WASHINGTON (AP) — Methane escaping from the damaged Nord Stream pipelines that run between Russia and Europe is likely to result in the biggest known gas leak to take place over a short period of time and highlights the problem of large methane escapes elsewhere around the world, scientists say.
“From what I have seen this is an unprecedented loss to the atmosphere of fossil methane in a very short time from a concentrated source,’’ said President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Marcia McNutt. She oversaw American government efforts to assess the breadth of the 2010 BP oil spill the gulf of Mexico.
In this picture provided by Swedish Coast Guard, the gas leak in the Baltic Sea from Nord Stream photographed from the Coast Guard’s aircraft on Wednesday, Sept. 27, 2022.
Swedish Coast Guard via AP
Methane acts quickly to heat the Earth. The fact that it disappears faster from the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, “is probably small consolation to the citizens of Florida and other places who are already being hit by more frequent and more deadly tropical storms, supercharged by an ocean superheated by greenhouse gas releases to the atmosphere,” McNutt said in an email.
There is still uncertainty in estimating total damage, but researchers say vast plumes of this potent greenhouse gas will have significant detrimental impacts on the climate.
Immediate harm to marine life and fisheries in the Baltic Sea and to human health will also result because benzene and other trace chemicals are typically present in natural gas, researchers say.
“This will probably be the biggest gas leak ever, in terms of its rate,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson.
In this picture provided by Swedish Coast Guard, a small release from Nord Stream 2 is seen, Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2022.
Swedish Coast Guard via A
The velocity of the gas erupting from four documented leaks in the pipelines — which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has attributed to sabotage — is part of what makes the impacts severe.
When methane leaks naturally leaks from vents on the ocean floor, the quantities are usually small and the gas is mostly absorbed by seawater. “But this is not a normal situation for gas release,” said Jackson. “We’re not talking about methane bubbling up to the surface like seltzer water, but a plume of rushing gas,” he said.
Jackson and other scientists estimate that between 50% and nearly 100% of total methane emitted from the pipeline will reach the atmosphere.
The Danish government issued a worst case scenario that assumed all the gas reached the air, and German officials Thursday issued a somewhat lower one.
In the meantime, it’s nearly impossible for anyone to approach the highly flammable plume to attempt to curb the release of gas, which energy experts estimate may continue until Sunday.
“Methane is very flammable — if you go in there, you’d have a good chance of it being a funeral pyre,” said Ira Leifer, an atmospheric scientist. If the gas-air mix was within a certain range, an airplane could easily ignite travelling into the plume, for example.
Methane isn’t the only risk. “Natural gas isn’t refined to be super clean — there are trace elements of other compounds, like benzene,” a carcinogen, said Leifer.
“The amount of these trace elements cumulatively entering the environment is significant right now — this will cause issues for fisheries and marine ecosystems and people who potentially eat those fish,” he said.
David Archer, a professor in the geophysical sciences department at University of Chicago who focuses on the global carbon cycle, said that escape of methane in the Baltic Sea is part of the much larger worldwide problem of methane emissions.
The gas is a major contributor to climate change, responsible for a significant share of the climate disruption people are already experiencing. That is because it is 82.5 times more potent than carbon dioxide at absorbing the sun’s heat and warming the Earth, over the short term.
Climate scientist have found that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are far worse than what companies are reporting, despite claims by major companies that they’ve reduced their emissions.
Scientists measuring methane from satellites in space have found that emissions from oil and gas operations are usually at least twice as high as what the companies reported, said Thomas Lauvaux, climate scientist at University of Reims in France.
Many of those so-called leaks are not accidental. Companies release the gas during routine maintenance. Lauvaux and other scientists observed more than 1,500 major methane leaks globally, and potentially tens of thousands of smaller leaks, using satellites, he said.
AP reporters Patrick Whittle contributed from Portland, Maine, Seth Borenstein from Washington, DC., and Cathy Bussewitz from New York.
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Recently, after a week in which 2,789 Americans died of COVID-19, President Joe Biden proclaimed that “the pandemic is over.” Anthony Fauci described the controversy around the proclamation as a matter of “semantics,” but the facts we are living with can speak for themselves. COVID still kills roughly as many Americans every week as died on 9/11. It is on track to kill at least 100,000 a year—triple the typical toll of the flu. Despite gross undercounting, more than 50,000 infections are being recorded every day. The CDC estimates that 19 million adults have long COVID. Things have undoubtedly improved since the peak of the crisis, but calling the pandemic “over” is like calling a fight “finished” because your opponent is punching you in the ribs instead of the face.
American leaders and pundits have been trying to call an end to the pandemic since its beginning, only to be faced with new surges or variants. This mindset not only compromises the nation’s ability to manage COVID, but also leaves it vulnerable to other outbreaks. Future pandemics aren’t hypothetical; they’re inevitable and imminent. New infectious diseases have regularly emerged throughout recent decades, and climate change is quickening the pace of such events. As rising temperatures force animals to relocate, species that have never coexisted will meet, allowing the viruses within them to find new hosts—humans included. Dealing with all of this again is a matter of when, not if.
In 2018, I wrote an article in The Atlantic warning that the U.S. was not prepared for a pandemic. That diagnosis remains unchanged; if anything, I was too optimistic. America was ranked as the world’s most prepared country in 2019—and, bafflingly, again in 2021—but accounts for 16 percent of global COVID deaths despite having just 4 percent of the global population. It spends more on medical care than any other wealthy country, but its hospitalswerenonethelessoverwhelmed. It helped create vaccines in record time, but is 67th in the world in full vaccinations. (This trend cannot solely be attributed to political division; even the most heavily vaccinated blue state—Rhode Island—still lags behind 21 nations.) America experienced the largest life-expectancy decline of any wealthy country in 2020 and, unlike its peers, continued declining in 2021. If it had fared as well as just the average peer nation, 1.1 million people who died last year—a third of all American deaths—would still be alive.
America’s superlatively poor performance cannot solely be blamed on either the Trump or Biden administrations, although both have made egregious errors. Rather, the new coronavirus exploited the country’s many failing systems: its overstuffed prisons and understaffed nursing homes; its chronically underfunded public-health system; its reliance on convoluted supply chains and a just-in-time economy; its for-profit health-care system, whose workers were already burned out; its decades-long project of unweaving social safety nets; and its legacy of racism and segregation that had already left Black and Indigenous communities and other communities of color disproportionately burdened with health problems. Even in the pre-COVID years, the U.S. was still losing about 626,000 people more than expected for a nation of its size and resources. COVID simply toppled an edifice whose foundations were already rotten.
In furiously racing to rebuild on this same foundation, America sets itself up to collapse once more. Experience is reputedly the best teacher, and yet the U.S. repeated mistakes from the early pandemic when faced with the Delta and Omicron variants. It got early global access to vaccines, and nonetheless lost almost half a million people after all adults became eligible for the shots. It has struggled to control monkeypox—a slower-spreading virus for which there is already a vaccine. Its right-wing legislators have passed laws and rulings that curtail the possibility of important public-health measures like quarantines and vaccine mandates. It has made none of the broad changes that would protect its population against future pathogens, such as better ventilation or universal paid sick leave. Its choices virtually guarantee that everything that’s happened in the past three years will happen again.
The U.S. will continue to struggle against infectious diseases in part because some of its most deeply held values are antithetical to the task of besting a virus. Since its founding, the country has prized a strain of rugged individualism that prioritizes individual freedom and valorizes self-reliance. According to this ethos, people are responsible for their own well-being, physical and moral strength are equated, social vulnerability results from personal weakness rather than policy failure, and handouts or advice from the government are unwelcome. Such ideals are disastrous when handling a pandemic, for two major reasons.
First, diseases spread. Each person’s choices inextricably affect their community, and the threat to the collective always exceeds that to the individual. The original Omicron variant, for example, posed slightly less risk to each infected person than the variants that preceded it, but spread so quickly that it inundated hospitals, greatly magnifying COVID’s societal costs. To handle such threats, collective action is necessary. Governments need policies, such as vaccine requirements or, yes, mask mandates, that protect the health of entire populations, while individuals have to consider their contribution to everyone else’s risk alongside their own personal stakes. And yet, since the spring of 2021, pundits have mocked people who continue to think this way for being irrational and overcautious, and government officials have consistently framed COVID as a matter of personal responsibility.
Second, a person’s circumstances always constrain their choices. Low-income and minority groups find it harder to avoid infections or isolate when sick because they’re more likely to live in crowded homes and hold hourly-wage jobs without paid leave or the option to work remotely. Places such as prisons and nursing homes, whose residents have little autonomy, became hot spots for the worst outbreaks. Treating a pandemic as an individualist free-for-all ignores how difficult it is for many Americans to protect themselves. It also leaves people with vulnerabilities that last across successive pathogens: The groups that suffered most during the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009 were the same ones that took the brunt of COVID, a decade later.
America’s individualist bent has also shaped its entire health-care system, which ties health to wealth and employment. That system is organized around treating sick people at great and wasteful expense, instead of preventing communities from falling sick in the first place. The latter is the remit of public health rather than medicine, and has long been underfunded and undervalued. Even the CDC—the nation’s top public-health agency—changed its guidelines in February to prioritize hospitalizations over cases, implicitly tolerating infections as long as hospitals are stable. But such a strategy practically ensures that emergency rooms will be overwhelmed by a fast-spreading virus; that, consequently, health-care workers will quit; and that waves of chronically ill long-haulers who are disabled by their infections will seek care and receive nothing. All of that has happened and will happen again. America’s pandemic individualism means that it’s your job to protect yourself from infection; if you get sick, your treatment may be unaffordable, and if you don’t get better, you will struggle to find help, or even anyone who believes you.
In the late 19th century, many scholars realized that epidemics were social problems, whose spread and toll are influenced by poverty, inequality, overcrowding, hazardous working conditions, poor sanitation, and political negligence. But after the advent of germ theory, this social model was displaced by a biomedical and militaristic one, in which diseases were simple battles between hosts and pathogens, playing out within individual bodies. This paradigm conveniently allowed people to ignore the social context of disease. Instead of tackling intractable social problems, scientists focused on fighting microscopic enemies with drugs, vaccines, and other products of scientific research—an approach that sat easily with America’s abiding fixation on technology as a panacea.
The allure of biomedical panaceas is still strong. For more than a year, the Biden administration and its advisers have reassured Americans that, with vaccines and antivirals, “we have the tools” to control the pandemic. These tools are indeed effective, but their efficacy is limited if people can’t access them or don’t want to, and if the government doesn’t create policies that shift that dynamic. A profoundly unequal society was always going to struggle with access: People with low incomes, food insecurity, eviction risk, and no health insurance struggled to make or attend vaccine appointments, even after shots were widely available. A profoundly mistrustful society was always going to struggle with hesitancy, made worse by political polarization and rampantly spreading misinformation. The result is that just 72 percent of Americans have completed their initial course of shots and just half have gotten the first of the boosters necessary to protect against current variants. At the same time, almost all other protections have been stripped away, and COVID funding is evaporating. And yet the White House’s recent pandemic-preparedness strategy still focuses heavily on biomedical magic bullets, paying scant attention to the social conditions that could turn those bullets into duds.
Technological solutions also tend to rise into society’s penthouses, while epidemics seep into its cracks. Cures, vaccines, and diagnostics first go to people with power, wealth, and education, who then move on, leaving the communities most affected by diseases to continue shouldering their burden. This dynamic explains why the same health inequities linger across the decades even as pathogens come and go, and why the U.S. has now normalized an appalling level of COVID death and disability. Such suffering is concentrated among elderly, immunocompromised, working-class, and minoritycommunities—groups that are underrepresented among political decision makers and the media, who get to declare the pandemic over. Even when inequities are highlighted, knowledge seems to suppress action: In one study, white Americans felt less empathy for vulnerable communities and were less supportive of safety precautions after learning about COVID’s racial disparities. This attitude is self-destructive and limits the advantage that even the most privileged Americans enjoy. Measures that would flatten social inequities, such as universal health care and better ventilation, would benefit everyone—and their absence harms everyone, too. In 2021, young white Americans died at lower rates than Black and Indigenous Americans, but still at three times the rate of their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
By failing to address its social weaknesses, the U.S. accumulates more of them. An estimated 9 million Americans have lost close loved ones to COVID; about 10 percent will likely experience prolonged grief, which the country’s meager mental-health services will struggle to address. Because of brain fog, fatigue, and other debilitating symptoms, long COVID is keeping the equivalent of 2 million to 4 million Americansout of work; between lost earnings and increased medical costs, it could cost the economy $2.6 trillion a year. The exodus of health-care workers, especially experienced veterans, has left hospitals with a shortfall of staff and know-how. Levels of trust—one of the mostimportant predictors of a country’s success at controlling COVID—have fallen, making pandemic interventions harder to deploy, while creating fertile ground in which misinformation can germinate. This is the cost of accepting the unacceptable: an even weaker foundation that the next disease will assail.
