Is the carbon tax dead? Not yet, says this senator.

By Shannon Osaka, Grist, Aug. 10, 2020

For years, the idea of putting a price on carbon emissions seemed like a no-brainer — economists claimed that it would cut fossil fuel pollution quickly and efficiently, and at the same time, could even give money back to the American public. But lately the policy has fallen out of favor. Over the past few months, as Democrats have rolled out multiple comprehensive plans to slow down climate change and turbocharge renewable energy, the idea of a “carbon tax” has been notably absent.

One lawmaker doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. On Friday, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, introduced the “America’s Clean Future Fund Act,” which would set a steadily rising price on carbon dioxide emissions. The tax would start at $25 per metric ton of emissions (that’s the equivalent of about 22 cents extra per gallon of gasoline) and rise by $10 or more per year. Given the COVID-19 economic downturn, the bill suggests waiting to institute the price until “the U.S. economy is no longer in economic turmoil due to the current pandemic,” but no later than 2023.

According to an analysis by the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, a majority of the funds raised by the tax would be returned to low- and middle-income households in the form of rebates — the rest would be used to create a green bank for investments in clean energy, to finance carbon sequestration projects in farms and forests, and to provide support for laid-off fossil fuel workers and communities at risk of sea-level rise or extreme weather.

“This bill is one piece of a comprehensive solution required to combat and protect against climate change,” Durbin said in a statement.

Previous carbon tax proposals haven’t made it very far. According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Durbin’s bill is the 10th carbon pricing bill proposed in Congress since 2018 — and four of them have had bipartisan sponsorship. Still, most Republicans haven’t shown much interest in climate legislation and, given the Republican-controlled Senate, none of these bills are likely to become law anytime soon. (In fact, the last viable attempt to pass a law with carbon pricing failed during the Obama Administration.)

Durbin’s bill stands in stark contrast to climate plans offered by former Vice President and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden as well as House Democrats. Biden’s plan, released last month, calls for $2 trillion in spending for clean energy initiatives and a transition to 100 percent clean electricity by 2035, but stops short of suggesting a carbon price. The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, meanwhile, released a 538-page plan that devoted just two caveat-filled pages to a potential tax on emissions. “Carbon pricing is not a silver bullet,” they warned, adding that any potential tax must benefit low- and middle-income Americans.

The newly introduced plan satisfies that requirement — and indicates that the carbon tax isn’t dead yet on the political left. Durbin is the second highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, which means that his plan could get an airing if Democrats manage to take control of Congress. And even though history hasn’t been kind to the carbon tax — attempts to pass one in Washington State failed twice, in 2016 and 2018 — the idea is still favored by a majority of Americans.

That includes a cadre of former Republican lawmakers and statesmen, who in 2018, launched an effort calling for a tax with 100-percent of its profits going to American taxpayers. The idea made it into legislation introduced in the House by two Florida representatives, one from each party.

As to whether future Democratic legislators will back a carbon price, or go whole hog on clean energy spending and regulations, it’s hard to say. And anyway, the party will first have to win in November.

https://grist.org/politics/is-the-carbon-tax-dead-not-yet-says-this-senator/

US could avoid 4.5M early deaths by fighting climate change, study finds

By Rebecca Beitsch, The Hill, August 5, 2020

The U.S. stands to avoid 4.5 million premature deaths if it works to keep global temperatures from rising by more than 2 degree Celsius, according to new research from Duke University.

The same study found working to limit climate change could prevent about 3.5 million hospitalizations and emergency room visits and approximately 300 million lost workdays in America.

“The avoided deaths are valued at more than $37 trillion. The avoided health care spending due to reduced hospitalizations and emergency room visits exceeds $37 billion, and the increased labor productivity is valued at more than $75 billion,” Drew Shindell, a professor at Duke University, told lawmakers Wednesday. 

“On average, this amounts to over $700 billion per year in benefits to the U.S. from improved health and labor alone, far more than the cost of the energy transition.”

