Blogs

Climate Change Blog 7

By Carl Howard posted 12-11-2017 11:25 AM

  

Climate Change Blog 7

For the 23rd time world leaders gathered, this time in Bonn, Germany, to try to agree on an approach for meaningful advances in mitigating and adapting to climate change. Official delegations represented 195 countries. Only the US representatives attended on behalf of a country not intending to stay in the Paris accord. And while the other countries proposed emissions reductions and rapid movement toward carbon-free, renewable energy, the US representatives included members of the fossil fuel industry who spoke on behalf of the US promoting continued use of carbon-emitting fossil fuels. The US also advocated the continued use of nuclear power.

Unofficial American attendees including Al Gore, Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg, who insisted that Trump’s dismissal of climate policy doesn’t represent the country writ large, that plenty of cities, states, universities and businesses are still doing their part to cut emissions and that Americans still very much want to tackle this problem. But Trump administration officials showed up to reiterate that they intended to leave the Paris agreement and that the rest of the world was naïve in thinking fossil fuels could be phased out quickly or easily. It was by far the most attended and talked-about event at Bonn, with hundreds of people waiting in line to get in (and protest).

George David Banks, Trump’s international energy adviser, made it clear that the White House, not Democratic governors like Jerry Brown or Andrew Cuomo, spoke for America. When asked about the fact that blue states committed to tackling climate change represented 130 million Americans, he claimed “I represent something like 300 million Americans.”

After 22 prior meetings, the inadequate goal of this meeting was to get countries to begin drafting rules and processes for translating the goals of the Paris agreement into action. Thus drafting rules is just beginning on an Agreement that is itself totally inadequate to keep the planet from warming beyond 2 degrees C. Current mitigation pledges put the world on pace for 3 degrees C (5.4 F) of warming or more this century, a drastic change that would reshape global coastlines, put many populated islands underwater, destabilize ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, drastically raise sea-levels and usher in a new era of deadly heat waves, floods, droughts, famine, disease, conflict, refugees and warfare.

Climate scientists gave a presentation to the conference on the vast task ahead of them. To stay below 2 degrees C of warming, global GHG emissions would likely have to peak in the next few years and then be cut by half every decade down to zero by midcentury. Repeat, down to zero by midcentury.

The scale of that transition is staggering. Virtually every coal plant around the world would need to be phased out (which is happening in the US largely due to natural gas and fracking, but that too would need to be phased out) or outfitted with carbon capture technology (which is not happening large scale) within decades. Electric vehicles would need to be the primary mode of transportation (which is happening, the Chinese government announced that it would expand its domestic market for electric vehicles to seven million cars by 2025, a move spurred in part by Chinese concerns over air pollution in cities, and see Blogs 4, 5 and 6 on the positive trend in EV growth), and the world’s power grids would need to be virtually emissions-free (which is happening based on wind and solar investment, but needs to happen bigger and faster and battery technology needs to improve to store the energy). Technology that barely exists today to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere may need to be deployed on a huge scale.

And while the participating countries all made pledges as to when they’d reduce GHG emissions and how much, there remains much work to be done to verify if such reductions would in fact be realized. That is the next step for next year’s meeting.

The existing tension between the developed and developing nations was evident in Bonn. Developed countries are supposed to be giving money and technology to developing countries so development can be based on renewable energy and advanced technology. But this is not happening fast enough or at levels adequate to meet demand. Developing countries pushed hard for more transparency on what the developed countries claimed to be providing as climate aid, but got nowhere. That angered a number of developing countries, particularly since Trump has said the US will no longer contribute to the Green Climate Fund for global warming assistance. China argued that the Paris agreement “rule book” should hold developed nations to higher standards than developing countries (based on Environmental Justice concerns I noted in Blog 3).

Island nations and other vulnerable countries were disappointed that wealthy nations had opposed proposals to compensate countries under severe threat by climate change. The leader of Palau called CC a “life or death” issue, “a moral question, and it requires a moral answer.”

The world is still largely dependent on the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, coal. At the conference scientists reported that global carbon dioxide emissions would most likely rise in 2017 after a three-year plateau, in part because of a rebound in Chinese coal consumption. Germany too is burning coal as it has phased out its use of nuclear power. After declaring that “climate change is an issue determining our destiny as mankind,” Angela Merkel acknowledged that Germany was likely to miss the goals it had set itself for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Leaders from the EU also acknowledged it is likely to fall short of its 2030 emissions goals, they will push to enact new legislation on increasing clean energy and efficiency.

The International Energy Agency reported that coal’s “boom years” are over, as more and more countries start shifting to cleaner sources of electricity, including natural gas, wind, and solar. And 19 countries vowed to phase out their coal use by 2030.

 After two-weeks, negotiators said they had made headway on creating a formal process under the 2015 Paris agreement in which world leaders would regularly and publicly detail the efforts they are making to address CC, specify areas where they are falling short, and push each other to do more. Which sounds like a plan for bickering and finger-pointing. Participating countries plan to submit newer, stronger climate pledges to the United Nations by 2020.

 In the US, a coalition of U.S. cities, states, companies and universities vowed to meet the commitments of the Paris agreement despite Trump's promise to withdraw from the deal. Former NYC Mayor Bloomberg is an active member of the coalition called America's Pledge. The group consists of 20 US states and more than 50 major cities. But the group acknowledged that any effort to meet the Paris accord's carbon-reduction commitments by 2025 requires federal action.

 Meanwhile, Trump disbanded the Community Resilience Panel for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems as it was created by Obama in 2015. It was a cross-agency group created to help local officials protect their residents against extreme weather and natural disasters. It was one of the last federal bodies that openly talked about climate change in public. The group is the latest in a series of federal climate-related bodies to be altered or terminated since Trump took office. In June, Trump severed climate scientists from EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors. In August, Trump ended the advisory committee attached to the National Climate Assessment, the quadrennial review of climate science. Trump has called climate change a "hoax" designed to make the US less competitive with China.

 The Panel was the federal government’s primary external engagement for resilience in the built environment. The Panel included representatives from EPA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other departments, as well as city planners and outside experts. The group advised local officials on making buildings, communications, energy and water systems, and transportation more resilient to severe weather and climate change. That mission made the group especially vulnerable.

 

Brendan Doyle, who was the EPA’s representative to the Panel until he retired in August, said the idea for the Panel came from Superstorm Sandy in 2012. "It was a way of helping communities not only through the recovery process, but to help them adjust to a new normal, in ways that would make them more resilient to the next disaster." With federal aid increasingly thin, communities must depend on cash-strapped states and after the fact federal disaster aid. As Houston, Florida and Puerto Rico made clear, the current system is inadequate. Yet there is no plan to protect increasingly vulnerable US communities.

 

Similarly, the State Department and the Interior Department sent high-level political officials to address a recent conference in Texas sponsored by the Heartland Institute, which rejects the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and driven by anthropogenic emissions. Jim Lakely, a spokesman for the Heartland Institute, said “Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and it is not the driver of global warming.” “So there is no moral case for restricting the use of fossil fuels, especially because that is vital to raising the quality and length of life of the world’s poorest people.” Scott Pruitt sent a video message of support. (Elsewhere EPA scientists were denied permission to speak at a different conference.) 

“We have tremendous natural resources, from coal to natural gas to oil, to generate electricity in a very cost-effective way,” Mr. Pruitt told the Heartland conference. “We should celebrate that and be good stewards.”

 Yet 70% of Americans believe global warming is occurring, according to a Yale University survey, and more than 60% say they are at least “somewhat worried” about its effects. “There’s a debate in the United States between the denialists who pooh-pooh any thought about climate change and the catastrophic dangers it portends, and those who agree with the scientific academies of every country in the world that we’re facing an existential threat and we have to do something about it,” said Governor Brown.

 For the first time since taking office on Dec 7, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt testified before the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment addressing questions about his controversial handling of the agency. Pruitt told lawmakers he plans to replace the Clean Power Plan—the Obama administration's core legislation to cut carbon emissions—rather than just repeal it. He said he would conduct a critique of a key finding that underpins climate change law using a "red team, blue team" exercise as soon as January. This exercise targets EPA's 2009 "endangerment finding" that carbon dioxide is a harmful pollutant and provides the scientific basis for federal regulation of GHG and the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt has long opposed the finding, arguing in court that the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which brings together thousands of scientists from around the world to synthesize the latest science on climate change, is flawed.

The endangerment finding has been in the crosshairs of certain fossil fuel interests, including the conservative think tank Heartland Institute and Bob Murray, CEO of the largest private coal company in the United States, which have pushed Pruitt to review it.

The Republican majority thanked Pruitt for his efforts to engage with state regulators and to roll back regulations. Democrats questioned Pruitt about growing influence within the EPA of industries the agency regulates, especially a recent directive that ushered industry-backed scientists onto influential scientific advisory panels.

"Scott Pruitt's call for a 'red team, blue team' debate on climate change is a farce and a distraction," according to Peter Frumhoff, director of science policy for the Union of Concerned Sciences. " If he has questions about climate science, he should turn to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not hacks from the Heartland Institute."

Pruitt was questioned about his lavish expenditures, including the installation of a $25,000 "secret phone booth." Pruitt claimed "It's used for secure communication that needs to take place at the office." Pruitt has made frequent visits to Oklahoma, his home state—43 times in 92 days in March, April and May—and expended nearly $60,000 on private air travel since February. The agency's Inspector General is investigating the expenses. It is possible that he is lining up deep-pocketed backers to run in 2020 for the Senate seat held by the Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe, who is 83.

Rep Tony Cardenas (D-CA) said the "costs are especially offensive given the severe cuts" the administration has proposed to EPA, including eliminating the office of environmental justice. "Are the American people supposed to believe that we cannot afford $2 million to help our most vulnerable communities, but we can afford tens of thousands of dollars for you to fly on private jets?" Pruitt assured the Committee that "Environmental justice is an important issue."

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) repeatedly asked Pruitt if he would recuse himself from agency proceedings involving his allies in the energy industry. She noted that Pruitt, as Oklahoma attorney general, had sued the agency 14 times, and in eight of those cases, Murray Energy was a co-plaintiff.

"Given your extensive history of suing the agency you now oversee and the vast amounts of money you've raised from the fossil fuel industry, offering to recuse yourself from only active cases or only cases where Oklahoma is a party is grossly inadequate," Castor said. "So will you commit to recusing yourself from cases involving your past co-litigants and donors?"

Pruitt said that his associations and lawsuits were deemed not to violate ethics rules by the agency's ethics reviewer.

Earlier this week, the EPA's Office of Inspector General said it would investigate a meeting Pruitt held in April with the National Mining Association about the Paris Agreement.

Castor also asked how many times Pruitt had met with representatives from energy companies, including Peabody Energy and the utility Southern Company. Pruitt responded that he didn't know.

Readers of my Blogs know of the tremendous growth that has occurred over the past several years both in the US and abroad regarding carbon-free energy, primarily solar and wind. In order for mitigation efforts to be successful in keeping global warming under 2 degrees C and meet the rapid time-frames necessary to move from fossil fuels to non-carbon fuel for energy production it is essential that such a switch not only be unrestrained but supported at the federal level. But that is not happening.

As details emerge as to what is contained in the largely unread tax bills that the Senate and House passed, some unpleasant facts have emerged. These bills could significantly hobble the US’ renewable energy industry because of a series of provisions that scale back incentives for wind and solar power while bolstering older energy sources like oil and gas.

The possibility highlights the degree to which the nation’s recent surge in renewable electricity generation is still sustained by favorable tax treatment which has lowered the cost of solar and wind production while provoking the ire of fossil-fuel competitors seeking to weaken those tax preferences.

Whether lawmakers choose to protect or jettison various renewable tax breaks in the final bill being negotiated on Capitol Hill could have major ramifications for the US energy landscape, including the prices consumers pay for electricity.

Wind and solar are two of the fastest-growing sources of power in the country, providing 7 percent of electricity in 2016. Sharp declines in the cost of wind turbines and photovoltaic panels, coupled with generous tax credits that can offset at least 30% of project costs, have made new wind and solar less expensive than existing fossil-fuel plants in parts of the country.

A Senate bill provision could cripple a key financing tool used by the renewable energy industry, particularly solar. The House bill would roll back tax credits for wind farms and electric vehicles, while increasing federal support for two nuclear reactors under construction in Georgia. The Senate legislation would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil drilling, while a last-minute amendment added by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), would allow oil and gas companies to receive lower tax rates on their profits.

At a White House event to promote the Republican tax legislation a coal plant employee from North Dakota thanked Trump for a provision in the House bill that would drastically reduce the value of the production tax credit for wind. He claimed that the production tax credit has destroyed the energy market, especially in the Midwest, claiming that wind production has eroded North Dakota’s tax base and replaced coal production.

The wind industry has warned that the House language, which would reduce the wind tax credit to 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, from 2.4 cents, and change eligibility rules, could eliminate over half of the new wind farms planned in the US. Indeed, the wind industry is already seeing orders put on hold and projects are not able to get refinancing. Even the threat of this bill is having a chilling effect.

Trump has said he will impose tariffs on imported solar panels, which could increase the cost of solar power. The Senate bill could affect 39 gigawatts worth of planned solar projects around the country — nearly as much as all the US solar power that has been installed to date.

Such changes could slow what had been a steady pace of GHG mitigation and raise electricity prices for consumers in states like California, which have set mandatory targets for the share of renewables in their electricity mixes. In states without such targets, including Texas, more expensive new renewable plants could lose out to natural gas generation.

In addition to repealing renewable incentives, the House bill would also scrap a key tax credit for electric vehicles. Currently, the federal government offers a tax credit worth up to $7,500 for anyone who buys an electric car, though the credit quickly phases out for any manufacturer that sells 200,000 such vehicles in the US.

That would definitely be a big blow to the electric vehicle market, which is just picking up steam. While Tesla and General Motors are nearing their cap for the tax credit, repeal could significantly affect companies like Nissan, which was planning to introduce a new model of its all-electric Leaf in the coming year. Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, has said he will work to oppose the House’s repeal of the credit. Tesla is building a major battery factory in his state.

Whether or not any of these provisions become law, it shows how clearly the Republican party is following Trump’s lead in moving in precisely the wrong direction at least according to climate experts and leaders in the rest of the world.

In an effort to keep these Blogs from getting too long I’ll end by briefly noting that wildfires continue to be in the news. The worst wildfires in CA history include five fires covering more than a quarter of a million acres, with 9,000 firefighters combating the flames. More than 800 homes and structures have been destroyed (including Rupert Murdoch’s $30 million dollar Bel-Air mansion, (he has called CC “alarmist nonsense”)), 98,000 people have been forced to evacuate and 25,000 homes are threatened. Unusual drought conditions, unusually warm temperatures and high winds, all predicted by CC models and expected to worsen in future years, help explain the new normal.

0 comments
99 views

Permalink