek Nighbor describes a news release and poll out this week from Nature Canada as “disingenuous,” implying unregulated destruction of forests across the country, including B.C., which has been targeted by anti-logging protesters for decades. The survey refers to Canada’s boreal forest, but does not disclose that more than half of Canada’s vast forests have no industrial activity at all. Of the 48 per cent that does, half of that is under conservation measures that are not counted as protection, Nighbor said in an interview Monday (March 28). He said Canada is responsible for 40 per cent of the environmentally certified forests in the world.

Nature Canada lists among its biggest donors some of the U.S. foundations that backed the creation of B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest preservation area in 2007, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Nighbor notes that Nature Canada’s “champions circle” of donors, contributing $100,000 a year or more, also lists Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Nighbor said he has contacted those federal departments to ask why they are helping to finance an organization that is providing misleading information about Canada’s forest practices and is also lobbying the U.S. states of California and New York to stop buying Canadian forest products.

Now, if true, that would be fairly weird, but not impossible. A federal government (country A) paying a group that lobbies (in country B) against imports from their own country (A)? When there’s probably another government agency promoting exports from A to B? I don’t think any long-term federal employee would be surprised that this could happen, if it did.

So I looked into it a little deeper and found this from the National Observer from last June. It has to do with California’s Assembly Bill 416. Perhaps there could (have been?) an amendment to require state contractors to only use California wood products, which might have remediated the supporters’ concerns with Indigenous Rights. I don’t know how California rates on UNDRIP.

You might wonder.. “don’t we import many things from China, and how are they doing on UNDRIP?” Well, it turns out they have no indigenous people, according to the way they think about it. Anyway,

It would require contractors working for the state to prove that products coming from boreal and tropical regions respect the rights of Indigenous people and aren’t linked to forest destruction. In its text, advanced by the state assembly earlier this month, lawmakers noted that deforestation plays a role in fuelling the climate crisis and is often intermingled with the violation of Indigenous consent.

The Observer article gives both the NRDC side of the story and the Canadian government’s side of the story.
The other side:

In an April 21 letter, Yakabuski asked state legislators to remove references to the boreal forest from the bill and said it could affect 25,000 Ontario jobs and $2.8 billion in gross domestic product. In a statement to National Observer, Ryan Ferizovic, a spokesperson for Yakabuski, said leaders in more than 40 Indigenous communities have also taken issue with the bill. He also said Ontario’s regime has “strict” regulatory requirements and “thoughtful management” that ensures logging sites aren’t degraded.

…
If Yakabuski’s statement is true, it makes me wonder..do the affected Indigenous People decide themselves what is good for them, or do others?. If so, whom?

There’s also this..

It’s not clear exactly how much product from Canada’s boreal forest is exported to California. But in a letter to California legislators, Canada’s Consulate General said California imported US$949 million ($1.17 trillion) in building materials and other forestry-related goods in 2020.

“This bill is trying to guarantee and make sure that California is not itself implicated in these violations of internationally recognized Indigenous rights,” Skene (of NRDC) said.

Ferizovic said Ontario’s logging regime is globally recognized for its high standards, and includes consultation with Indigenous and Métis communities.

Perhaps only economists understand when it’s legally OK to prefer/not prefer/not allow imports by other governments.

And who is pushing it..?

The push has been backed by environmentalists on both sides of the border and a group of investors representing US$1.6 trillion in assets.

Now if you look at the list of investors, it’s a fascinating group, including the investment arms of several religious institutions. I’m sure that their motives are for the good; I’m just not sure that goodness, in this case, is as clear as they might think it is. I’ll try to find out how such groups decide to sign on to letters like this.

Flathead NF Harvest Stats

by

Interesting numbers from an article in a Montana newspaper (thanks to Nick Smith for the link). An excerpt:

Timber sales on the Flathead National Forest were higher than usual in the past couple of years according to a recently released 2021 biennial monitoring report for the Forest.

In 2019, the Forest sold about 50.6 million board feet of timber and in 2020 it sold 48.5 million board feet of timber.

In 2019, 24.9 million came from salvage sales and in 2020, 28.5 million was from salvage sales. Salvage sales typically come after wildfire or big wind events that blow down a lot of timber.

“Salvage of dead and dying timber accounted for approximately 49 percent of the volume sold in 2019 and approximately 59 percent of the volume sold in 2020. Salvage volume increased in 2020 through the offing of sales with heavy component of over-mature lodgepole pine. Also, a wind event in March of 2020 created blowdown captured as additional volume in active timber sales,” the report noted. [Emphasis added]

All told, about 14,241 acres were treated in some form over the two years in the wildland urban interface, a zone of forest that’s near human homes. The treatments ranged from logging and thinning to prescribed burns. Outside of the WUI, about 7,600 acres were treated.

Biden 2023 DoI Budget

by

FYI…. From the DoI’s Office of Wildland Fire….

 

President’s 2023 Budget Proposes Significant Investments to Address the Nation’s Wildfire Crisis

$1.5 billion, including $340 million in the Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund, targeted to reduce wildfire risk, build resilient landscapes, and expand workforce capacity

WASHINGTON — The Biden-Harris Administration today submitted to Congress the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2023. The President’s Budget details his vision to expand on the historic progress our country has made over the last year and deliver the agenda he laid out in his State of the Union address—to build a better America, reduce the deficit, reduce costs for families, and grow the economy from the bottom up and middle out.

The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2023 proposes a significant increase for the Department of the Interior’s Wildland Fire Management Program to address the effects of climate change and the impacts of wildfires on public health, communities, and natural and cultural resources.

“Climate change is propelling more frequent, extreme wildland fires that endanger lives, communities, and landscapes across the country,” said Office of Wildland Fire Director Jeff Rupert. “The President’s budget request for wildland fire management takes meaningful steps to adapt to these challenges by transitioning to a year-round firefighting workforce and expanding efforts to restore fire-adapted ecosystems.”

Last year, nearly 59,000 wildfires burned more than 7.1 million acres across the U.S. The 2021 fire year was notable because the country was at a heightened preparedness level for a record 99 consecutive days.

The President’s Budget request for Interior’s Wildland Fire Management Program in 2023 represents a $237 million increase over the 2022 continuing resolution funding level. It will expand Interior’s wildland fire management by:

Modernizing the wildland fire workforce. Effective wildland fire management requires a workforce that is fairly compensated, available year-round, and cared for both physically and mentally. The budget includes $477 million for fire preparedness with increases to improve firefighter compensation; convert more firefighters from seasonal to permanent, full-time employees; and increase the total number of wildland fire management personnel through additional hiring.

Reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires through collaboration and applied science. The budget includes a $304 million investment to mitigate wildfire hazards and strengthen climate resiliency in areas at high risk for wildland fire. Of this amount, nearly $59 million will increase capacity for vegetation management to help create fire-adapted communities and restore fire-resilient landscapes. To support collaborative work with Tribal nations, $15 million will be invested in the Reserved Treaty Rights Lands program to enhance the health and resiliency of Tribal landscapes.

Suppressing harmful wildfires. The budget includes nearly $384 million to protect life, property, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources from harmful wildfires. In addition, the budget request makes available another $340 million in the Wildfire Suppression Operation Reserve Fund for further wildfire suppression needs during the year.

Increasing resiliency through the rehabilitation of lands. The request includes an investment of $20 million for the rehabilitation of lands damaged by wildfires. Timely rehabilitation helps to restore healthy ecosystems, making them more resilient to wildfires and better able to withstand the effects of climate change. A portion of this amount will focus on areas adjacent to underrepresented communities to continue work on critical restoration activities.

Support a Better Understanding of the Effects of Climate Change on Wildfires. The budget proposes $4 million for the Joint Fire Science Program, an interagency partnership with the USDA Forest Service that funds wildfire science research projects. The request will fund climate-related research towards a better understanding of landscape resiliency and the beneficial uses of prescribed fire, carbon storage, and greenhouse gas and smoke emissions.

The President’s Budget is critical to support the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy and efforts to work collaboratively with partners to make meaningful progress toward resilient landscapes, fire-adapted communities, and safe and effective wildfire response.

The funding proposed in the President’s Budget for fiscal year 2023 is further supported by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enacted in November 2021. The law provides nearly $1.5 billion over five years for the Interior Department to increase the resilience of communities and lands facing the threat of wildfires and to better support federal wildland firefighters.

The President’s Budget makes critical investments in the American people that will help lay a stronger foundation for shared growth and prosperity for generations to come. The Budget makes these smart investments while also reducing deficits and improving our country’s long-term fiscal outlook.

For more information on the President’s Fiscal Year 2023 Budget, please visit: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/.