In thespring of 2020, I wrote that the pandemic would last for years, and that the U.S. would need long-term strategies to control it. But America’s leaders consistently acted as if they were fighting a skirmish rather than a siege, lifting protective measures too early, and then reenacting them too slowly. They have skirted the responsibility of articulating what it would actually look like for the pandemic to be over, which has meant that whenever citizens managed to flatten the curve, the time they bought was wasted. Endemicity was equated with inaction rather than active management. This attitude removed any incentive or will to make the sort of long-term changes that would curtail the current disaster and prevent future ones. And so America has little chance of effectively countering the inevitable pandemics of the future; it cannot even focus on the one that’s ongoing.
If change happens, it will likely occur slowly and from the ground up. In the vein of ACT UP—the extraordinarily successful activist group that changed the world’s approach to AIDS—grassroots organizations of long–haulers, grievers, immunocompromised people, and others disproportionately harmed by the pandemic have formed, creating the kind of vocal constituency that public health has long lacked.
More pandemics will happen, and the U.S. has spectacularly failed to contain the current one. But it cannot afford the luxury of nihilism. It still has time to address its bedrocks of individualism and inequality, to create a health system that effectively prevents sickness instead of merely struggling to treat it, and to enact policies that rightfully prioritize the needs of disabled and vulnerable communities. Such changes seem unrealistic given the relentless disappointments of the past three years, but substantial social progress always seems unfeasible until it is actually achieved. Normal led to this. It is not too late to fashion a better normal.
Methane escaping from the damaged Nord Stream pipelines that run between Russia and Europe is likely to result in the biggest known gas leak to take place over a short period of time, and highlights the problem of large methane escapes elsewhere around the world, scientists say.
There is still uncertainty in estimating total damage, but researchers say vast plumes of this potent greenhouse gas will have significant detrimental impacts on the climate.
Immediate harm to marine life and fisheries in the Baltic Sea, and to human health, will also result because benzene and other trace chemicals are typically present in natural gas, researchers say.
“This will probably be the biggest gas leak ever, in terms of its rate,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson.
Danish Defense shows the gas leaking at Nord Stream 2, seen from the Danish F-16 interceptor, off Bornholm, Denmark on Sept. 27, 2022.
Danish Defence/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
The velocity of the gas erupting from four documented leaks in the pipelines — which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has attributed to sabotage — is part of what makes the impacts severe.
When methane naturally leaks from vents on the ocean floor, the quantities are usually small and the gas is mostly absorbed by seawater.
“But this is not a normal situation for gas release,” said Jackson. “We’re not talking about methane bubbling up to the surface like seltzer water, but a plume of rushing gas,” he said.
Unused pipes for the Nord Stream 2 Baltic gas pipeline are stored on the site of the Port of Mukran.
Stefan Sauer/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images
Jackson and other scientists estimate that between 50% and nearly 100% of total methane emitted from the pipeline will reach the atmosphere.
The Danish government issued a worst case scenario that assumed all the gas reached the air, and German officials Thursday issued a somewhat lower one.
In the meantime, it’s nearly impossible for anyone to approach the highly flammable plume to attempt to curb the release of gas, which energy experts estimate may continue until Sunday.
“Methane is very flammable — if you go in there, you’d have a good chance of it being a funeral pyre,” said Ira Leifer, an atmospheric scientist. If the gas-air mix was within a certain range, an airplane could easily ignite travelling into the plume, for example.
Methane isn’t the only risk. “Natural gas isn’t refined to be super clean — there are trace elements of other compounds, like benzene,” a carcinogen, said Leifer.
“The amount of these trace elements cumulatively entering the environment is significant right now — this will cause issues for fisheries and marine ecosystems and people who potentially eat those fish,” he said.
David Archer, a professor in the geophysical sciences department at University of Chicago who focuses on the global carbon cycle, said that escape of methane in the Baltic Sea is part of the much larger worldwide problem of methane emissions.
The gas is a major contributor to climate change, responsible for a significant share of the climate disruption people are already experiencing. That is because it is 82.5 times more potent than carbon dioxide at absorbing the sun’s heat and warming the Earth, over the short term.
Climate scientist have found that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are far worse than what companies are reporting, despite claims by major companies that they’ve reduced their emissions.
Scientists measuring methane from satellites in space have found that emissions from oil and gas operations are usually at least twice as high as what the companies reported, said Thomas Lauvaux, climate scientist at University of Reims in France.
Many of those so-called leaks are not accidental. Companies release the gas during routine maintenance. Lauvaux and other scientists observed more than 1,500 major methane leaks globally, and potentially tens of thousands of smaller leaks, using satellites, he said.
WASHINGTON — Methane escaping from the damaged Nord Stream pipelines that run between Russia and Europe is likely to result in the biggest known gas leak to take place over a short period of time and highlights the problem of large methane escapes elsewhere around the world, scientists say.
There is still uncertainty in estimating total damage, but researchers say vast plumes of this potent greenhouse gas will have significant detrimental impacts on the climate.
Immediate harm to marine life and fisheries in the Baltic Sea and to human health will also result because benzene and other trace chemicals are typically present in natural gas, researchers say.
“This will probably be the biggest gas leak ever, in terms of its rate,” said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson.
The velocity of the gas erupting from four documented leaks in the pipelines — which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has attributed to sabotage — is part of what makes the impacts severe.
When methane leaks naturally leaks from vents on the ocean floor, the quantities are usually small and the gas is mostly absorbed by seawater. “But this is not a normal situation for gas release,” said Jackson. “We’re not talking about methane bubbling up to the surface like seltzer water, but a plume of rushing gas,” he said.
Jackson and other scientists estimate that between 50% and nearly 100% of total methane emitted from the pipeline will reach the atmosphere.
The Danish government issued a worst case scenario that assumed all the gas reached the air, and German officials Thursday issued a somewhat lower one.
In the meantime, it’s nearly impossible for anyone to approach the highly flammable plume to attempt to curb the release of gas, which energy experts estimate may continue until Sunday.
“Methane is very flammable — if you go in there, you’d have a good chance of it being a funeral pyre,” said Ira Leifer, an atmospheric scientist. If the gas-air mix was within a certain range, an airplane could easily ignite travelling into the plume, for example.
Methane isn’t the only risk. “Natural gas isn’t refined to be super clean — there are trace elements of other compounds, like benzene,” a carcinogen, said Leifer.
“The amount of these trace elements cumulatively entering the environment is significant right now — this will cause issues for fisheries and marine ecosystems and people who potentially eat those fish,” he said.
David Archer, a professor in the geophysical sciences department at University of Chicago who focuses on the global carbon cycle, said that escape of methane in the Baltic Sea is part of the much larger worldwide problem of methane emissions.
The gas is a major contributor to climate change, responsible for a significant share of the climate disruption people are already experiencing. That is because it is 82.5 times more potent than carbon dioxide at absorbing the sun’s heat and warming the Earth, over the short term.
Climate scientist have found that methane emissions from the oil and gas industry are far worse than what companies are reporting, despite claims by major companies that they’ve reduced their emissions.
Scientists measuring methane from satellites in space have found that emissions from oil and gas operations are usually at least twice as high as what the companies reported, said Thomas Lauvaux, climate scientist at University of Reims in France.
Many of those so-called leaks are not accidental. Companies release the gas during routine maintenance. Lauvaux and other scientists observed more than 1,500 major methane leaks globally, and potentially tens of thousands of smaller leaks, using satellites, he said.
—
AP reporters Patrick Whittle contributed from Portland, Maine, Seth Borenstein from Washington, DC., and Cathy Bussewitz from New York.
——
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Opinion by Gina Ziervogel (cape town, south africa)
Inter Press Service
CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Sep 29 (IPS) – Equity and justice feature prominently in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6th (IPCC) Assessment Report Working Group II, published in 2022. The report focuses on the impacts of climate change, as well as vulnerability and adaptation.
In its summary for policymakers, the report states: “Inclusive governance that prioritizes equity and justice in adaptation planning and implementation leads to more effective and sustainable adaptation outcomes (high confidence).” This is a welcome, albeit long overdue development.
The report offers widespread evidence in support of a focus on justice across different sectors and regions. It reflects rapidly mounting concern for climate justice — in both advocacy circles and in the public discourse — and a sharp increase in the volume of information on this topic.
Arguments concerning climate justice include the need to address historical inequities, contest established power, and consider diverse perspectives and needs in planning and delivery. Only by confronting these issues directly can we deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and climate goals.
Gina ZiervogelAfrica’s cities need to respond better
As outlined in the Africa chapter of the IPCC, Africa is highly vulnerable to climate risk. The continent features strongly in discussions on equity and justice, which argue for low carbon development without interfering with the economic growth.
With their concentration of people and growth, African cities are particularly important places to focus climate action. They have been slow to develop adaptation and mitigation policies and practice, but there are ample lessons worldwide and within the continent from which to draw motivation.
Organisations such as 350.org and Climate Justice Alliance, are fighting for equity and justice locally and internationally. We can glean approaches by studying and understanding these efforts, but we need to make them locally relevant.
Across the globe, cities are rapidly integrating climate action in their plans to reduce emissions and the impacts of hazards, such as droughts, floods, fires and heatwaves.
A few African cities have made progress by building justice and equity into climate response programs. Kampala is converting organic waste into briquettes for cooking. This provides an alternative livelihood strategy, reduces the number of trees cut for charcoal, and decreases the amount of waste going to landfill.
In response to neighbourhood flood risk, residents in Nairobi have invested in reducing their exposure. In addition, they have mobilized youth groups to disseminate environmental information and engage in activities such as tree planting to stabilize riverbanks.
Some local governments are ramping up their climate change management efforts. Yet, city government responses are often sector-specific and can’t succeed by themselves — the challenge is too massive and urgent.
More projects and programmes are needed that use a collaborative or co-productive approach for meeting equity and justice goals. We must have innovative ways of bringing in different sectors and actors— to really hear their perspectives and explore potential solutions. Such an approach might require safe space for experimentation.
In addition, we have to develop methods for scaling urban solutions that ensure adaptation responses meet the needs of the most at-risk groups across cities and institutionalize strategies in city planning and implementation.
Epistemic justice
Epistemic justice refers to the extent to which different people’s knowledge is recognized. Scientific evidence abounds that solving complex problems benefits from multiple types of knowledge bases. Yet city governments provide little opportunity to integrate diverse viewpoints.
In the context of inequality, ensuring that the voices of marginalized and at-risk people are included is crucial for generating appropriate locally owned solutions.
The FRACTAL project (Future Resilience for African Cities and Lands) engaged a trans-disciplinary group of researchers, officials and practitioners that worked across six cities in southern Africa between 2015 and 2021.
FRACTAL exemplifies how city stakeholders and researchers can co-produce knowledge around climate impacts and potential adaptation responses in cities such as Lusaka, Maputo, and Windhoek.
Although climate science was an important part of the project, the initial stages provided time and space for participants to share “burning questions” in their cities and collaboratively decide how to address these.
Some cities developed climate risk narratives to guide future decisions. Others developed climate change planning documents and platforms that thought about adaptation projects through a holistic lens. Importantly, participants, built trust and capacity, for city actors to take this work forward collaboratively.
When prioritizing adaptation actions at the city level, local governments have tended to use criteria based on their frameworks and data, providing just one perspective. However, more bottom-up data is required to meet the needs of those most at risk.
Arguments concerning climate justice include the need to address historical inequities, contest established power, and consider diverse perspectives and needs in planning and delivery. Only by confronting these issues directly can we deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals and climate goals.
Such data can better capture challenges that citizens face, such as accessing water during droughts or recovering from flooding that might have washed away homes and possessions.
A recent project in Cape Town sought to do this. Local activists from low-income neighborhoods collected data on issues around water services and explored diverse ways, including film, comics and maps as ways to share this information with other residents and city officials.
Collaborations between NGOs, researchers and local governments can strengthen the type of data available and contribute to more nuanced understanding.
The National Slum Dwellers Federation of Uganda, for instance, collected local data that informed planning and the development of solutions to reduce climate risk with sustainable building materials and improving water and sanitation services. This work positioned them to negotiate effectively with local government to support further efforts.
Across the globe, cities are rapidly integrating climate action in their plans to reduce emissions and the impacts of hazards, such as droughts, floods, fires, and heatwaves. They also are rapidly expanding opportunities to access climate funding.
The time has come for African cities to determine how they will engage in the climate action and justice space to ensure they meet the serious challenges they are confronting.
Gina Ziervogel is Associate Professor in the Department of Environmental and Geographical Science at the University of Cape Town.
