Get Energy Smart! NOW!

President Elect (PEOTUS) Joe Biden lives in a far different world than PEOTUS Obama did. The differences can’t be summarized as simply Trump Virus (even though that does capture a lot). When it comes to clean energy and climate action opportunities, there are some rather stark — and encouraging — differences between the two eras.

• Twelve years ago, PEOTUS Obama faced a massively devastated economy with serious challenges in recovery. A core part of the recovery efforts (some $90B) sensibly focused on clean-energy arenas, much of this foundational work.
• In 2020, PEOTUS Biden faces a massively devastated economy with serious challenges ahead toward recovery. A core part of the Biden-Harris Administration recovery effort, to build back better, will build on the Obama-Biden Administration (and global) clean-energy foundational work.

In 2008, those (like myself) advocating for rapid clean-energy investments and deployments had to be creative in accounting (seeking fully-burdened analysis (including health implications, job creation, climate risks)) as part of the advocacy efforts. In 2020, clean-energy options are ever more clearly cost competitive with fossil-foolish options — even without considering pollution and other costs from exploiting and burning fossil fuels. These a few graphics make clear how different 2020 is from 2008.

According to Lazard,

• in 2009, onshore wind was an expensive electricity option and solar PV was an exorbitantly (literally off the charts in this case) electricity options.
• By 2019, both onshore wind and solar PV were less expensive than any other electricity option.

As Jonathan Foley, the director of Project Drawdown, reminds, this ‘got so cheap, so fast’ is happening across many clean-energy domains (efficiency, generation, data for better management, …).

To give credit where credit is due, a Zeke Hausfather tweet sparked this post:

Looking at Zeke’s tweet, at that simple graphic, really struck home even though the numbers and trends it points to are far from ‘news’.

“Clean energy has become cheap …”

In 2007, Google began the RE<C initiative.

Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal (RE<C) initiative through Google.org as an effort to drive down the cost of renewable energy.

Many (most?) viewed RE<C as a quixotic and potentially unrealistic quest in the near-term, seeing a need for pricing pollution as the most critical tool since renewables were seen as potentially never being ‘as cheap’ as polluting fuel usage where the pollution wasn’t counted in the financial transactions. While Google walked away from RE<C after a few years (leaving this to others), that RE<C vision was met for much of the world within about a decade and is a more powerfully true equation with every passing day. And, as the Lazard graphic above makes clear, it is RE<C, RE<O (oil), RE<FG (fossil gas), and, increasingly, just RE<FF (Renewable energy at a lower cost than fossil fuels).

PEOTUS Obama lived in a world where RE<C / RE<O, RE<FG, RE<FF was an aspirational vision.

PEOTUS Biden lives in a world where this is reality.

Upfront truth

An electric car is a relatively low-polluting vehicle today and will be even less polluting tomorrow.

All things being equal, electric vehicles (EVs) reduce pollution loads.

Now, fossil-foolish defenders of business as usual don’t want people to understand this as part of their drive to maintain fossil-fuel dependency and their own business profits.

From the UK, a rapid fire uncovering of the truth behind a media splash of credulous reporting of yet another “report” (falsely) showing that EVs are a more polluting option than internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. For reasons that will be made clear, this is AstonGate.

Now, for some simple truths

• Glossy brochures often gloss over truth, shiny objects that distort rather than inform
• (Too) Many journalists/media outlets are ready consumers of glossy spoon-fed lies that provide easy click-bait
• Lies travel faster, with more impact, that corrective analysis
• Truth-tellers, today, are often (mainly) doing it on their own time, with their own energy, with little recognition, and,
• We do well to boost the efforts of truth-tellers to help fight back disinformation and deceit.

Before getting into Aston Gate, a tip of the hat to two truth tellers who tag-teamed to get to the bottom of the situation rapidly.

• Auke Hoekstra is a Dutch researcher who has done fantastic work on, for example, detailing how major international forecasting has been consistent in serious pessimism about the speed of renewable energy price declines and penetration into the marketplace.
• Michael Liebreich, the UK founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and, in addition to being an insightful analyst and effective executive, one of the best communicators about substantive financial analysis of energy trends and the future of renewable energy.

Now to #AstonGate.

How long does it take for an EV to be better than an ICE?

When it comes to energy and energy usage, a very large share of the time the better “life-cycle” option uses more energy upfront. An efficient home to operate has more insulation, better design, and higher quality heating/cooling systems that increase purchase price while lowering the annual energy costs. An LED light bulb costs more to buy than an incandescent but the energy savings means it pays for itself in months. Same is true for clean electrons (solar, wind, nuclear) compared to coal or natural gas. And, so on, a myriad of cases where there is a higher cost to buy (CtB) with a lower cost to own (CtO). That is not just a financial cost, but also pollution as ‘clean'(er) options often have more upfront energy and pollution but quickly are the ‘cleaner’ option due to lowered use of polluting energy.

This is true for EVs as well (at least right now). An electric vehicle, due primarily to battery costs and resource requirements, will cost more to buy and will have a higher pollution load the day it comes out of the factory than a similar combustion engine vehicle. However, that gap between the two of them begins to fall as soon as they are put into use: lower costs to operate and lower pollution per mile/kilometer driven. The question: how fast.

Now, reported in numerous European outlets, a shocker of a (heads-up: false) story that it takes 48,000 miles for an electric vehicle to catch up to an ICE when it comes to pollution loads. Drive 10,000 miles a year and, well, you won’t make up that embedded pollution load for nearly five years.