Shindell, who conducted the study alongside researchers at NASA, unveiled the findings during a House Oversight Committee hearing on the economic and health consequences of climate change. 

The study aimed to show the benefits to the U.S. if the nation sticks with the goal of the Paris Climate Accord, which President Trump has formally moved to leave. The U.S. cannot officially exit the agreement until Nov. 4 — the day after the presidential election.

Shindell encouraged committee members to transition away from fossil fuels, a move that would help ease climate change while also spurring health benefits from reduced air pollution.

The benefits could be seen in the relatively short term.

“Roughly 1.4 million lives could be saved from improved air quality during the next 20 years. As we’ve seen with the coronavirus lockdowns in many places, air pollution responds immediately to emissions reductions,” he said. 

“Our work shows that action now means benefits now.”

Democrats have introduced a number of bills to combat climate change, but they’ve failed to get much traction.

The House passed a $1.5 trillion green infrastructure package in July, but the Republican-led Senate isn’t expected to take it up.

Just one day earlier, the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis unveiled its road map for solving the climate crisis.

Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said lawmakers need to focus on tackling the problem despite the current coronavirus pandemic.

“Handling one crisis does not negate our responsibility to face another.

Global Methane Emissions Reach a Record High

Scientists expect emissions, driven by fossil fuels and agriculture, to continue rising rapidly.

By Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times, July 14, 2020

Global emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, soared to a record high in 2017, the most recent year for which worldwide data are available, researchers said Tuesday.

And they warned that the rise — driven by fossil fuel leaks and agriculture — would most certainly continue despite the economic slowdown from the coronavirus crisis, which is bad news for efforts to limit global warming and its grave effects.

The latest findings, published on Tuesday in two scientific journals, underscore how methane presents a growing threat, even as the world finds some success in reining in carbon dioxide emissions, the most abundant greenhouse gas and the main cause of global warning.

“There’s a hint that we might be able to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions very soon. But we don’t appear to be even close to peak methane,” said Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who heads the Global Carbon Project, which conducted the research. “It isn’t going down in agriculture, it isn’t going down with fossil fuel use.”

“There’s a hint that we might be able to reach peak carbon dioxide emissions very soon. But we don’t appear to be even close to peak methane,” said Rob Jackson, an earth scientist at Stanford University who heads the Global Carbon Project, which conducted the research. “It isn’t going down in agriculture, it isn’t going down with fossil fuel use.”

Scientists warn that if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise on the current trajectory, the world has little hope of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or even 2 degrees Celsius. If the world warms beyond that, tens of millions of people could be exposed to life-threatening heat waves, freshwater shortages and coastal flooding from sea level rise.

Methane, a colorless, odorless gas that is the main component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas that traps the sun’s heat, warming the earth 86 times as much as the same mass of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

And while the coronavirus pandemic led to a large temporary dropin carbon dioxide emissions as much transportation and industry ground to a halt, there are signs methane emissions have not dropped nearly as much, Dr. Jackson said.

“We’re still producing food. We’re still producing natural gas,” he said. “If we continue to release methane as we have done in recent decades, we have no chance.”

Overall, global methane emissions are up 9 percent from the early 2000s, according to the latest findings, and human activity is responsible for more than half of those emissions. Raising livestock like cattle and sheep, which burp copious amounts of methane, is a major source of methane emissions, as is coal mining, which releases methane from deep within the rock.

Methane also leaks from oil and gas wells, pipelines, distribution lines and even the gas stoves in our homes, and from landfills. The rest comes from natural sources, like wetlands.

Of the anthropogenic emissions, agriculture makes up about two-thirds, while fossil fuels contribute most of the rest. The increase in emissions between 2000-17, though, came equally from agriculture, which rose nearly 11 percent from the 2000-06 average, and fossil fuels, which rose nearly 15 percent.