Source: Africa Renewal, United Nations, September 2022
The apparent sabotage of both Nord Stream gas pipelines may be one of the worst industrial methane accidents in history, scientists said Wednesday, but it’s not a major climate disaster.
Methane — a greenhouse gas up to 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide — is escaping into the atmosphere from three boiling patches on the surface of the Baltic Sea, the largest of which the Danish military said was a kilometer across.
On Tuesday evening, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen condemned the “sabotage” and “deliberate disruption of active European energy infrastructure.”
Here are eight key questions on the impact of the leaks.
1. How much methane was in the pipelines?
No government agency in Europe could say for sure how much gas was in the pipes.
“I cannot tell you clearly as the pipelines are owned by Nord Stream AG and the gas comes from Gazprom,” said a spokesperson for the German climate and economy ministry.
The two Nord Stream 1 pipelines were in operation, although Moscow stopped delivering gas a month ago, and both were hit. “It can be assumed that it’s a large amount” of gas in those lines, the German official said. Only one of the Nord Stream 2 lines was struck. It was not in operation but was filled with 177 million cubic meters of gas last year.
Estimates of the total gas in the pipelines that are leaking range from 150 million cubic meters to 500 million cubic meters.
2. How much is being released?
Kristoffer Böttzauw, the director of the Danish Energy Agency, told reporters on Wednesday that the leaks would equate to about 14 million tons of CO2, about 32 percent of Denmark’s annual emissions.
Germany’s Federal Environment Agency estimated the leaks will lead to emissions of around 7.5 million tons of CO2 equivalent — about 1 percent of Germany’s annual emissions. The agency also noted there are no “sealing mechanisms” along the pipelines, “so in all likelihood the entire contents of the pipes will escape.”
Because at least one of the leaks is in Danish waters, Denmark will have to add these emissions to its climate balance sheet, the agency said.
But it is not clear whether all of the gas in the lines would actually be released into the atmosphere. Methane is also consumed by ocean bacteria as it heads through the water column.
3. How does that compare to previous leaks?
The largest leak ever recorded in the U.S. was the 2015 Aliso Canyon leak of roughly 90,000 tons of methane over months. With the upper estimates of what might be released in the Baltic more than twice that, this week’s disaster may be “unprecedented,” said David McCabe, a senior scientist with the Clean Air Task Force.
Jeffrey Kargel, a senior scientist at the Planetary Research Institute in Tucson, Arizona, said the leak was “really disturbing. It is a real travesty, an environmental crime if it was deliberate.”
4. Will this have a meaningful effect on global temperatures?
“The amount of gas lost from the pipeline obviously is large,” Kargel said. But “it is not the climate disaster one might think.”
Annual global carbon emissions are around 32 billion tons, so this represents a tiny fraction of the pollution driving climate change. It even pales in comparison to the accumulation of thousands of industrial and agricultural sources of methane that are warming the planet.
“This is a wee bubble in the ocean compared to the huge amounts of so-called fugitive methane that are emitted every day around the world due to things like fracking, coal mining and oil extraction,” said Dave Reay, executive director of the Edinburgh Climate Change Institute.
Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, said it was roughly comparable to the amount of methane leaked from across Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure on any given working week.
A leak was reported near the Nord Stream 2 pipeline off the coast of Denmark’s Bornholm island | Danish Defence Command
5. Is the local environment affected?
While the gas is still leaking, the immediate vicinity is an extremely dangerous place. Air that contains more than 5 percent methane can be flammable, said Rehder, so the risk of an explosion is real. Methane is not a toxic gas, but high concentrations can reduce the amount of available oxygen.
Shipping has been restricted from a 5 nautical mile radius around the leaks. This is because the methane in the water can affect buoyancy and rupture a vessel’s hull.
Marine animals near the escaping gas may be caught up and killed — especially poor swimmers such as jellyfish, said Rehder. But long-term effects on the local environment are not anticipated.
“It’s an unprecedented case,” he said. “But from our current understanding, I would think that the local effects on marine life in the area is rather small.”
6. What can be done?
Some have suggested that the remaining gas should be pumped out, but a German economy and climate ministry spokesperson on Wednesday said this wasn’t possible.
Once the pipeline has emptied, “it will fill up with water,” the spokesperson added. “At the moment, no one can go underwater — the danger is too great due to the escaping methane.”
Any repair would be the responsibility of pipeline owner Nord Stream AG, the Germans said.
7. Should they set it on fire?
Not only would it look impressive, setting the gas on fire would hugely slash the global warming impact of the leak. Methane is made of carbon and hydrogen, when burned it creates carbon dioxide, which is between 30 and 80 times less planet-warming per ton than methane. Flaring, as it is known, is a common method for reducing the impact of escaping methane.
From a pure climate perspective, setting the escaping methane on fire makes sense. “Yes, definitely — it will help,” said Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds.
But there would be safety issues and potential environmental concerns, including air pollution from the combustion. “With land — in particular the inhabited and touristic island of Bornholm — nearby, you would not venture into this,” said Rehder.
No government has yet indicated that this is under consideration.
8. How long will it last and what next?
“We expect that gas will flow out of the pipes until the end of the week. After that, first of all, from the Danish side, we will try to get out and investigate what the cause is, and approach the pipes, so that we can have it investigated properly. We can do that when the gas leak has stopped,” Danish Energy Agency director Böttzauw told local media.
This article is part of POLITICO Pro
The one-stop-shop solution for policy professionals fusing the depth of POLITICO journalism with the power of technology
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden is hosting Pacific Island leaders for a two-day summit as the U.S. looks to counter China’s military and economic influence in the region. Pacific Island leaders, meanwhile, see an even more pressing concern: climate change.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken kicked off the summit on Wednesday with a luncheon for the Pacific Island leaders and other senior officials from the region. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry will hold a climate roundtable with the leaders, and White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan will join them for a dinner hosted by the U.S. Coast Guard.
Biden is set to address the leaders at the State Department on Thursday and will host them for a dinner at the White House. The leaders also are to meet with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo and U.S. business leaders.
Leaders from Fiji, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Cook Islands, French Polynesia and New Caledonia are attending. Vanuatu and Nauru are sending representatives, and Australia, New Zealand and the secretary-general of the Pacific Island Forum sent observers, according to the White House.
“This summit reflects our deep, enduring partnership with the Pacific Islands; one that’s underpinned by shared history, values, and enduring people-to-people ties,” Blinken told leaders as he opened the summit. Talks are expected to touch on climate change, the coronavirus pandemic and economic recovery, maritime security, environmental protection and the Indo-Pacific.
The first-of-its-kind summit comes as the administration has sought to demonstrate that the U.S. remains committed to being a enduring player in the region.
While the high-level gathering is welcomed by the region’s leaders as a signal of Biden’s commitment to the Pacific, there’s also a healthy skepticism about whether the United States will remain engaged for the longer term in the Pacific Islands. The area has received diminished attention from the U.S. in the aftermath of the Cold War and China has increasingly filled the vacuum, analysts say.
The Solomon Islands has signaled it was unlikely to sign on to a joint statement that the U.S. hoped to have hashed out by the end of the summit, according to a diplomat familiar with summit planning.
The diplomat, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the resistance is driven in part by the Solomon Islands’ tightening relationship with Beijing and in part is seen as an effort to press the U.S. for greater economic assistance.
A senior Biden administration official who briefed reporters before the summit said discussions on the joint statement are still ongoing.
For the Biden administration, stemming the growing influence of China is a high priority. But for many of the Pacific Island leaders, climate change is the existential crisis that demands attention above all else.
Last week at the U.N. General Assembly, Prime Minister Kausea Natano of the tiny island of Tuvalu described how rising sea levels have affected everything from the soil that his people rely on to plant crops, to the homes, roads and power lines that get washed away. The cost of eking out a living, he said, eventually becomes too much to bear, causing families to leave and the nation to disappear.
“This is how our islands will cease to exist,” Natano said.
In June, Inia Seruiratu, Fiji’s minister for defense, said at the Shangri-La Dialogue that “machine guns, fighter jets, gray ships and green battalions are not our primary security concern.”
“The single greatest threat to our very existence is climate change,” he said.
Plans for the summit were announced earlier this month, just days after the Solomon Islands called on the U.S. and Britain not to send naval vessels to the South Pacific nation until approval processes are overhauled. The Solomons in April signed a new security pact with China — a moment that analysts say has created increased urgency for the Biden administration to put greater focus on the region.
The United States and Britain are among countries concerned that a new security pact with Beijing could lead to a Chinese naval base being constructed less than 1,200 miles (2,000 kilometers) off Australia’s northeast coast.
Darshana Baruah, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Beijing has been more present in the region in the last decades.
“The first questions from the islands to the United States are, ‘Is this going to last beyond the current tense cycle? Are you going to keep showing up,?’” Baruah said. “The second question is, ‘What kind of messaging is this sending across the Indo-Pacific? Are you mistakenly giving the impression that if you want Washington’s attention you must grab Beijing’s purse?’”
In the leadup to the summit, Pacific Island leaders made clear that they want increased U.S. assistance on battling the impacts of climate change and help for their economies recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a senior Biden administration official.
The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the “lapse” in the U.S. efforts in the region comes up in “every meeting” with Pacific Island leaders. The White House plans to announce its first U.S. Pacific Island Strategy and announce that the Democratic president will appoint a U.S. envoy to the Pacific Islands Forum.
The U.S. will also be seeking to mend relations with the Marshall Islands, which for decades has been a strong ally but which is in a bitter dispute over a treaty that’s up for renewal.
Just last week, the Marshall Islands pulled out of a negotiating session with the U.S. over their Compact of Free Association, which expires next year. The Marshall Islands says the U.S. isn’t engaging in its claim for proper reparations from the legacy of U.S. nuclear testing in the islands.
The Marshall Islands says there was extensive environmental and health damage from the dozens of tests in the 1940s and ’50s, which a settlement in the 1980s fell well short of addressing.
The U.S. has treated the Marshall Islands, along with nearby Micronesia and Palau, much like territories since World War II, and observers worry that a weakening of those ties would play into the hands of China.
The administration in recent months has sought to have greater presence in the region. In February, Blinken became the first U.S. secretary of state to visit Fiji in 37 years. And in recent months, the U.S. along with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the U.K. created an informal group aimed at boosting economic and diplomatic ties with Pacific Island nations dubbed Partners in the Blue Pacific.
During the Fiji visit, Blinken announced the U.S. would open an embassy in the Solomon Islands. The U.S. operated an embassy in the Solomons for five years before closing it in 1993. Since then, U.S. diplomats from neighboring Papua New Guinea have been accredited to the Solomons, which has a U.S. consular agency.
Guadalcanal, the largest landmass in the Solomon Islands, was the site of the crucial battles between Allied forces and Japan early in World War II.
—
Associated Press writers Matthew Lee in Washington and Nick Perry in Wellington, New Zealand, contributed reporting.
As Hurricane Fiona left a swath of destruction across the Caribbean and North Atlantic this past week, it was a reminder of the devastating power of coastal storms. Scientists are predicting more intense weather because of climate change, but they’re also warning that one of the best existing sources of protection from waves and floods is dying off. By serving as natural buffers, coral reefs prevent billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. each year, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The state of Florida, which has been hit by 18 hurricanes over the last 40 years, has one of the largest barrier reefs in the world. But nearly 90% of the living coral in the Florida Keys has disappeared during that time. The situation’s so serious that marine biologists have stepped up their efforts to find innovative ways to try to rescue the reefs. And that’s what our story tonight is about. It involves strange underwater farms, the U.S. Department of Defense, and more than we ever thought we’d need to know about the sex lives of coral.
We left Miami behind us and headed two miles off the coast with marine biologists Andrew Baker and Diego Lirman. They’re old friends and colleagues, professors at the University of Miami, who’ve seen first-hand how the reefs have changed.
Andrew Baker: The whole of the Caribbean– is seeing a lot of coral loss and– and die-off as a result of climate change, but also water quality and– pollution. But, you know, Florida Keys probably leads the way in terms of the sheer amount of coral that’s been lost.
And that’s why, in this spot in the ocean, the University of Miami has built something you’d normally visit on land to buy a tree or a rose bush – a nursery.
Diego Lirman: This is our coral nursery. This is where we– just like you do on land. You grow your corals, you prune them, and then you put them somewhere else on– on a natural reef.
Diego Lirman and Andrew Baker
The water was murky and the current strong as we went to take a look. A nurse shark checked us out, but quickly lost interest. Corals are often confused with rocks, or plants, but they’re actually colonies of tiny animals called polyps, whose calcium carbonate skeletons build the reefs and protect the shores. After a short swim, we came upon an area with 40 of these tree-like structures.
