News + Media

On the eve of President Xi's visit to the US and summit with President Obama, Professor Karplus participated in the panel discussion on Meeting China’s Climate Goals at Columbia University today, September 21, 2015, at 12:30-2:00 p.m. David Sandalow, Inaugural Fellow, Center on Global Energy Policy, and former senior official at the White House, State Department, and U.S. Department of Energy moderated the discussion among the expert speakers who include Valerie Karplus, Assistant Professor of Global Economics and Management, MIT Sloan School, and Director of the Tsinghua-MIT China Energy and Climate Project; Zhu Liu, Fellow, Resnick Sustainability Institute, California Institute of Technology and Associate, Kennedy School, Harvard University; and Kelly Sims Gallagher, Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy, the Fletcher School, Tufts University, and former Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Science and Technology Policy, the White House.
 
A podcast of this event will be available three-five days after the date of the event through iTunes or via the Center on Columbia Global Energy Policy’s website.

Mark Dwortzan | MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Climate CoLab, an MIT-based crowdsourcing platform to advance climate change solutions through the power of collective intelligence, has named Langley DeWitt, a research scientist with the Center for Global Change Science, as a Judges’ Choice winner in one of 15 contests for 2015. DeWitt, who is also chief scientist of the Rwanda Climate Observatory, was recognized in the Transportation contest for her proposal to set up an inexpensive air quality sensor network in Kigali, Rwanda as part of an effort to reduce vehicular emissions and improve air quality.

DeWitt and other contest winners will present their ideas at MIT's Solve and Crowds & Climate conferences, October 5 and 6 on the MIT campus, where the $10,000 Grand Prize will be awarded.

Read more about DeWitt's proposal here.

Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office

The politics of climate change are often depicted as a simple battle, between environmentalists and particular industries, over government policy. That’s not wrong, but it’s only a rough sketch of the matter. Now a paper co-authored by MIT economist Christopher Knittel fills in some important details of the picture, revealing an essential mechanism that underlies the politics of the climate battle.

Specifically, as Knittel and his colleagues demonstrate, at least one climate policy enacted by Congress — on transportation fuels — contains a crucial asymmetry: It imposes modest costs on most people, but yields significant benefits for a smaller group. Thus, most people are politically indifferent to the legislation, even though it hurts them marginally, but a few fight hard to maintain it. The same principle may also apply to other types of climate legislation.

In 2005, Congress introduced the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which mandates a minimum level of ethanol that must be used in gasoline every year, as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol can indeed reduce emissions, but as Knittel and other economists have argued, it is not the most efficient way of doing so: He estimates that mandating ethanol use is at least 2.5 times as costly, per ton of greenhouse gas reduction, as a cap-and-trade (CAT) policy, which would price the carbon emitted by all transportation fuels.

But corn-based ethanol production has strong political support in the Midwest, where much of the corn industry is based. In the new paper, Knittel and his colleagues quantify that effect in unique detail. They model what U.S. fuel consumption would likely look like through 2022 under both RFS and CAT scenarios, among others. Compared with a cap-and-trade system, the average American would lose $34 annually due to the RFS policy. But 5 percent of U.S. counties would gain more than $1,250 per capita, and one county gains $6,000 per capita.

Thus, most people are indifferent to the shortcomings of the RFS policy, but those who care tend to support it vigorously.

“Because of the skew in the distribution, you have the typical voter who doesn’t find it in their interest to fight against the inefficient policy, but the big winners are really going to fight for the inefficient policy,” says Knittel, adding: “If the typical voter is losing $30 a year, that’s not enough for me to write to my congressman. Whereas if you have someone on the upper end who is going to gain $6,000 — that’s enough for me to write my congressman.”

The political economy of energy

As the study shows, some folks do more than write to their representatives. Knittel and his colleagues found that members of the House of Representatives in districts that gain greatly from the RFS policy received an average of $33,000 more from organizations that opposed one particular piece of legislation — the 2009 Waxman-Markey bill, which would have created a CAT system, and likely would have reduced ethanol use. That bill passed in the House in July 2009, but was never taken up by the U.S. Senate.   