Methane emissions grew quickest in three regions: Africa and the Middle East; China; and South Asia and Oceania, including Australia. A surge in coal use caused methane emissions to jump in China, while population growth and rising incomes have led to more emissions elsewhere, the scientists said.

The United States has led a significant rise in methane emissions from North America. About 80 percent of the total increase for the region was driven by fossil fuels, underscoring the environmental fallout of America’s shale boom.

Curbing methane emissions will require better plugging leaks and other fugitive emissions from oil and gas infrastructure, like wells and pipelines, which are a major source of methane emissions, the scientists said. It will also require an overhaul of agriculture, especially cattle and rice farming, two large sources of methane emissions. 

A big question mark is the contribution of natural sources of methane emissions, like wetlands, mud volcanoes and permafrost. Natural methane emissions have been relatively unchanged from 2000-17, albeit with large uncertainties.

There are fears, for example, that thawing permafrost in the Arctic could start releasing large quantities of methane into the atmosphere, further accelerating climate change. For now, scientists have found little evidence of increasing methane emissions in the Arctic, though they warn that could change as warming intensifies. Scientists have warned that the Arctic region is warming at more than twice the rate of the rest of the planet.

“The key message is that methane concentrations and emissions are still rising, and we know the main cause,” said Marielle Saunois, a scientist at the Laboratory for Climate and Environmental Sciences in France, and a member of the research team. “This is not the right path.”

Rapid Arctic meltdown in Siberia alarms scientists

By Isabelle Khurshudyan, Andrew Freedman and Brady Dennis

The Washington Post, July 3, 2020

Alexander Deyev can still taste the smoke from last year’s wildfires that blanketed the towns near his home in southeastern Siberia, and he is dreading their return.

“It just felt like you couldn’t breathe at all,” said Deyev, 32, who lives in Irkutsk, a Siberian region along Lake Baikal, just north of the Mongolian border.

But already this year, fires in the spring arrived earlier and with more ferocity, government officials have said. In the territory where Deyev lives, fires were three times as large this April as the year before. And the hot, dry summer lies ahead.

Much of the world remains consumed with the deadly novel coronavirus. The United States, crippled by the pandemic, is in the throes of a divisive presidential campaign and protests over racial inequality. But at the top of the globe, the Arctic is enduring its own summer of discontent.

Wildfires are raging amid ­record-breaking temperatures. Permafrost is thawing, infrastructure is crumbling and sea ice is dramatically vanishing.

Radical warming in Siberia leaves millions on unstable ground

In Siberia and across much of the Arctic, profound changes are unfolding more rapidly than scientists anticipated only a few years ago. Shifts that once seemed decades away are happening now, with potentially global implications.

“We always expected the Arctic to change faster than the rest of the globe,” said Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. “But I don’t think anyone expected the changes to happen as fast as we are seeing them happen.”

Vladimir Romanovsky, a researcher at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, said the pace, severity and extent of the changes are surprising even to many researchers who study the region for a living. Predictions for how quickly the Arctic would warm that once seemed extreme “underestimate what is going on in reality,” he said. The temperatures occurring in the High Arctic during the past 15 years were not predicted to occur for 70 more years, he said.

Neither Dallas nor Houston has hit 100 degrees yet this year, but in one of the coldest regions of the world, Siberia’s “Pole of Cold,” the mercury climbed to 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit (38 Celsius) on June 20.

If confirmed, the record-breaker in the remote Siberian town of Verkhoyansk, about 3,000 miles east of Moscow, would stand as the highest temperature in the Arctic since record-keeping began in 1885.

The triple-digit record was not a freak event, either, but instead part of a searing heat wave. Verkhoyansk saw 11 straight days with a high temperature of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 Celsius) or above, according to Rick Thoman, a climate scientist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. The average June high at that location is just 68 degrees Fahrenheit (20 Celsius).

