The Daily - Putting a Price on Pollution

Episode Date: July 23, 2021

Extreme weather across Europe, North America and Asia is highlighting a harsh reality of science and history: The world as a whole is neither prepared to slow down climate change nor live with it.European officials are trying to change that. The European Commission, the E.U.’s executive arm, recently introduced ambitious legislation aimed at sharply cutting emissions to slow down climate change within the next decade, specifically by weaning one of the world’s biggest and most polluting economies off fossil fuels. But can it generate the political will to see it through?Guest: Somini Sengupta, the international climate reporter for The New York Times.Sign up here to get The Daily in your inbox each morning. And for an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: Our climate correspondent explains what you need to know about the implications of recent extreme weather events for rich countries.Want to learn more about the science behind climate change? Here are some answers to the big questions, like how we know we’re really in a climate crisis.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

From New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. For decades, the worst impacts of climate change were felt by the world's poorest countries. Today, I spoke with my colleague, Samina Sengupta, about how and why that's now changing. It's Friday, July 23rd. Samina, you are the global climate reporter for The Times.

And the reason we want to talk to you is that it feels like day after day after day over the past several weeks, there have been a series of climate events that are enormously destructive, that are geographically varied, and that are more or less simultaneous. And I wonder if you can just take us on what feels like a pretty dark global tour

of those events. So here's how my summer began. Now to the bone dry conditions up and down the West Coast tonight and the fears that an already bad drought could get even worse. I went out to California to write a story about how much of the American West had been in the throes of a severe drought made worse by warming temperatures. We begin tonight with the oppressive heat wave in the West. At least 25 million people in six states are under heat alerts. These numbers are, well, it's record setting, right? In the history of some of these places, they've never had temperatures this hot. By then, the Pacific Northwest was seeing these kind of mind-melting high temperatures.

In Portland, Oregon, the temperature Sunday at 112, and it could reach 114 today. Hundreds of people died. We are talking an extremely dangerous heat wave. What is going on with the weather in the U.S. right now? And what's coming next? British Columbia declared a state of emergency because of wildfires. As of this morning, nearly 300 fires are burning across the province. Hundreds of people have been forced from

their homes. The heat that came down was excruciating. I could not see six inches, two inches in front of me. And that is when I figured, what a place to die. A wildfire pretty much erased a small town in British Columbia off the map. Extreme weather is also behind wrenching scenes of devastation in Europe. In Germany and Belgium. Three months worth of rain has fallen in the last three days. After days of swelling rivers, now swelling death tolls. There's so many people dead. Floods killed around 170 people last week, left entire villages in ruin. Some residents have described it on par with bombing damage from World War II. And when the German Chancellor Angela Merkel was visiting one of these areas of devastation.

The devastation so shocking, German Chancellor Angela Merkel struggled to explain it. so shocking, German Chancellor Angela Merkel struggled to explain it. She said, there really are no words in the German language for this scale of ruin. And I was just finishing up over the weekend a story that wrapped in all of these extreme weather events when... Officials in India say at least 31 people have been killed by landslides during heavy rain in the Mumbai area. I learned that in Mumbai, a city of 20 million people... The city got 250 millimetres of rain from Sunday morning into Monday morning. There was a cloudburst, torrential rains on Sunday. It knocked over houses, it killed dozens of people, but it also flooded the city's water filtration plant, which meant that a city of 20 million didn't have filtered water for a while. And then...

Let's not tell you what is happening in China. The country is battling the heaviest rainfall in a thousand years. Just a couple of days ago, in the central Chinese city of Zhengzhou, came these extraordinary floods. The heaviest rainfall ever. The heavy waters broke the barriers and rushed into underground trains. Subway authorities immediately suspended all services. Underground, unmistakable panic among these passengers trapped inside a submerged subway car, waist-deep waters rising to their shoulders. The flood was too powerful and people got washed away. Another person and I almost wanted to give up because we didn't have enough strength anymore. The death toll from those floods have gone up to something like 30. Mm-hmm. And as I was covering and observing

these extreme weather events all over the world, I opened my blinds of my apartment in New York City earlier this week, and the sun looked like a blood orange. Right. And it turned out that that was smoke that had traveled across the entire continental United States

from the West Coast to the East Coast where it was blotting out the sun for you in Brooklyn. That's right. The smoke from the wildfires thousands of miles away in the Western United States

and Canada had turned the skies of New York City hazy. So besides being extremely depressing and destructive and varied, What stands out to you about all those climate extremes that you just described? So what really stands out to me this summer is that all these years we were hearing these really dire warnings from people in the global south, people in low-lying Pacific island countries saying, hey, sea level rise threatens the very existence of our countries. We were hearing from farmers in the delta region of Vietnam or Bangladesh about storm surges that were wiping out their villages, their fields,

all of their assets, all of their crops. But now, this summer, we've had, in rapid succession, we've had a series of extreme weather events that remind us that even countries with the means to do so, countries like the United States and Canada and Britain and the countries of Europe, we are not prepared to live with the climate. We have already changed. All these rich countries I listed also happen to be the countries that have contributed the largest share of emissions to the atmosphere in the last hundred years. Can you walk us through examples of that unpreparedness? What does that actually look like on the ground? Well, remember the pictures we saw from the New York City subway?

