News + Media

Introduction
Of all the uncertainties climate change presents, its impact on the production and distribution of food is one of the greatest. We are already feeling the effects: 2012 was a bad year for farmers, with droughts and erratic weather decimating crops and pushing up global food prices. Food prices are at historic highs and there have been two global food crises in the last five years leading to riots in Haiti in 2008 and contributing to the Arab Spring in 2011.

Molly D. Anderson and John Reilly examine the complex challenges and trade-offs humanity faces in a world where climate change is upending traditional assumptions about where and how we can produce enough food for the world’s rapidly growing population.

Molly D. Anderson is a professor at College of the Atlantic and holds the Patrtridge Chair in Food and Sustainable Agriculture Systems.
 
Until just a few years ago, there were some blithe assumptions about how climate change would affect food security: Like migrating birds, agriculture will simply move north to escape extreme heat, and only food production will be affected by climate change.
 
Today we recognize that it’s not just temperature, but a whole set of complex interrelated factors — temperature, rainfall, timing, soils, practices throughout the food system and more — that are affected by climate change.
 
Each crop has its own ideal set of circumstances. Having too many warm nights can be deadly for some crops. Not having enough hours of nighttime freeze can hurt others. Human societies have evolved with agriculture over the last 10,000 years to use particular crops in particular places. Now we’re experimenting with drastic changes in a matter of decades.
 
It’s not going to be easy, for a number of reasons, for agriculture to just move north. Farming is one of the most place-based occupations in the world. Farmers won’t easily pick up and move north. If they do, the soil they’ll find will be completely different.
 
Climate change isn’t just affecting the production of food; it’s also affecting consumption of and access to food. Ocean acidification will lower fish catches, which in turn will increase demands on land-based foods. Climate refugees will need new access to food, yet will be unable to produce their own. Food safety will become more challenging.
 
Food security, as defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), is “when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”
 
Even without climate change, with the growing world population, food security will present a challenge. We need to look for win/win solutions — ones that improve food security and sustainability of food systems on the one hand and that mitigate and adapt to climate change on the other.
 
On the farm level, this means promoting the use of renewable energy in food production, restoring degraded soils and diversifying crops.
 
On a state and regional level, it means first recognizing food as a basic human right and then making policy decisions that flow from that recognition. For example, using land to produce food would take priority over using land to produce biofuels or animal feed; and states and regions would establish adequate food reserves and be able to set their own food and trade policies. States and regions must promote energy and water efficiency throughout the food system as well.
 
Globally, we need to slow population growth. One of the most effective ways to do that is to educate girls and women and provide access to contraceptives. We also need to reduce food waste and over-consumption, particularly by wealthy people and nations of the world.
 
When it comes to food security, the developed world is answering the wrong questions. We’ve focused on increasing availability of food and “feeding the world” (to the benefit of our own corporations). We need to focus on improving food access, reducing our own over-consumption, and addressing why poor people can’t feed themselves in a world with more than enough food for all its inhabitants.
 
John Reilly is senior lecturer and co-director of the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management.
 
Since 1980, the world’s breadbaskets — areas where major crops like maize, wheat, rice, and soy beans are grown — have warmed significantly. Interestingly, the U.S. is the major exception to this global trend. Our agricultural regions have actually experienced somewhat cooler temperatures overall — with a few exceptions.
 
The effects of climate change on agriculture are likely to be mixed, benefiting crops in some areas and harming crops in others. In colder regions, like New England and much of Canada, growing seasons are becoming longer. We can expect lower crop yields in regions where heat exceeds critical thresholds.
 
Just as agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, it could also play a major role in mitigating climate change.
Scientists estimate that doubling CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels would increase crop yields by as much as 20 to 30 percent, but would also increase the growth of weeds. Furthermore, the increase in crop yields from the effects of more carbon dioxide in the air would largely be offset by the effects of increased temperatures and decreased soil moisture.
 
Agriculture and climate are both highly complex pieces of the Earth’s ecosystem. Constructing reasonably accurate, useful models of how the two interact is an enormous scientific challenge.
 
My colleagues at MIT and I have begun developing a model for predicting crop yield changes in the world’s breadbasket regions. We’ve found wide variations in how yields are likely to be affected by climate change. Generally speaking, whether we looked at maize (corn) in North America and West Africa, wheat in Europe and Asia, or soybeans in South America, the results were the same: Areas closer to the equator saw declining yields, some up to 50 percent, while areas closer to the North and South Poles showed increased yields. They balance out at some level, but this kind of change would cause lots of dislocation.
 