This week, Ust’-Olenek, Russia, about 450 miles north of the Arctic Circle, recorded a temperature of 93.7 degrees (34.3 Celsius), about 40 degrees above average for the date. On May 22, the Siberian town of Khatanga, located well north of the Arctic Circle, recorded a temperature of 78 degrees Fahrenheit — about 46 degrees above normal.

Much of Siberia experienced an exceptionally mild winter, followed by a warmer-than- average spring, and it has been among the most unusually warm regions of the world during 2020. During May, parts of Siberia saw an average monthly temperature that was a staggering 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 Celsius) above average for the month, according to the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

“To me, these are kind of the key ingredients of things you expect in a warming climate,” Freja Vamborg, a senior scientist at Copernicus, said of the recent heat records, coupled with prolonged months of higher-than-average temperatures.

Dangerous new hot zones are spreading around the world

The persistent warmth has helped to fuel wildfires, eviscerate sea ice and destabilize homes and other buildings constructed on thawing permafrost. It allegedly even contributed to a massive fuel spill in Norilsk in late May that prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to declare a state of emergency in the environmentally sensitive region.

Already, sea ice in the vicinity of Siberia is running at record-low levels for any year since reliable satellite monitoring began in 1979.

Scientists have long maintained that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world. But in reality, the region is now warming at nearly three times the global average. Data from NASA shows that since 1970, the Arctic has warmed by an average of 5.3 degrees (2.94 Celsius), compared with the global average of 1.71 degrees (0.95 Celsius) during the same period. Scientists refer to the phenomenon as “Arctic amplification.”

The melting of snow and ice earlier in the spring exposes darker land surfaces and ocean waters. This switches these areas from being net reflectors of incoming solar radiation to heat absorbers, which further increases land and sea temperatures. That means more warmth in the air, more melting of snow and ice, and drying of vegetation in a way that creates more fuel for wildfires.

What happens in the Arctic matters for the rest of the globe. Greenland ice melt is already the biggest contributor to sea-level rise worldwide, studies show. The loss of Arctic sea ice is also thought to be leading to more-
extreme weather patterns far outside the Arctic, in a complex series of ripple effects that may be partly responsible for extreme heat and precipitation events that have claimed thousands of lives in recent years.

The fires that have erupted in Siberia this summer have been massive, sending out plumes of smoke that have covered a swath of land spanning about 1,000 miles at times. While much of the fire activity has occurred in the Sakha Republic, known for such blazes, scientists are observing more fires farther north, above the Arctic Circle, in peatlands and tundra.

“This seems to be a new pattern,” said Jessica McCarty, a researcher at Miami University in Ohio. In past years, fires “were sparse if not unheard of in these regions.”

One concern is that such fires could be destabilizing peatlands and permafrost — the carbon-rich frozen soil that covers nearly a quarter of the Northern Hemisphere’s land mass, stretching across large parts of Alaska, Canada, Siberia and Greenland.

Merritt Turetsky, director of the Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said fires in Siberia are burning “in areas where we expect permafrost to be more vulnerable.” Typically, these fires would break out in July and August, but this year they spiked in May, a sign of the unusual heat and early snow melt.

Turetsky said the fires are removing the blanket of vegetation that covers permafrost, making it more vulnerable to melting.

Satellite observations of Arctic wildfires in June also showed that fires this year are emitting more greenhouse gases than the record Arctic fires in 2019, according to Mark Parrington, who tracks wildfires around the world with the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service.

Some of these blazes appear to be what are known as “zombie fires,” which survive the winter season smoldering underground only to erupt again once snow and ice melts the following spring. Similar fires have been observed in Alaska this summer.

Ted Schuur, a professor at Northern Arizona University who researches permafrost emissions, said the rapid warming is turning the Arctic into a net emitter of greenhouse gases — a disconcerting shift that threatens to dramatically hasten global warming. The unusually mild conditions in Siberia are particularly worrisome, as the region is home to the largest zone of continuous permafrost in the world.