That difference in campaign contributions holds up strongly even when the researchers controlled for factors such as ideology, state, and overall emissions. That is, other things being equal, representatives of the specific areas benefitting most from RFS were given far more in donations from opponents of the Waxman-Markey bill than other congressmen. Representatives were also 39 percentage points more likely to oppose Waxman-Markey, other things being equal, if they were in districts that benefit strongly from the RFS policy.

“It’s a very robust finding,” Knittel says. “One interpretation is that these people or corporations who were donating money have a model very similar to ours, and are able to predict winners and losers under different policies. This is a very sophisticated group.”

On one level, the results confirmed something that was broadly understood: Areas with corn-based economies support ethanol. On another level, the study reveals the deep asymmetry that structures the politics of the issue: on one side, widespread indifference; on the other, narrow but deep support.

“It wasn’t until we got the results that we were able to think through the political economy of it,” Knittel says.

Tax the externality

The paper, “Some Inconvenient Truths About Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies,” is forthcoming in the Review of Economics and Statistics.  

The paper’s co-authors are Knittel; Stephen P. Holland of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro; Jonathan E. Hughes of the University of Colorado; and Nathan C. Parker of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis.

To conduct the study, the researchers used modeling by Parker that estimates where ethanol production will be located in coming years, as well as projecting the overall costs of various potential transportation fuel policies, were they to be implemented. The work also drew extensively on methods the other co-authors have used in evaluating both the potential impact of biofuels as a gasoline replacement and the relationship between policy options and politics.

On the general question of picking the optimal emissions–reduction policy, Knittel says, “The efficient policy is to tax the externality.” That is, to tax the additional cost or problem imposed on people — in this case, greenhouse gas emissions. That forces consumers to account for the costs of their own decisions, such as buying fuel-efficient vehicles.

Other scholars in the field regard the paper as a significant contribution to the study of energy politics. Mark Jacobsen, an associate professor of economics at the University of California at San Diego who has read the paper, says the “voting and donations models are both quite convincing.”

Jacobsen adds: “A very important contribution of this paper is in pointing out that we need to be alert to distribution [of energy resources] across states, making sure that it does not stand in the way of otherwise good policy.”

Knittel suggests the same kind of political asymmetry is probably at work in other aspects of climate politics. When it comes to coal-burning power plants, most people are only marginally affected by policy changes — but people living in coal-mining areas are deeply affected, and so have a much larger impact on the policy debate.

“We hope this paper sparks a literature that can do the same thing for other fuels,” Knittel says.

Kelsey Damrad | Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

With approximately 70 percent of all freshwater consumption worldwide used for agriculture, the reliance on large-scale irrigation development continues to spread and ultimately augments crop yields in many regions.

But the ongoing expansion of cropland irrigation, just as with any human-made land-cover change, holds potential for unintended consequences. The consequences of such human activity should be well understood before being implemented.

In a new paper, an MIT team in the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) investigates the impacts of large-scale cropland irrigation on rainfall patterns in the East African Sahel around the Gezira Irrigation Scheme, now considered one of the largest irrigation projects in the world. The researchers piloted their exploration by combining theoretical modeling analyses with observational evidence gathered over several decades since 1930 — an unprecedented approach in previous studies.

The CEE team studied 60 years' worth of data of rainfall, temperature, and river flow to empirically deduce the atmospheric impacts of irrigation development.

"Large-scale development of irrigation systems is a good example of human activity that has changed land cover and the environment significantly in many regions of the world,” says co-author Professor Elfatih Eltahir, associate department head of CEE. “In all development projects, we need to better understand the potential impacts of our actions on the environment before we mindlessly develop.”

According to the theory developed by the researchers based on their investigation, when a large area is irrigated, surface air temperature is cooled and surface pressure increased. This reaction was conjectured to reduce rainfall over the irrigated land while generating a clockwise circulation that interacts with the prevailing regional wind. Depending on that interaction, the theory predicts that specific areas of convergence would be created, which would boost the rainfall in some of the surrounding areas.

After the researchers concluded their deep analysis of regional climate data, they concurred that large-scale irrigation development in the East African Sahel has consistently enhanced rainfall in areas to the east of the irrigated lands, while reducing rainfall directly over them.

Spatially and over time, the changes in rainfall and temperature matched up in a way that exceeded the group’s expectations and almost perfectly aligned with the original theory, says co-first author of the paper and CEE postdoc Ross Alter.

"You don’t often achieve that type of clear-cut match when attributing regional climate change from both theory and observations,” Alter says.

The team’s findings, says Eltahir, are indicative of the need for further consideration of potential agricultural, hydrological, and economic repercussions from irrigation expansion.

The paper was published today in the journal Nature Geoscience, by Alter, co-first author Eun-Soon Im of the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), and Eltahir.
 
Quantifying impacts

To define a climate, one must consider a breadth of at least 30 years' worth of data. Therefore, the team studied records gathered from 1930 to 1999, with a 10-year gap for irrigation system erection, in order to quantify the environmental impacts of irrigation.

The study’s first step was to employ a complementary analysis of numerical simulations and modeling. Using a sophisticated regional climate model — developed in the Eltahir group over the past 25 years, and which represents conditions in the atmosphere as well as over land — the authors conducted simulations using both irrigated and non-irrigated settings.

Their objective, in this regard, was to enumerate the effects of the irrigated land in the Gezira Scheme on the rainfall in a theoretical sense. The researchers then verified their conjectures by comparing with real occurrences observed throughout the 60-year span of time.

When the research team cross-compared their simulations to the collected empirical evidence, the mapped depictions of the changes in rainfall from pre- to post-irrigation expansion revealed strong decreases over the Gezira Scheme and distinct increases in eastern lands. The effects of enhanced rainfall are particularly apparent in Gedaref — a region east of Gezira. For the past half-century, concurrent with the irrigation expansion in the Gezira Scheme, Gedaref has received plenty of rainfall and has emerged as a successful rain-fed agricultural region.

This climate behavior is a stark contrast to the ongoing drought experienced by the majority of the African Sahel.

To pinpoint the impacts of irrigation on climate, it is important to identify areas of relative change, not absolute change,” Alter explains. “Because rainfall in that region strongly decreased overall, any larger changes in rainfall — even zero change between the two periods in question — would still be seen as increases.” Stable rainfall, in this case, is still better in comparison to the lands experiencing droughts.

Optimizing efficiency

Though the researchers acknowledge irrigation as an ideal solution to agricultural challenges, all agree that comprehension of human-made land-cover change and its influence on the natural environment is necessary for sustainable development.

“The knowledge gained from this study provides a more fundamental understanding of the impacts of land use and land cover changes on the atmosphere,” Alter says.

The researchers specify that their study does not take into account other possible processes than irrigation development that disturb the climate such as changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere and the resulting global climate change.

Now with an established spectrum of probable impacts from significant irrigation development, the researchers suggest that this new knowledge about the impacts of land cover change on the climate system should help in achieving more rigorous attribution of the regional and local impacts of global climate change.

“While there are many studies that show landscape has such effects, the use of real-world observed data makes this a particularly important research contribution,” says Roger Pielke Sr., a senior research scientist of the University of Colorado not involved in this study. “Irrigated landscapes worldwide, indeed all human modified landscapes, based on the Alter et al. study, should be expected to play a major role in local and regional weather and climate. This human effect on the climate system has been underestimated in past assessments of climate change. The Alter et al. paper is a very significant contribution in expanding our understanding of the human role on the climate system."

“There is undoubtedly a pressing need for large-scale irrigation in Africa and other regions,” Eltahir says. “We now have a foundation of the likely impacts of human-induced land-cover changes, and can use this new knowledge in the design stage of irrigation systems as opposed to after the fact.”

Funding for this research was provided by the Cooperative Agreement between the Masdar Institute and MIT, and by the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology.