These four words are core touchstones en route a prosperous, climate-friendly future.
As clean electrons continue to plunge in price, everywhere, momentum toward clean(er) electricity grids continues to mount around the world. Coal has nearly disappeared from the UK’s electricity grid while likely to do so across Europe by 2030. Projections for coal demand in China and India continue to plummet with each passing year. In the United States, despite Donald Trump’s and the GOP’s diligent efforts to prop up more expensive and polluting coal, coal plants continue to shut down as coal’s share of US electrons continues to fall. While meriting policies to accelerate, the reality is that globally electrons are cleaner with every passing day.
As technology has advanced with plunging battery prices, electric buses truly represent an opportunity to deliver significantly improved performance while saving greenbacks by going green. In short, EV buses
Perform better
with faster acceleration and braking; less vibration; less noise
Local: no local air pollution; greatly reduced noise
Regional/Global: greatly reduced pollutants and potentially essentially 100% clean if the electrons are clean (nuclear and renewable)
Save money
Greatly reduced fuel costs
Lower maintenance costs
with, for example, no fluids other than for windshields)
While most of the public attention has been on electric cars (Tesla, anyone), moves to electrify bus fleets offer the opportunity for achieving significant public benefits rapidly.
One particularly ripe arena is school buses where the public health benefits are particularly strong as youth are far more vulnerable to diesel pollutants and the 24 million youth riding buses have no choice but to have this exposure for perhaps 100s of hours per year. Health impacts from diesel pollution exposure include reduced lung function, increased risk of pneumonia, increased blood pressure, long-term cancer risks, reduced cognitive function, … What parent, what educator, what public official would consciously choose — if a viable other option existed — to inflect these costs and risks on children?
Until now, writ large, there wasn’t a ‘viable’ other option in many cases — most bus routes bring kids from where bicycling or walking isn’t a good option; parents driving their children leads to even more pollution (especially as the buses are still running) and increased road congestion; etc … While electric buses weren’t much more than a niche option, in the past, the situation has radically change. Improved technology, increased options, falling prices, increased operating experience and innovative financing opportunities are all coalescing to not just make electric school buses a viable option — but also far more preferable option on cost, quality of service, and environmental impact grounds.
With over 1600 school buses, the Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) has the second-largest school bus fleet in the nation (after New York City). With the recent RFP (request for proposal) to put solar on 130 County buildings (majority of these schools), the County is taking steps to clean up its electrons. The school bus fleet represents a ripe opportunity for Fairfax to take a leap forward to ‘electrify everything’. With this in mind, a group of FCPS mothers organized Mothers Out Front Fairfax County earlier this year and have made electrifying the FCPS bus fleet the centerpiece of their efforts. They have met with FCPS facilities staff, School Board Members, and others (such as Dominion Energy staff involved in their projected electric charger program) in their effort to build momentum toward electrifying the FCPS bus fleet. Interest is mounting — even as challenges requiring addressing are being identified. And, it isn’t just interest — support is growing as evidenced by an event this evening.
This evening, from 6-7 pm at the Patrick Henry Library in Vienna, Virginia, Mothers Out Front will publicly launch its electric school bus campaign. Speakers and attendees at the event with include school board members (such as Pat Hynes) and candidates (such as Karl Fritsch: see here) along with other elected officials (such as Delegate Mark Keam) and community leaders.
This is an opportunity to learn more about electric buses and join in to show that you wish to see Virginia move expeditiously down a path toward a prosperous, resilient, climate-friendly future.
June 26th, 2019 · Comments Off on Vive La France: Good news from across the pond (not just #FIFAWWC)
France has decided to accelerate, significantly, its offshore wind program for a very simple reason: offshore wind will provide reliable, low-cost, clean electrons to power the French economy. Just announced, a new offshore wind project that will deliver electricity to the French grid for 44 Euros per megawatt hour (mWh) (e.g., under $US50 per mWh and thus under 5 cents US per kilowatt hour).
France Gets 600 MW offshore wind farm for 44 Euros/MWh. 12 & 13 MW Turbines Used. France will build 1 GW of offshore wind every year through 2028. https://t.co/OFtVrP08go
— John Raymond Hanger ? (@johnrhanger) June 23, 2019
This is striking news about the continued plunging of offshore wind electricity prices. A decade ago, more than mildly engaged with some of the most involved people in the offshore wind industry, it seemed an optimistic outcome would be electrons coming ashore about 8-10 cents per kWh by 2020 or so … and even that seemed pretty ambitious. Truth in advertising — this was work related. The executive leadership that I was involved with and seeking to convince that leveraging a Corporate capacity to support offshore wind would make sense as part of long-term planning simply didn’t believe that 8-10 cents would ever be achieved. They doubted this would fall below about 15 cents per kwh and thus simply didn’t see the industry as competitive nor likely to grow. And, thus the opportunity wasn’t pursued. If they (if we) had only known …
So much of the public attention, to the extent there has been, re renewables and the power sector has been on solar panels. “In sight, in mind” might be a sensible term. Seeing panels on your neighbors rooftop certainly can catch your attention. Onshore wind (and the NIMBY-ite battles against it) have had significant attention as well. And, with wind farms powering meaningful shares of power demand in numerous areas (Germany, Texas, Iowa, …) with wind farms the ‘scenery’ for miles on highways in many areas, they too have had much attention. And, solar and onshore wind price plunges have kept them below offshore wind costs. But, these offshore wind cost reductions are serious and well below the ‘new build’ cost for any fossil fuel alternative.