Hanging from them, like Christmas ornaments, are pieces of living coral that have been pruned from healthy colonies all over Florida. They’re positioned close to the surface so they get lots of sunlight and nutrients and occasionally cleaned of macro-algae that can damage them. Andrew Baker explained…
Andrew Baker: The great advantage of these nurseries is they allow us to grow lots of coral tissue very quickly. They grow faster in these trees than they do on the reefs.
Many of the corals growing here are important and threatened Florida species, like Staghorn and Elkhorn. Every diver knows you’re not supposed to touch coral, so it was odd to be handed a clipper and told to start cutting off pieces. We brought the staghorn coral I cut to an area nearby called Rainbow Reef that Professor Lirman and his team began re-planting two-and-a-half years ago.
Correspondent Anderson Cooper with the coral he cut
He showed me how to use a special kind of cement to attach the newly cut pieces to the reef. With the current, it’s a lot harder than it sounds. But even more difficult is making sure these corals don’t get killed off by the same forces that destroyed their predecessors – water pollution, disease, and a phenomenon called “bleaching,” in which coral can lose their color and die because of rising ocean temperatures caused by climate change.
Re-planting the coral
Andrew Baker: We need to make sure that the corals that we put out are not just gonna be the next set of victims for the next bleaching episode, or the next stressor that comes along.
Anderson Cooper: In a sense, it sounds like you’re trying to accelerate the process of natural selection, try to find the corals which are hardier, which can survive in higher temperatures.
Andrew Baker: That’s exactly right.
To do that, Professor Baker and scientists from the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago are using a technique that allows them to determine the future survivability of coral in a few hours, on a boat anchored above the nursery. When we arrived, researchers were putting samples of Elkhorn coral just brought to the surface into these converted party coolers containing increasingly warm water to see which varieties would do best in higher temperatures. Ross Cunning is a research biologist with the Shedd Aquarium.
Ross Cunning: So just like all of us are different genetic individuals, and all of us humans vary in traits like height, all of these different genetic strains of Elkhorn coral will vary naturally in heat tolerance.
Anderson Cooper: So just because it’s all Elkhorn coral, it doesn’t mean it’s all the same genetically.
Ross Cunning: Right. And that’s exactly what we wanna get at is the fine scale individual variation among different Elkhorn corals. Then we can use those corals to optimize restoration programs by planting more of them on the reef.
Ross Cunning
Scientists are also trying to breed the most heat and disease-resistant coral together. It’s called selective breeding. Liv Williamson is a biologist at the University of Miami. Her lab is filled with vats of frozen coral sperm.
Anderson Cooper: So this is coral sperm?
Liv Williamson: This is coral sperm that has been kept at these really, really low temperatures now for a year or more.
Her work is similar to that of domestic animal breeders. She and her team mix the sperm with carefully chosen coral eggs, to create offspring that’ll be more likely to survive outbreaks of disease and rising ocean temperatures.
Anderson Cooper: I never thought I would ask this question. But h– how do coral have sex? (LAUGH)
Liv Williamson: So the idea is that all of the different colonies on a reef. They’re all using cues from the environment to make sure that they release their eggs and sperm all at once so that they’re able to mix with the spawn of other colonies.
The sex life of coral is nothing to write home about. Most spawn only once or twice a year after a full moon. So scientists have to be ready to capture the sperm and eggs at the exact right moment.
Liv Williamson
Liv Williamson: We use very fine mesh nets with a jar at the top. And they slowly float their way up into the jar. And all we have to do is cap off the jar and take it with us. It literally looks like being in a snow globe under water. It’s amazing. It’s totally incredible to be able to see it.
This is where Williamson raises what she calls “the coral babies” she’s bred. The blue light mimics sunlight filtering through the water, helping them grow.
Liv Williamson: This particular brain coral baby that you’re holding right now is actually the offspring of a– coral colony here in Miami that we think is resistant to disease…
Anderson Cooper: So you know the history of these polyps.
Liv Williamson: Yeah, in many cases I collected them as eggs or sperm. Or I put them together to fertilize them– have been there really since– since birth, if you will.
Anderson Cooper: Do you feel, like, warm and cuddly toward coral?
Liv Williamson: I really do. (LAUGH)
Anderson Cooper: Because, I mean, it’s not something that…
Liv Williamson: They don’t seem too warm and cuddly.
Liv Williamson: I show coral baby pictures to people. And they usually don’t want to see them. But– (LAUGHTER)
Cooper and Williamson
Today, they’re growing slowly on small ceramic plates. But they may someday be growing in underwater nurseries and re-populating reefs.
Anderson Cooper: And so this one’s– how old?
Liv Williamson: Al– almost a year old. Corals in general grow really slowly. But that’s part of the problem with their conservation is that while we’re losing these big, old colonies on the reef, some of those are thousands or hundreds of years old. They’ve taken so long to grow. Replacing them isn’t easy.
But with less coral serving as a natural buffer, many communities need more protection right away from increasingly powerful storms that have been battering their shores.
One way researchers hope to restore coral and provide more immediate protection along the coast is to create hybrid reefs. This is a small-scale prototype. The honey-combed structures on the bottom would be made of concrete and are designed to absorb wave energy immediately. The corals on top would provide more and more protection as they grow.
A prototype hybrid reef
Inside this simulator at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science, Professor Brian Haus and his team can create the equivalent of a category five hurricane with winds up to 155 miles per hour.
The simulator can test how well different structures and types of coral absorb wave energy and prevent damage on land.
The University of Miami is developing this hybrid reef for DARPA, which is the Pentagon’s research agency. The Defense Department is looking for ways to protect its many military bases near the coast, like Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida which got destroyed by Hurricane Michael in 2018, causing nearly $5 billion in damage. DARPA plans to give the University of Miami up to $20 million to build a hybrid reef off the coast of Florida within the next five years.
Brian Haus
Anderson Cooper: What role does coral play in that, as opposed to just a man-made honeycomb structure?
Brian Haus: Depending on the types of waves and things, you can have anywhere as high as 60% of additional dissipation of wave energy by having corals on top of the structure. They add friction to the surface.
Anderson Cooper: I mean, this isn’t just a man-made structure that is static. because of the coral, it would actually expand. It would continue to grow?
Brian Haus: that’s one of the real exciting things about this. It’s essentially self-healing. And I– if it gets impacted by a storm, it can grow back.
Professors Baker and Lirman will provide the coral on DARPA’s hybrid reef, with specific goals in mind.
Anderson Cooper: They have very ambitious goals for you.
Andrew Baker: They do and I think that reflects the– the scale of the problem, to be honest. We know that, for example, coral reefs are going to be facing increasing warming temperatures. So, here’s a project that’s asking us to try to achieve what corals are gonna face in 20 to 30 years within just a five-year timeframe, and then actually go well beyond that.
Anderson Cooper: So, they’re saying within five years that they want you to be able to find coral that can resist a two-degree centigrade rise in temperatures in the ocean?
Andrew Baker: That’s right. two or even three degrees centigrade warmer temperatures.
Anderson Cooper: Were you surprised that DARPA was interested in your work?
Andrew Baker: We were surprised in the sense that it was the Department of Defense that was the first agency to come forward and say, “Hey, you guys, as a community, why don’t you think big?
DARPA also recently awarded contracts to Rutgers University to create a hybrid reef that’ll use oysters rather than coral… and to the University of Hawaii which is developing a different configuration of coral and other materials. And DARPA’s not the only government agency taking action. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using nursery-grown coral to restore seven iconic reefs in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
There are many potential obstacles to restoring coral reefs – as Diego Lirman and his team learned after Hurricane Irma hit Florida in 2017.
Diego Lirman: It was a major setback. We– we lost 90% of all of the corals that we had been growing for a decade.
Anderson Cooper: Wow.
Diego Lirman: It was a huge loss. But we also rebuilt very quickly.
There’s not much anyone can do about a major hurricane. But perhaps the biggest criticism of restoring reefs or creating hybrid ones is that it’s not possible to do this on the scale that’s needed.
Anderson Cooper: There are some people who think this is like spitting into the ocean, that this is not gonna be enough to counteract climate change.
Andrew Baker: We get that all the time. But if we don’t address this challenge in terms of maintaining coral resilience in the meantime while we deal with some of these larger societal problems, we won’t have any coral reefs left by the time we get this other problem under control.
Anderson Cooper: Without a meaningful reduction of carbon gasses to address climate change, will you be able to rescue the reefs?
Diego Lirman: Absolutely not. the mantra is, “We are buying time.”
Anderson Cooper: The intergovernmental panel on climate change predicts that with a– two degrees Celsius– increase in warming, 99% of the world’s coral reefs could be irreversibly lost in the next 30 years. I mean, that’s a pretty dire assessment.
Andrew Baker: That’s right. So, coral reefs are on their way to becoming probably the first global ecosystem — that we’ll lose as a result of climate change. So, you know, we– we have no time to lose.
Produced by Andy Court. Associate producers, Evie Salomon and Annabelle Hanflig. Edited by Sean Kelly.
Anderson Cooper, anchor of CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” has contributed to 60 Minutes since 2006. His exceptional reporting on big news events has earned Cooper a reputation as one of television’s pre-eminent newsmen.
WASHINGTON, August 9, 2022 (Newswire.com)
– The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed by the U.S. Senate on Sunday, contains funding for measures to address climate change that the country — and the entire planet — have been waiting for. Electric vehicle tax credits, clean power incentives for utilities, support for manufacturers of heat pumps and solar panels, and billions to support disadvantaged communities. Together, the provisions should reduce U.S. energy emissions by 40% from 2005 levels.
“Pearl congratulates the U.S. Senate on the passage of this historic legislation,” said Pearl president and co-founder Robin LeBaron. “The Inflation Reduction Act is a huge, visionary step toward reducing carbon emissions and strengthening the United States’ clean energy economy. It will benefit manufacturers, small businesses, workers, across the country — and people across the globe.”
Among the $386 billion dedicated in the legislation to climate change and clean energy, the Senate approved $9 billion to address a decades-old challenge: scaling up residential energy efficiency and beneficial electrification. Studies indicate that if homeowners across the U.S. weatherized their homes and installed high-efficiency heating, cooling, and water heating equipment, the nation’s carbon footprint could be reduced by 4% or more — and homeowners would save billions of dollars on energy costs. These upgrades provide homeowners with an impressive array of health, comfort, safety, and energy savings benefits. Yet very few homeowners actually make them.
The HOMES program in the bill will provide $4.3 billion in rebates ranging in size from $2,000 to $8,000 for homeowners who make whole-house energy upgrades and achieve significant energy savings. The High-Efficiency Electric Home program will make $4.5 billion available in rebates ranging in amounts from $840 to $8,000 for homeowners to install high-efficiency heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, induction stoves, and other electric equipment, as well as to make weatherization improvements. Rebates for income-qualified households will be significantly higher, and the bill provides an incentive for contractors to provide services in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
“The HOMES and residential electrification programs in the IRA will transform millions of U.S. homes and improve the lives and budgets of millions of U.S. homeowners,” said Cynthia Adams, Pearl’s CEO and co-founder. “It will also transform the U.S. manufacturing and contracting industries by driving an immense new demand for high-efficiency equipment.”
A historic precedent: the bill requires that all homeowners who receive a HOMES rebate must also receive a certification that describes the improvements and energy savings that help the homeowner capture the value of the improvement at time of sale or refinance.
“For the first time, homeowners who receive a rebate through this program will have documentation that will give them a crucial tool to explain to future buyers, real estate agents, appraisers, and underwriters why their high-performing home is better, most cost-efficient, and more valuable than the regular home next door,” LeBaron said.
About Pearl Certification
Pearl Certification is the gold standard in high-performing home certifications, bringing visibility to the valuable features that make them healthy, safe, comfortable, and energy- and water-efficient. Pearl is the only national sponsor of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Home Performance with ENERGY STAR® program and is a partner with the National Association of REALTORS® Green REsource Council. Pearl has certified and provided appraisal addenda on over 90,000 homes in 44 states and Washington, D.C. Pearl Certified homes sell on average for 3.5-6% more than comparable homes, according to independent appraiser studies. pearlcertification.com/
Media Contact
Kat Cahill Marketing Director, Public Private Partnerships Division Pearl Certification 410.917.8737 kat.cahill@pearlcertification.com
Air pollution spiked to unhealthy levels around the world in 2021, according to a new report.
The report by IQAir, a company that tracks global air quality, found that average annual air pollution in every country — and 97% of cities — exceeded the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, which were designed to help governments craft regulations to protect public health.
Only 222 cities of the 6,475 analyzed had average air quality that met WHO’s standard. Three territories were found to have met WHO guidelines: the French territory of New Caledonia and the United States territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were among the countries with the worst air pollution, exceeding the guidelines by at least 10 times.
The Scandinavian countries, Australia, Canada, Japan and United Kingdom ranked among the best countries for air quality, with average levels that exceeded the guidelines by 1 to 2 times.
