Juan Carlo Pascua

Posts by This Writer

10 years 10 months ago

Part five of the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series: Act America, act now, sooner than later. Climate change inaction stands to cost Americans trillions of dollars due to loss of biodiversity, ...


10 years 10 months ago

Part four of the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series: Act America, act now, sooner than later. Climate change inaction stands to cost Americans trillions of dollars due to loss of biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, migration, and disease-control. The bottom line:...


10 years 10 months ago

Part three of the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series: Act America, act now, sooner than later. Climate change inaction stands to cost Americans trillions of dollars due to loss of biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, and migration. The bottom line: mitigating climate change now and swiftly...


10 years 10 months ago

Part two of the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series: Act America, act now, sooner than later. Climate change inaction stands to cost Americans trillions of dollars due to loss of biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, and migration. The bottom line, mitigating climate change now and swiftly will save Americans more money than inaction or slow action.

...


10 years 10 months ago

Part one of the American Policy portion of the Climate Change Policy Series: Act America, act now, sooner than later. Climate change inaction stands to cost Americans trillions of dollars due to loss of biodiversity, economic spillovers, national security, and migration. The bottom line, mitigating climate change now and swiftly will save Americans more money than inaction or slow action.

Unfortunately, many of today's...


10 years 10 months ago

A majority of American policy makers believe waiting 6 - 20 years and gradually mitigating climate change is the best way for America to act. Self proclaimed pragmatists, their argument goes something like this: to sign on with current climate change mitigation plans would require replacing functioning equipment prematurely at an ineffective cost. We should instead wait until equipment needs replacement- because emitting a ton of carbon in the atmosphere now is the same as emitting it 20 years later- we should wait to act. Unfortunately, they are dead wrong.

Reason #1 To Act Sooner: A ton of carbon in the atmosphere now is not the same as a ton of carbon...


10 years 10 months ago

It is a growing concern that the world will have to move on without the US in trying to reach a climate change agreement to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol. Many blame US inaction on a regrettable majority of Americans being climate change illiterate. Culpability lies within a range of reasons from big business lobbying against climate change legislation, the current economic fiasco, and a general lack of understanding of climate change for the average American. Even in California conversations regarding climate change are light and uninformed/misinformed when compared to Europe and the rest of the world. Not only is it a problem that there is little...


10 years 11 months ago

A conversation about climate change is a conversation about carbon emissions is a conversation about energy use: production, efficiency, and research. Abysmally, since the 1980s when the first oil crisis resulted in cheap prices, research funding for alternative energy has never been lower, since then funding has been overall reduced by at least half. If Lord Stern's prescription is to be followed, a flow of funding needs to be initiated.

One percent of global GDP is needed if we act now to stabilize at 550ppm of CO2e by 2050 (Stern Review). Some countries contribute more than others to global GDP, but it also means that they produce more carbon emissions...


10 years 11 months ago

Energy is synonymous with wealth. The more energy a country uses, the wealthier a country has to be. More energy use means more carbon emissions (leading to global warming), but it also means more economic growth: food, goods, and jobs. Few countries stand to grow in the next few decades as much as India.

Energy is tied to growth. Ten years ago 1 billion Indians lacked access to electricity, now it is closer to 400 million. India's energy consumption is growing. A fight for more energy use is a fight against poverty; energy increases will produce more food, transport more kids to schools, transport more people to work, and transport more food to markets....


10 years 11 months ago

Sixty Percent: Industry produces 14% of the world's carbon emissions, Agriculture emits 14%, Transportation emits 14%, and Land use accounts for 18% (Stern, 2008). The study was a conservative analysis- I've been in lectures where Industry alone was closer to 40%. If Industry and Transportation emissions were to become carbon neutral using the technology we hope to someday have, Agriculture (farming) and Land use (deforestation) would still remain formidable. What do industry, transportation, agriculture, and land use all have in common? Biofuels- a solution for carbon emissions and climate change.

Annually, the United States consumes 137...


Pages