With global population projected to peak at 10 billion sometime after 2050, and with rising incomes allowing more people to eat a resource-intensive diet (i.e. eating more meat), we face great agricultural challenges even without the dislocation and disruption climate change will cause.
 
Just as agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, it could also play a major role in mitigating climate change. Our studies show that an aggressive global reforestation policy could result in a half-degree Celsius of avoided warming by 2100. The key would be putting a price on carbon for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This price would create an incentive for landholders to reforest their land, because forests are great absorbers of carbon.
 
Reforestation comes at a cost. More land for forests means less land for agriculture. That means we could expect to see higher food prices, especially for livestock.
 
This is part of the trilemma of what to do with land in the 21st century. Do we use it to produce biofuels as a substitute for fossil fuels? Do we use it to produce food? Do we use it to preserve biodiversity and store carbon?
 
There are unavoidable trade-offs no matter what we decide. There are no easy solutions when it comes to climate change and food security. What is clear is that the worst “solution” would be continued inaction in the face of the overwhelming evidence that climate change has real and growing effects.

 

First workshop convened high-ranking Chinese environmental officials and experts from top government, university and research offices.


The MIT-Tsinghua China Energy and Climate Project held a workshop on Tuesday March 12 to kick off a landmark study on the impact of China’s vehicle emissions and fuel standards on energy, economic, emissions, air quality and health. The study is being supported by a grant from the Energy Foundation, which provides resources to institutions that most effectively leverage change in transitioning to a sustainable energy future. The workshop, held at Tsinghua University, was hosted by collaborators at the university’s Institute for Energy, Environment, and Economy.

“Understanding the role fuel quality standards could play in cutting China’s emissions and air pollution is crucial to the health of the communities, as well as to addressing growing urban sustainability challenges,” says Valerie Karplus, director of the MIT-Tsinghua China Project and a co-researcher for the study. “This study will provide that insight. We’re grateful to have the support of the Energy Foundation, as well as feedback from a varied stakeholder base.”

The researchers will perform a comparison of policy options for reducing transportation emissions in China. This process will begin with an analysis of China’s transport sector and an updated inventory of emissions by sector. Researchers will also identify regional air quality impacts using a regional chemical transport model and analyze the impact of various policy options on energy use, emissions, the economy and human health.

“This study will be the first to use of an integrated model – simulating travel demand, fuel use, vehicles emissions and air quality – to determine health and economic impacts of fuel policies in China,” Eri Saikawa, a professor at Emory University and the lead researcher for the study, said. “The model will be a powerful tool for assessing transport policy options currently under discussion in China.”

Throughout the project, researchers will communicate their results to policymakers through an ongoing and interactive process. The March 12^th workshop was the first of several of these meetings. It brought together stakeholders from China’s Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, as well as experts from Tsinghua University, Beijing University, Nanjing University, Clean Air Initiative-Asia, the International Council on Clean Transportation, the Energy Foundation, and the Health Effects Institute.

At the March 12^th meeting, the stakeholders provided input on which policy questions would be of greatest interest for the study to consider and explored how the results of the study might be used within their organizations. It was decided that the research would focus on assessing the impacts of fuel quality standards and tailpipe emissions standards in China, with a focus on the potential benefits of implementing the China 6 standard, which is the toughest standard announced so far and targets deeper reductions in nitrous oxide emissions country-wide before 2020.

On Tuesday, four Democrats in Congress unveiled a brand-new proposal for a carbon tax. The set-up is simple: The U.S. government would slap a fee on fossil-fuel emissions and refund the revenue back to the public.

But there’s a twist: The precise details of the carbon tax have yet to be thrashed out. The four lawmakers are soliciting public comments for how big the tax should be and how best to rebate the money.

The proposal is being put forward by Reps. Henry Waxman and Earl Blumenauer, as well as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Brian Schatz.

Here are the key questions they’re wrestling with:

1. What is the appropriate price per ton for polluters to pay? The draft contains alternative prices of $15, $25 and $35 per ton for discussion purposes.

2. How much should the price per ton increase on an annual basis? The draft contains a range of increases from 2 percent to 8 percent per year for discussion purposes.

3. What are the best ways to return the revenue to the American people? The discussion draft proposes putting the revenue toward the following goals, and solicits comments on how to best accomplish each: (1) mitigating energy costs for consumers, especially low-income consumers; (2) reducing the Federal deficit; (3) protecting jobs of workers at trade-vulnerable, energy intensive industries; (4) reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses; and (5) investing in other activities to reduce carbon pollution and its effects.

4. How should the carbon fee program interact with state programs that address carbon pollution?

Those are, indeed, difficult questions. So let’s take a look at each of them in turn:

1) How big should the carbon tax be? Economists have long argued that a carbon tax can be an elegant way to tackle climate change. If you tax oil, coal, and natural gas and make them more expensive, then people and companies will either use fewer fossil fuels or seek alternatives. Markets will adjust to the new price.

But there’s plenty of dispute over what the appropriate price on carbon emissions should be. For that, you need to figure out how much damage heat-trapping greenhouse gases are actually causing — and figure out how highly to value future generations. The federal government currently pegs the “social cost of carbon” at $21 per ton. Other economists have concluded that the price should be up to 12 times as much.

2) How quickly does the tax need to rise to curtail emissions? A tax that rises each year should, in theory, drive down emissions. But a lot could depend on how quickly the tax actually rises.

Here’s one example: Sebastian Rausch and John M. Reilly of the MIT Global Change Institute recently put forward a proposal for a $20-per-ton carbon tax that would rise 4 percent each year, starting in 2013. (The funds would be used to offset taxes elsewhere.) Here’s what their model predicts would happen to U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions:

Under this proposal, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions do start declining quite a bit (this is the green line), with a relatively small impact on the U.S. economy. But by 2030, emission levels stall, even though the carbon tax keeps rising by 4 percent each year. The United States wouldn’t get anywhere near the 80 percent cut by 2050 that the White House has envisioned.

It’s possible the MIT model is too pessimistic or wrong. It’s also possible that deeper emissions cuts might require a carbon tax that rises even more sharply. But a higher tax could also prove more costly to the economy unless it’s offset properly. So there’s a delicate trade-off here.

3) What’s the best way to use the carbon tax revenue? A carbon fee usually gets criticized for hurting poorer Americans the most—they spend the biggest slice of their income on gasoline and other energy-intensive products, after all. But Rausch and Reilly found that a lot of the distributional effects depend on how Congress rebates the revenue, as shown in the chart below:

The green line shows how different income groups would be affected in 2015 if the carbon tax was used to fend off cuts to social welfare programs like Medicaid. Lower-income Americans would benefit significantly, while wealthier Americans would take a small hit.

By contrast, the red and blue lines show the effects if revenue from the carbon tax was used to cut the corporate tax or personal income tax—in those cases, higher-income Americans would come out ahead.

If, however, carbon tax revenue was used to cut payroll taxes—that’s the black line—then the welfare effects in 2015 are more or less neutral.

On the flip side, some experts like Mark Muro of Brookings have argued that a portion of the revenue raised by a carbon tax should be used to fund public clean-energy R&D. The country won’t wean itself off oil solely because carbon gets taxed. We’ll also need public-transit alternatives, or electric-vehicle infrastructure, or futuristic new hydrogen cars. And in many cases, Muro argues, the government may have to help bankroll this infrastructure.

4) How does the carbon tax interact with the states? California is currently operating its own comprehensive program to cut greenhouse-gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. And 10 states in the Northeast have a small cap-and-trade program for electric utilities. Should these states somehow get “credit” for moving early on global warming? And what’s the best way to do that under a carbon-tax system?

In any case, these are all difficult questions. Those who want to join in on this debate can submit comments to the lawmakers at cutcarbon@mail.house.gov. The comment period ends April 21.

President Barack Obama announced today that he intends to nominate MIT’s Ernest J. Moniz to head the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Moniz is the Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, as well as the director of the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) and the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment. At MIT, Moniz has also served previously as head of the Department of Physics and as director of the Bates Linear Accelerator Center. His principal research contributions have been in theoretical nuclear physics and in energy technology and policy studies. He has been on the MIT faculty since 1973.

"President Obama has made an excellent choice in his selection of Professor Moniz as Energy Secretary,” said MIT President L. Rafael Reif. “His leadership of MITEI has been in the best tradition of the Institute — MIT students and faculty focusing their expertise and creativity on solving major societal challenges, a history of working with industry on high-impact solutions, and a culture of interdisciplinary research.” Reif continued, “We have been fortunate that Professor Moniz has put his enthusiasm, deep understanding of energy, and commitment to a clean energy future to work for MIT and the Energy Initiative — and we are certain he will do the same for the American people."