###

WGA News Roundup: Prescribed Fire, Thinning and Restoration Center

by

From the WGA Best of the West today:

The Western Governors’ Association keeps you updated on the latest news in the West. Here are the top stories for the week starting March 21, 2022. (Photos courtesy of  USDA, NASA/STScI via AP)

With nearly 90% of nine western states already experiencing drought, according to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, western states are taking advantage of the abundant resources available in the U.S. Forest Service’s $50 billion 10-year forest management plan and ramping up mitigation efforts in preparation for the summer wildfire season – strategies for which are discussed in WGA’s latest ‘Out West’ podcast episode Fixing America’s Forests.

With the arrival of spring and better weather conditions, many states are planning prescribed burns. In Idaho, the U.S. Forest Service is developing the ‘Honey Badger’ 20-year forest management project, which will use prescribed burns on more than 52,000 acres of the Coeur d’Alene National Forest. After enduring the devastating Caldor Fire that burned more than 221,000 acres last year, the Tahoe Fire Fuels Team is conducting controlled burns at several sites around Lake Tahoe in California and Nevada. The U.S. Department of Agriculture also plans to carry out a ‘Prescribed Burn Plan’ in Montana’s Flathead National Forest. In Colorado, a fire management team with the U.S. Forest Service is using prescribed burns at popular destinations, including Keystone Gulch, Barton Gulch and Miners Creek Road.

Forest thinning is also a major part of these fire mitigation efforts. The U.S. Forest Service recently concluded an environmental review for large-scale thinning projects in Arizona. The ‘Rim Country Project’ will cover more than 3,700 square miles within the Kaibab, Coconino, Tonto and Apache-Sitgreaves national forests. Southeast Alaska plans to restore and accelerate the development of young-growth forests by manually thinning stands on more than 100,000 acres. Washington State’s Department of Natural Resources is assessing new ways to thin forests, implementing a strategy that uses the funds generated from thinning projects for school construction.

Grassroots organizations are also getting involved with mitigation efforts focused on private lands. In Oregon, the Southern Willamette Forest Collaborative received $500,000 in grants for work that will include thinning on more than 300 acres of private land.

Along with protecting areas from catastrophic wildfire, many communities are hoping these projects will also help boost their local economies. The ‘All Hands All Lands’ crew in New Mexico is developing a reforestation center to restore burned areas and generate up to 500 skill-based jobs over the next 30 years, which closely aligns with the Western Governors’ priorities outlined in the policy resolution, Workforce Development in the Western United States. Montana’s Bitterroot National Forest is also using forest management to create economic opportunity, and the state’s ‘Golden Butterfly’ project will generate jobs through prescribed burns and logging.

Yale Forest Forum Bioenergy from Forests Webinar Series: Daniel Sanchez Next Tuesday on Carbon-beneficial Forest Management in California

by

The Yale Forest Forum has been running a speaker series on bioenergy from forests.  Most of the presenters (despite my input) seem to be eastern, southern, international or urban, although this one by Steve Hamburg sounds interesting:

Determining Forest-derived Bioenergy’s Impacts on the Climate Why is it so Contentious? (Steve is a classmate of mine who works for EDF, so I might be biased, though I haven’t listened to it). Here’s a link to a video of the presentation. Any TSW reader who wants to watch and write a post is welcome.

There are two that deal with western-wildfire- fuel treatment kinds of concerns, one person from Oregon (Matt Donegan) on April 5. Titled “The Potential Role of Bioenergy in Mitigating Wildfire in the West”

And next Tuesday at 9:30 MT (they’re all on Tuesdays at the same time), there’s one with Daniel Sanchez at U of California that looks interesting.

Innovative wood products for carbon-beneficial forest management in California

Tuesday, March 29, 2022 – 11:30am

Innovative Wood Products for Carbon-Beneficial Forest Management in California

Natural carbon sinks can help mitigate climate change, but climate risks—like increased wildfire—threaten forests’ capacity to store carbon. California has recently set ambitious forest management goals to reduce these risks. However, management can incur carbon losses because wood residues are often burnt or left to decay. This study applies a systems approach to assess climate change mitigation potential and wildfire outcomes across forest management scenarios and several wood products. We find that innovative use of wood residues supports extensive wildfire hazard reduction and maximizes carbon benefits. Long-lived products that displace carbon-intensive alternatives have the greatest benefits, including wood building products. Our results suggest a low-cost pathway to reduce carbon emissions and support climate adaptation in temperate forests.