Up to the plate: Auke Hoekstra

As is his wont, Auke saw headlines spreading across Europe (popping into his emails and Twitter thread, almost certain), knew something was wrong with what he was seeing, and started to scratch the surface.

In short, follow Auke’s thread, this “analysis” came from a PR firm and doesn’t cite a single analyst. Taking to heart ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, this brochure’s data presentation:

• Distorted by using European electricity pollution for ‘manufacturing’ the ICE vehicle and Chinese for the EV;
• Only counted the pollution load of fuel after it had been delivered to the ICE’s tank, not the pollution to find, exploit, transport, and refine the fuel; and
• Assumed a very highly polluting electricity system for counting EV pollution.

As he scratches away with a more honest, apples-to-apples analysis, Auke concludes that a more honest pollution-load break-even point is about 16k, not 48k, miles.

Auke ends with a plea to journalists to “please be less gullible”.

And a handoff to Liebreich

Liebreich takes the inbound from Hoekstra seriously and starts his own digging. He documents and uncovers

• That the publishing PR firm, Clarendon Communications, was newly formed and has only one Director;
• That Clarendon is impressive in its obscure nature.
• That Clarendon’s sole director might just be the wife of Aston Martin’s Director of Global Government and Corporate Affairs (who owns the property where Clarendon is registered).

Liebreich asks (sarcasm warning):

Suppose this were a sock-puppet PR company, set up by @AstonMartin to spread misinformation about the environmental performance of EVs in general and a competitor’s EV in particular – that would be a great story for a transport correspondent like @GraemePaton, no?

And, Liebreich questions whether media outlets will own up to being owned.

Yeah, just suppose that this was a sock-puppet public relations firm to spread misinformation that has made its way broadly into public discourse via gullible reporters without the time, background, resources, nor inclination to dig deeply into material spoon fed to them. Nah … something like that just wouldn’t ever occur … Nothing to see here.

As Auke responded to Michael,

Sad thing about all this, if they’d used a professional PR firm, this would all be ‘normal’.

Hoekstra & Liebreich aren’t alone

Their are others calling foul on this flimsy disinformation and media click-baiting articles about it. James Morris, the editor of WhichEV, has an excellent piece up at Forbes: Electric Vehicles ARE A Silver Bullet For Zero Emissions – Don’t Believe The Fossil Fuel Hype. Within that, Morris suggests that the ‘break-even’ point might be ballpark 11,000 miles (rather than 48k or even Hoekstra’s 16k). He concludes

As with the self-driving hybrid con, some people will read the headlines, not dig deeper for the details, and fall for this attempt to blacken the green credentials of EVs. But taking a step back, it just seems rather sad. When you look at the constantly falling price of EV batteries, making a $25,000 Tesla possible by 2023, and the drive towards greener battery production, the mass arrival of BEVs seems inevitable. Batteries won’t replace every transportation type – they are best suited to personal cars, bikes, and scooters – but they are much, much greener than fossil fuel cars. With adequate charging infrastructure, they can decrease CO2 emissions considerably and improve air quality dramatically. They really are a silver bullet for emissions neutrality; don’t believe the hype from companies with heavy fossil fuel bias.

On a related note: Chocolate

For an excellent discussion of how easy it is to spoon feed misinformation with ‘scientific’ underpinnings into widespread media coverage, look no further than the click-baiting about how (NOT TRUTHFUL) eating dark chocolate is an excellent diet tool.

And, related note two: Dutch Coal Plants & EVs

While there are innumerable examples of such falsehoods, this item reminded me when there was a story being pushed around the globe (with stories in such minor outlets as The Washington Post) that Dutch coal plants were being built to meet electric vehicle electricity demands. False in so many ways but (a) the coal plants were contracted far before EVs started to enter the Dutch market and (b) total EV electricity demand was less than one percent of the two coal plants’ production capacity.

UPDATE (1 Dec 2020): Liebreich has published an excellent post documenting AstonGate: Astongate: fake emission figures, an embattled carmaker and a sock puppet PR company that (a) really is worth the read, (b) has substance beyond what is highlighted above, and (c) provides some backdrop that I wasn’t aware of, notably that the ‘handoff’ between Hoekstra & Liebreich wasn’t by happenstance:

Now, it’s not a secret that the “embodied emissions” involved in building an electric vehicle are higher than those of an equivalent internal combustion vehicle – all those batteries – so it is obvious you have to drive for some number of miles before an EV makes sense from an emissions perspective. But 48,000? Given that the average UK car drives around 7,000 miles per year, that means it could take seven years for an EV to break even.

One thing immediately struck me: the report (which you can find here) appears to have been sponsored by a list of transport industry players not known for their leading positions in EVs: Aston Martin, Bosch, Honda, McLaren, Optare and the Renewable Transport Fuel Association.

So I immediately shot the article over to Auke Hoekstra, Senior Advisor on Electric Mobility at the Eindhoven Technical University. Auke is the probably the world’s leading expert on life-cycle emissions of EVs, diesel and petrol cars. He has published peer reviewed papers on the topic, but on twitter he is known as the Debunker-in-Chief, famous for his threads demolishing bogus report after bogus report that claim EVs are worse for emissions than internal combustion vehicles:

UPDATE 2 (3 Dec 2020): Aston Gate is getting traction, including a front page story in the The Guardian. Honestly, I don’t know of a case of amateur debunking that got attention and reaction so broadly and quickly before. A taste of what is happening.

UPDATE 6 December:

Over a three-week period, the Clean Energy For Biden (CE4Biden) Clean Energy Summit has showcased dozens of proposals for consideration (and action) by the Biden-Harris transition team for action in the coming year(s). While, to be clear, these proposals are not all-encompassing of the opportunities and requirements for clean-energy action nor are they institutionally endorsed by CE4B, these proposals are uniformly thoughtful, substantive, and meriting of consideration.

Tomorrow evening, 30 November, is the final Summit session focused on innovation (registration).

A common theme across CE4B’s policy proposals is the need for increased funding for clean energy research, development and demonstration, accelerating domestic deployment as well as enhancing U.S. global competitiveness, consistent with the Biden Plan’s call for a $400 billion clean energy innovation investment over ten years. The proposals at this summit on innovation urge federal attention to removing barriers, enhancing U.S. competitiveness, and adopting national standards to advance clean energy deployment.

“Innovation” isn’t just in the laboratory but also in regulation, financing, and beyond. The 14 proposals reflect this and range from ‘tech-heavy’ industrial spaces (hydrogen production, advanced nuclear) to refocused finance (climate bank, valuing demand response) to fostering shifted acceptance of ‘clean’ options (such as regenerative agriculture).

With keynotes from Representative Deb Haaland, former head of ARPAE Cheryl Martin, and clean-energy financier Trenton Allen in addition to the papers, this should be an interesting and substantive evening.

About CE4Biden and the proposals/Summit

CE4Biden mobilized clean-energy professionals of all stripes (key industry business executives, front-line workers, research engineers, environmental equity activists, bureaucrats, …) to work together to help elect President-Elect Joe Biden and VP-Elect Harris. Activities included raising $millions via events show-casing clean-energy leaders and issues; and mobilizing the 11,000 members for phone and text banking. Within CE4B was an opportunity: develop policy concepts, to be reviewed and edited together as a package for submittal to the Biden transition team. (To be clear, “while CE4B facilitated the development of the recommendations , CE4B does not endorse or take a position on any of the policy recommendations, as they are [the author’s] personal/professional views and [not attributable to] CE4B.”) That package is long and substantive (16-page introduction pdf; the 442 page total document), meriting reading and consideration within the drive for fostering a rapid COVID19 economic recovery to Build Back Better with a cleaner, prosperous, and more equitable economy in the years and decades to come.

The first Summit evening, 16 November, focused on Infrastructure and the second, 23 November, on Equity. While not available for viewing at this time, the Summit team intends to have all three evenings available for viewing in the near future.

If interested in a thoughtful and substantive evening featuring CE4B members laying out their innovative thinking about proposals to innovate us (the U.S.) toward a clean, prosperous, equitable future, register for the Innovation evening of the CE4B Energy Summit.

This morning, (un)Real Donald Trump tweeted out boosting a careerist who has made a fortune in propagating climate-science denialism. Once a Jim ‘snowballs disprove science’ Inhofe staffer, that careerist — Marc Morano — merits distinction as the Andrew Breitbart of the climate-science denial world.

Breitbart [specialises in] twisting the truth,
editing video to make black look like white and up look like down —
that’s the stuff of hocus-pocus and snake oil;
it’s not the work of the journalist.

Well, when it comes to the echo chamber of deceptive truthiness and outright deceit in the arena of climate change, sadly there is a pantheon of Breitbarts to chose from who are actively disseminating confusing material and outright falsehoods with gullible (or collaborating) journalists always ready to echo their falsehoods and give them voice in “faux and balanced” Global Warming reporting.

If, however, forced to narrow down in this pantheon of anti-science syndrome sufferers, there seems to be one name that sinks to the bottom: Marc Morano.

Morano’s career path includes Swift Boating Senator Kerry, being “Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington””, writing an article for the Family Research Council (in the 80s) attacking those seeking resources for AIDS research and funding, promoting and pushing Coronavirus denialism and dismissal of COVID19 implications & need for concerted action, etc … etc … etc …

For far too long, like Breitbart, Morano had a gold pass of access to too many journalists with lots of private conversations to influence reporting and many quotations to boost his reputation. One of the benefits of the past decade: credible outlets have reduced their credulity of Morano’s lies and ever-less frequently been giving an aura of credibility to him.

And, sadly, too many have had to spend too much time debunking his deceit to help credible journalists and outlets understand why Morano didn’t merit being given even a crumb of credibility in their reporting. Just a few tastes of this.

• Climate Hustle 2 is simply BS (and, well, a BAD mockumentary) showcasing the thinning roster of aging climate-science deniers.
• A Sourcewatch on Morano and his science denialism and DeSmogBlog’s take

Marc Morano has been called “the Matt Drudge of climate denial,” the “king of the skeptics,” and “a central cell of the climate-denial machine,” and he revels in these descriptions. Although he has no scientific expertise, he is adamant that manmade global warming is a “con job” based on “subprime science.”  … Morano is paid by an industry-funded group to run the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. At Climate Depot, Morano serves as the de facto research department for the right-wing media’s attacks on climate science, and mobilizes his readers to target individual scientists and reporters for telling the public about climate change threats. 

Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: Marc Morano, MMfA, 2012

As a reporter for the ExxonMobil-funded Conservative News Service, Morano helped launch the swift-boat campaign attacking John F. Kerry’s military service in Vietnam. He then went to work as communications director for the leading climate change denier in the Senate, James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), and he brought “swift boating” to climate science. Among his targets has been James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies and an authoritative voice calling for action on climate change. Morano labeled Hansen a “wannabe Unabomber” who supports “ridding the world of industrial civilization,” “razing cities” and “blowing up dams.”

Michael Mann & Tom Toles, 2016

Morano is a long-time paid denier, which means there’s plenty of stuff out there about how he’s… not exactly a reliable expert. He even makes it into the Merchant of Doubt film trailer (and even more in the book) emphasizing ‘I’m not a scientist but sometimes I play one.”

Considering this record, it should surprise no one that Morano has remained a darling of the fossil-foolish climate deniers like DICK (Denier-In-Chief Kleptocrat) Trump.

Energy Dominance

Now, as is typical of Trump’s 10,000s of lies as President, today’s tweet is multifaceted in the ignorance and deceit — it isn’t just about climate-science denial.

To the extent that the United States has “energy dominance” (a long, complicated, and debatable discussion) due to oil and natural gas (ONG) booms, let us be clear: the path to “dominance” started well before Trump (Thank You (?), Obama) and the gains in US ONG production to date were overwhelming either prior to Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office or investment streams/planned well before Team Trump was in control. As AP put it back in 2017,

THE FACTS: … energy production was unleashed during Obama’s presidency, largely because of advances in hydraulic fracturing that made it economical to tap vast reserves of natural gas. Oil production also greatly increased, reducing imports. [Under Obama,] the U.S. for the first time in decades was getting more energy domestically than it imports. 

Turning to another space, Trump has loved to brag about stock market performance (which, again, boomed even more under Obama …). Notable: while the United States moved to (fossil-foolish) “energy dominance”, the firms core that dominance have underperformed the stock market, provided negative returns to investors, and many haven’t even been able to earn enough to pay off their loans (let alone profits).

However, really, what is ‘energy dominance’ really? Boosting oil and natural gas production and reliance (forget coal, which has fallen under Trump) is not a path for ‘dominance’ in a world that is increasingly dominated by policies and economic imperatives for low-carbon solutions. Instead, such fossil-foolish approaches create huge risks and vulnerabilities (fiscal, reputational, climate, …). True “energy dominance” will come from harnessing clean energy to create a prosperous, climate-friendly society and leveraging this to boost national security (through sharing globally) and the economy (creating jobs, boosting industries, driving exports).

To be quite clear, the Biden-Harris Build Back Better plan is serious, achievable, and will radically change the U.S. energy and climate path forward for the better. With that declarative truth done, on the eve of the last “debate” where climate is set to be a full 15 minute discussion, a moment of reflection on two framing issues from VP Biden and Senator (soon to be VP) Harris from the debate stage.

• Build Back Better & Green New Deal have a common ‘framework’ … with substantive policy and path differences
• A President can’t ban Fracking … but can do a lot to reduce its negative impacts in the near and long term.

The Department of Defense (DOD) is the largest single user of energy in the world and, directly, represents about one percent of total U.S. energy demand. Indirectly, considering the full DOD impact (workforce(s), contractors, use of commercial transportation, …), the DOD true energy demand could be well above five percent of total U.S. energy usage and thus ballpark one percent of global energy usage (as US is about 17% of total global demand).  While well below aggregated demand from transportation, buildings, and agriculture, this is an impressive figure. To paraphrase Sutton’s law, we need to focus on DOD because that’s where the energy is.

For far too long, for most in the Department, energy was simply a given — something that the logistics personnel would get to the forces and something the financiers would pay for.  While a cadre of analysts, including the Defense Science Board (DSB), sought to get DOD leadership (uniformed and civilian) to focus on “fully burdened cost of fuel” (FBCF) (what the true costs and implications of energy use are), this remained a back-burner issue until it became clear that a high share of casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq resulted from forward force fuel demands and the significant share of logistics (e.g., convoys) required to deliver fuel to forward operating forces and bases.  This also occurred during significant oscillation of and high peaking of oil prices along with increasing (and, in near term, erroneous) concerns about nearing peak oil supply. 

Thus, by the end of the Bush Administration, there were serious efforts underway to better understand energy implications (such as, again, the DSB) within DOD and to reduce the Department’s reliance on fossil fuels (from domestic installations to forward operating forces).  Those efforts accelerated under President Obama.

From Marine Corps outposts using solar panels to reduce diesel demand (and thus refueling requirements) by about 50 percent to hybrid-electric ships cutting fuel demand by about 15 percent to installing LED lights thoughout installations to solar panels proliferating on military facilities, the DOD energy picture has seen real change over the past 20 years. 

These measures, through life-cycle, almost certainly are saving the Department (and taxpayers) money as taking Energy Smart measures are typically (near universally) also fiscally smart measures. Far more importantly, these measures are improving capabilities while reducing risks.  Let’s take that hybrid-electric ship: greater fuel efficiency translates to longer range (e.g. more capability) and reduced requirements for refueling at sea (and thus less vulnerability).  With those real benefits, who cares whether it saves a penny or reduces pollution? An energy efficient domestic base with renewable energy sources within the wire might save the taxpayer money while reducing pollution but, in terms of the DOD mission, is far more resilient in the face of (either natural or manmade) threats to grid electricity.

While much has happened over the past twenty years, there are still significant opportunities to improve DOD capabilities, boost resiliency, and reduce financial burdens through Energy Smart practices, policies, and procurement.  

On 6 October, Clean Energy for Biden will host a virtual event focused on these opportunities. A panel that includes legislative, policy, and operational experience will explore Clean Energy & the Department of Defense in a Biden-Harris Administration. Speakers will include

• Representative Adam Smith (D-WA-9) House Armed Services Committee Chair
• The Honorable Dorothy Robyn, Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment
• The Honorable Sharon Burke, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy
• Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy (retired), former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations & Environment

This virtual discussion will focus on why clean energy matters for the Department of Defense (and the military services) and explore potential DOD clean-energy agendas and opportunities in a Biden-Harris Administration.

Yom Kippur … the Day of Atonement.

After the period of reflection and engagement with others between Rosh HaShanah and Yom Kippur, this is a moment to turn to internal considerations and the relationship between the individual and G-d.

As part of the prayers for the Day of Atonement, the Vidui, the Al Cheyt or recital of sins, is perhaps the most important. (Modern Judaism being what it is, there are a myriad of translations and modern variations on the Vidui/Al Chet.)

A key word: Ashamnu or “we have sinned”.

Ashamnu is a recognition of individual and communal failures. The Al Cheyt is a recognition and statement about sins by ourselves (and our community) against others, against oneself, against G-d through action … and inaction.

It is clear:

• One can do wrong purposefully and explicitly … and one can do wrong inadvertently and indirectly.
• One can do wrong through action and words … and one can do wrong through inaction and silence.
• And, one can … one should … one must act to recognize the wrongs that we, all — as individuals and communities, have done, seek to redress them, and work to avoid them into the future.

This Yom Kippur comes amid a divisive and ugly American Presidential campaign.

Amid the very stark difference between the two candidates, perhaps the starkest relates to climate change.

• Donald Trump, reflecting core GOP value streams, rejects climate science and promotes policy concepts (to the extent that he has actual policy concepts) that would worsen the problem (and, perhaps, be the final nail in the coffin on hopes to avert truly catastrophic climate change).
• Joe Biden, in stark contrast, accepts (climate) science, uses it to guide her policy concepts and views, and has laid out a serious agenda to have the coronavirus recovery centered on clean energy, energy efficiency, environmental justice, and other climate mitigation/adaptation programs and achievements.

Simply put, Donald Trump is to continue to act to worsen the climate crisis and Joe Biden plans to #ActOnClimate.

In our political sphere, there was once too much ‘climate silence’, a  silence in our political leadership and among too many of us in the of rabid climate science denial and on the damage we are doing to the planetary system, the risks of climate change, and the urgent necessity for meaningful change to change our path toward something that enables sustainable prosperity for humanity.  In September 2020, on this Yom Kippur, on the eve of what might be the most momentous election of U.S. (even global) history, that silence is gone.  It is replace by the stark contrast outlined above.

Yom Kippur — including the viddui — is not typically focused on politics and political action.

It is, however, a time for reflection on our relationships and actions, including setting ourselves on the paths to addressing our failures — in essence, soul-searching to lay out a self-improvement agenda.

Amid this soul-searching, the piercing challenge of climate change, one action set is clear: we must work to push the political system (politicians) to #ActOnClimate.

And, with the stark contrast in our political structure, to make that a reality requires action 3 November:

Vote #Climate.

Vote to put the Democratic Party in charge of the Senate.

Vote for Joe Biden.

Vote to #ActOnClimate

From a Yom Kippur sermon leading into a Viddui recitation,

This is Yom Kippur.

This is a night for confession.

So let us be honest.

If ever there was a time for candor, this is it.

We humans are not good with limits.

We are pushing the planet and its animal resources to the limit.

We want what we want when we want it.

We pretty much take, hunt, fish, and consume until someone or something stops us or until there is no more to be taken.

Do you remember the Viddui we will be reciting in a few minutes? It’s the Confession prayer that lists our sins alphabetically.

a…b…c…

We abuse. We besmirch. We consume. We destroy. We excuse ourselves. We forget the consequences of our actions. We are greedy.

I could continue through the alphabet, and I should go on because, as the saying goes, although religion ought to comfort the afflicted, religion also needs to afflict the comfortable. And we truly do need to be uncomfortable tonight. Remember an alternate name for Yom Kippur is Yom Ha-Din…the Day of Judgment. This night is meant to be a time for severity.

“a time of severity”.

We are living in a time of consequences, a time where humanity’s future (and our own, unless you are on your deathbed, futures) require confronting Inconvenient Truth, and acting in this regard.

The individual matters and we need, for Yom Kippur, to judge ourselves with “severity” — to push our own comfortable ways as to whether we ‘sin’ and damage and harm unknowingly or knowingly.

“I am doing what I can.”

I (and my family) recycle … I (and my family) walk and bike often where others are jumping in their cars … I engage with others to educate about climate issues and energy smart practices/opportunities … I have changed my career to work solely on clean energy / climate mitigation related opportunities …

But, judging in severity, there is certainty that “I” can do more.

“I” can find more droplets to carry as part of a larger effort to douse the mounting flames of Climate Chaos. And, perhaps most importantly, I can continued to fight to end climate silence and to have climate action/climate justice core to my vote (and political activism).

“I am doing what I can.”

Yom Kippur is the Day of Atonement as individual — an individual’s reckoning. Yet … yet … yet … it is also communal, the individual is part of something larger.

We live within a society. And, while each of us has a voice and role in that society, there are things that are beyond us as individuals to control. We — whether Libertarian or Socialist, Democrat or Republican, Christian or Muslim, male or female — are part of a community. Truthfully, there is no such thing as that perfect person (take a look and reflect on the Al Cheyt) nor is there such a thing as a perfect leader. But, we should recognize our own faults and seek to change our patterns. And, we should look to our leaders’ faults and seek to help them change for the better.

Most of all, we cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now.

Who said this? Senator Barack Obama in 2007.

Sadly, during the 2012 election, our political elite provided crickets … true  without discussion of climate in debates or speeches.

Regretfully, in the 2016 election, climate change — despite Hillary Clinton’s policy laydown and a few truly excellent speeches — was barely been an afterthought in discussions.

Here — in 2020 — we are in another political season and, yet again, the vast majority of political consultants seem to tell candidates not to talk about climate change even though the climate crisis has worsened, the vast majority of Americans want more climate news and discussion, and the vast majority of Democratic Party voters put climate as a (if not the) top-tier issue. And, far too many follow that advice. Some — some — however don’t. These include Vice President Biden, Senator Kamala Harris, and a number Climate Hawks who are taking leadership roles to help shift the political and public discussion.

Amid our horrific political environment, where one political party is dominated and control by individuals and organizations suffering from an acute case of anti-science syndrome, real (political reality, not physical reality) barriers exist to the beneficial and cost-effective paths to mitigate Climate Chaos that should be at the centerpiece of national discussion and national investment.  Erev Yom Kippur, as Donald Trump wreaks havoc on society and the climate, Joe Biden stood up to boost climate issues in national discussion.

What has been barrier to necessary action?

That too few leaders speak truthfully and forcefully on climate change. (To be clear, there are important exceptions. For example, Senator Whitehouse a shining example to others about leaning forward to speak forcefully and thoughtfully on climate change.)

We must seek ourselves and encourage our leaders to move beyond political expediency to leadership, to truthful and forceful engagement to help move the Overton Window on climate change from delusional science denial and ridicule to realistic engagement with the risks and opportunities.

We, ourselves, must be Climate Hawks. Being able to survey the entirety of the situation and see, with eagle-eyed vision, targets meriting attention. Beyond ourselves, we must encourage leaders — whether in our churches, schools, or Halls of Congress — to be Climate Hawks.

We don’t talk about it … even though we must …

As George Marshall has so eloquently discussed, not only is climate change a ‘wicked problem’ of complex interactions but it is a ‘wicked problem’ that is fundamentally at odds with how we, as humans, engage with the world around us.

Climate Change

We sin … we do wrong through action and words.

We sin, we do wrong through inaction and silence.

“I am doing what I can.”

We sin by not doing what we can …

On Tuesday, November 3th (actually, early voting likely mid-October), I can — I will — vote for climate action. I will

vote for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

NOTE: This is a variation of previous posts.

• 2016: Ashamnu: we have transgressed on climate change
• 2013: Listen to the Hummingbird: We have transgressed
• 2012: Ashamnu: We have transgressed with climate silence

While many (with reason) pay attention to the Republicans’ Supreme Court machinations, the climate emergency worsens.

While the media focuses discussions on horse races, rather than substance, Antarctic shelves are breaking up.

While the first Presidential debate doesn’t have a section related to climate change, California burns & Atlantic hurricanes have run out of names & …

Physical reality doesn’t bow to political reality — no matter the nightmarish and nearly unbelievably dystopian nature of America’s political reality — and climate’s physical reality is worsening with every passing second even as climate denialism continues.

This evening, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Professor Naomi Oreskes will take an hour to reflect on climate denialism in a Clean Energy For Biden event moderated by the Nancy Sutley, the former Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. 

Sen. Whitehouse has been one of the most serious climate hawks in the Senate. He has given speech after speech on the floor on a range of climate issues, introduced legislation, and spear-headed efforts to bring attention to — for example — the US Chamber of Commerce’s wrong-headed role in promoting climate science denialism.

Prof. Oreskes is one of the world’s leading historians on environmental issues and her book Merchants of Doubt remains a go-to reference and documentation of the systematic effort to create doubt as to climate change issues as a tool to undermine effective (or, well, any) climate mitigation efforts (that would, for example, threaten fossil fool business interests’ profits). 

This should be a great discussion — please join in/register here (referral code: 102328013)

And, if you want Joe Biden to recognize that climate and clean energy matter to voters (to you as a voter), one way to signal this is to make your contributions (as I do) through events/activities/groups that relate to climate change and clean energy.  If you want to signal while getting to hear from three top-notch voices on climate change science denial, then please join in/register here (referral code: 102328013).

Note: Clean Energy for Biden fundraising and GOTV events.

Which sounds most appealing to you (assuming you aren’t vegetarian)?

• Vat-grown protein
• In-vitro meat
• Test-tube meat
• Cell-cultured meat
• Clean Meat

Hmmm … was that really that hard?

Some simple truths:

• Meat consumption has a heavy climate footprint (“dire consequences for the planet“)
• Animal husbandry, writ large, has become ever-less humane
  • with ever-more laws and efforts to hide the inhumane nature of industrial husbandry from the public
• Health impacts from this husbandry, industrial processing, and the (often poor) quality/nature of the meat products are significant.
• As they grow wealthier, humans (nearly uniformly) want more meat
• While vegetarian diets can ‘solve’ the meat dilemma, the share of vegetarians in developed economies has remained relatively stable over time …

Humans want meat. They ask “Where’s the beef?” And, there are more of those “humans” going up the economic spectrum every day, thus the “where’s the beef” chorus gets louder with every passing moment.

The United Nations reports that animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gas emissions than all of our cars, trucks, boats, and planes combined. It’s also a leading cause of rainforest destruction,03:11air, water, and soil degradation; and on top of all that, it’s just a grossly inefficient way to produce our food.

We have, it seems, two inextricable trends that can’t both continue indefinitely: either humanity stops eating meat from today’s climate-wrecking husbandry or, well, we lock in climate catastrophe.

A variety of researchers and firms are taking on this challenge (to reduce dramatically the environmental impacts while satisfying people’s “meat protein” desires) and are increasingly entering the market place. Fundamentally, there are two basic approaches.

The first seeks, in essence, to trick the palate: creating meat-eating like experiences using grains and vegetables. This offers significant environmental (reduced land, water, and emissions impacts of about 90 percent) along with reduced health impacts (though many current products have, for example, high salt content). Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are two preeminent examples of this, with serious investors and valuations with products showing up in restaurants, fast-food outlets, and on grocery store shelves. When it comes to these, as one reporter put it,

Both burgers were a breakthrough in the fake meat world, where previous veggie burgers were derided as tasteless pucks. If the goal is to get humans to eat less meat — for their health and the health of the planet — making a burger that simulates the taste and texture of meat is critical in winning converts.

Hmmm … “fake meat” doesn’t necessarily get buy-in from omnivorous humanity.

Another option is to grow meat: grow it not on the hoofs but in vats. To culture the meat from cells rather than raise living creatures for slaughter. ‘Vat-grown meat’, like plant-based options, offers easily order-of-magnitude environmental benefits like the plant-based products while delivering “meat”. While we already are eating significant amounts of vat-grown products (Omega-3 supplements in milk are just one example, and, well, there are always wine and beer to consider), these are essentially plant based food products. There is serious investment and valuation in firms pursuing cultured meat production.

Should, can, and how will ‘cultured meat” satisfy human craving for meat?

With Clean Meat, Paul Shapiro has provided an excellent introduction into cellular agriculture. “This isn’t a substitute or replacement for meat, but meat without the animal.”

This is a technology revolution: growing leather; growing tuna; growing foie gras; growing beef; growing chicken meat in the “second domestication” which will offers the potential for continued meat eating and use of animal-based products (leather) with a softer hand on the planet and better human health.

If lab meats can replicate the taste and texture of traditional meat — at a lower cost and with fewer downsides — it would be a game-changer for global nutrition.

One way to consider the situation,

“Factory farming is kind of like coal mining. It’s pollutes and it’s damaging our planet, but it gets the job done. Cellular agriculture is like renewable energy when it was still its nascence. It has the promise of getting the same job done, but without so many terrible side effects.” Isha Data, CEO, New Harvest [p 19]

This is a rich and important space — with serious opportunities for radically changing humanity’s food system and impact on the planet. It also is a technology with massively disruptive impacts (and opportunities) for farmers, animal husbandry, slaughter houses, large multi-national firms, veterinary medical services (from rural vets to drug firms), animal transportation, and so much more. Vested interests with threatened revenue mean opposition.

This is an example of where, with passion and government, techno-optimism provides a viable vision of an improved life style with much lower climate impact.

If this works, slaughtering animals for the table could become something like hunting within a few decades. Only the ‘richest’, hobbyist, and ‘poorest’ eating from slaughtered animals (luxury, entertainment, & necessity).

Let’s be clear, clean meat has many challenges to overcome before it becomes a mainstream item. And, these aren’t minor as per these examples of still to overcome issues from a scientist acquaintance:

Culture media: Growing cells in a lab requires culture media that contain the nutrients to feed the cells. This is generally accomplished by using Fetal Bovine Calf Serum (FBS) in the media – generally at a concentration of 10%. There are two concerns with this:

1. it negates the very first goal of producing meat in a lab (bypassing animal farming);

2. there are already concerns of shortage of sources of FBS for research purposes (basic science and biomedical science), it does not seem to be a viable option for an industrial production of meat. [Note: scientists are trying to identify alternatives to FBS or develop serum-free media; perhaps that would solve the issue]

Pollution: growing cells in a lab is not a “green” activity. Everything needs to be performed in sterile environment: all materials (generally all plastic) are single-use and need to be disposed in biological waste containers for “safe” destruction in incinerators; at an industrial scale, closed systems may help reduce this waste (tbd).

Challenges are there but could, well, be ameliorated (solved) through concerted effort. And, the benefits from Clean Meat are so large that dedicated investment to make that effort is more than merited.

Consider just some of those benefit streams:

• No antibiotics
• No salmonella, otherwise
  • Roughly 48M Americans/year sicked by contaminated food (Salmonella) … biggest is chicken & turky meat
• Ability to control fat/etc content
• No land damage
• Localized production possible (think local brewery)
• Greatly reduced water & feed usage for animal husbandry
• Pretty much ‘total transparency’ (think about the bar with brewery there … will restaurants have vats where they directly grow for their own tables?)
  • Tour a factory like touring a brewery — and then have a burger at the end of the tour …
• Eliminates moral issues with meat consumption
  • And, ends figuring out who is vegan or meat eating for that dinner party ….