Offshore wind price reductions have occurred for a number of reasons:
Economies of scale: writ large, building more of something drives down costs (in no small part because of) …
Learning (curves) making the next turbine, the next windfarm, that much easier (lower resource inputs of people & facilities) that foster
Technology developments from ever larger wind turbines (thus more efficient per kilowatt hour and higher capacity figures) to floating towers to better electrical interconnections to other specific components that are all incorporated into and captured in
Business models, learning, and experience which have, for example, made offshore wind a straightforward project financing for bankers rather than an unknown and uncertain arena. This drives down financing costs, from time to process paperwork to ‘risk premiums’ while also opening up ever-more financing houses to potential offshore investments (and, thus, competition).
Offshore wind appears to be a great example of public (structuring good permitting processes, setting policy that enables planning, etc …)-private (learning curves, financing, …) interactions to drive rapid advances in a technology and business arena to provide a meaningful tool for transforming the power (and larger energy) sector in much of the world.
The price point is far from the only impressive thing about this announcement. In mid-2019, the award is announced for the project. The wind turbines will be powering French homes in less than three years. From award to power generation for a 600 megawatt capacity power facility in the developed world (with tight permitting and other challenges) is, well, a rare beast.
The combination of rapid implementation path and extremely competitive (low) prices have led the French government to change, radically, its offshore wind plans.
”Today, the project off Dunkirk shows that costs fall even faster when projects are well set up,”Prime Minister Philippe said in a Policy Statement to the National Assembly.”We will be able to increase the pace of future calls for tenders to one gigawatt per year. It’s a good thing for the price of electricity, for our industry and for our planet!”
“With the launch of the Saint-Nazaire park project today, France is finally entering the age of offshore wind turbines. By 2022, 80 wind turbines installed off Saint-Nazaire will provide 20% of the electricity of Loire-Atlantique. It’s a first in France. But we do not stop there, we accelerate. Today, we are also initiating the Dunkirk park project, at a rate comparable to the best European results, which demonstrates the competitiveness of the French sector. Tomorrow, we will launch and award larger projects: 1GW per year, compared to 750MW originally planned in the Multi-Year Energy Program, by working with all the territories,”
French offshore wind is a very tangible example of
Cost-competitiveness of renewable energy options
Continued price reductions of major renewable options
Expertise-supported flexible government decision-making to leverage clean-energy technology and business advances
When it comes to fossil fuels, almost all of the externalities are damaging costs (from causing cancers to leaks polluting local waters to driving climate chaos). When it comes to ‘green’ action, almost all of the externalities are positive (improved health, ecosystem resiliency, productivity). Assessing these co-benefits and including them in decision-making should drive faster and more aggressive ‘greening’ efforts.
The office as example … focus on productivity payoffs, not utility costs
For example, when it comes to office buildings, it is often easy to layout energy efficiency and renewable energy projects to cut building emissions by a third with annual financial returns above 15 percent (and, often, well above 30 percent). An under five year payback might seem reasonable but might not really catch the CFO’s attention in terms of the total resources required (not just financial but, for example, also management/staff time and attention as an opportunity cost) relative to what might be a pretty small return on investment.
Now, in a North American office building, a reasonable back-of-the-envelope has people costs ballpark 100 times the building’s utility costs. In other words, efforts to reduce energy and water costs by half provide financial return of perhaps 0.5% of the payroll cost. However, greening offices drives greater productivity. In brief, people are healthier and perform better with cleaner air, quieter spaces, better lighting, and more consistent/comfortable temperatures. One (limited, conservative, likely understating benefits) study, for example, found a 3 percent decline in sick leave and 5 percent bump in productivity in green vs ‘non-green’ office buildings. A five percent productivity bump is worth perhaps five times the total utility bill.