Daniel L. Sanchez – Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, University of California-Berkeley

Daniel L. Sanchez studies engineered biomass & bioenergy systems that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Trained as an engineer and energy systems analyst, Sanchez’s work and engagement spans the academic, nongovernmental, and governmental sectors. As an Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, he runs the Carbon Removal Lab, which aims to commercialize sustainable carbon dioxide removal technologies, and supports outreach to policymakers and technologists in California and across the United States

Framings of the Decarbonization Problem: Some Alternatives, Nordhaus, Yglesias and the Hartwell Paper

by

Many of the “framings of the decarbonization argument” are implicit and not explicit.  So I thought I’d mention a few I ran across, one that Rebecca Watson put in a comment yesterday, and open it up to others.  As I tell people about spiritual things… you get to pick your own path.. same thing with framings, everyone gets to pick their own framing.   A test of success is whether your framing is more successful at leading to carbon reduction in the real world.  To do that, it could be argued that the best framing would lead to building coalitions that are successful at moving the decarbonizing ball down the field.  All ultimately political (at all governmental levels), and not particularly moral, judgments. To “work for” climate change can be posed as a moral question (by Pope Francis and many others), but deciding what proportion of what energy source to use, where, in the short and mid-term, is not as clear or easy to moralize about.  Especially, as many have pointed out,  when developing countries, who lack energy today, need energy in the short and mid-term.  Apologies for how long this post is, but I thought more examples would be better. Everyone is welcome to add their own favorite framing in the comments.  You can also mix and match framings and potential solutions.

(1) Here’s an interesting framing  by Ted Nordhaus, in Issues in Science and Technology,  in which he wonders why people who believe climate change is urgent and apocalyptic don’t go bigger.. in terms of choosing to socialize key infrastructure.

Missing from this frame is the notion that abundant, cheap, clean energy and the low carbon infrastructure and technology necessary to provide it is a public good. Historically, nations have provided these sorts of goods directly and governments have done just that for public goods as diverse as national defense, public health, scientific research, and clean and abundant water. In these cases, government agencies don’t incentivize or mandate that private firms build, say, modern water and sewage systems; rather, they either build them themselves or contract with firms to build them. But in either case, it is government that specs the system, procures its various elements, coordinates construction and operations, and finances construction directly from the public purse. The same has been broadly true, to a greater and lesser extent, of road, transit, and yes, electrical systems in most parts of the world.

The most successful clean energy initiatives in modern history followed this public-led model, not any of the three policy models that have dominated climate policy-making. France decarbonized 80% of its electrical system through the state-led deployment of nuclear energy. Sweden did the same through a combination of nuclear and hydroelectric dams. Brazil achieved similar levels primarily by building dams.

Nuclear advocates often highlight the cases of France and Sweden, while everyone else ignores them. But the prominent role that dams have played suggests that there are lessons for climate mitigation efforts that go well beyond the benefits of nuclear energy. What all three cases have in common is the direct public procurement of large, centralized infrastructure to provide clean energy to residential, commercial, and industrial users in large, modern economies.

Treating climate change as a public infrastructure challenge, not a private market failure, brings a range of advantages that pricing and regulation cannot provide. It enables long time horizons that private investors are unlikely to tolerate; planning and coordination across sectors of the economy to integrate technology, infrastructure, and institutions necessary to achieve deep decarbonization; and low-cost public finance that could make the price of the energy and climate transition far more manageable. And assuming a reasonably progressive tax system, it would arguably do so in a manner at least as straightforward and equitable as cap-and-trade or carbon taxes that aim at “correcting” market failures.

I’d add that giving money to projects may be more useful than to give money to a variety of workers disagreeing about accounting practices.  In a sense, white collar workers can’t solve a blue collar problem.

Sidenote: given the Ukraine invasion,the below excerpt sounds different. He imagines that Jay Inslee is elected President based on his climate policies, and takes a series of steps to fix climate change, including national carbon rationing.

A month after his inauguration, Inslee traveled to meet with European allies. There, he announced his plan to convert NATO to a global climate mitigation and relief force. NATO and its wealthy members would directly finance the construction of low carbon infrastructure across the globe. Like the Marshall plan that rebuilt Europe, NATO would provide long-term, low-interest loans for developing economies to purchase and deploy clean energy technology. NATO forces would also lead relief efforts to rebuild after natural disasters and resettle refugees in regions less vulnerable to climate change. “It doesn’t matter whether you are black, white, or brown, American, Indian, or Chinese,” Inslee thundered at the end of the NATO meetings. “We are all Earthlings now, with a common challenge and a common destiny.” As Inslee boarded Air Force One, en route to meet his Indian and Chinese counterparts, the battle to stop catastrophic climate change had finally been joined.

Coincidentally, today I read this article in The Intercept about invoking the Defense Production Act.