There was an intense burst of rain in New York City. 34th Street Station, Penn Station, one of the heaviest used subway stations in the system. There was like a fountain erupting from the middle of the platform. There was another station from which we saw video footage of commuters literally wrapping themselves in garbage bags to wade through dirty water that had flooded the New York City subway. So when we see those systems flooding, you see a lack of preparation for climate change. I do. And we're just talking about flooding now. Let's remember heat.

People are dying of heat. Hundreds of people died in the Pacific Northwest. These are not parts of the country that are prepared for 116 degree temperature. They don't have air conditioning in most buildings. Right. So whether it's a lack of air conditioning, the drainage system's not working, subway's not prepared for flash floods,

we simply haven't adapted. Are there countries or are there cities that are adapting better than others, that are kind of models for what needs to happen? Yes. Where people have died and where there's been public pressure on local or national officials, there's been some change. France in 2003 had a heat wave that killed thousands and thousands of people. And France now has a pretty robust system to warn people about heat waves. Public health officials will get on TV,

there are advertisements, don't do exercise, drink a lot of water. But also, there are laws that require, for example, senior citizens' homes to have one cool room where folks can go and cool themselves for some time. Similarly, there are some cities that have really tried to identify what are the parts of their cities that don't have enough tree cover, that don't have shade. They've been planting trees in some of those places. There's been efforts to paint some buildings in New York City, the rooftops with reflective paint. And that, you know, cools down the temperature inside the building a little bit. Notably in both India and Bangladesh, where in the past thousands and thousands of people would die in a cyclone. Those countries,

and particularly local officials, have done a really good job of reducing cyclone deaths because they now warn people in advance, a big storm is coming. They've built cyclone shelters, and they've really driven home the fact that an extreme weather event can kill you. So these are very basic adaptation strategies that are not that fancy, that are not necessarily that expensive, that help to drive home to people that weather can be dangerous. Here's how to protect yourself. Right. But of course, at the end of the day, what you're describing are essentially

Band-Aids, right? They contend with the impacts of the problem of these extreme weather events, but they don't do really anything to address the root causes of them. do really anything to address the root causes of them. Yeah, there are some real limits to adaptation. There's a hard stop to adaptation. We can adapt to the climate we've already changed, but things will get much worse if emissions keep rising as they have been. That is why there has been so much public pressure, particularly on big polluter countries, on the major economies of the world, to take action to reduce their emissions. Europe, for example, last week revealed an ambitious and concrete set of plans to do just that. We'll be right back. Simini, can you describe this plan that just came out of Europe to tackle climate change?

that just came out of Europe, to tackle climate change. So last week in Brussels, the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said quite bluntly... We know, for example, that our current fossil fuel economy has reached its limits. We have to pivot away from fossil fuels quickly. And we know that we have to move on to a new model, one that is powered by innovation, that has clean energy. Now, Europe already has a law in place to reduce its total emissions by 55 percent by 2030 compared to where its emissions were in 1990. So no matter who gets elected next in Europe, this is the law. But how's it going to get there? How's it going to get there? 55 percent reduction by 2030. Well, that's what the European Commission last week set out to do.

We are presenting today the market-based tools and tangible investment complemented and underpinned by a comprehensive regulatory framework. It presented a large package of proposed legislation to enable the continent to meet that target. It's going to mean really big changes for residents of Europe's 27 countries. So, for example, the package has a proposal to stop selling new cars that run on gas and diesel by 2035. Hard stop, no sale. Hard stop, no sales of new cars that run on gas or diesel. That's big. Yeah, what else? Aviation fuel is going to be taxed,

which would make some of those really cheap flights within Europe perhaps not so cheap anymore. Hmm. Most controversial of all is this thing that is referred to as a carbon border tax. And what is that? What is a carbon border tax? So Europe currently puts a price on pollution, on a whole bunch of things. So if you're making a widget in Europe and that widget creates some carbon pollution, some carbon emissions, you pay a tax for that. But if that same thing is made in another country where they don't have that tax and then it's imported into Europe, well, the price is going to be cheaper because it's made in a country where they're not pricing pollution.