There has long been concern throughout the scientific community that the approximately 1,460 billion to 1,600 billion metric tons of organic carbon stored in frozen Arctic soils, from Russia to Alaska to Canada, could be released as the permafrost melts. That is almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases trapped in the atmosphere. Recent research by Schuur and others shows that warmer temperatures allow microbes within the soil to convert permafrost carbon into carbon dioxide and methane.

A report late last year that Schuur co-authored found that permafrost ecosystems could be releasing as much as 1.1 billion to 2.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year — nearly as much as the annual emissions of Japan and Russia in 2018, respectively.

“A decade ago we thought more of the permafrost would be resistant to change,” said Schuur. The more scientists look for destabilizing permafrost and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the more they find such evidence.

Rapid warming has altered their calculations. “We’re basically setting records in the Arctic year after year,” Schuur said. “These emissions are now adding to our climate change problem. What happens in Siberia is going to affect everything through the global climate system.”

Researchers have watched as the changes sweeping the Arctic threaten major infrastructure, including homes and cities in the region.

“Will roads, buildings, oil and gas pipelines be able to survive without emergency [interventions], due to permafrost degradation?” Alexander Fedorov, deputy director of the Melnikov Permafrost Institute in the regional capital of Yakutsk, said in an email. “One must live on stable lands. In Siberia and the Arctic, many settlements and infrastructure were built before global warming, before there were problems. The main thing is not to be late with the solutions, because many villages are located in dangerous and vulnerable areas.”

For all the disconcerting signals coming out of the Arctic right now, the potential for troubling events remains high in the coming months, Meier said.

Sea ice typically reaches its minimum in September, he noted. Ice melt accelerates in Greenland during June and July. Wildfires have the potential to worsen as summer drags on. Intense summer storms can cause permafrost degradation and worsen coastal erosion.

“Certainly, 2020 is a strange year all around, for a lot of reasons beyond climate,” Meier said. “But it’s certainly setting up to be an extreme year in the Arctic.”

That might seem like a distant problem to the rest of the world. But those who study the Arctic insist the rest of us should pay close attention.

“When we develop a fever, it’s a sign. It’s a warning sign that something is wrong and we stop and we take note,” Turetsky said. “Literally, the Arctic is on fire. It has a fever right now, and so it’s a good warning sign that we need to stop, take note and figure out what’s going on.”

To see photos: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/rapid-arctic-meltdown-in-siberia-alarms-scientists/2020/07/03/4c1bd6a6-bbaa-11ea-bdaf-a129f921026f_story.html

Rising Seas Threaten an American Institution: The 30-Year Mortgage

Climate change is starting to transform the classic home loan, a fixture of the American experience and financial system that dates back generations.

By Christopher Flavelle, The New York Times, June 19, 2020

WASHINGTON — Up and down the coastline, rising seas and climate change are transforming a fixture of American homeownership that dates back generations: the classic 30-year mortgage.

Home buyers are increasingly using mortgages that make it easier for them to stop making their monthly payments and walk away from the loan if the home floods or becomes unsellable or unlivable. More banks are getting buyers in coastal areas to make bigger down payments — often as much as 40 percent of the purchase price, up from the traditional 20 percent — a sign that lenders have awakened to climate dangers and want to put less of their own money at risk.

And in one of the clearest signs that banks are worried about global warming, they are increasingly getting these mortgages off their own books by selling them to government-backed buyers like Fannie Mae, where taxpayers would be on the hook financially if any of the loans fail.

“Conventional mortgages have survived many financial crises, but they may not survive the climate crisis,” said Jesse Keenan, an associate professor at Tulane University. “This trend also reflects a systematic financial risk for banks and the U.S. taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill.”

The trends foreshadow a broader reckoning. The question that matters, according to researchers, isn’t whether the effects of climate change will start to ripple through the housing market. Rather, it’s how fast those effects will occur and what they will look like.

The change has already begun. It’s not only along the nation’s rivers and coasts where climate-induced risk has started to push down home prices. In parts of the West, the growing danger of wildfires is already making it harder for homeowners to get insurance.

But the threat that climate change poses to the 30-year mortgage is different, striking at an American social institution that dates from the Great Depression. Before that, many home loans required owners to pay lenders back just a few years after buying a house, which led to waves of defaults and homelessness, according to Andrew Caplin, a professor of economics at New York University.

In response, the federal government created the Federal Housing Administration, which in turn standardized the way Americans finance their homes.

There was nothing magical about a period of 30 years, Dr. Caplin said; it simply proved useful, making payments predictable and affordable by stretching them out over decades. “It was designed from a viewpoint of a consumer, who wouldn’t find it too hard to understand exactly what they had committed to,” Dr. Caplin said.

But now, as the world warms, that long-term nature of conventional mortgages might not be as desirable as it once was, as rising seas and worsening storms threaten to make some land uninhabitable. A retreat from the 30-year mortgage could also put homeownership out of reach for more Americans.

Changes to the housing market are just one of myriad ways global warming is disrupting American life, including spreading disease and threatening the food supply. It could also be one of the most economically significant. During the 2008 financial crisis, a decline in home values helped cripple the financial system and pushed almost 9 million Americans out of work.

But increased flooding nationwide could have more far-reaching consequences on financial housing markets. In 2016, Freddie Mac’s chief economist at the time, Sean Becketti, warned that losses from flooding both inland and along the coasts are “likely to be greater in total than those experienced in the housing crisis and the Great Recession.”

If climate change makes coastal homes uninsurable, Dr. Becketti wrote, their value could fall to nothing, and unlike the 2008 financial crisis, “homeowners will have no expectation that the values of their homes will ever recover.”

In 30 years from now, if global-warming emissions follow their current trajectory, almost half a million existing homes will be on land that floods at least once a year, according to data from Climate Central, a research organization. Those homes are valued at $241 billion.

Currently, new research shows banks rapidly shifting mortgages with flood risk off their books and over to organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored entities whose debts are backed by taxpayers. In a paper this month in the journal Climactic Change, Dr. Keenan and Jacob T. Bradt, a doctoral student at Harvard University, described the activity, which suggests growing awareness among banks that climate change could cause defaults.

Tellingly, the lenders selling off coastal mortgages the fastest are smaller local banks, which are more likely than large national banks to know which neighborhoods face the greatest climate risk. “They have their ears to the ground,” Dr. Keenan said.

In 2009, local banks sold off 43 percent of their mortgages in vulnerable zones, Dr. Keenan and Mr. Bradt found, about the same share as other areas. But by 2017, the share had jumped by one-third, to 57 percent, despite staying flat in less vulnerable neighborhoods.

If coastal mortgages defaulted on those loans, it could cause losses for Fannie and Freddie. That pain could spread to taxpayers: In 2008, the two firms required $187 billion in public aid to stay solvent. They later repaid the money.

In a separate working paper with Marco Tedesco and Carolynne Hultquist of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Dr. Keenan found banks protecting themselves in other ways, such as lending less money to home buyers in vulnerable areas, relative to the value of the homes.

Typically, a bank will lend about 80 percent of the cost of a house, with the buyer putting down the other 20 percent. But examining several counties particularly exposed to rising seas, the researchers found that a growing share of mortgages had required down payments between 21 percent and 40 percent — what Dr. Keenan called nonconventional loans.

In coastal Carteret County, N.C., the share of nonconventional mortgages increased by 14 percent between 2006 and 2017 in the areas most exposed to sea-level rise. That change can’t be explained by the general trend there: In the rest of Carteret County, nonconventional loans became less common during the same period.

Similarly in St. Johns County, Fla., south of Jacksonville, between 2006 and 2017, the share of nonconventional loans in the most vulnerable areas increased by 6 percent, while falling 22 percent in the rest of the county. “You’re seeing a statistically significant trend,” Dr. Keenan said.

The Mortgage Bankers Association, a trade group, declined to comment directly on the findings. Pete Mills, the association’s senior vice president of residential policy, cited the requirement for homeowners to buy insurance.

“Lenders make sure all properties are properly insured,” Mr. Mills said in a statement. “For loans in Special Flood Hazard Areas, flood insurance is required,” he added, referring to areas the Federal Emergency Management Agency has determined have a high flood risk.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said, “Any loan located in FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Areas must have flood insurance in order for the loan to be purchased by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.”

But flood insurance isn’t likely to address the problem, Dr. Keenan said, because it doesn’t protect against the risk of a house losing value and ultimately becoming unsellable.

Lenders aren’t the only ones who seem to be inching away from traditional 30-year mortgages in risky areas. More homeowners are also taking out a type of mortgage that is less financially painful for a borrower to walk away from if a home becomes uninhabitable because of rising seas. These are known as interest-only mortgages — the monthly payment covers only the interest on the loan, and doesn’t reduce the principal owed.

Under normal circumstances, this kind of loan sounds like a bad deal: It’s a loan you can never pay off with the regular monthly payments. However, it also means buyers aren’t sinking any more of their own money into the property beyond a down payment. That’s an advantage if you think the property may become unlivable.

“A household that expects the house will be flooded within a decade, say, is unlikely to value the accumulation of equity in this house,” said Amine Ouazad, an associate professor of real estate economics at HEC Montreal who has researched the practice. “The ability to walk away from a mortgage in case of major floods or sea-level rise is a feature.”

In new research this month, Dr. Ouazad found that, since the housing crash, the share of homes with fixed-rate, 30-year mortgages has declined sharply — to less than 80 percent, as of 2016 — in areas most exposed to storm surges. In the rest of the country, the rate has stayed constant, at about 90 percent of home loans.

Part of the difference was the interest-only loans, Dr. Ouazad found. More than 10 percent of homeowners in those areas had interest-only loans in 2016, compared with just 2.3 percent in other ZIP Codes. The work hasn’t been peer-reviewed, and more research is needed, Dr. Ouazad said. But he said there’s reason to think climate risks are part of the explanation.

The tougher question, according Carolyn Kousky, executive director of the Wharton Risk Center at the University of Pennsylvania, is what happens after that, when people quite simply no longer want to live in homes that keep flooding. “What happens when the water starts lapping at these properties, and they get abandoned?” she said.

Conservative climate group runs pro-environment ads on Fox News

By Rachel Frazin, The Hill, June 15, 2020

A conservative climate group is spending six figures to run an environmentally-focused ad on Fox News in an attempt to push the administration and Congress to consider environmental issues in future coronavirus recovery legislation. 

The ad, from the American Conservation Coalition, will run on the network this week, according to a statement.

It features past Republican presidents such as George H.W. Bush talking about the importance of environmental protection when looking at the future.

“How we rebuild is how we’ll be remembered,” the ad concludes. “Join the young conservatives fighting for a clean future.”

The ad comes as some lawmakers, particularly Republicans, have expressed opposition to including environmental provisions in future stimulus legislation. Earlier this year, Republican senators compared such ideas to the “Green New Deal” pushed forward by progressives. 

It also comes as the Trump administration has proposed rollbacks to several environmental regulations, including a recent executive order that would waive environmental requirements for construction and energy projects. 

Some environmentalists, however, have said that Congress should use the pandemic to pass legislation that would help the U.S. rebuild with a greater focus on clean energy. 

"Tens of millions of people are unemployed, and their jobs might never come back," ACC Campus President and founder Benji Backer said in a statement on his group’s ad buy. 

"We know that transitioning to a clean energy system will create millions of jobs, spark the innovation we need to dig ourselves out of this recession, and spare future generations the astronomical costs of delaying climate action," he added.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/502736-conservative-climate-group-runs-pro-environment-ads-on-fox-news