Moniz is the founding director of MITEI, which was created in 2006 by then–MIT President Susan Hockfield. MITEI is designed to link science, innovation and policy to help transform global energy systems. Under Moniz’s stewardship, MITEI has supported almost 800 research projects at the Institute, has 23 industry and public partners supporting research and analysis, and has engaged 25 percent of the MIT faculty in its projects and programs.

At last count, more than two-thirds of the research projects supported through MITEI have been in renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon management, and enabling tools such as biotechnology, nanotechnology and advanced modeling. The largest single area of funded research is in solar energy, with more than 100 research projects in this area alone.

Projects supported through MITEI have fostered the development of such innovative technologies as low-cost solar cells that can be printed directly onto paper or other flexible, inexpensive materials; utility-scale liquid batteries that could enable grid integration of intermittent energy sources; transparent solar cells that could be built into display screens or windows; and bioengineered batteries. More than 100 MITEI seed fund projects have served to attract many MIT faculty to energy-related research. Several MITEI-supported projects have led to the formation of startup companies, reflecting the Institute’s long-standing focus on commercializing technology solutions.

In addition, MITEI has a major focus on education. It has awarded 252 graduate fellowships in energy, 104 undergraduate research opportunities and, in 2009, established a new energy minor, which is already one of the largest at the Institute. MITEI also supports a range of student-led research projects to green the MIT campus.

MITEI has furthered a series of influential in-depth studies that provide technically grounded analyses to energy leaders and policymakers; major studies have included the Future of Nuclear Power and of Nuclear Fuel Cycles, Future of Coal, Future of the Electric Grid, and the Future of Natural Gas. MITEI is currently well along on a comprehensive study on the future of solar energy.

"Professor Moniz is well prepared to take on this critically important role,” said Susan Hockfield. “When I called for the establishment of MITEI, I knew that it would require superb leadership. Professor Moniz has provided it, and he has shown a remarkable ability to discern how best to bring groundbreaking research to bear on both immediate and longer-term energy problems. He has brought together industry, government and the academy to address the global challenge of sustainable energy."

Moniz served as undersecretary of energy from 1997 to 2001. In that role, he had oversight responsibility for all of DOE’s science and energy programs and the DOE national laboratory system. He also led a comprehensive review of the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program, advanced the science and technology of environmental cleanup, and served as DOE’s special negotiator for Russia initiatives, with a particular focus on the disposal of Russian nuclear materials.

From 1995 to 1997, he served as the associate director for science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. There, his responsibilities spanned the physical, life, and social and behavioral sciences; science education; and university-government partnerships.

He currently serves on the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology and on the Department of Defense Threat Reduction Advisory Committee. He recently served on the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.

Moniz received a B.S. in physics from Boston College and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Stanford University. He was then a National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellow at Saclay, France, and at the University of Pennsylvania. He holds honorary doctorates from the University of Athens, the University of Erlangen-Nuremburg and Michigan State University.

Moniz is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Humboldt Foundation, and the American Physical Society, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He received the 1998 Seymour Cray HPCC Industry Recognition Award for vision and leadership in advancing scientific simulation and, in 2008, the Grand Cross of the Order of Makarios III for contributions to development of research, technology and education in Cyprus and the wider region.

DOE’s mission is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental and nuclear challenges through science and technology. The agency had a budget of more than $29 billion in fiscal year 2012; runs 17 national laboratories, and many other research facilities; and has more than 16,000 federal employees and 90,000 contract employees at the national laboratories and other facilities. DOE is the largest funder of research in the physical sciences.

By Brad Plumer
February 22, 2013

What’s the best way to curtail gasoline consumption? Economists tend to agree on the answer here: Higher gas taxes at the pump are more effective than stricter fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks.

Much more effective, in fact. A new paper from researchers at MIT’s Global Change program finds that higher gas taxes are “at least six to fourteen times” more cost-effective than stricter fuel-economy standards at reducing gasoline consumption.

Why is that? One of the study’s co-authors, Valerie Karplus, offers a basic breakdown here: Fuel-economy standards work slowly, as manufacturers start selling more efficient vehicles, and people retire their older cars and trucks. That turnover takes time. By contrast, a higher gas tax kicks in immediately, giving people incentives to drive less, carpool more, and buy more fuel-efficient vehicles as soon as possible.