This carbon border tax is an attempt to level the playing field. So how exactly does it work? How does Europe assess the cost of pollution on an imported good from outside of Europe? the cost of pollution on an imported good from outside of Europe. So let's say a factory that makes steel or cement somewhere out in the world wants to sell that steel or cement to the EU. Well, they would now have to pay a surcharge for the pollution associated with making that steel and cement in their country, unless they already price that pollution. If they have a carbon tax already, then they may not have to pay that surcharge, that tariff, in order to sell their product to the European market. Got it. You said that this is the most controversial

of Europe's plans to confront carbon emissions. And I'm suspecting the reason why is that international companies don't want to pay this carbon tax. Yes. I mean, countries that sell their goods, that want to sell more goods to Europe, say that this is an unfair tax,

that this inhibits the free trade of goods, and that essentially this protects European businesses by, for example, imposing a tax on iron or steel from Russia. Mm-hmm. So if you're a Russian company trying to sell steel to France, you feel like you're being unfairly taxed. But it sounds like if you're within Europe, what you're thinking is,

no, we're just asking you to pay a tax that we already have baked into our system for the pollution we create. That's exactly right. This tax would also seem to be a kind of subtle or maybe not that subtle nudge to the rest of the world to get your act together on climate change because the message is if you do a better job of confronting climate change and carbon emissions, then maybe we won't charge you this tax.

Yes, it's supposed to be an incentive to price pollution and therefore make it costlier for everyone to pollute. Now, there are already some important carve-outs in these proposals. The U.S., for instance, doesn't have a price on carbon, but there is a special carve out for the United States, which is one of Europe's main trading partners. So the United States will not be much affected. Russia will be. Turkey will be. Ukraine will be. So it is a tricky diplomatic tool that is being dangled here. So, Sumiti, you mentioned that this is still a proposal. What are the chances that this plan, either in its entirety or elements of it, like the carbon tax, actually ends up going into effect? As you rightly said, Michael, it is a proposal. Actually, it's hundreds of pages of proposed laws. Europe has countries that will not want to pivot away from, for example, coal because their economies depend on it or gas because their economies depend on it. There are car makers and airline companies and all kinds of industries that stand to be affected. So expect months of bruising political debate over all of these. So what would it mean if this plan does not pan out, if the 27 countries of the EU reject it? If all of these proposals are rejected by the 27 countries of

Europe, then look, then they have to go back to the drawing board and figure out how are they going to reduce emissions by 55% by 2030. But for the rest of the world, it will come as a huge disappointment if consequences of global warming that we're already seeing? Right. And then these countries that we've been talking about, in the absence of a concrete plan, will be left trying and probably, if we're being honest, failing to adapt to a changing climate rather than truly confronting its root causes? Well, here's the thing. The scientific consensus is if the world as a whole can reduce emissions by half by 2030, then we stave off some of the worst impacts. You know, the inundation of coastal cities, massive crop failures, much more fatal heat waves, and so on. Now, to get to that massive reduction by 2030, you can't do that without Europe, the United States, and China. Europe is perhaps the first

test case to see if a democratic society can pull this off. Right. I have to say, whenever we talk about climate change on the daily, it feels like we end up in a very familiar place, which is that a lot of these big, wealthy countries cannot assemble the political will to take action. And it is starting to feel like these countries have made peace, a weird kind of peace, with the idea that they're going to have to adapt rather than really change and confront root causes. Does it feel to you, as someone who covers this really closely, that that is the mode that we have all kind of collectively slipped into? No, honestly, I think there's been a lot of attention

on the need to reduce emissions. But I think it's important to point out that we are really at a very important moment of reckoning. In some ways, this is the most important year in the most important decade to address climate change. Because this year in November in Glasgow, Scotland, we are going to see if the other major industrialized countries and China are going to be able to do anything like that, whether they're going to be able to do what it takes to sharply reduce emissions,

not in the next decade, but in the next eight and a half years. Right. And so far, the evidence is that they're not doing enough. They are not on track to where the world as a whole needs to be. You know, I'm going to be covering that meeting in Glasgow. And the thing that I've really been wondering the last few days is whether these world leaders feel the heat at home themselves,

literally feel the heat, and whether they literally feel the heat and whether they feel the political heat from their citizens to take swift action. Simini, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. Yet another heat wave is expected to blanket the United States next week, bringing unusually warm temperatures to central and eastern sections of the country. Those temperatures are expected to surpass 100 degrees Fahrenheit for millions of people. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. We are yet at another pivotal moment in this pandemic,

with cases rising again and some hospitals reaching their capacity in some areas. On Thursday, U.S. health officials issued their direst warning yet about the dangers of the Delta variant of the coronavirus, saying it was starting to erase the country's progress in ending the pandemic. to erase the country's progress in ending the pandemic. Unvaccinated individuals account for virtually all, 97% of the COVID hospitalizations and deaths in the U.S. The officials said that the variant was ripping through communities where Americans have failed to take the vaccine and pleaded with those Americans to take the vaccine. The data is clear.

The case increases are concentrated in communities with low vaccination rates. Daily infections in the U.S., which fell below 12,000 a month ago, have now risen to more than 40,000. Today's episode was produced by Michael Simon-Johnson, Sydney Harper, and Soraya Shockley. It was edited by M.J. Davis-Lynn and

Larissa Anderson, engineered by Chris Wood, and contains original music by Dan Powell. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday.