Thursday, August 18, 2022

US Scientists say new climate law is likely to reduce warming


 Employees of NY State Solar, a residential and commercial photovoltaic systems company, install an array of solar panels on a roof, Aug. 11, 2022, in the Long Island hamlet of Massapequa, N.Y. Massive incentives for clean energy in the U.S. law signed Tuesday, Aug. 16, by President Joe Biden should reduce future global warming “not a lot, but not insignificantly either,” according to a climate scientist who led an independent analysis of the climate package. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

SETH BORENSTEIN
Tue, August 16, 2022 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Massive incentives for clean energy in the U.S. law signed Tuesday by President Joe Biden should reduce future global warming “not a lot, but not insignificantly either,” according to a climate scientist who led an independent analysis of the package.

Even with nearly $375 billion in tax credits and other financial enticements for renewable energy in the law, the United States still isn’t doing its share to help the world stay within another few tenths of a degree of warming, a new analysis by Climate Action Tracker says. The group of scientists examines and rates each country’s climate goals and actions. It still rates American action as “insufficient" but hailed some progress.

“This is the biggest thing to happen to the U.S. on climate policy,” said Bill Hare, the Australia-based director of Climate Analytics which puts out the tracker. “When you think back over the last decades, you know, not wanting to be impolite, there’s a lot of talk, but not much action.”

This is action, he said. Not as much as Europe, and Americans still spew twice as much heat-trapping gases per person as Europeans, Hare said. The U.S. has also put more heat-trapping gas into the air over time than any other nation.

Before the law, Climate Action Tracker calculated that if every other nation made efforts similar to those of the U.S., it would lead to a world with catastrophic warming — 5.4 to 7.2 degrees (3 to 4 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial times. Now in the best case scenario, which Hare said is reasonable and likely, U.S. actions, if mimicked, would lead to only 3.6 degrees (2 degrees Celsius) of warming. If things don’t work quite as optimistically as Hare thinks, it would be 5.4 degrees (3 degrees Celsius) of warming, the analysis said.

Even that best case scenario falls short of the overarching internationally accepted goal of limiting warming to 2.7 degrees warming (1.5 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times. And the world has already warmed 2 degrees (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the mid-19th century.

Other nations “who we know have been holding back on coming forward with more ambitious policies and targets” are now more likely to take action in a “significant spillover effect globally,” Hare said. He said officials from Chile and a few Southeast Asian countries, which he would not name, told him this summer that they were waiting for U.S. action first.

And China “won’t say this out loud, but I think will see the U.S. move as something they need to match,” Hare said.

Scientists at the Climate Action Tracker calculated that without any other new climate policies, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2030 will shrink to 26% to 42% below 2005 levels, which is still short of the country’s goal of cutting emissions in half. Analysts at the think tank Rhodium Group calculated pollution cuts of 31% to 44% from the new law.

Other analysts and scientists said the Climate Action Tracker numbers makes sense.

“The contributions from the U.S. to greenhouse gas emissions are huge,” said Princeton University climate scientist Gabriel Vecchi. “So reducing that is definitely going to have a global impact.”

Samantha Gross, director of climate and energy at the Brookings Institution, called the new law a down payment on U.S. emission reductions.

“Now that this is done, the U.S. can celebrate a little, then focus on implementation and what needs to happen next,” Gross said.


The Inflation Reduction Act is a start, but carbon emissions need to be cut far more

Susan Nugent
Wed, August 17, 2022 

When a pipe breaks in the bathroom, do I spend a lot of time figuring out if I can afford to pay for the repair? The longer I wait, the more damage there is to floors, cupboards and closet doors, for starters.

Our global climate pipes have been broken a long, long time. We’ve spent decades deciding if the damage is bad enough to bother repairing the pipes. The damage to the planet has increased through all those years.

Our seas are rising, wildfires are spreading, heat records are breaking and droughts are destroying crops. The U.S. has spent over $50 billion on flood disasters, NPR News recently reported. The Kentucky floods destroyed homes and killed dozens in a matter of days.

Mud covers most all the roads Aug. 4 in the small Eastern Kentucky town of Neon. Mayor Susan Polis has called the area home for 65 years and says she's never seen flooding to this level.

Recently, Congress took action to call a plumber. At this point, scientists don’t know how much the plumber can save.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change called for a 50% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2030. But that goal will unlikely be met. The Inflation Reduction Act, recently signed into law by President Joe Biden, instead aims to lower carbon emissions only 40% by 2030.

A Sun article recently stated that the fossil fuel industry is “blamed” for increased carbon in the atmosphere. Beyond merely placing blame, scientists present data proving the fossil fuel industry’s responsibility for the increase in carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

If we don’t bring fossil fuel use to a halt, the problems caused by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide continue. Heat, drought, floods, wildfires and hurricanes will not be slowed until the industry stops emitting carbon dioxide. Even then, ridding our air of excess emissions will require time.

More from Susan Nugent:

Prepare for a huge migration to Alachua County, other impacts of climate change

Take control of our future by transitioning to clean energy

Climate change produces positive and negative images in Florida, around the world

The Inflation Reduction Act tries to reduce emissions by providing incentives for us to buy electric vehicles and to make our homes more energy efficient. Given that transportation accounts for 27% of our greenhouse gases, tackling the reduction of emissions from cars and pickups starts to address the carbon dioxide source.

Another way to look at the potential reductions is to look at a household’s carbon footprint. Most households contribute over 60% of their greenhouse gases in transportation and housing. The Inflation Reduction Act attempts to reduce greenhouse gases by making the switch to clean energy attractive.

The act gives responsibility to the consumer for reducing greenhouse gases rather than addressing the fossil fuel industry’s responsibility. Negotiations with Sen. Joe Manchin resulted in many concessions that benefit the fossil fuel industry. Large areas of land, including much in Alaska, will open for purchase and drilling, when we need to decrease both.


An oil transit pipeline runs across the tundra to a flow station at the Prudhoe Bay oil field on Alaska’s North Slope.

Consumers have seen the switch of responsibility in other areas related to greenhouse gases. For example, instead of requiring a reduction in production of plastics in the industry, the consumer is urged not to buy plastic.

Passing the burden of blame to the consumer does not prompt industry to create or to provide alternatives. They continue to sell plastic goods without viable options for consumers. But even though they won’t accept responsibility, we must act.

Placing the burden on the consumer to change a lifestyle often leaves the consumer wondering what difference one purchase will really make. If I cover my food with plastic wrap rather than find an appropriately sized container with a top, will that really make a difference? Requiring reduction of fossil fuel use would be a much quicker and more efficient method of cleaning our air.

Until the United States can face the fact that we do have a climate crisis and our government realizes it must stop pussyfooting around the fossil fuel industry, then consumers must change long-held habits. Only by refusing to support the industry’s petroleum-based products will we make change happen.

A friend recently shared his Gainesville Regional Utilities bill with me. It had finally reached the point his bill was higher than he wanted to pay. He immediately started to call solar companies. The difference in cost between increased bills and solar panels will quickly be actualized.

My own estimated time for reaching the point where I receive my solar energy “for free” was seven years. But with fuel costs doubling, my time will halve.

So we, consumers, remain ultimately responsible despite the easier alternative. With a commitment to moving away from fossil fuels, and with determination not to support the fossil fuel industry, we can make a difference.

The Inflation Reduction Act aims for 40% reduction by 2030. That goal must be the minimum goal for all of us. Let’s help the plumber and make full use of the act’s incentives.


Susan Nugent

Susan Nugent is a Climate Reality Project leader from Gainesville.
Join the conversation

This article originally appeared on The Gainesville Sun: Susan Nugent: Inflation Reduction Act just start of cutting emissions


WASTE OF FOOD
Ethanol could get boost from carbon capture credits in Biden climate law


 Ethanol biodiesel fuel is shown being pumped into a vehicle at a gas station in Nevada, Iowa


By Leah Douglas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A major expansion in tax credits for companies that capture and store carbon emissions under U.S. President Joe Biden's new climate law could be a boon to the ethanol industry as it seeks to meet its mid-century climate goals.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Biden signed on Tuesday significantly expands tax credits for industrial projects that capture emissions of carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for climate change, and either store it underground or use it as a building block for other products.

The industry hopes to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, aided by a network of carbon transport pipelines across the Midwest, to reach a goal of net zero emissions by 2050. The technology could help ethanol makers position their product as a green fuel against the backdrop of transit electrification.

Geoff Cooper, president and CEO of ethanol trade group the Renewable Fuels Association, said the IRA is “the most significant federal commitment to low-carbon biofuels since the Renewable Fuel Standard was expanded 15 years ago.”

The IRA allows companies that own and operate CCS equipment to collect as much as $85 per ton, up from $50, of captured carbon that is stored underground, and $60 per ton, up from $35, of captured carbon that is used in other manufacturing processes or for oil recovery.

One set of projects that could benefit from the expanded credits are a network of pipelines proposed in the Midwest to capture and transport ethanol plant emissions.

Three companies - Summit Carbon Solutions, a subsidiary of Iowa-based Summit Agricultural Group; Wolf Carbon Solutions, an affiliate of Alberta-based Wolf Midstream; and Navigator CO2 Ventures, a subsidiary of Texas-based Navigator Energy Services - hope to run more than 3,600 miles (5,800 km) of pipeline from ethanol plants across six states to underground storage sites.

The projects could capture as much as 39 million tons of carbon annually, according to the company websites, potentially making them eligible for more than $3.3 billion in tax credits.

In statements to Reuters, the three companies cheered the IRA and its inclusion of the expanded credits.

The pipelines are in varying stages of the permitting process in each state. Widespread dissent among landowners along the proposed pipeline routes could present an obstacle to the projects as they proceed.

Ethanol production lends itself well to carbon capture projects because the manufacturing process emits a pure stream of carbon dioxide, said Jessie Stolark, public policy and member relations manager at the Carbon Capture Coalition.

“They have been the first mover in a lot of ways,” Stolark said.

(Reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington; Editing by Timothy Gardner and Matthew Lewis)

No comments:

Post a Comment