We live in an age of massive change. LED lights were expensive and unusual a decade ago and dominate lighting today. Solar and wind are growing exponentially. Companies that didn’t exist 20 years ago, like Facebook & Tesla, are among the largest in the world and changing the world.

In 2010, this space wasn’t much more than a rarely expressed fantasy (that dated back awhile, after all Winston Churchill wrote essay in 1931 about ability to “growing parts separately under a suitable medium” rather than growing whole chickens [p 8]) with limited research and miniscule investment. In 2013, the first burger (a $330, 000 burger) was cooked and eaten at a press event. More than a few products are on the verge of market introduction. In 2010, with the exception of exception of synthetic rennet-makers supplying the cheese industry, not a single food company was growing animal products outside of the animal commercially. “In fact, not a single one of the companies profiled in this book even existed.” [p 222] Within a few years, more than a few of these could be household names.

What’s the hold up?

“Regulation, absolutely,” says Chase Purdy, Quartz reporter and author of a coming book about cell-cultured meat. “The technology is ready—the science has been there for a while.” he says. “It’s really all about governments around the world figuring out how to regulate these products.”

Incumbent opposition — recognizing fight by seeking to ban use of term “clean meat”

We have a three-way battle for our future when it comes to “meat”: traditional interests seeking to defend their space (incumbency); plant-based alternatives seeking to trick our taste buds into going vegan; and, cellular meat firms seeking to deliver meat without the slaughterhouse. The first path resembles fossil fuel firms — seeking to lock in, as long as possible, their profitability without regard to environmental and health costs and risks. The second two offer paths forward (within larger efforts for a sustainable agricultural system to feed humanity) without destroying the environment and improved human health. Reality is, there will be a mixture of the three … we will be much better off if the second two dominate.

“Humans are great at rationalizing our conduct so we don’t feel mental conflict about our behavior …” [p 233] Would Clean Meat availability directly confront this and make many walk away from slaughtered protein?

Now, going back to the opening question, it is clear that “clean meat” is a framing that works.

“It’s important because words matter in how we describe how something makes a big difference,” said Paul Shapiro, a top leader at Humane Society of the United States and author of Clean Meat. “You can only make a first impression once.”

Now, not only Shapiro recognized this reality. Sadly, so did the much larger, much stronger livestock world. And, thus, they forced the issue and got emergent firms to abandon the term “clean meat” and use “cell-based meat”. That weakened framing will, without question, slow Clean Meat’s penetration into the market-place and its role as a climate-solution tool.

Amid the fight to save endangered species, clean up rivers, end plastic pollution, address the climate crisis, and so many other environmental challenges, the painful realities of environmental injustice(s) too often seem to and/or are actually left-aside and left unaddressed within the activism. Picturing a polar bear on a melting iceberg doesn’t help in visualizing the urban youth asthma sufferers driven by diesel pollution or cancer clusters in minority communities suffering from chemical plant pollution. There are serious movements, at this time, that seem to be making a serious dent in (reversing) what has often been a seeming blind spot (for many) in seeking to create a cleaner future. From environmental organizations, to state legislatures, to the Democratic Party’s platform and VP Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, serious environmental justice actions and investments seem core to plans for moving forward toward a clean energy future. Tomorrow, Clean Energy For Biden is hosting an event that will directly address environmental (in)justice realities, challenges, and opportunities — and how VP Biden will drive for real environmental justice. In that discussion will be Representative Raúl Grijalva and 350.org‘s North American Director Tamara Toles O’Laughlin , moderated by the Center for American Progress’ VP for Energy & Environment Ms. Christy Goldfuss,

The title for this post comes from a reaction to active Twitter humor about jokes. Amid these mainly laughable moments was a painfully on one of tomorrow’s speakers:

I have a climate justice joke but nobody sees color.

Tamara Toles O’Laughlin

Perhaps, as might get discussed tomorrow, we are seeing — are creating — a new reality where climate and environmental justice are taken seriously as we — collectively — see color.

As to the CE4B event, for which the initial/lowest donation amount was deliberately set quite low ($10) to encourage broader participation, here are the details:

Clean Energy for Biden event on Environmental Justice

Monday, July 27, 2020 at 6:30 PM – 7:30 PM ET

Please join Clean Energy for Biden with Representative Raúl Grijalva and Ms. Tamara Toles O’Laughlin, moderated by Ms. Christy Goldfuss, for a discussion on environmental justice. Speakers will discuss what Vice President Joe Biden can do to support this important issue when he takes office, both by working on the ground with environmental justice communities and leaders, and with Congress. Joe Biden has demonstrated his commitment to this topic in his recently unveiled $2 trillion Build Back Better plan and this discussion will focus on what all of us can do to execute on this mission if he’s elected.

As a leading Congressional voice on environmental justice, Representative Grijalva has championed the Environmental Justice for All Act and has held several hearings on this topic through his role as Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee. Ms. Tamara Toles O’Laughlin is the North America Director of 350 Action and has long been a tireless advocate and leader for environmental justice policies, communities, and programs through her work in the state of Maryland and Washington D.C. Ms. Christy Goldfuss is the Vice President for Energy and Environment Policy at the Center for American Progress and led the White House Council on Environmental Quality under President Obama.

Note: Prior to the event, for a useful perspective on her thinking, see this 2015 O’Laughlin post: Why should you care about equity over equality in environmental work?