In the United States, IQAir found air pollution exceeded WHO guidelines by 2 to 3 times in 2021.
“This report underscores the need for governments around the world to help reduce global air pollution,” Glory Dolphin Hammes, CEO of IQAir North America, told CNN. “(Fine particulate matter) kills far too many people every year and governments need to set more stringent air quality national standards and explore better foreign policies that promote better air quality.”
Above: IQAir analyzed average annual air quality for more than 6,000 cities and categorized them from best air quality, in blue (Meets WHO PM2.5 guildline) to worst, in purple (Exceeds WHO PM2.5 guideline by over 10 times). An interactive map is available from IQAir.
It’s the first major global air quality report based on WHO’s new annual air pollution guidelines, which were updated in September 2021. The new guidelines halved the acceptable concentration of fine particulate matter — or PM 2.5 — from 10 down to 5 micrograms per cubic meter.
PM 2.5 is the tiniest pollutant yet also among the most dangerous. When inhaled, it travels deep into lung tissue where it can enter the bloodstream. It comes from sources like the burning of fossil fuels, dust storms and wildfires, and has been linked to a number of health threats including asthma, heart disease and other respiratory illnesses.
Millions of people die each year from air quality issues. In 2016, around 4.2 million premature deaths were associated with fine particulate matter, according to WHO. If the 2021 guidelines had been applied that year, WHO found there could have been nearly 3.3 million fewer pollution-related deaths.
IQAir analyzed pollution-monitoring stations in 6,475 cities across 117 countries, regions and territories.
In the US, air pollution spiked in 2021 compared to 2020. Out of the more than 2,400 US cities analyzed, Los Angeles air remained the most polluted, despite seeing a 6% decrease compared to 2020. Atlanta and Minneapolis saw significant increases in pollution, the report showed.
“The (United States’) reliance on fossil fuels, increasing severity of wildfires as well as varying enforcement of the Clean Air Act from administration to administration have all added to U.S. air pollution,” the authors wrote.
Researchers say the main sources of pollution in the US were fossil fuel-powered transportation, energy production and wildfires, which wreak havoc on the country’s most vulnerable and marginalized communities.
“We are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, especially in terms of transportation,” said Hammes, who lives a few miles from Los Angeles. “We can act smartly on this with zero emissions, but we’re still not doing it. And this is having a devastating impact on the air pollution that we’re seeing in major cities.”
Climate change-fueled wildfires played a significant role in reducing air quality in the US in 2021. The authors pointed to a number of fires that led to hazardous air pollution — including the Caldor and Dixie fires in California, as well as the Bootleg Fire in Oregon, which wafted smoke all the way to the East Coast in July.
China — which is among the countries with the worst air pollution — showed improved air quality in 2021. More than half of the Chinese cities analyzed in the report saw lower levels of air pollution compared to the previous year. The capital city of Beijing continued a five-year trend of improved air quality, according to the report, due to a policy-driven drawdown of polluting industries in the city.
The report also found that the Amazon Rainforest, which had acted as the world’s major defender against the climate crisis, emitted more carbon dioxide than it absorbed last year. Deforestation and wildfires have threatened the critical ecosystem, polluted the air and contributed to climate change.
“This is all a part of the formula that will lead to or is leading to global warming.” Hammes said.
The report also unveiled some inequalities: Monitoring stations remain scant in some developing countries in Africa, South America and the Middle East, resulting in a dearth of air quality data in those regions.
“When you don’t have that data, you’re really in the dark,” Hammes said.
Hammes noted the African country of Chad was included in the report for the first time, due to an improvement in its monitoring network. IQAir found the country’s air pollution was the second-highest in the world last year, behind Bangladesh.
Tarik Benmarhnia, a climate change epidemiologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who has studied the health impact of wildfire smoke, also noted that relying only on monitoring stations can lead to blind spots in these reports.
“I think it is great that they relied on different networks and not only governmental sources,” Benmarhnia, who was not involved in this report, told CNN. “However, many regions do not have enough stations and alternative techniques exist.”
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in its 2021 report that, in addition to slowing the speed of global warming, curbing the use of fossil fuels would have the added benefit of improving air quality and public health.
Hammes said the IQAir report is even more reason for the world to wean off fossil fuel.
“We’ve got the report, we can read it, we can internalize it and really devote ourselves to taking action,” she said. “There needs to be a major move towards renewable energy. We need to take drastic action in order to reverse the tide of global warming; otherwise, the impact and the train that we’re on (would be) irreversible.”
As the US attempts to wean itself off its heavy reliance on fossil fuels and shift to cleaner energy sources, many experts are eyeing a promising solution: your neighborhood big-box stores and shopping malls.
The rooftops and parking lot space available at retail giants like Walmart, Target and Costco is massive. And these largely empty spaces are being touted as untapped potential for solar power that could help the US reduce its dependency on foreign energy, slash planet-warming emissions and save companies millions of dollars in the process.
At the IKEA store in Baltimore, installing solar panels on the roof and over the store’s parking lot cut the amount of energy it needed to purchase by 84%, slashing its costs by 57% from September to December of 2020, according to the company. (The panels also provide some beneficial shade to keep customers’ cars cool on hot, sunny days.)
As of February 2021, IKEA had 54 solar arrays installed across 90% of its US locations.
Big-box stores and shopping centers have enough roof space to produce half of their annual electricity needs from solar, according to a report from nonprofit Environment America and research firm Frontier Group.
Leveraging the full rooftop solar potential of these superstores would generate enough electricity to power nearly 8 million average homes, the report concluded, and would cut the same amount of planet-warming emissions as pulling 11.3 million gas-powered cars off the road.
The average Walmart store, for example, has 180,000 square feet of rooftop, according to the report. That’s roughly the size of three football fields and enough space to support solar energy that could power the equivalent of 200 homes, the report said.
“Every rooftop in America that isn’t producing solar energy is a rooftop wasted as we work to break our dependence on fossil fuels and the geopolitical conflicts that come with them,” Johanna Neumann, senior director for Environment America’s campaign for 100% Renewable, told CNN. “Now is the time to lean into local renewable energy production, and there’s no better place than the roofs of America’s big-box superstores.”
Advocates involved in clean energy worker-training programs tell CNN that a solar revolution in big-box retail would also be a significant windfall for local communities, spurring economic growth while tackling the climate crisis, which has inflicted disproportionate harm on marginalized communities.
Yet only a fraction of big-box stores in the US have solar on their rooftops or solar canopies in parking lots, the report’s authors told CNN.
CNN reached out to five of the top US retailers — Walmart, Kroger, Home Depot, Costco and Target — to ask: Why not invest in more rooftop solar?
Many renewable energy experts point to solar as a relatively simple solution to cut down on costs and help rein in fossil fuel emissions, but the companies point to several roadblocks — regulations, labor costs and structural integrity of the rooftops themselves — that are preventing more widespread adoption.
The need for these kinds of clean energy initiatives is becoming “unquestionably urgent” as the climate crisis accelerates, said Edwin Cowen, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Cornell University.
“We are behind the eight ball, to put it mildly,” Cowen told CNN. “I would have loved to see policy help incentivize rooftop solar 15 years ago instead of five years ago in the commercial space. There’s still a tremendous amount of work to do.”
Neumann said Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, possesses by far the largest solar potential. Walmart has around 5,000 stores in the US and more than 783 million square feet of rooftop space — an area larger than Manhattan — and more than 8,974 gigawatt hours of annual rooftop solar potential, according to the report.
It’s enough electricity to power more than 842,000 homes, the report said.
Walmart spokesperson Mariel Messier told CNN the company is involved in renewable energy projects around the world, but many of them are not rooftop solar installations. The company has reported having completed on- and off-site wind and solar projects or had others under development with a capacity to produce more than 2.3 gigawatts of renewable energy.
Neumann said Environment America has met with Walmart a few times, urging the retailer to commit to installing solar panels on roofs and in parking lots. The company has said it’s aiming to source 100% of its energy through renewable projects by 2035.
“Of all the retailers in America, Walmart stands to make the biggest impact if they put rooftop solar on all of their stores,” Neumann told CNN. “And for us, this report just underscores just how much of an impact they could make if they make that decision.”
According to Environment America, Walmart had installed almost 194 megawatts of solar capacity on its US facilities as of the end of the 2021 fiscal year and additional capacity in off-site solar farms. The company’s installations in California were expected to provide between 20% to 30% of each location’s electricity needs.
Target ranked No. 1 for on-site solar capacity in 2019, according to industry trade group Solar Energy Industries Association’s most recent report. It currently has 542 locations with rooftop solar — around a quarter of the company’s stores — a Target spokesperson told CNN. Rooftop solar generates enough energy to meet 15% to 40% of Target properties’ energy needs, the spokesperson said.
Richard Galanti, the chief financial officer at Costco, said the company has 121 stores with rooftop solar around the world, 95 of which are in the US.
Walmart, Target and Costco did not share with CNN what their biggest barriers are to adding rooftop or parking lot solar panels to more stores.
Approximate number of households companies could power with rooftop solar
Walmart — 842,700
Target — 259,900
Home Depot — 256,600
Kroger — 192,500
Costco — 87,500
Source: Environment America, Frontier Group report, “Solar on Superstores”
“My suspicion is that they want an even stronger business case for deviating from business-as-usual,” Neumann said. “Historically, all those roofs have done is cover their stores, and rethinking how [they] use their buildings and thinking of them as energy generators, not just protection from rain, requires a small change in their business model.”
Home Depot, which has around 2,300 stores, currently has 75 completed rooftop solar projects, 12 in construction and more than 30 planned for future development, said Craig D’Arcy, the company’s director of energy management. Solar power generates around half of these stores’ energy needs on average, he said.
Aging rooftops at stores are a “huge impediment” to solar installation, D’Arcy added. If a roof needs to be replaced in the next 15 to 20 years or sooner, it doesn’t make financial sense for Home Depot to add solar systems today, he said.
“We have a goal of implementing solar rooftop where the economics are attractive,” D’Arcy told CNN.
CNN also reached out to Kroger, which owns about 2,800 stores across the US. Kristal Howard, a Kroger spokesperson, said the company currently has 15 properties — stores, distribution centers and manufacturing plants — with solar installations. One of the “multiple factors affecting the viability of a solar installation” was the stores’ ability to support a solar installation on the roofs, Howard said.
Cowen, the engineering professor at Cornell, said solar is already attractive, but that labor costs, incentives and the different layers of regulation likely pose some financial challenges in solar installations.
“For them, this means usually hiring a local site firm that can do that installation that also knows local policy,” Cowen said. “It’s just another layer of complexity that I think is beginning to make sense because the costs have come down enough, but it needs kind of reopening that door of getting into an existing building.”
Rep. Sean Casten of Illinois, who co-chairs the power sector task force in the House, said the US has “failed to provide the incentives to people who have the expertise to go in and build these things.” The reason both retail companies and the power sector have not made much progress on solar is because “our system is so disjointed” and has a complex regulation structure, Casten said.
“Why aren’t we doing something that makes economic sense? The answer is this horribly disjointed federal policy where we massively subsidize fossil energy extraction, and we penalize clean energy production,” Casten told CNN. “For a long, long time, if you wanted to build a solar panel on the rooftop of Walmart, your biggest enemy was going to be your local utility because they didn’t want to lose the load.
“We could have done this decades ago,” Casten added. “And had we done it, we would not be in this dire position with the climate, but we’d also have a lot more money in our pocket.”
For Charles Callaway, director of organizing at the nonprofit group WE ACT for Environmental Justice, strengthening the rooftop solar capacity in big box retail stores is a no-brainer, especially if companies allow the local community to reap benefits either through installation jobs or sharing the electricity produced later.
Either way, it would put a massive dent in curbing the climate crisis and help usher in an equitable transition away from fossil fuels — and it’s doable, Callaway told CNN.
The New York City resident led a worker training program that helped train more than 100 local community members, mostly people of color, to become solar installers. He also formed a solar workers cooperative to ensure many of the participants of the training program get jobs in a tough market.
In the last two years, Callaway said his group has not only installed solar panels on roofs of affordable housing units, but also equipment capable of producing 2 megawatts of solar energy on shopping malls up in upstate New York. He emphasized that hiring locally would be most beneficial since local installers know the community and local regulations best.
“One of my huge concerns is social equity,” Cowen said. “Access to renewable energy is a fairly privileged position these days, and we’ve got to figure out ways to make that not true.”
Jasmine Graham, WE ACT’s energy justice policy manager, said the potential of building rooftop solar on big box superstores is encouraging, only “if these projects use local labor, if they are paying prevailing wages, and if this solar is being used in a manner such as community solar, which would allow [utility] bill discounts for folks that live in the same utility zone.”
Pressure is mounting for global leaders to act urgently on the climate crisis after a UN report in late February warned the window for action is rapidly closing.