Considering co-benefits in localities …
This post is sparked due to a correspondent seeking some thoughts and support with local discussions for a community to develop a “net zero” plan. One, somewhat sympathetic, government official expressed concerns about potential approaches, laying out that he owed it to the taxpayers to assure that projects have a reasonable return on investment. My response email:
“Fully-burdened cost-benefit analysis” seems like something you might wish to try to introduce into the conversation. In essence, governance structures (public and private) often have stove-piped decision-making processes. For example, the “facilities” team concerns itself with the costs of energy services but doesn’t calculate in the decisions secondary/tertiary (co-)benefits (nor, well, costs). Smart clean energy/climate/environmentally friendly facility investments and management can have huge co-benefits that often are not included into the conversation. This is something that a smart (local) government can do and thus be ready to address more aggressive climate-friendly actions due to the co-benefit value. Here are some examples speaking specifically to local governance opportunities:
Greening building boost productivity: Better lightning, cleaner air, quieter spaces, etc all lead to higher human performance — this is true in industry, commercial, office, and school environments. If one can do a ‘cost-neutral’ upgrade in energy efficiency with quieter HVAC systems, for example, that leads to higher student test scores and improved graduation rates, there is a huge economic and social value. Some thoughts as to the power of Greening School infrastructure. (Note that there is analysis that suggests the top predictor of a community’s economic performance 15-25 years from now is the HS graduation rate — greening will boost graduation rates.)
Electric Buses: While electric buses are now at a lower life-cycle price point in a stove-piped calculation, broader analysis of electric buses shows huge co-benefits: reduced local pollution (air and noise); better performance; potential for V2G to provide utility grid services (and thus earn revenue) when busses aren’t operating; improved driver health (lower noise, diesel pollution, more comfortable ride); and the potential for increased ridership due to better performance.
Enhancing decision-making with understanding/incorporating co-benefits and intersectionality can foster more aggressive action since (almost always) the ‘cleaner’ option has significant co-benefits that should be of value to a government investment.
Many aware of climate change science and the (mounting) risks of climate catastrophe have long analogized the situation to World War II mobilization — in expressing the scale of the challenge, that the United States (and humanity) has the ability to rise to a challenge of such scale, and the level of existential threat that climate chaos creates for modern human civilization (if not humanity, itself). Those promoting worsening our climate risks, through denial of science and promotion of fossil fuels, have also resorted to such war analogies in their fights to maintain profitability at the expense of ecological catastrophe. This occurs, in part, when truth-wielding activism begins to have an impact on eco-system havoc wreaking profitability. A recent example comes from Alberta, Canada, as the newly-elected right-wing United Conservative Party (UCP) government seeks to boost investment in and profitability of highly-polluting tar sands facilities.
The Alberta government has dedicated 30 million dollars (Canadian) in an “Energy War Room” to (in a paraphrase of Premier Jason Kenney) engage in “a sustained campaign of defamation and disinformation” to promote climate-busting tar sands production. As if Exxon Mobil and other fossil fuel Dark Money hasn’t been enough, this is an explicit deployment of public funds to distort public understanding of climate science, the implications of burning fossil fuels, the mounting (and ever-more evident) climate crisis implications, and the viability of paths to reduce global economic dependence on polluting fuels.
Keith Stewart of Greenpeace Canada said “shooting the messenger” about the challenges of climate change won’t make these difficult issues go away.
“This is a campaign about trying to intimidate and silence critics,” he said.
There are plenty of struggles to be waged over Canadian energy projects in the coming years.
The war room just adds another flashpoint — and another player — to the battlefield.
As global advertising (revenue) and Russian efforts to get Trump elected show clearly, investing in strategic influence efforts can pay off — massively — even if the ‘pay off’ is negative for most of humanity. That is the UCP desire with the Energy War Room. To have an outsized impact on support for polluting energy no matter the actual implications of that pollution.
“What we have heard from the premier today is beginning of a partisan plan to pit the economy against the environment,” Irfan Sabir said in a statement. “This is a recipe for disaster.”
The UCP-led Alberta government isn’t planning to rely solely on a disinformation Energy War Room, but will leverage other government tools to impede those seeking to “prepare Alberta for the coming transition off of fossil fuels” including aggressive public inquiries and litigation.
In Alberta, polluting industry holds an outsized role in the overall economy. Whether accurate or not, UCP’s Kenney constantly asserts that tar sands “is the source of about one-third of the jobs in this province, directly and indirectly”. Dismantling the previous NDP administration’s policies to turn Alberta and Alberta’s economy on a path toward greater economic prosperity in a carbon-constrained future (a carbon tax, Climate Leadership Plan, …) was a core element of the UCP campaign and driving fears with disinformation about these clearly played a role in the UCP’s victory (which occurred amid economic challenges that had more to do with global energy shifts than NDP policies). The $CAN30M (and potentially to grow) investment of public funds in a fossil-foolish “Energy War Room” will raise even further that disinformation and undermine not just Alberta’s path toward future economic prosperity and surety but undermine the potential for successful global climate action as well.
June 12th, 2019 · Comments Off on Double Whammy: (Not) Positive Climate Feedback Cycle Driving Increased Energy Use?