Several senators sent President Joe Biden a letter on Wednesday asking him to use authorities such as those contained in the Defense Production Act, which significantly expands the president’s authority to unilaterally alter domestic manufacturing policy in times of crisis, to “support and increase manufacturing capacity and supply chain security for technologies that reduce fossil fuel demand and fuel costs, such as electric heat pumps, efficient electric appliances, renewable energy generation and storage, and other clean technologies.”

It doesn’t mention mining, though, of interest to TSW readers, since mining is an issue on federal lands.  Seems like a potential problem, though, since you can’t manufacture without raw materials. And the letter is big on manufacturing heat pumps but not so big on paying people to swap them out.  Or the electric infrastructure to bear those new loads.  When marijuana was legalized in Colorado, electric substations needed to be beefed up..here is a story about some of that.   I think we need more engineers (a la concepts like “critical path”) at the broader scale (how are we to decarbonize short medium and long-term), and perhaps a Pragmatic Bipartisan Decarbonization political coalition.

(2) Here’s a Matthew Yglesias framing that Rebecca Watson sent in:

A recent article by Matthew Yglesias, founder of Vox, writer at Atlantic, Bloomberg, in his “SlowBoring” newsletter has an interesting perspective on this question. He suggests that the Sunrise Movement [like Jane Fonda] frames the climate argument in the wrong way “and that has generated strategic and tactical failures…” They start from three ill-founded premises: 1. there is a latent desire among the mass public for sweeping change to address climate concerns, 2) this desire for change is being held back by an elite cabal of special interests, mainly fossil fuel companies, who wield power through campaign contributions, 3. “Due to the corrupting influence of fossil fuel money, not only do Republicans take bad stances on climate-related issues but so do Democrats…” which leads to the conclusion that a “broad grassroots movement that can push the political system… is needed. Yglesias’ argument is that this is backwards and he points to some interesting polling data and the evidence of the bi-partisan climate provisions in the 2020-21 Omnibus. “But their contents reveal that the progressive theory of climate politics is fundamentally backward — bipartisan deal-making behind closed doors is not dominated by fossil fuel interests and does not feature moderate Democrats selling out to join with Republicans to promote dirty energy. On the contrary, Democrats consistently prioritize climate in these negotiations and some Republicans are sometimes willing to make concessions.” He adds, “[t]he reason the climate has a fighting chance is that people who care about this issue have disproportionate power in the system. But to fully take advantage of that dynamic, climate activists need a correct analysis of the situation.” Worth the read.

Here’s the link, and Yglesias has other interesting ones on energy.

**********************

(3) In 2009, a group of climate experts thought the framing was wrong, and published their views in the Hartwell Paper.

Without a fundamental re-framing of the issue, new mandates will not be granted for any fresh courses of action, even good ones. So, to rebuild climate policy and to restore trust in expert organisations, the framing must change and change radically.

…

Therefore,
the Paper advocates a radical reframing – an inverting – of approach: accepting that decarbonisation will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.

…

The aim of this paper has been to reframe the climate issue around matters of human dignity. Not just because that is noble or nice or necessary – although all of those reasons – but because it is likely to be more effective than the approach of framing around human sinfulness—which has just failed. Securing access to low-cost energy for all, including the very poor, is  truly and literally liberating. Building resilience to surprise and to extremes of weather is a practical expression of true global solidarity. Improving the quality of the air that people breathe is an undeniable public good. Such a reorientation requires a radical rethinking and then a reordering of the climate policy agenda

…..

Reframing the climate issue in this manner also means giving up the idea that all manner of other policy goals can be attained by grinding them onto a sparkling, myriad-faceted gem of global carbon policy which then dazzles so mesmerically that it carries all before it. It does not and it did not. Instead, the all-inclusive “Kyoto” type of climate policy as it had become by late 2009, needs to be broken up into separate issues again, each addressed on its merits and each in its own ways. Adaptation, forests, biodiversity, air quality, equity and the many other disparate agendas that have been attached to the climate issue must again stand on their own. We believe that this will, in many cases, make the possibility of political action more likely than has been the circumstance in recent years when carbon policy was asked to pull the whole load of our aspirations for a better future

I think that this is important (unbundling)- to give stakeholders, practitioners and non-climate academics back their former domain that they know and work in, but this idea doesn’t seem to have gone very far.

I also thought at the time that many are attracted to the framing of “human sinfulness” and that remains powerful in some quarters today.  But it’s a choice of some to frame it that way.  Many other framings, as we have seen, are currently on the table.