Neumann believes the US can meet its energy demand with renewables. All it takes, she said, is the political will to make that switch, and the inclusion of the local community so no one gets left behind in the transition.
“The sooner we make that transition, the sooner we’ll have cleaner air, the sooner we’ll have a more protected environment and better health and the sooner we’ll have a more livable future for our kids,” Neumann said. “And even if that requires investment, it is an investment worth making.”
Z Sphere Development LLC and We Solar CSP have agreed on a revolutionary collaboration that will deliver a simple, durable, cost-effective, yet highly efficient new building solution and power generation, providing natural disaster resilience and continuous availability of essential utilities.
Press Release –
updated: Apr 22, 2021
ORLANDO, Fla., April 22, 2021 (Newswire.com)
– Z Sphere Development LLC (www.myzsphere.com) and WeSolar CSP (www.wesolarcsp.com) are collaborating to bring the world’s first cutting-edge resilient solar technology and building architecture to reality.
Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more severe. A Z Sphere is a geodesic structure that can be used as a municipal, commercial or residential building, offering fresh water supply, food production capabilities, and solar power generation. It provides shelter and sustainable living before, during, and after a disaster strikes. WeSolar CSP, in conjunction with Z Sphere, will build resilient microgrids to bring clean energy to disaster-prone areas around the globe, beginning in Puerto Rico and The Caribbean. WeSolar CSP’s disruptive ASC technology will provide clean, dispatchable, and scalable solar energy and potable water through desalination. WeSolar CSP will bring together solar power generation with resilient long-duration energy storage required in a Z Sphere.
“We are very excited about working with WeSolar CSP in delivering a first-of-itskind solution to those living in dangerous areas, prone to natural disasters,” the CEO of Z Sphere, David Atkinson, declared.
“Together, we can impact millions of people devastated by climate change, seen in worsening hurricane and earthquake activity, providing them with safe structures equipped with clean sustainable energy powered by a resilient microgrid infrastructure” announced the CEO of WeSolar CSP, Steve Anglin.
This collaboration is ideal because it brings together two complementary technologies – solar power generation and storage with hurricane/earthquake-resistant architecture – to provide basic necessities and safeguard life and property during natural disasters.
Summary: Z Sphere Development LLC and We Solar CSP have agreed on a revolutionary collaboration that will deliver a simple, durable, cost-effective, yet highly efficient new building solution and power generation, providing natural disaster resilience and continuous availability of essential utilities.
About Z Sphere: Z Sphere Development LLC (“Z Sphere”) is a U.S. Delaware corporation engaged in Smart, Sustainable, Living with the design, manufacturing, and installation of disaster-resilient and sustainable structures. Z Sphere is bringing to market the world’s first and only municipal, commercial, and residential building architecture system made of modular structural panels designed to withstand natural disasters, including hurricanes, floods, storm surge, earthquakes, wildfires, and more. Founded in 2019, Z Sphere Development is headquartered in Kingsland, Georgia.
About WeSolar CSP: A minority-owned American renewable energy technology and design company, WeSolar CSP powered by ASC creates thermal heat and long-duration energy storage, using high temperatures from the sun, ensuring consistent electricity supply from a clean source. In addition to a zero-carbon footprint power generation, the technology can be used to yield industrial process heat, create green hydrogen, and desalinate water, among other uses. Founded in 2017, WeSolar CSP is headquartered in Princeton, New Jersey, and has offices in New York, Georgia, and Arizona.
For additional information or media inquiries, please contact:
Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly on Sunday leaned into his experience as an astronaut to call for climate crisis action amid a blistering heatwave across the United States, including his home state of Arizona.
“When I went into space four times, I mean, I could see how thin the atmosphere is over this planet. It’s as thin as a contact lens on an eyeball, and we have got to do a better job taking care of it,” Kelly told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
“I have not seen in my time in the Senate many folks that deny that the climate is changing. That was a thing of the past. Now is: What do we do about it? We passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is a big down payment on reducing the amount of carbon we put up into the atmosphere. That will make a difference over time. We obviously have to do more,” he added.
As the climate crisis ratchets temperatures higher and higher, scientists have warned there’s a growing likelihood that 2023 could be the Earth’s hottest year on record. Heat kills more Americans than any other form of severe weather, including flooding, hurricanes or extreme cold, according to National Weather Service data.
These climate crisis warnings have been especially potent in recent days as more than 85 million people remain under heat alerts while the weekslong heat wave continues and intensifies in the Southwest. Dangerously high temperatures have continued to plague the western parts of the US throughout the weekend, with temperatures expected to grow hotter in the South in the coming days.
More than 100 temperature records could be set through Monday across the West and South.
“My view hasn’t really changed. We are suffering a heat wave here in Arizona. It is typically very hot in the summer. This is obviously dangerous to seniors and folks who are living on the streets,” Kelly said Sunday.
While scientists say the heat records are alarming, most are unsurprised – though frustrated that their warnings have been largely ignored for decades.
The world is “walking into an uncharted territory,” Carlo Buontempo, director of the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service, told CNN earlier this month. “We have never seen anything like this in our life.”
Kelly also said Sunday he was “concerned” about the impact the group “No Labels” – which is pushing for a third-party unity ticket in 2024 – could have on President Joe Biden’s reelection bid.
“I don’t think ‘No Labels’ is a political party. I mean, this is a few individuals putting dark money behind an organization, and that’s not what our democracy should be about; it should not be about a few rich people,” he told Tapper. “So I’m obviously concerned about what’s going on here in Arizona and across the country.”
Arizona Democrats have sued over the recognition of No Labels as a political party with the ability to place candidates on the state’s ballot – and potentially play a spoiler role in 2024, when Arizona, which Biden won by less than half a point in 2020, is poised to be a critical swing state.
No Labels is set to host an event Monday in New Hampshire, with centrist Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia as a keynote speaker. Kelly said he had spoken to Manchin about the issue but did not offer any details.
“I’m not going to go into details of conversations I have with my fellow senators. That’s sort of a policy of mine,” he said.
This story has been updated with additional details.
A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
CNN
—
Two distinct and unrelated stories this week convinced me it was a good moment to look at nuclear power in the US.
Those developments, which might give anyone pause about the future of nuclear power, are counteracted by other headlines.
The opening of a new nuclear plant in Georgia, for example, will bring carbon emission-free energy at exactly the time worldwide temperature records drive home the reality of climate change causedby the burning of fossil fuels.
Germany made the decision to decommission all of its nuclear plants after disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima. The last nuclear reactor there was taken offline earlier this year, a decision some might have regretted after Germany’s access to Russian natural gas was threatened by the war in Ukraine.
Next door, France is the worldwide nuclear leader. Most of its electricity is generated by nuclear power.
Russia, while it has been ostracized from the world economy in almost every way since its invasion of Ukraine, remains a major player in nuclear power. It enriches and sells uranium throughits state-controlled nuclear energy company, Rosatom, whichbuilds and operates plants around the world, according to a March report from CNN’s Clare Sebastian thatexplains why the West has largely left Russia’s nuclear power industry alone.
As of 2022, about 18% of US electricity is generated by nuclear power, according to the US Energy Information Administration. Most large US nuclear reactors are old – averaging40 years or more.
In addition to the Georgia reactor coming online, a new reactor began operatingin Tennessee in 2016. But otherwise, the US nuclear power portfolio is old, and much of it is in need of improvement.
For an idea of the money and corruption that can revolve around energy production, look at the sentencing lastweek of Ohio’s former House Speaker Larry Householder to 20 years in prison for his involvement in a bribery scheme meant to get the utility company FirstEnergy Corp. a billion-dollar taxpayer bailout for two nuclear plants.
The bipartisan infrastructure law signed by President Joe Biden in 2021included a $6 billion program to provide grants to nuclear reactor owners or operators and stave off closing them.
More than a dozen reactors have closed earlyin the US over the past decade, according to the Department of Energy. At least one reactor, the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in California, will be kept open after a more than $1 billion grant.
Nuclear power – and how aggressively the US and other countries should be pursuing it – is a topic that splits scientists as well.
I talked to one nuclear expert who said the US should be slow and methodical about nuclear power and another who argued there are multiple, public misperceptions about nuclear power that should be corrected.
The more circumspect voice is Rodney Ewing, a Stanford Universityprofessor and expert on nuclear waste who was chairman of a federal review of nuclear waste procedures. I was put in touch with him by the Bulletin of theAtomic Scientists, which aims to “reduce man-made threats to our existence.”
Despite his decades spent focused on nuclear issues, he said something I found remarkable:
“I don’t have yet, although I’ve tried for years, a well-formed position for or against nuclear energy,” Ewing said.
“Too often in the enthusiasm for nuclear energy, a carbon-free source of energy – and in the present situation of the issue of climate change, really a very important existential crisis – it’s easy to say, well, we’ll solve the problems later.”
He said the issues with nuclear energy – from the potential for disaster to the issue of how to store nuclear waste – should be compared with the potential for renewable alternatives like solar and wind energy.
The University of Illinois energy professor, David Ruzic –who has a lively YouTube channel, “Illinois EnergyProf,” with multiple videos meant to dispel concerns about nuclear energy – has a much more positive view of nuclear energy’s future.
Illinois, by the way, generates more nuclear power than any other state. Lawmakers there recently voted to lift a moratorium on new reactor construction that was in placeuntil the federal government can develop a technology for disposing of nuclear waste. That new policy must still be signed by the state’s governor.
Ruzic argues nuclear waste takes up such little space it should simply be encased in yards of solid concrete and kept at the site of nuclear reactors. The concrete, he argued, can be repaired every 70 years or so as it degrades.
“Over the 60 years we’ve been doing this commercially, we have learned so much about how to do it extremely safely and very well,” Ruzic said, arguing that the new plant in Georgia would not be affected by an earthquake and tidal wave in the way that Fukushima was, because the new reactor in Georgia is cooled by air in case of an emergency.
He argued that even in Fukushima, it’s important to note that there were no deaths associated with the radiation due to the failure of the plant, although many thousands were evacuated.
Any concern you can find to raise about nuclear power, Ruzic has a ready answer. He said no one should worry about the radioactive water Japan plans to release into the ocean from Fukushima because there is a level of radioactivity in everything already.
“You are adding something trivial and inconsequential, which will be diluted even more,” Ruzic said.
Even the Russia-Ukrainestandoff over the Zaporizhzhia plant does not concern Ruzic; the biggest threat he sees, assuming it is not targeted by bunker-busting bombs, is that the plant ceases making electricity – not thatit couldturn into another Chernobyl.
“It’s really unfortunate that it’s in the middle of a war zone. But it’s also really unfortunate that chemical plants or coal plants or other plants are in the middle of a war zone as well,” he argued.
Both professorsbrought up the push toward small, modular nuclear technology for which there are numerous companies speculating there will be a major market. That market could grow exponentially if the government decides to put a tax on carbon emissions to account for the harm they cause.
Ewing argued there is not a clear US national energy strategy, and that means numerous state and federal agencies and private companies are searching, often at odds with each other, for something new. The expense and difficulty of developing nuclear technology will be a roadblock. The new Georgia plant took more than a decade to build and came in over budget.
Ruzic said that after the initial capital expenditure, the relative low cost of fuel for nuclear plants makes them a good, long-term investment.
When I came back to Ewing about his comment that he has no clear preference for or against nuclear energy, he said the broad question overlooks too much.
“The nuclear landscape is, from a technical and social point of view, complicated enough that broad general positions really don’t serve us very well,” he said.
In mid-July at the construction site at 1 Java Street in Brooklyn, New York, the outside temperatures can reach sweltering highs in the 90s. But 500-feet underground, it’s 55 degrees all year round.
That stable, underground temperature will be key to making life comfortable in the residential building that will soon sit on the site, a scenic spot in the Greenpoint neighborhood along Brooklyn’s waterfront.
With 834 rental apartments plus commercial space, 1 Java Street is set to be the largest multifamily, residential building with “geothermal” heating and cooling system in New York State — and potentially the country — when it’s completed in late 2025, according to developer Lendlease.
Geothermal technology is essentially a more eco-friendly version of an HVAC system, allowing the building spaces and water to be cooled and heated more efficiently, without traditional window AC units and natural gas. Lendlease says the technology will make it possible for the nearly 790,000-square foot building to release around 55% less carbon and achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
With summer temperatures reaching record highs around the world, experts say finding ways to cool buildings that are less taxing on the environment could be crucial in fighting climate change. Even back in 2018, air conditioning and electric fans accounted for around 20% of total global electricity use, according to a report cpublished that year by the International Energy Agency. Now, energy and urban development experts are urging cities and developers to implement new solutions to keep buildings cooler. And both New York City and the Biden administration have identified geothermal systems as one way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Whenever we look at a site, we consider how we can make it more sustainable,” Layth Madi, Lendlease’s senior vice president and director of development, told CNN, adding that the development firm is aiming to reach net zero by 2025 and be fully decarbonized by 2040.