In 2018, the world energy system saw an unusual “double whammy”: an increase in both heating and cooling degree days. Potentially a sign of increased climate disruption, with greater extremes possible (even amid generalized warming of the global system), this ‘double whammy’ helped drive a major increase in energy use and carbon emissions globally.
2018 saw increased heating AND cooling requirements (BP)
This “double whammy” created an anomaly: according to traditional economic modeling, slowing economic growth and somewhat higher energy costs should have resulted in lower energy and carbon emissions growth.
The ‘predicted’ line uses a simple framework of GDP growth and changes in oil prices (as a proxy for energy prices) to predict primary energy growth at a country level and then aggregates to global energy.
Although very simple, the framework is able to explain much of the broad contours in energy demand over the past 20 years or so.
This framework predicts that the growth in energy demand should have slowed a little last year, reflecting the slightly weaker economic backdrop and the strengthening in energy prices. Instead, energy demand picked up quite markedly.
Digging into the data further, it seems that much of the surprising strength in energy consumption in 2018 may be related to weather effects. In particular, there was an unusually large number of both hot and cold days last year, which led to higher energy consumption as the demand for cooling and heating services increased.
The increasing frequency and intensity of heating and cooling days was pretty widespread across many of the world’s major demand centres last year, particularly in the US, China and Russia helping to explain the strong growth in energy consumption in each of these countries
BP’s analysis suggests that roughly one-fourth of the global increased energy usage derived from this double-whammy phenomena — which might well be a resulting impact from increased climate disruption. And, that increased energy usage helped worsen the problem through increased energy demand using polluting energy sources (including increased coal use, globally, for the second year in a row).
As a Corporation, BP is one of the world’s leading contributors of Greenhouse Gases … and it has an executive suite that has a clear (if not total) understanding of the climate challenge.
Now, in terms of that increased energy usage globally, new renewable energy sources (primarily wind and solar) covered about a quarter of the increased demand. Massive, significant, double-digit growth continues … but is falling short of meeting increased energy requirements globally. E.g., we need clean power growth to expand even faster as a basic climate action mantra is “electrify everything … clean up the grid”. As per Dale,
even if renewables are growing at truly exceptional rates, the pace of growth of power demand, particularly in developing Asia, limits the pace at which the power sector can decarbonize. …
a shift towards greater electrification helps as a pathway to a lower-carbon energy system only if it goes hand-in-hand with a decarbonization of the power sector.
Electrification without decarbonizing power is of little use.
Dale’s assessment is that renewables would have had to grow more than twice as fast over the past three years just to keep up with increased energy demand — let alone drive ever more polluting energy sources off the grid.
If we focus solely on renewable energy, renewable generation over the past three years would need to have grown more than twice as quickly than it actually did. Rather than growing by a little over 800 Twh over the past three years, renewable generation would have needed to grow by over 1800 Twh.
A staggering number: that additional renewable generation of around 1000 Twh is roughly equivalent to the entire renewable generation of China and the US combined in 2018.
So in addition to the rapid growth in renewable generation we actually saw, the world would have also needed to have added the entire renewable generation of China and the US, in just three years, just to keep carbon emissions from the power sector flat.
One shouldn’t forget whose discussion this is — one of the oil majors — when absorbing the following assertion:
Alternatively, the same outcome for carbon emissions could have been achieved by replacing around 10% of coal in the power sector with natural gas.
Sure, when burned, natural gas emits roughly half the carbon dioxide compared to coal-fired electricity plants per kilowatt hour. That is, however, during combustion. BP’s analysis (“in line with industry standards” according to Dale during yesterday’s question and answer session) doesn’t include methane emissions and methane leakages in the well-to-burn calculations. Methane leakage — especially with the growing amount of shale natural gas — might eliminate the (and certainly reduces significantly any) climate benefits of burning natural gas rather than coal. While an oil and natural gas “major” desires, for business and revenue purposes, to maintain the concept of natural gas as a bridge to a cleaner energy system, the reality is that natural gas is a bridge to nowhere (other than climate catastrophe).
Returning to the “double whammy”
One of the continued ‘unknown’ fears in climate change analysis: when will (not) positive feedback cycles (such as melting Arctic ice leading to warming oceans driving faster melting/warming in the Arctic) mount to the point where they overwhelm the human impacts driving global warming and thus potentially overwhelm humanity’s ability to turn the tide on climate catastrophe. In 2018, the ‘double whammy’ of heating and cooling degree day increases might have accounted for roughly a third of increased energy demand. If that “third” hadn’t occurred, Dale’s “thought experiment” as to necessary renewable energy growth to meet increased energy demand might not have looked as daunting.
In any event, the key takeaways from the BP Statistical Review seem to be:
We are going the wrong way on climate emissions — worsening, rather than solving, the problem(s).
