Practical Solutions to America's Problems
Global Warming
An incredible amount of information and data is presently known about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions in our world, when and how severe the consequences of them will be, and how costly it will be to mitigate them to avoid the worst of their harm. The present method used in America and many other countries of attacking various segments of society in unpredictable ways is divisive, unfair, and not widely supported. America and the rest of the world are not making much if any progress in the battle against global warming.
Countries, including America, must agree on a Bluepr to fight Global Warming, developed by the scientists and economists who are already on the cutting edge of expertise in their fields. The Blueprint must include systems designed to elevate prices of various substances like coal to stimulate reductions in demand for their derivative products. The pricing will be done near the source of the substance so that it will cause higher prices to flow down to the ultimate consumers, causing them to shift to less costly alternatives in many thousands of ways. Most existing laws and regulations on specific industries can be phased out.
Such a Blueprint will be much more cost effective, universal, understandable by all, and believable. Best of all, it will work!
Introduction
Overall Problem and Objective
Problem
The world, including America, is not making anything like adequate progress in combatting global warming. We have not agreed on a widely accepted approach or a clearly understood pathway for success.
Objective
Our objective is to make the case for two pivotal improvements in the fight against global warming, ones that will be actionable for citizens, scientists, economists, and politicians.
Global "progress"?
Overview of Global Warming
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) cause global warming by reducing the radiation of heat away from the earth into space. Carbon Dioxide at about 80% of GHGs stays in the atmosphere around 300-1,000 years.
NASA, The Atmosphere: Getting a Handle on Carbon Dioxide.
Methane at 10% of GHGs is 28 times worse than CO2 at trapping heat radiation, but lasts only about 9 years in the atmosphere.
Global warming is the better term for what we are fighting because it is this warming effect that we need to combat. Climate Change is a term that connotes the future undesirable effects of the earth’s warming.
.png)
The US Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
-
Carbon Dioxide - A product of combustion of hydrocarbon fuels
-
Methane - Natural gas, cattle emissions
-
Nitrous Oxide
-
Fluorinated Gases
(EPA US website, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2019)
Sources of
carbon dioxide emissions
(EPA US website, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, 2019)
.png)
Mitigating global warming will reduce its damage and destruction, thus generating savings many decades in the future. Mitigation actions have costs that must be incurred much sooner – like switching sources of energy and methods of transportation. Extensive work has been done by scientists and economists on these savings and costs, but their amounts still need to be clearly presented, offset with one another, and used in formulating the path forward that everyone can see and understand. This is basic to having a strong majority on-board for the fight.
Big Issues
People in America and around the globe do not have a comprehensive and believable roadmap for solving the global warming conundrum.
All too many countries and people do not believe that others are ready to volunteer for genuine inconveniences and costs to make progress fighting global warming, so they just do little or nothing. This becomes the actuality that the world is not headed toward a solution.
Fragmented mandates are not working well. A universal incentive is required.
History of the Global Warming Fight
Approaches to the Global Warming Fight
The results above for carbon dioxide equivalents emissions show that we are losing the battle globally, despite some real attempts. Remember that carbon dioxide gases once in the atmosphere stay there for hundreds of years, so procrastinating makes the task much more difficult.
The fight against global warming has been piecemeal rather than comprehensive, universal, and well understood by all. Why is this state of affairs undesirable? Countries and citizens naturally expect their peers to share in the cost and inconvenience of any big chore. Also, most have a fairly good idea that the problem is global and won’t be solved until there is almost universal participation, so they wait for a “fair” system to come along.
Economists refer to “externalities”. For example, if a factory dumps its waste acid into a river, not paying for the privilege or the cost of handling it properly, the company profits from having others pay for its actions; the cost not paid by the offending company is an externality. Power plants, transportation, and other emitters of greenhouse gases haven’t paid for their externalities for tens of decades, since the industrial revolution was triggered by cheap sources of hydrocarbon energy. We consumers aren’t paying for the externalities in the costs of the products we purchase, but we receive benefits – like plentiful and inexpensive energy. Should governments order an automobile company not to build cars or to build certain types, or should the consumers have to suffer the pain – the extra cost – when using a big emitter of carbon dioxide? The economic and the science tasks are very complex, but solid information exists right now to put prices on the ways GHGs are created.
Not well known is that distinguished economists have become involved in important ways. Reducing emissions in the global warming fight is going to lower the harmful effects of climate change in the decades to come, so it is useful to quantify these “savings” and discount them back to their present value (i.e. what is the value to us today of an amount of say $1 billion saved in 2090?) Economists can do the same analysis on the costs of actions necessary in upcoming years to cause the savings. These data are required to develop a rational blueprint to reach a certain temperature target decades from now. These data are available now!
Scientists have done massive amounts of work including creating and using computer models to simulate the bad effects of global warming as well as the mitigating effects of various actions we might take to reduce GHG emissions.
Developed and developing countries differ in their situations vis a vis global warming. The developed countries may well have a slower growth rate in the coming decades and they have more wealth and resources, so they can accomplish more against global warming. Undeveloped countries find the decision difficult between strong growth to raise their standard of living and slower growth in order to fight global warming. These countries make the point that it was primarily the developed countries that created the global warming problem, so they should take the lead in solving it including providing funding to the poorer developing countries. They also want to use the cheapest fuels, often coal which is the worst emitter of carbon dioxide by far. These issues have made global cooperation difficult. Note the potential in the graph below for emissions to increase in large portions of the world that still use relatively little energy, like Africa and South America.
There is still not agreement on the target temperature increase by the end of this century. This is important because the climate damages are very sensitive to small increases in the target, but also because the costs of meeting a certain target are also highly dependent on it. Confusion about the target is one of the reasons why agreement on a solid pathway forward has been elusive.
In summary, the history is that the world has learned an immense amount about the science of global warming and the economics of mitigating its effects. It hasn’t yet agreed on a common way of incorporating the externalities of our use of greenhouse gas-emitting substances into our everyday life - i.e. a universal incentive to stimulate people to mitigate emissions rather than waiting to see what shoe their government will drop next. Also, it has not developed a documented common pathway for all to follow.
The Nobel Prize winner, economist, and author of two important books on the economic side of global warming, William Nordhaus has shown mathematically that near-universal participation around the globe will be necessary to win the global warming fight.
America – Global Warming Fight
The present approach in America is enacting laws or regulations, primarily at the federal level, on pieces of the overall problem, like automotive fuel standards or reworking existing buildings, and on a timeline chosen by the government.
Examples of government fragmentation and lack of clear direction:
From CNBC.com, November 15, 2021: “…The bill does little to curb planet warming emissions and falls short of the investments scientists say are necessary to prepare for the worst impacts of climate change. …The last U.S. push to pass climate legislation was in 2009, when congressional Democrats failed to approve a carbon pricing system under former President Barack Obama. …Former President Donald Trump essentially halted progress on climate change by reversing more than 100 environmental rules and pulling the country out of the Paris climate accord.”
Decisions on ways to combat global warming are being made far from those actually affected. Why is this undesirable? Because individual circumstances permit the consumer to make much more effective and timely decisions, assuming there is economic pressure to do so.
In addition, the use of laws and regulations to pass a large number of actions opens the door to those in government being influenced by political pressures and lobbyists rather than by what is most effective in our battle against global warming. The fight against global warming is difficult enough without allowing it to be a tool for political power and more control. It is too important for that. The path forward should be laid out impartially by scientists and economists.
The mandate to use ethanol in gasoline is a good example of the probable harm done by relying on a huge number of laws and regulations to achieve success in the war against global warming. The article below seems well researched, and it indicates that ethanol does more harm than good. We hasten to add that one can easily find other articles saying the opposite, some written by government agencies.
Linh Ta
Wed, February 16, 2022, 6:20 AM
The process to harvest and produce corn-based ethanol creates more harmful emissions than normal gasoline, according to a new report published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
The five-year study, partially funded by the National Wildlife Federation and U.S. Department of Energy, found that ethanol is at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline, Reuters reports.
Many other actions affect Americans’ lives without producing adequate progress against global warming. These vary in timing, intensity, and emphasis with the party and individuals in power in government, clear evidence of the need for a professional pathway forward. Some examples of these actions or desires for them are: deadlines for shutting down coal burning; deadlines to halt all hydrocarbon use; deadlines for fuel standards; elimination of gasoline and diesel vehicles; failure to phase down subsidies for certain industries; and seeming rejection of nuclear energy to generate electrical power. Unattainable deadlines are counterproductive. Random actions generate rancor and gridlock which in turn cause resistance and lack of confidence in our direction.