“I think many residents will choose to live in this building because of its green credentials,” Madi said. “We know a lot of people are thinking about climate change and our impact on the planet.”
Geothermal plumbing works by sending water from a building deep into the ground below it to take advantage of the earth’s naturally stable internal temperature — on hot days, the underground temperature will reduce the temperature of warm water from the building to help with cooling; on cold days, it will warm up cold water to help with heating.
At 1 Java Street, construction crews are drilling 320 holes, each around 4 inches in diameter and 499-feet deep, to create the building’s geothermal piping system through which the water will be pumped.
“Your thermostat turns on and it tells your building, ‘I need heating or cooling.’ And it energizes pumps, and those pumps flow fluid through the [geothermal] circuit that we’ve established here on site,” said Adam Alaica, director of engineering and development at Geosource Energy, the Canadian firm that’s installing and drilling the vertical geothermal piping at 1 Java Street.
For now, the process doesn’t come cheap. Installing the building’s geothermal system increased construction costs by around 6%, according to Madi, and required securing equipment and trained manpower that remains relatively scarce.
“We’re seeing rapid growth — I would say approaching that of exponential growth year over year in interest in the technology, which is very exciting for the industry as a whole,” Alacia said. “The bottlenecks to that growth have always been, and will continue to be in the years to come, specialty machinery to implement this infrastructure and the people resources it takes to do this.”
Eventually, though, as more developers invest in geothermal and more companies provide the specialty training needed to install the technology — Geosource operates its own training program — Madi said he expects the costs to come down. And once the building is up and running, it should be more cost efficient to heat and cool.
Lendlease didn’t specify whether residents of 1 Java Street will experience any cost savings on utilities thanks to the geothermal system (the units themselves will be priced at market rate, with 30% of them set aside as affordable housing). “Ultimately, it will be up to tenants to manage their power consumption and work with the utility company on billing,” the company told CNN.
While 1 Java Street will be one of relatively few geothermal buildings in the state, the companies behind its development say New York — and the world — could use more buildings like it.
“Geothermal is not a new technology … there’s kind of a primitive component to it, using the earth as a heat source and heat sink,” Alacia said. “In general, geothermal can really be used anywhere you have ground under your feet … The cost and the business case can vary, but technically it has strong credentials really anywhere in the country.”
A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
CNN
—
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed a plan to remake the way car-obsessed Americans live, using public safety rules to accelerate the shift from internal combustion to electric vehicles.
Just a fraction of the current auto market is EVs, but under standards announced by the EPA Wednesday,up totwo-thirds of newvehicles sold in the US would be zero-emission or plug-in hybrid within a decade.
The rules, which are not yet final, would use authority under the Clean Air Act to force auto companies to cut pollution and slash vehicle emissions by more than half. They wouldphase in with model year2027 vehicles and be fully implemented by 2032. Read CNN’s full report.
While ambitious, the goals are not unprecedented. They put the federal government on track to catch up with state governments, led by California, that want to stop allowing the sale of internal combustion vehicles by 2035. Read this report from CNN Business about why that’s not as crazy as it seems.
There is a very big legal question mark looming behind California’s action and the EPA’s effort, which still has a public comment and revision period.
The current Supreme Court, dominated by conservative justices, has already shown its scorn for EPA rulemaking and its indifference to addressing climate change. Last year, the court nixed the Biden administration’s plan to curb emissions from existing power plants.
I asked CNN climate reporter Ella Nilsen for her takeaways from the EPA announcement. She offered these key points:
► The standards are ambitious, but doable
If enacted, the newly proposed EPA emissions standards would be one of the Biden administration’s most aggressive climate-change policies yet – moving the US auto market decisively toward electric vehicles in the next decade.
However, multiple experts said the standards are doable, and even lag slightly behind the California standards, which will completely phase out the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035 to usher in electric vehicles. The US is also following countries including the EU and China, which are moving more aggressively toward electric vehicles.
► Charging infrastructure and consumer incentives could be tricky
This new proposed rule won’t happen overnight; it would be gradually phased in over the next decade. At the same time, the US needs to build up a network of electric charging stations in addition to the ubiquitous gas station. Federal officials have also talked about needing to incentivize more Americans to buy EVs by bringing the cost down, with federal tax credits.
However, the new $7,500 tax credits (passed last yearby Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act) are incredibly complex due to manufacturing requirements. The credits could actually shrink the eligible number of cars that qualify (however, leased vehicles have more leeway under the new system). Regardless, it will take years for the EV infrastructure, incentives and supply to fall into place to make electric vehicles available to most Americans.
► This is a big deal for US climate policy
This rule will impact the US economy, but it’s also major climate policy. The proposed EPA tailpipe standards would cut planet-warming pollution from US cars in half. Combined with the agency’s medium and heavy-duty vehicles standard, the proposals could cut nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 emissions by 2055.
Given Americans’ reliance on cars, transportation is a big part of overall US emissions – it accounts for nearly 30% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the EPA. Cutting down on tailpipe pollution from gas-powered cars and trucks is a big part of decarbonizing the US.
While the federal government and key states are all in on moving toward EVs, and auto companies are spending big to get competitive in the market, Americans generally are not yet completely embracing the idea.
Just 4% of Americans currently own an EV, and a scant 12% are seriously considering buying one, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. Less than half, 43%, say they would consider buying an EV in the future, and a sizable 41% are completely closed off to the idea.
The expected partisan breakdown applies to those figures. Most of the interest in EVs is among Democrats. Most of the staunch opposition is among Republicans. Younger Americansand those making $100,000 and aboveare also more interested in buying an EV in the future.
There are also key regional disparities. In the West, where states are already working to phase in EVs,only 28% say they would not buy an EV. Compare that to half of Southerners who would not consider buying an EV.
A majority of the country is skeptical that EVs will even have an effect on the climate, according to the poll, with 61% saying EVs will help address climate change only a little or not at all.
In a separate AP-NORC poll released this week, the most-cited major reasons for not wanting to purchase an EV – out of eight offered in the poll – were expense (60% said they cost too much) and convenience (50% said there aren’t enough charging stations available).
Access and affordability should be addressed as inventory increases, writes CNN’s Peter Valdes-Dapena, who covers the auto industry. A decade from now, charging should be quicker and easier, EV ranges should be longer and prices should be at or below the cost of an internal combustion vehicle. Read his full report.
Rather than fighting the rules, as the fossil fuel industry is sure to do, the auto industry is already investing heavily in EVs, responding to tougher regulation already imposed around the world and by California, which moved to ban the sale of new gas and diesel powered vehicles by 2035.
California actually took the lead on pushing for EVs in the years when the Trump administration was dialing back on federal climate policy. Other states, like Oregon, Washington and Minnesota, have tied their standards to California’s.
Valdes-Dapena notes that car companies with loyal customer bases are slowly making the switch. He writes:
Currently, Toyota offers only one electric model in the United States, the BZ4X SUV, but more are planned. Honda, another Japanese brand with a loyal following, offers no EVs currently but the company is gearing up factories in Ohio to build future EV models. Honda expects to offer its first EV next year. General Motors also has a number of EV models coming in the next year or two.
He also notes that GM has pledged to sell only electric passenger vehicles by 2035.
And no, this does not mean internal combustion vehicles will be banned. They will still make up the vast majority of vehicles on the road in a decade even if this rule is finalized and withstands challenges in court. But it would represent a tectonic shift.
Older than dinosaurs and trees, sharks have endured a lot throughout their 450 million years on Earth. They’ve even survived five mass extinctions, including the asteroid that wiped out 75% of life on the planet. But many species of these aquatic apex predators are now in danger of dying out forever.
“Sharks are in crisis globally,” says the WWF. Overfishing (hunting for their meat, fins, and other parts before they can reproduce fast enough) is their biggest threat along with unintentionally getting caught in fishing gear and the effects of climate change.
Of the thousand known species of sharks and rays (sharks’ closest living relatives), over a third of them are at risk of extinction. And since sharks are “indicators of ocean health,” as sharks go, so does the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.
From gathering data to educating the public to advocating for underwater life, many conservation groups are on a mission to protect these prehistoric creatures before they are lost to history. Click here to support their work or keep reading to learn how they’re taking action.
Research is key to conservation. Scientists rely on this information to inform wildlife and habitat management and conservation plans while advocates use data to develop and recommend policy to public officials. This research can also be used for public safety purposes as well as to educate future generations that will inherit the planet.
Often conducted in remote and dangerous environments, shark research requires time and money. But that work is paying off as researchers continually identify new species of sharks, such as those that can walk on the ocean floor and glow in the dark.
These research-oriented organizations are exploring the world’s reefs, seas, coastlines, and oceans to ultimately benefit shark conservation:
Atlantic White Shark Conservancy – Based on the southern tip of Cape Cod, the conservancy’s main mission is white shark research and education. Offering expeditions to see the animals in their natural habitat, educational Shark Centers open to the public, and youth science programs, the non-profit also runs the Sharktivity app where user-reported shark sightings help researchers learn more about shark travel and behavior and keep sharks and humans safe from each other.
Beneath the Waves –– Since 2013, Beneath The Waves has used science and technology to promote ocean health and conservation policy. Their threatened species initiative collects research on sharks using tools such as tags, sensors, drones, and satellites to better understand shark biology and movement. The non-profit launched the first long-term study of large-scale shark sanctuaries and discovered deep-sea “hotspots” for sharks in the Caribbean.
MarAlliance– Headquartered in Houston, MarAlliance conducts research in tropical seas to support wildlife conservation in places such as the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Ocean, and Caribbean Sea. Their work includes identifying potential sites for marine protected areas from fishing, training local fishing communities, and monitoring population levels of threatened marine life, like some species of sharks.
Mote Marine Lab and Aquarium – Founded in 1955 on Florida’s west coast, Mote Marine Laboratory has been “obsessed” with sharks since their beginning. Today, their Sharks & Rays Conservation Research Program is one of 20 marine research programs studying human and environmental health, sustainable fishing, and animals such as manatees and dolphins. Mote also runs an aquarium equipped with a 135,000-gallon shark tank viewable on a live stream.
FinsAttached – While the Colorado-based non-profit aims to protect the health of the entire ocean, much of its research focuses on sharks since their position at the top of the marine food chain influences the health of the entire ecosystem. Fins Attached has produced many publications on shark research and allows donors to join some research expeditions, all with conservation and education in mind.
Unfortunately for sharks, NOAA says, “What makes them unique also makes them vulnerable.” Some species of sharks, like great whites, are slow to reproduce: they can take decades to reach breeding age, have pregnancies last up to three years, and produce small litters. And warming waters are shifting some of their migration patterns beyond protected areas, putting them at risk of fishing.
All of it is hurting their numbers. A 2021 report showed over the last 50 years, global shark and ray populations have fallen more than 70%.
“If we don’t do anything, it will be too late,” says biologist and study co-author Nick Dulvy. “It’s much worse than other animal populations we’ve been looking at,” adding the downward trend for sharks is even steeper than those for elephants and rhinos, which are “iconic in driving conservation efforts on land.”
While the study found we may approach a “point of no return,” there are encouraging signs that conservation efforts are starting to work for white sharks and hammerheads thanks to government bans, policies, and quotas.
There is still a long way to go, however, so many conservation organizations like these are dedicated to rescuing and protecting these vulnerable creatures:
PADI AWARE Foundation – The world’s largest scuba diver training organization, PADI (Professional Association of Diving Instructors) officially launched its global conservation charity in 1992 to promote cleaner and healthier oceans. One of its goals is to reduce the amount of sharks and rays threatened with extinction by 25%. Data collected from its new Global Shark & Ray Census will help with ongoing and future efforts to protect vulnerable species.
Galápagos Conservancy – Some 600 miles west of Ecuador lies one of the world’s most famous and unique ecosystems: the Galápagos Islands. As the only American non-profit solely devoted to protecting and restoring the archipelago, the Galápagos Conservancy is working to rewild and save endangered species, including sharks. The organization is helping research breeding areas of scalloped hammerhead and blacktip sharks and supporting efforts to learn more about the high concentration of whale sharks that congregate in the Galápagos Marine Reserve.
Shark Advocates International –– Founded by veteran shark advocate Sonja Fordham, Shark Advocates International is a project of The Ocean Foundation. The non-profit promotes science-based shark conservation policies such as fishing limits, species-specific protections, and finning bans at the local, national, and international level.
WildAid –– Known for its high-profile media campaigns, WildAid fights the global illegal wildlife trade by changing consumer attitudes through awareness of the multi-billion dollar industry. Its anti-shark fin campaign in China featuring NBA legend Yao Ming has been especially successful, seeing an 80% drop in shark fin consumption in the country. Through its WildAid Marine Program, the non-profit also helps protect sharks around the world, including the Galápagos Marine Reserve, home to the densest shark population on Earth.