Renewable energy growth is impressive and having an impact … but needs accelerating.
Is this an indication of dangerous cyclical impact? Human-driven #climate change #carbon emissions leading to disrupted weather which drives more polluting energy use which …?
Tom Perez and the DNC staff have truly stepped into it … explicitly rejecting hosting a climate debate and threatening Democratic Party presidential candidates ready to participate in one hosted by some other organization. By pegging the climate crisis as yet another ‘single issue’, Perez and his team are demonstrating a fundamental failure to understand the severity of the climate crisis, how responding appropriately to climate change is intertwined with nearly every arena of society/politics, and just how important climate is politically.
In contrast to the Presidential candidates and a growing number around the country, the Perez and the DNC team seem oblivious (or, perhaps even worse, resistant) to a new reality:
Now, some seem to agree with the DNC that ‘climate is just another issue’ that doesn’t merit its own debate. RL Miller has a good way to consider this:
A dedicated group worked to set up a climate / environmental forum. They provided all candidates with a set of seven issues/questions and the candidates were able to say which questions they wished to engage in during the forum. During a competitive primary, more than 400 people showed up (after they had to secure a larger venue than first planned) for the event along with easily that many watching remotely. Hmm … in a competitive primary, perhaps 750-1000 people in a live audience … do you think that the candidates paid attention to that? That the candidates came prepared to engage substantively (so that they wouldn’t look like fools) on key issues in front of so many voters?
Speaking at the Houston Climate Forum. Texas should be the national leader on environmental efforts and protecting our air, water, and public lands. pic.twitter.com/yKal9xoQCk
When voters care, candidates respond. At the first candidate forum I attended [in 2017], I cringed at the nonsensical response I got to my question about climate. This time, asking seven more challenging questions to seven candidates, I found almost all the responses to be thoughtful and well informed.
As a professor, I could tell the candidates had done their homework. They couldn’t bluff their way to an easy A with voters who cared.
In preparing for the forum, the candidates moved from ‘nonsensical’ to ‘thoughtful and well informed’ on environment and climate issues. Each had to think about the issues as they prepared for the Forum. Certainly, they didn’t forget all this material the moment it was over. With so many voters showing they cared, clearly and seriously, about the issues, the candidates continued to be prepared to and did talk about these issues in the weeks that followed.
And, Cohan’s perspective on the political implication:
Whoever is elected …., they’ll know there’s a motivated contingent of voters eager to see a more vigorous federal response to climate.
TX-07 is just one district. If climate matters there, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it will elsewhere. Though, as Cohan concluded:
And if we’ve shown that to be true in the oil patch of a red state, perhaps similar events elsewhere could provide a wake-up call to other representatives as well.
While not all voters would tune in for a climate debate, simply having that debate would
drive the candidates to be on their A game (even if not with an “A grade“) on climate;
foster a greater understanding of the climate crisis across the United States electorate;
provide a glaring contrast between Democratic Party candidates efforts to deal with reality and Trump’s nonsensical rejection of basic science;
potentially help the political punditry (The Village) and political consultancy class understand that climate change matters politically; and,
demonstrate that the Democratic Party establishment understands that ‘climate has FINALLY arrived in our politics’.
When it comes to a #ClimateDebate, Texas’ 7th shows us it can and would work. Tom Perez and the DNC should either lead on the issue (hold a climate debate) or get out of the way and allow the candidates to participate in one hosted by others.
We now have multiple candidates out with serious (although sometimes flawed, gapped, inadequate, etc ) plans to address climate change.
The candidates and their teams are recognizing that climate is a (if not the) top-tier issue for a substantial portion of the electorate … along with a more simple, physical reality, that the climate crisis is becoming ever clearer as perhaps the most significant threat to humanity’s continued viability and prosperity.
While troubled by some things (such as lack of discussion of fracking), Biden’s emphasis on the need to focus on both U.S. domestic emissions but a stronger international engagement (building on, but not stopping with, the Paris Accords) is an example of strength within his plan.
Again, the critical thing …
The Green New Deal is party canon because of tireless organizing. These are now consensus Dem positions: – $1.7 tn public investment – polluters pay – No FF$ – just transition – ej protections – end ff subsidy – end drilling on public lands and offshorehttps://t.co/FcCz5KBXM7
Scientific reality, increasingly evident climate-related disasters globally, Trump’s climate science denial, and strong activism by Sunrise Movement (and so many others) have helped put climate on top of the political agenda.
Even if too many political pundits and professional political consultants remain oblivious to this fact, politicians from Elizabeth Warren to Jay Inslee to Beto O’Rourke to Joe Biden to … aren’t blind to political realities.
While painful (in so many ways) that it took so long to occur, it is heartening that “the climate crisis has FINALLY arrived in our politics.”