A great deal also depends on whether biofuels and other alternative fuels are available. A tax on gasoline makes these alternative fuels more competitive, whereas fuel-economy standards don’t. “We see the steepest jump in economic cost between efficiency standards and the gasoline tax if we assume low-cost biofuels are available,” Karplus said in an MIT press release.

And yet… all this economic research never seems to have any effect on lawmakers. Since 2007, Congress and the Obama administration have moved to increase federal fuel economy standards, now scheduled to rise to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. According to the MIT estimates, this will cost the economy six times as much as simply raising the federal gas tax from its current level of 18.4 cents per gallon to 45 cents per gallon. Yet no one in Congress has even proposed the latter option.

One explanation is that the public just prefers things this way. Higher fuel-economy standards do impose costs, but they’re largely “hidden” costs — in the form of pricier vehicles in the showroom. A higher gas tax, by contrast, is visible every time people fill up at the pump.

In fact, a recent NBER paper by MIT’s Christopher Knittel found that this has been the case for decades. Between 1972 and 1980 the price of oil soared 650 percent. There was endless public debate during this period about how best to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. And, as Knittel discovered, the public consistently preferred price controls and fuel-economy standards over higher gas taxes. That was true no matter how often people were informed that gas taxes were the superior option.

“Given the saliency of rationing and vehicle taxes,” Knittel concluded, “it seems difficult to argue that these alternative polices were adopted because they hide their true costs.” In other words, the public seems to have an (expensive) preference for inefficient regulations over higher taxes to curb gasoline. Economists find it maddening, but it’s hard to change.

Further reading:

–On the other hand, if you want to see a rare economic argument for fuel-economy standards, check out this 2006 paper (pdf) by Christopher Knittel. He found that Americans were becoming less sensitive to fuel prices over time — which strengthened the case for policies like CAFE standards.

THE average price of gasoline in the United States, $3.78 on Thursday, has been steadily climbing for more than a month and is approaching the three previous post-recession peaks, in May 2011 and in April and September of last year.

But if our goal is to get Americans to drive less and use more fuel-efficient vehicles, and to reduce air pollution and the emission of greenhouse gases, gas prices need to be even higher. The current federal gasoline tax, 18.4 cents a gallon, has been essentially stable since 1993; in inflation-adjusted terms, it’s fallen by 40 percent since then.

Politicians of both parties understandably fear that raising the gas tax would enrage voters. It certainly wouldn’t make lives easier for struggling families. But the gasoline tax is a tool of energy and transportation policy, not social policy, like the minimum wage.

Instead of penalizing gasoline use, however, the Obama administration chose a familiar and politically easier path: raising fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. The White House said last year that the gas savings would be comparable to lowering the price of gasoline by $1 a gallon by 2025. But it will have no effect on the 230 million passenger vehicles now on the road.

Greater efficiency packs less of a psychological punch because consumers pay more only when they buy a new car. In contrast, motorists are reminded regularly of the price at the pump. But the new fuel-efficiency standards are far less efficient than raising gasoline prices.

In a paper published online this week in the journal Energy Economics, I and other scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimate that the new standards will cost the economy on the whole — for the same reduction in gas use — at least six times more than a federal gas tax of roughly 45 cents per dollar of gasoline. That is because a gas tax provides immediate, direct incentives for drivers to reduce gasoline use, while the efficiency standards must squeeze the reduction out of new vehicles only. The new standards also encourage more driving, not less.

Other industrialized democracies have accepted much higher gas taxes as a price for roads and bridges and now depend on the revenue. In fact, Germany’s gas tax is 18 times higher than the United States’ (and seven times more if the average state gas tax is included). The federal gasoline tax contributed about $25 billion in revenues in 2009.

Raising the tax has generally succeeded only when it was sold as a way to lower the deficit or improve infrastructure or both. A 1-cent federal gasoline tax was created in 1932, during the Depression. In 1983, President Ronald Reagan raised the tax to 9 cents from 4 cents, calling it a “user fee” to finance transportation improvements. The tax rose again, to 14.1 cents in 1990, and to 18.4 cents in 1993, as part of deficit-reduction deals under President George Bush and President Bill Clinton.

A higher gas tax would help fix crumbling highways while also generating money that could help offset the impact on low- and middle-income families. Increasing the tax, as part of a bipartisan budget deal, with a clear explanation to the public of its role in lowering oil imports and improving our air and highways, could be among the most important energy decisions we make.

Valerie J. Karplus is a research scientist in the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change at M.I.T.

Read more about the study here. 

Related: Carbon Tax a 'Win-Win-Win' for America's Future