Brad Plumer In The Washington Post Explains A New Study On The Dramatic Drop In Carbon Emissions In The

As Trump casts himself as a savior for the coal industry, the red states that voted for him are adding most of the nation’s clean energy,

From JUSTIN GILLIS and NADJA POPOVICH in the New York Times:

The five states that get the largest percentage of their power from wind turbines — Iowa, Kansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma and North Dakota — all voted for Mr. Trump. So did Texas, which produces the most wind power in absolute terms. In fact, 69 percent of the wind power produced in the country comes from states that Mr. Trump carried in November... These red states are not motivated by a sudden desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions... their leaders see tapping the wind, and to a lesser degree the sun, as an economic strategy. The clean energy push allows their utilities to lock in low power prices for decades, creates manufacturing jobs, puts steady money in the hands of farmers who host wind turbines, and lures big employers who want renewable power.

The sex of a sea turtle hatching is determined by temperature. Nests incubated at cooler temperatures produce more males, while nests incubated at warmer temperatures produce more females.

This could be a problem with climate change. As global temperatures rise, nests will be incubated at higher temperatures, producing fewer males. As this study found, climate change could lead to turtle nests with few to no males, skewing sex ratios and endangering the persistence of sea turtle populations. As the authors note:

“[O]nce incubation temperatures are 35°C, there are almost no more males produced (1 per 50 000 eggs laid)... As turtles return to the rough neighbourhood of their natal breeding grounds, it seems likely that for populations already producing more than 80% females, there will be a real extinction risk if they continue to nest at the same time of year and conditions warm by a few degrees.” 

But the bigger issue may be the increasing number of unviable eggs with rising temperatures. As the authors claim:

“[T]he primary concern in scenarios of climate change and rising incubation temperatures [is]... the high hatchling mortality in excessively warm nests...While climate warming still poses a threat to sea turtles, it is not the skewed sex ratios per se that will threaten population survival but rather higher mortality within clutches.”

From the Washington Post:

Map from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showing how much electricity each state gets from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal. Maine was the clear winner in 2011, getting 27 percent of its electricity coming from renewable sources — a lot of it wind power and biomass. But Maine had a lot of renewable energy back in 2001, too. South Dakota and Iowa, at 21 percent and 17 percent, have seen far more impressive growth. Both of those states got almost none of their electricity from renewable sources a decade ago.

Effectively combating rhino poaching means dealing with both supply and demand on a global level.

A recent study looked at the demographics of an elephant population in Samburu, Kenya, and the impact of poaching. This graph shows the annual PIKE, or Proportion of Illegally Killed Elephants. PIKE is calculated as the number of illegally killed (poached) elephant carcasses divided by the total number of elephant carcasses discovered that year. The graph shows a recent dramatic increase in poaching.

The authors state:

Illegal human killing caused over half the recorded mortality in the Samburu elephants over the age of 9 (and indirectly caused the deaths of all victim’s dependent calves under 2 years). The high illegal killing in the latter part of the study had serious ramifications for the structure and organization of the population... the illegal killing appeared to select adult individuals in Samburu and particularly males resulting in increasing skew in the sex ratio over the course of the fourteen year study. Social disruption also resulted, with numerous well known and stable family groups being completely lost (i.e. no surviving breeding females) causing increased numbers of unaffiliated juveniles (orphans)

According to the New York Times, the recent spike in poaching, the greatest in decades, is driven by rising demand for ivory in Asia.

Climate change is hitting Georgia’s peach industry, where an unusually warm winter this year let to a dramatically reduced peach harvest.

From FiveThirtyEight:

For trees that fruit each year (such as peaches, cherries, blueberries, almonds and other fruits and nuts), cool weather is as important as warm. Cold air and less sunlight trigger the release of chemicals that halt trees’ growth, prepare them to withstand freezing temperatures and enable them to resume growing the following spring. When a tree enters this dormant state, it sets a kind of internal seasonal alarm clock that goes off once the tree has spent enough time in chilly temperatures. This countdown is measured in so-called chill hours — the amount of time the temperature is between 32 and 45 degrees Fahrenheit. When crops don’t get the chill hours they expect, they can’t properly reset. Buds are delayed, and instead of ripening into juicy, delicious fruit, they remain small and underdeveloped.

This last winter, middle Georgia got about 400 chill hours during what Chavez described as the usual dormancy period for peaches (roughly Oct. 1 to Feb. 10). The winter before, while still on the low side, had closer to 600 chill hours. But that 200-hour difference meant several peach varieties that had produced fruit in 2016 never bloomed this year.

As shown in the last image, this reduction in chill hours is not unique to Georgia, and will impact farmers growing fruit and nut trees.

Historic drought in California affects more than California. Local impacts of climate change have broader implications.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cap and trade program involving nine northeastern states:  Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. New Jersey was a part of the program but Gov. Christie pulled the state out of the agreement in 2011. The purpose of the program is to lower emissions from power plants in the northeast. On its face, carbon emissions have declined from 188 million tons of carbon-dioxide in 2005 to 91 million tons in 2012. However, much of that is due to the recession and cheap natural gas replacing dirty coal. At present, power plants emit less carbon than the current cap. This gives little incentive for them to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

In an effort to further drive investment in efficiency and renewables, the RGGI released a proposal to progressively lower the emissions cap through 2020. The 2020 cap will be 14% below the current level of emissions.

Brad Plumer of the Washington Posts notes that "Between now and 2020, the new RGGI scheme is hoping to cut annual emissions by about 13 million tons. That’s about 0.06 of all power plant emissions in the United States last year. A rounding error. Ultimately, RGGI might best be thought of less as a solution to climate change and more of a revenue-raiser for the Northeast. It’s also an experiment of sorts — a way for policymakers to figure out what works and what doesn’t in climate policy." 

As the Trump administration announces they will rollback Obama’s regulations to improve fuel efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas pollution from cars, a reminder that, as Vox’s Brad Plumer reported back in June:

For the first time since 1979, America’s cars, trucks, and airplanes emit more carbon dioxide than its power plants do... The story here is that the United States has made remarkable progress in greening its electricity sector since 2005. Whenever you see exciting headlines about renewable energy growth or the plunge in US emissions, those articles are usually talking about electricity.But power plants are only one-third of America’s CO2 emissions. Transportation, another third (and now the biggest source), remains tougher to address. In fact, since 2013, transport emissions have been creeping upward again.

Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpcol analyzed the failure of the 2009 Cap & Trade bill to determine what caused climate legislation to fail while health care reform succeeded. In her report, she claims that a major failure was that the environmental coalition focused on gaining republican support (which was reasonable, as Republicans had previously supported cap and trade, including 2008 Republican Presidential nominee John McCain), without recognizing that the environment had become a politically polarized issue, with Republicans turning against environmental legislation.

In an interview with The Washington Post's Brad Plumer, she states:

One of the things that really surprised me in my research came from pulling together scores from the [League of Conservation Voters]. And you see a clear pull on politicians from grassroots conservative opinion around 2006 and 2007. Climate-change denial had been an elite industry for a long time, but it finally penetrated down to conservative Republican identified voters around this time. That created new pressures on Republican officeholders and candidates. And I don’t think most people noticed that at the time. Even John McCain. I have this figure that shows him moving up on LCV scores for most of the last decade [i.e., casting more pro-environmental votes] and then pulling back suddenly to the lowest level starting in 2007.