And, the time has truly come for a climate debate.
ow. It’s been less than a week since we released the official #Climate2020 candidate scorecardand our plan to set a high standard for climate action among the 2020 Democratic candidates is working — today we have ironclad proof.
This morning, just days after getting a D- grade on our #Climate2020 presidential climate scorecard, former Vice President Joe Biden released his climate plan.
The response around our #Climate2020 scorecard has been huge — from the media, activists like you and I, and the candidates are talking about it as well. Elizabeth Warren met Biden’s plans head-on today by promising a $2 trillion investment in green energy infrastructure and innovation. Amazing!
May 22nd, 2019 · Comments Off on Wind: tourism boom (not bust)?
One of the canards against wind turbines: it will hurt tourism. While my personal perspective, discussions with others, and ample evidence that this is not the case, a just-released analysis of rental activity near a new installation supports the contrary: wind turbines could well foster booming tourism.
In analysis of AirBNB activity on Block Island compared to neighboring communities, in the year following construction
AirBnB rentals in Block Island experienced, on average, a 19% increase in occupancy rates and a $3,490 increase in monthly revenue compared to those in Narragansett, Westerly and Nantucket.
While the University of Rhode Island researchers are careful to note that that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation, they do believe that the wind farm has had a positive impact on tourism business.
Though the data did not indicate the reason for the increase in occupancy, Lang and Carr-Harris suggest that people were curious about the wind farm and wanted to see it for themselves.
“I think there has been some excitement about it. People are excited about renewable energy and sustainability, and they want to get behind it,” Lang explains. “So for the nation’s first offshore wind farm, we believe our results indicate that it has had a positive effect on tourism.”
“There are other factors that could be at play, too,” notes Carr-Harris. “It’s perceived that there is better fishing near the turbines, for instance, so more people may be coming to the island to go fishing.”
Comments Off on Wind: tourism boom (not bust)?Tags:wind power
Wednesday, Senator Elizabeth Warren released her concept of how she would leverage the Department of Defense (and introduced legislation) as part of a larger effort to address the climate crisis if elected President. Entitled Our Military Can Help Lead the Fight Against Climate Change, this ‘plan’ is a troubling mix of accurate problem definition, reasonable ideas, and misguided concepts.
Upfront, Senator Warren
correctly identifies climate chaos is a serious issue for the Department of Defense, that DOD is the largest single U.S. energy user, and there is much ground/need for both mitigation (reducing pollution) and adaptation (improving resiliency in face of climate risks;
proposes many useful items, such as creating policy positions focused on climate and requiring more robust examination of/reporting on DOD and climate;
mistakenly promotes DOD as a lead agency in addressing climate change, buying into a false conception of DOD as more effective than any/all other government activity; and
gets some critical items wrong, such as treating the contractor/industrial base as a unity rather than addressing its complexity.
All-in-all, much useful material but meriting revisiting to deal with its problems.
Senator Elizabeth Warren George Mason University, 16 May 2019 (Photo: A Siegel)
Problem Definition strong yet …
Team Warren correctly lays out that climate change
is already
costing the Department of Defense (and the taxpayer) $billions in terms of damages to and repairs to bases from climate-driven catastrophes;
impacting operational requirements and realities;
undermining readiness; and
will have mounting impacts in the years and decades to come in terms of driving mission requirements, undermining readiness; and creating high costs.
In short, climate change is real, it is worsening by the day, and it is undermining our military readiness. And instead of meeting this threat head-on, Washington is ignoring it?—?and making it worse.
The military’s heavy energy usage is outlined (largest single user of liquid fossil fuels in the United States (and, by the way, globally) and vulnerabilities from that fuel use (not just financial but also operational, as fuel convoys are susceptible to enemy attack).
While the problem definition is correct, there are framing issues. Two examples:
Throughout, Team Warren starts with bases and base implications. This is ‘supporting infrastructure’. Such infrastructures matters (a lot) but it is not ‘what’ the military is about, not why the taxpayer is investing $700B (or so) in DOD and related expenses per annum. A better approach: start with mission and work back to supporting infrastructure.
“Washington is ignoring” misrepresents the problem. Why obfuscate? The problem is not “Washington” but the Republican Party’s steadfast allegiance (for a host of reasons but notably the financial interests of major campaign donors) to climate science denial and tooth-and-nail obstruction of sensible policy to mitigate climate chaos and adapt to inevitable climate change.
Reasonable concepts are within the plan
With this background, Elizabeth Warren lays out that action is required.
I am introducing my Defense Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act to harden the U.S. military against the threat posed by climate change, and to leverage its huge energy footprint as part of our climate solution.
Excellent that Warren is emphasizing both mitigation (“climate solution”) and adaptation (“harden”): core to any meaningful climate efforts is investing in both (even though mitigation should be first and foremost).