Twelve states have formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) using the cap and trade carbon pricing approach to limit CO2 emissions from the power sector. This program is reported to be having some success.
The graph below shows little progress in America’s emissions the past decade and little expectations of reductions in the future. Note that the almost-level emissions occur in spite of the fact that horizontal drilling and fracking allowed the U.S. to lead the world during this period in replacing coal-fired power plants with those burning natural gas, a fuel with much lower CO2 emissions than coal.
Also, it indicates that there is little reason for the rest of the world to consider America a leader in the global warming fight.
The topic of polarization and rancor in our country including in Washington is a ubiquitous one these days, and the global warming topic is one that fuels it.
Gridlock is a reason why many problems are not solved well, affecting global warming – and vice versa.
Global – The global warming fight outside America
The United Nations has been active in global warming matters for many decades. Quite a number of high-level conferences have been held. See the Introduction and History sections for graphs that show that GHG emissions are still climbing globally despite all the pledges made at conferences. Excerpts below from a recent Reuters article show the difficulty in reaching binding and effective global actions.
From Paris to Glasgow: making sense of the climate jargon
October 28, 2021
ANTONIO GUTERRES, SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS:
"The clock is ticking..."
Representatives from nearly 200 countries will meet in Glasgow, Scotland from October 31st to November 12 to flesh out the rules of a new global climate pact.
Decades of these discussions have spawned a host of acronyms and jargon.
The Paris Agreement was successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty that expired in 2020. The 2015 agreement aims to limit the rise in the average global surface temperature. Countries that signed the accord set national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that are meant to become more ambitious over time. The Paris accord legally bound its signatories collectively to limit greenhouse gas emissions to keep the temperature rise “well below” 2.0 degrees Celsius – around 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – this century. But the countries also promised to “pursue efforts” to keep the rise below 1.5 degrees Celsius, which scientists say would help to avert some of the most catastrophic effects.
The principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" (CBDR), was enshrined in the Kyoto accord and means developed countries, which produced more emissions in the past as they built their economies, should take the lead in fighting climate change. The issue is one of the thorniest in climate talks.
The Paris Agreement sought to bind major rapidly developing economies such as China and Brazil into the global effort to cut emissions, adding the words “in light of different national circumstances.” It does not, however, require them to make any immediate pledges to cut emissions.
Richer countries agreed in 2009 to contribute $100 billion together each year by 2020 to help poorer countries adapt their economies and lessen the impact of climate-driven severe weather events. In 2015, they agreed to extend this goal through to 2025, but the target has yet to be met.
Per the United Nations in November 2021, GHG emission targets fall way short. Since targets often are not met, the prognosis is more pessimistic that the UN graph below shows.
EU Cap and Trade
There is a methodology that has worked. Some countries have used variations of the Cap and Trade method of raising the pricing of fuels causing CO2 emissions. The excerpt below discusses the successes of the European Union’s plan.
The EU ETS has proven to be an effective tool in driving emissions reductions cost-effectively. Installations covered by the ETS reduced emissions by about 35% between 2005 and 2019.
In most if not all of the world, there is no underlying mechanism to spur corrective action on virtually all of the greenhouse gases at all levels of society.
Requisite Global Warming Overhaul
The crystal clear message is that success in the fight against global warming requires a BLUEPRINT – with a key component being EMISSIONS PRICING, often called carbon pricing since carbon dioxide is 80% of the GHGs although pricing should also be applied to other GHGs.
Blueprint – Defined
A BLUEPRINT is badly needed to give the entire world guidance for both the short and long term fight against global warning. The following are principles are critical to its success.
The BLUEPRINT must be general enough and broad enough that expecting nations with any significant emissions to follow it is reasonable.
The BLUEPRINT’s guiding principles and all its important scientific and economic elements will be drafted by a non-governmental BLUEPRINT group of scientists, economists, and other experts as required. This likely will include persons with project management skills.
Base the BLUEPRINT on broadly based Emission Pricing principles designed to price virtually all GHG emissions proportional to their potential damages. The EMISSIONS PRICING plan will be a component of the BLUEPRINT. Price emissions as far upstream as practicable into all products and services responsible for GHG emissions. For example, for petroleum this might mean putting a price on the company that pumps it out of the ground or perhaps at the refining step. Document the projected pricings at an increasing rates as needed in future years to meet the temperature target. Seriously consider first a GHG Taxing plan including possibly returning part or all of the taxes to the people, then a cap and trade pricing method. See below.
A mechanism involving treaties and/or tariffs or other effective approach must be included to put financial pressure on countries not immediately willing to agree to the principles of the BLUEPRINT.
Target temperatures at year 2100 – and intermediate dates as needed – are part of the responsibility of the BLUEPRINT group. This will be based on a well-documented timeline of the savings to be realized from mitigation and the costs estimated to achieve the savings, discounted as appropriate.
The BLUEPRINT will include an estimate of the EMISSIONS PRICING impacts by major industrial category and by year for the rest of this century. It will also contain estimates of the financial impacts on families.
The BLUEPRINT will document and schedule existing statutes and regulations that should be phased out as the BLUEPRINT and its EMISSIONS PRICING go into effect. This work is meant to avoid duplicate cost penalties on industries, commodities, and people; it will also be a simplification.
The BLUEPRINT will be developed for America, but every effort will be made to bring other nations along in parallel in support of the truth that essentially global participation is a must for success.
The BLUEPRINT will be presented widely in at least two versions:
1
A Professional version for scientists, economists, and others understanding its terminology and deep meaning, and also
2
A Basic version written to be understandable by most people.
A deadline for completion of the BLUEPRINT will be established by the group soon after the inception of work.
Blueprint – Advantages
The primary advantage of having a BLUEPRINT is that it will guide the world to controlling global warming at a level and a price that are the best we can expect. If you have read all that precedes these words, you know that the globe is now treading water, or worse.
The BLUEPRINT, designed by experts already well versed in developing the necessary rationale and data, will have the advantage of being objective.
Almost all of the necessary expertise and data exist now, so the BLUEPRINT can be developed quickly.
A BLUEPRINT that is transparent and understandable to everyone will obtain the support of a strong majority of the countries and peoples of America and the rest of the world. It is for this reason that the BLUEPRINT will include Basic version that is understandable by laypersons. This has the advantage of getting their support for their personal actions and their support for the BLUEPRINT with politicians.
Transparency includes the BLUEPRINT laying out the societal changes and costs necessary to achieve success. This includes demonstrating that the target temperature(s)/goals are realistic and carefully chosen.
The BLUEPRINT will provide the roadmap and the incentives through Pricing Emissions to eliminate the gridlock and rancor caused by numerous laws and regulations impacting various parts of the economy. Many existing laws and regulations that duplicate the effects of Pricing Emissions can be phased out. Decision making will be pushed down to the consumer of greenhouse gas goods and services where it will be even-handed and fair.
Pricing of Emissions – Defined
References
The Climate Casino; Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World, by William Nordhaus
The Spirit of Green; The Economics of Collisions and Contagions in a Crowded World, by William Nordhaus
Click the link below to see an excellent 3:45 minute video on The Logic of Carbon Pricing by Chris Ragan, Professor of Economics at McGill University and Chair of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission:
Remember our discussing externalities? They are the undesirable effects/costs of an activity – like burning coal – that are not paid for by the producer or the consumer. The objective of pricing emissions is to incorporate the costs to society of the externalities of greenhouse gases into products and services. Government imposing the emissions pricing usually receive revenue. Part of all of this revenue can be returned to the consumers affected as appropriate.
Typically, a Pricing program will be designed to increase the severity of the pricing over time to put further pressure on the quantity of emissions. Higher pricing causes consumers to find alternatives; that is the objective. It also stimulates research on new solutions. While the pricing rises over time, the amount of the total taxes or fees collected should not rise as much or perhaps not at all. This is because as the prices rise, the quantity of emissions on which they are collected will be declining. After all, this is what we want to happen!
While there are other approaches to pricing carbon, in this Issue Brief, a carbon price refers to either a carbon tax (or fee) or a cap-and-trade program. A carbon tax directly establishes a price on carbon in dollars per ton of emissions, which is factored into the price of goods and services based on their carbon content. A cap-and-trade program establishes the price indirectly by placing a limit on the total quantity of emissions. This limit is enforced using tradable emission permits, typically called “allowances”, that any emissions source must own to cover its emissions. The market for these allowances creates the carbon price in a cap-and-trade program.
The benefits of carbon pricing are very significant.
It is one of the strongest policy instruments available for tackling climate change. It has the potential to decarbonize the world’s economic activity by changing the behavior of consumers, businesses, and investors while unleashing technological innovation and generating revenues that can be put to productive use. In short, well-designed carbon prices offer triple benefits: they protect the environment, drive investments in clean technologies, and raise revenue.
A carbon tax puts a direct price on GHG emissions and requires economic actors to pay for every ton of carbon pollution emitted. It thus creates a financial incentive to lower emissions by switching to more efficient processes or cleaner fuels (i.e., less pollution means lower taxes). This approach provides a lot of certainty about price because the price per ton of pollution is fixed; but it offers less certainty about the extent of emissions reduction.
An emission trading system (ETS)—also known as a cap-and-trade system—sets a limit (“cap”) on total direct GHG emissions from specific sectors and sets up a market where the rights to emit (in the form of carbon permits or allowances) are traded. This approach allows polluters to meet emissions reductions targets flexibly and at the lowest cost. It provides certainty about emissions reductions, but not the price for emitting, which fluctuates with the market.
Understanding carbon pricing — Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition
The effectiveness of carbon pricing in reducing emissions depends in large part on their design. There are many considerations that policymakers have to take into account when designing a carbon pricing system. How much should emitting a ton of carbon cost, and how should this amount change over time? Who should be responsible for paying the carbon price—fossil fuel producers, consumers, or someone in between? Will the carbon pricing scheme be a source of revenue, and how should this revenue be used? The idiosyncrasies of the design influence popular support for the pricing system, the net cost of emitting carbon, and the environmental justice implications of the system, all of which can shape the system’s effectiveness in reducing carbon emissions.
Perhaps using both carbon taxing and emissions trading systems can be considered.
Determining the “right” price on carbon has proven to be a challenge. Many argue that the carbon price should be tied to the social cost of carbon (SCC)—an estimate of the total economic damages associated with each ton of carbon emissions. Climate economist William Nordhaus estimates that the SCC was $31 per ton in 2015, but will grow to $44 per ton by 2025 and $52 per ton by 2030. The Obama administration EPA calculated similar estimates: $36 per ton in 2015, growing to $46 per ton by 2025 and $50 per ton by 2030. Taking a different approach, the High Level Commission on Carbon Prices—drafted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change—estimated that achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to two degrees would require a universal carbon price of $40-80 per ton by 2020 and $50-100 by 2030 to achieve. Only 3.76% of global emissions are currently covered by a $40-80 price. Economists at the International Monetary Fund went even further, suggesting that major emitters would need a carbon price of $75 per ton to achieve sufficient emissions reductions.
Why the US should establish a carbon price either through reconciliation or other legislation
William Nordhaus in The Spirit of Green calculated the federal taxes to be collected from a carbon tax system. At $40 per ton of CO2, the total USA federal revenue (taxes) would be $240 billion based on 2019 emissions. If emissions were to decline 25%, the revenue would be $180 billion per year or slightly less than 1% of GDP or 8% of 2019 federal revenues. At a tax of $100 per ton, tax revenues would be about $400 billion per year.
What would be the impact on a typical family? In The Climate Casino of 2013, Nordhaus estimated the total cost of a carbon tax of $25 per ton of CO2 on an average family to be about $1,102 per year. He said that this was around an increase in spending of 1%. However, it is regressive in that it likely would impact a lower income household more severely. The government could return all or part of the monies collected in a way to mitigate the negative effects of the tax on households.
Pricing of Emissions - Advantages
An advantage of Pricing of Emissions (Pricing) is that it can replace the hundreds of laws and regulations with pricing built into all the goods and services purchased.
A Pricing system is an involuntary and even-handed approach that people can understand and accept. It would be easy to tweak as needed.
In contrast to the present approach when no Pricing blueprint is used, industries would know exactly what to expect and could make their plans accordingly.