Among the proposals are staffing and office requirements within DOD that would heighten the visibility of climate issues within decision-making and enable incorporation of climate sensible actions within DOD activities and procurement.
To improve readiness and resilience to climate-related events, we should also create a dedicated source of funding to adapt our bases in the United States and around the world. Let’s save money by budgeting for climate change on the front end, so that the Pentagon doesn’t have to ask for more only after a base is flooded or equipment damaged when natural disasters strike.
Absolutely. Well past time to be serious about Benjamin Franklin’s “an ounce of prevention” especially since this ‘insurance’ investment will pay for itself through lower utility bills, better operational capacity, and greater resiliency to threats beyond ‘just’ climate change.
Within this, Warren’s focus is on “non-combat” base infrastructure. While ‘hardening’ matters there and there is much value (financial, resiliency, reduced pollution) in addressing their resource use (not just energy but water and trash as well), these facilities are a fraction of the overall DOD energy use (which is dominated, first and foremost, by aviation liquid fuel requirements). The proposal is for these facilities to be “Net Zero” by 2030 — powered 100% by renewable energy ‘in accord with the Green New Deal’. With this, Senator Warren is beginning to get into more tenuous ground by, for example, emphasizing “renewable” rather than “clean” energy.
Misguided concepts requiring reconsideration and change …
While renewable vs clean and the 2030 target are part of larger debates, here are several examples of misguided concepts.
I’ll invest billions of dollars into a new, ten-year research and development program at the Defense Department focused on microgrids and advanced energy storage. The Pentagon has been responsible for countless technological breakthroughs, working together with colleges and universities, our national labs, local governments, and private companies. Let’s put that effort toward new clean energy solutions that will improve our security by allowing military bases to remain operational when traditional power sources fail, and save taxpayers money through lower overall energy consumption.
Proposed microgrid research program
likely should not be DOD lead but, rather, could be run within the Department of Energy (with DOD and other agency involvement);
shouldn’t be a leading-edge item of discussion
When it comes to climate mitigation, an appropriate mantra is ‘deploy, Deploy, DEPLOY’ what we already have with then, as #4, investing in creating (researching, developing) the options for deployment tomorrow; thus,
Should a 10-year research effort be a priority in discussion (with a ‘2030 deadline looming and need for urgent action?) rather than emphasizing deployment of and learning from existing technologies and options; and
is indicative of a serious problem:
the Department of Defense is not some perfect panacea and best run government agency that should have leadership of anything and everything.
As per above, this is likely far better done within DOE with then military research organizations focused on working with and leveraging that research for DOD-specific/priority arenas (such as micro-grids for deployed forces rather than micro-grids for university campuses).
The DOD awards hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of contracts every year, so if we’re serious about climate change then industry also needs to have skin in the game. I’ll ask contractors that have not achieved net zero carbon emissions to pay a small fee?—?one percent of the total value of the contract?—?and I’ll use that money to invest directly in making our military infrastructure more resilient.
Penalizing contractors based on ‘net zero’ fails to consider the complexity of the DOD contractor ecosystem.
The defense contractor world is huge, complex, and multifaceted. An analytical consulting firm is not the same as a cloud storage provider is not the same as a logistical services company is not the same as a shipyard — in business model, contract structures and timeframes, and energy requirements to execute the required contracts. The first likely could be ‘net zero’ today while the last (with steel fabrication, requirements to move 1000s of tons around, etc …) might be hard pressed to get there (without major support) over a several decade period.
Defense contractors are likely ready to work with an Administration on paths to lowering their climate impacts.
In 2012, the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) adopted as part of its policy priorities, for discussions with Congress, a concept for putting defense contractors on an energy/resource efficiency planning process like the Obama Administration required for governmental agencies.
Such a plan would accommodate the complexity of the contractor environment — requiring all firms to ‘clean up their act’ according to auditable plans — rather than creating a one size (doesn’t) fit all system.
From “Top Issues 2012” National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) page 5
Some final thoughts
As one who has spent (sigh) decades as (a minor) part of the effort to get the US military (and other military) forces to tackle energy (and water and waste and …) in a smarter way, while there is much of value in Senator Warren’s laydown, this could have been a stronger and more on target proposal.
The military should NOT be the lead …
even as being less damaging to the environment, due to better/smarter practices, can be a corollary to a more effective military force,
the military is ‘not’ about being clean (nor ‘green’) but about being prepared to kill people and destroy things (hopefully enough to dissuade others from conflict so that it won’t occur) in support of national strategy.
when it comes to climate chaos, lead agencies should be Energy, Interior, Transportation, State/USAID, Treasury … even as there are serious roles for mitigation within DOD investments and serious climate chaos implications for DOD readiness and operational requirements, “climate change’ is not the DOD mission.
This messaging — in specific ways — can/will turn off many w/in ‘traditional’ national security: even those who take climate change seriously
Why should DOD — rather than DOE — as an example, run a ten-year program on micro-grids?
This whole messaging buys into/reinforces a mistaken societal belief that DOD is better at running things than elsewhere in government/society.
The approach to contractors fails to consider the complex nature of the contractor / industrial base.
Despite everything, DOD is roughly 1% of US energy use/pollution
With contracting, this might rise to as much as 5% (or so)
A very high share of that energy use and pollution is embedded into capital assets (ships, tanks, planes … oh, and buildings/bases) that
either are stranded assets to be abandoned or …
will take a long time to turnover/replace
E.g., DOD facility energy use and pollution matters, BUT
There are many arenas that matter (FAR) more …
It takes time to have massive change — even within a WWII-like mobilization to address the climate crisis.
Framing matters and research is showing that stronger terms (climate crisis, climate chaos, climate emergency) aren’t just merited but foster stronger support for action on the scale necessary to address the climate crisis.
This proposal has strengths but the gaps in understanding the DOD (energy issues) and climate are frustrating and merit addressing.
A note: The above puts aside a discussion of whether the DOD should be radically restructured (reduced in size, scope), roles/missions, etc that is clearly a related/associated subject/debate. Even w/in ‘traditional’ DOD terms, the Warren proposal is at best a mishmash that merits revisiting
According to Reuters, Joe Biden is seeking a ‘middle ground’ climate policy — a return to Obama Administration policies for gradual (an inadequate) incrementalism to reduce emissions while seeking to satisfy those (excessively) profiting off fossil fool(ish) extraction.
The backbone of the policy will likely include re-joining the United States with the Paris Climate Agreement and preserving U.S. regulations on emissions and vehicle fuel efficiency that Trump has sought to undo ….
… the policy could also be supportive of nuclear energy and fossil fuel options like natural gas and carbon capture technology, which limit emissions from coal plants and other industrial facilities.
“There may have been a chance for modest, ‘all of the above,’ ‘middle ground’ climate strategies twenty years ago but we’ve passed that point now,” said Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and co-founder of California’s Pacific Institute. He added that “many politicians still fail to understand or accept the severity of the climate crisis or the speed with which we now have to act.”
Climate change is an urgent crisis. 'Middle-ground' approaches and half measures won't cut it. We need a large-scale national mobilization to defeat climate change and grow millions of jobs in a clean energy economy.
As a quick reminder, action to address climate chaos is polling high with Democratic Party voters — increasingly right at the top of priorities of action (such as this CNN poll which had 96% of Democratic voters viewing “aggressive action on climate change” as very or somewhat important). Activists like Sunrise, scientific voices about climate risks, and increasing clarity about mounting climate chaos disasters (California fires, Midwest floods, Hurricanes, …) are key factors in driving the political discussion (at least within the Democratic Party) toward addressing the reality of climate chaos and the need for serious, aggressive action. Political reality (again, at least in the Democratic Party) seems to be striving to catch up with science and physical realities.
The Biden ‘trial balloon’ is at odds with the increased importance for (D) voters of strong climate policy as a core focus for the next President of the United States. Two named people (Zichal and Moniz) seem to emphasize that ‘reality’ requires compromising with fossil fuel interests (from which both, such as Zichal as a Cheniere board member, are receiving significant funds) rather than focusing on what is required to protect the nation from climate chaos and what is possible in terms of creating a prosperous, clean-energy future. It also seems to buy into a (at best partially true) view that ‘blue collar’ and voters in key states support fossil fuel extraction and opposed efforts to address climate change. As to that:
It seems that the Biden camp might have quickly recognized the tone-deaf nature of this climate balloon.
TJ Ducklo, a spokesman for Biden’s campaign, said in an email statement that the former vice president “knows how high the stakes are” and noted his record on addressing climate change.
“As president, Biden would enact a bold policy to tackle climate change in a meaningful and lasting way, and will be discussing the specifics of that plan in the near future,” he said. “Any assertions otherwise are not accurate.”
As the (informed, substantive, passionate, angered) responses started to mount, Heather Zichal weighed in to accuse the Reuters’ team of getting it wrong:
I expect as president @JoeBiden would enact a bold policy to tackle climate change in a meaningful and lasting way. Reuters got it wrong. Any suggestion that it wouldn't is in direct contradiction to his long record of understanding climate change as an existential threat.
Simply put, if Joe Biden truly recognizes climate chaos as an ‘existential threat’ (which it is), a “middle of the ground’ policy approach wouldn’t have made it to the trial balloon stage. An “existential threat” recognizing policy wouldn’t emphasize 2016 ‘Business as Usual” as the objective for action. Let’s hope that Heather Renee Zichal is correct and that Joe Biden will some come out with a robust, thoughtful, implementable, and aggressive climate policy like Jay Inslee has started to lay out.