Industries and consumers will be making the thousands of daily decisions needed to control GHGs at the most reasonable cost – without even having to think much about it. The additional price will be more hidden than a sales tax. But, it will motivate reductions in GHG emissions in car purchases, building insulation, foodstuffs, work and home locations, type of home and business heating and air conditioning, all forms of transportation, and most goods and services purchased by families. It will replace the present ready, fire, aim approach to fighting global warming.
Pricing would be set at levels increasing over time. The levels would be designed to effect decreases in the use of GHG-producing substances at a rate calculated by the scientists and economists to control the temperatures increases to the amounts set at the beginning. Adjustments could be made to the Pricing in the Blueprint from time to time as needed.
How much would a carbon tax reduce U.S. emissions? The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that if the country had set a carbon tax of $25 per ton in 2015 and increased it by 5 percent each year, CO2 emissions would have fallen to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. But new research shows that this may underestimate a carbon price’s true potential.
A Carbon Price Will Reduce Emissions More than Computer Models Predict
A good Pricing blueprint would be more likely to be implemented in many countries due to its simplicity and few moving parts.
Phasing out the present common system of fighting global warming with huge numbers of laws and regulations, a good Pricing system would eliminate huge amounts of gridlock and uncertainty.
Research
Small Modular Reactors (SMR)
Nuclear energy has not been given the attention it deserves in the Climate Change fight! It doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, is not intermittent like wind and solar, does not require batteries, and can produce large amounts of climate friendly energy to replace hydrocarbon fuels. #climatechange
Nuclear plants around the world now are fission reactors. They do leave dangerous waste material that lasts a very long time, but despite a few highly publicized incidents worldwide, their overall safety record is excellent. Generally, the existing plants are very large, so large in fact that equipment no longer exists in the USA to fabricate or transport the biggest components, primarily forgings.
There is a program and technology of nuclear fission that seems in the realm that it could and should be making the transition from research to development. It should be accelerated because it has the potential to plug some big holes in the shift from fossil fuels to alternatives.
This powerful more recent concept in fission power is Small Modular Reactors (SMR). As the name makes clear, these are much smaller than the major power plants that exist, use components that can be made in factories and transported easily, and are modular in that from one to ten of them can be grouped to create a plant of just the needed capacity and cost. Some proposed designs can shut down safely with no electrical power for cooling, and they can be built below ground level. SMRs particularly fit the upcoming needs of undeveloped countries that combined will be demanding energy in huge quantities in coming decades, thereby being a major concern in the climate change battle if they have to use fossil fuels for power. Intensive research has been taking place for years in the USA among government agencies and industries and also elsewhere around the world. The Wall Street Journal wrote recently about utility companies considering reequipping old coal plants with SMRs and using their electrical distribution infrastructure. Bloomberg reported on December 21, 2021, that China's first SMR is now feeding power to the grid. The SMR technology is well known, and its rollout into commercial use could and should be accelerated. Reference: Small Modular Reactors by Daniel T. Ingersoll.
One avenue could produce a tsunami of positive change; we should strongly support research and innovation. Research is cheap compared to replacing old industries with new ones, and the really transformative innovations are often quite earth-shaking. We should invest in research while doing the other things that we already know how to do. As an example, we should be supporting nuclear fusion as a possible source of electrical power that could well be a huge winner in the global warming fight. Fusion can provide almost unlimited electrical power with no CO2 emissions from fuel and no long-life nuclear waste. There are big technical challenges, but progress is being made. Such breakthroughs could make the fight against global warming much easier, but in the meantime, we have to conduct the battle with the technologies we already have mastered.
The chase for fusion energy, Nature
An emerging industry of nuclear-fusion firms promises to have commercial reactors ready in the next decade.
ACTION –
Fix the Global Warming Fight
Those wanting success in the global warming battle take actions to ensure that the BLUEPRINT and EMISSIONS PRICING concepts are widely understood and accepted so they can lead the fight against global warming.
Use websites, partnering organizations, social media, articles and letters to the media, speeches to community groups, and contacts with congresspersons
Partner with other climate change/global warming groups to capitalize on frustration that the present approaches aren’t working well.
Vote for politicians who support a rational approach to a successful fight against global warming.
International publicity – same as above.
The group of scientists and economists writes the detailed Professional version of the BLUEPRINT including Emissions Pricing and realistic targets. Then,