Wildlife Conservation Society – Founded in 1895, the Wildlife Conservation Society is one of the oldest organizations of its kind. In addition to operating world-famous parks like the Bronx Zoo, WCS runs long-term wildlife protection projects across the world, including an initiative to develop and implement policies to help protect sharks from overfishing in low-income, ocean-dependent countries.
WWF– With five million supporters, projects in nearly 100 countries, and one iconic panda logo, the World Wildlife Fund (known outside of the US and Canada as the World Wild Fund for Nature) is one of the largest and most well-known conservation organizations on the planet. WWF has partnered with the international wildlife trade monitoring non-profit TRAFFIC for a joint shark conservation program with local projects all over the world.
It’s not just sharks that are vulnerable to deteriorating conditions in the water – the entire marine ecosystem is at risk due to unsustainable fishing practices, climate change, and pollution, which has reached “unprecedented” levels within the last 20 years.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the largest concentration of ocean plastic in the world, is now twice the size of Texas. Scientists are seeing the highest ocean surface temperatures on record this year along with a “totally unprecedented” marine heat wave in the north Atlantic Ocean. Researchers warn all coral reefs on Earth could die out by the end of the century.
Experts say it’s not too late to reverse course, but the window to do so is shrinking. A report in the journal Nature found marine wildlife to be “remarkably resilient” and could recover by 2050 with urgent and widespread conservation interventions.
Organizations like the ones below are committed to protecting the health of the entire ocean and all life within it:
Hubbs-SeaWorld Research Institute– Started in 1963 by one of the founders of SeaWorld, HSWRI’s mission is to conserve and renew marine life for a healthier planet. Although the non-profit institute exists as an independent entity, it still collaborates with the for-profit park on scientific research and both act as “first responders” to rescue marine wildlife.
Ocean Conservancy– The Ocean Conservancy’s roots date back to the 1970’s when it campaigned to save whales and other vulnerable animals. It later expanded its mission to protect the broader ecosystem, holding its first International Coastal Cleanup in 1986, and since then has collected more than 348 million pounds of trash with the help of 17 million volunteers. Other current programs include advancing ocean justice, addressing climate change, advocating for ocean health funding and legislation, and promoting sustainable fishing.
The Ocean Foundation– Working in 45 countries across six continents, the community foundation operates conservation initiatives focused on climate resilience, ocean literacy and leadership, ocean science equity, and sustainable plastic production and consumption. The non-profit also offers training, research and development, and support for coastal communities.
WILDCOAST– Known as COSTASALVAJE in Spanish, WILDCOAST’s work spans 38 million acres primarily across California and Mexico to conserve coastal and marine ecosystems and wildlife. The non-profit works to protect shorelines, coastal wetlands, mangrove forests, and coral reefs and establish protected areas for threatened sea turtles and gray whales.
Wild Oceans – Focused on the future of sustainable fishing, Tampa-based Wild Oceans is the oldest non-profit in America dedicated to marine fisheries management. The non-profit’s Large Marine Fish Conservation initiative focuses on conserving big fish such as marlin, swordfish, tuna, and sharks – “the lions, tigers and wolves of the sea” – to keep the entire ocean food web and habitat healthy.
Click here to support these organization’s work and help save sharks before it’s too late.
Some Amazon corporate workers have announced plans to walk off the job next week over frustrations with the company’s return-to-work policies, among other issues, in a sign of heightened tensions inside the e-commerce giant after multiple rounds of layoffs.
The work stoppage is being jointly organized by an internal climate justice worker group and a remote work advocacy group, according to an email from organizers and public social media posts.
Workers participating have two main demands: asking the e-commerce giant to put climate impact at the forefront of its decision making, and to provide greater flexibility for how and where employees work.
The lunchtime walkout is scheduled for May 31, beginning at noon. Organizers have said in an internal pledge that they are only going to go through with the walkout if at least 1,000 workers agree to participate, according to an email from organizers.
The Washington Post was first to report the planned walkout.
The collective action from corporate workers comes after Amazon, like other Big Tech companies, cut tens of thousands of jobs beginning late last year amid broader economic uncertainty. All told, Amazon has said this year that it is laying off some 27,000 workers in multiple rounds of cuts.
At the same time, Amazon and other tech companies are trying to get workers into the office more. In February, Amazon said it was requiring thousands of its workers to be in the office for at least three days per week, starting on May 1.
“Morale is really at an all-time low right now,” an Amazon corporate worker based in Los Angeles, who plans on participating in the walkout next week, told CNN. “I think the hope from this walkout is really to send a clear message to leadership that we’re expecting real action from them on a number of issues, with the thesis of just, like, we need better long term decision-making that benefits not only employees but the communities that we serve.”
The worker, who asked not to be named, said organizers are focusing the in-person walkout efforts at the company’s Seattle headquarters but have also created a way for people to participate virtually so “all Amazonians are welcome to participate.”
One of the internal groups spearheading next week’s walkout is dubbed Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ), the same coalition that organized protests slamming the company for inaction on climate change back in 2019.
“Amazon must keep pace with a changing world,” the group wrote in a Twitter thread Tuesday calling for the walkout next week. “To cultivate a diverse, world-class workplace, we need real plans to tackle our climate impact and flexible work options.”
Amazon’s Climate Pledge, signed in 2019, commits the company to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040, among other climate goals. But in the Twitter thread, the group blasted the pledge as “hype” and demanded “a genuine climate plan.”
Amazon said it has made progress in meeting its goals, including by putting thousands of electric delivery vehicles on the road, and by continuing to invest in both proven and new science-backed solutions for reducing carbon emissions. Amazon also said it had the goal of powering 100% of its operations with renewable energy by 2030, and now expects to meet that goal by 2025.
“We respect our employees’ rights to express their opinions,” Rob Munoz, an Amazon spokesperson, told CNN in a statement Tuesday.
In response to employee concerns about the return to office, Munoz said the company has “had a great few weeks with more employees in the office.”
“There’s been good energy on campus and in urban cores like Seattle where we have a large presence. We’ve heard this from lots of employees and the businesses that surround our offices,” Munoz said. “As it pertains to the specific topics this group of employees is raising, we’ve explained our thinking in different forums over the past few months and will continue to do so.”
President Joe Biden will highlight climate commitments made by his administration and announce new federal funding for climate resilience projects as part of a three-day trip to the Bay Area in Northern California that begins Monday, according to a White House official.
Biden’s trip builds on several campaign-related stops over the past week at which he outlined key planks for his reelection bid, including touting stricter gun safety measures at a summit in Connecticut and underscoring his economic pitch in Philadelphia.
It also comes less than a week after four major environmental groups backed Biden’s campaign for a second term in a first-ever joint endorsement from the LCV Action Fund, NextGen PAC, the Sierra Club and the NRDC Action Fund. In a speech in Washington after the endorsement, Biden called climate change “the only truly existential threat,” adding, “If we don’t meet the requirements that we’re looking at, we’re in real trouble.”
Biden heavily courted climate and environmental justice groups during his 2020 campaign and has made combating climate change central to his governing agenda with announcements over the past few months on environmental justice initiatives and aggressive new rules to regulate planet-warming pollution from natural gas power plants.
On Monday, Biden will tour coastal wetland areas and discuss actions his administration has taken to alleviate the climate crisis and protect the environment during a visit to the Lucy Evans Baylands Nature Interpretive Center and Preserve in Palo Alto, California, according to the White House official.
As part of his remarks, which will be delivered alongside state, community and environmental justice leaders, the president will announce that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is launching a $575 million “Climate Resilience Regional Challenge,” which will help coastal and Great Lakes communities “become more resilient to extreme weather and other impacts of the climate crisis,” according to a White House fact sheet.
Biden issued an executive order prioritizing environmental justice in April, establishing the new Office of Environmental Justice within the White House Council on Environmental Quality. In a speech at the time ahead of Earth Day, Biden said that “environmental justice will be the mission of the entire government woven directly into how we work with state, local, tribal, and territorial governments.”
The funding to be announced Monday, which is part of the president’s signature climate and health care law enacted last year, will support building natural infrastructure, protecting public access to coastal natural resources and other measures aimed at protecting communities for storm surge, flooding and rising sea levels, according to the White House.
Biden will also announce that he expects to host a White House Summit on Building Climate Resilient Communities later this year during which his administration will release a new National Climate Resilience Framework that will outline steps the federal government can take to promote climate resiliency, according to the fact sheet.
Tucked into President Joe Biden’s ambitious, sweeping climate commitments is a crucially important goal that dates back to his campaign: Transforming the US electric grid to run entirely on clean energy by 2035.
The goal could make or break Biden’s pledge to slash the country’s planet-warming emissions in half by 2030. And if successful, 100% clean electricity could energize vast sectors of the US economy: electric vehicles, home and office heating and cooling, and appliances. It could even power heavy industry and manufacturing, which is currently reliant on fossil fuels.
“When you have a fully clean grid, versus a grid that either is a quarter or a half clean, that makes a significant difference in terms of the greenhouse gas performance of the things you’re plugging in to that grid,” White House national climate adviser Ali Zaidi told CNN. “That electric vehicle now is twice or three times cleaner when you shift to a fully clean grid.”
Yet while renewable energy has exploded over the past decade, bringing Biden’s cornerstone climate goal to fruition by 2035 could be beyond his grasp.
As of this year, about 44% of America’s electricity was powered by zero-emissions sources like wind, solar, nuclear and hydropower, according to the Department of Energy. The rest comes from fossil fuels like methane gas and coal.
After the Inflation Reduction Act passed last year – legislation that aimed to supercharge clean energy in the US – an analysis from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory predicts the US will get to around 80% clean electricity by 2030, a number that includes renewables, nuclear energy and carbon capture on fossil fuel plants.
By 2035, the federal analysis shows clean and renewable sources will make up about 86% of US energy, spurred in large part by the IRA. (That analysis did not include the Biden administration’s proposed pollution rules for power plants, which could increase the adoption of clean energy.)
“That’s a doubling from today, which is huge,” Ben King, an associate director at the nonpartisan think tank Rhodium Group, told CNN. But it’s also short of Biden’s goal of 100% clean electricity by that date.
Decarbonizing the last portion of the power sector will be the most difficult, federal officials and experts told CNN. The closer you get to 100% percent clean electricity, the harder it is to go all the way.
“We’ve known that the last 10% – maybe the last 20 to 25% – is going to be challenging,” Zaidi said. “And the reason is because you’re not just trying to deliver clean electrons onto the grid. You’re trying to deliver cleaner electrons when you want them, where you want them. That’s a hard thing to do.”
Not only does the power need to come from clean sources, it also needs to be readily available to energize the US economy during peak demand.
But wind and solar are still variable – especially without massive, costly battery storage. And newer technologies, like green hydrogen, carbon capture and small modular nuclear reactors haven’t yet been built to a large enough scale.
That could mean some fossil fuels plants outfitted with carbon capture would need to remain connected to the grid to provide power that can brought online quickly, King said.
There are also big infrastructure hurdles for renewables to take the lead. Even if massive amounts of wind and solar are developed by the end of this decade, the US may not have enough electrical transmission infrastructure to move all of that renewable energy around the grid.
“The bottlenecks of a lack of transmission are very real,” Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, told CNN. There also needs to be significant investment in massive batteries to store the power generated by wind and solar to be used at all hours, she said.
While companies and the federal government are racing to scale up new zero-carbon technologies, traditional wind and solar will largely power this clean electricity transition.
They are the most reliable and trusted clean energy sources for utilities and developers, and they have quickly become cheaper than fossil fuels – so inexpensive that it is becoming more cost-effective for some utilities to build new wind and solar, rather than constructing new fossil plants or even running existing ones, experts told CNN.
Wind and solar are also mature technologies that developers know they can finance and get huge tax breaks on through the Inflation Reduction Act.
They are the “natural choice for developers who are looking for those low risk and very cost-effective projects to develop,” Sonia Aggarwal, a former White House senior advisor for climate policy and CEO of nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation, told CNN. “We will see them play a large role because of how good they look from an economic perspective.”
By the end of 2021, wind and solar together made up about 228 gigawatts of power. By 2034, NREL predicts that number – including offshore wind – will grow by more than four times to over 1 terawatt, or 1 trillion watts of power.
“Where we are now is very different from even 5 or 10 years ago as far as the costs of clean energy, particularly renewables, being significantly lower than they’ve been in the past,” Carla Frisch, acting executive director of the US Energy Department’s Office of Policy, told CNN. “So just a really rapid acceleration that we’re already experiencing right now.”
While getting new clean technologies to scale will be difficult, it’s work worth doing, Zaidi said.
“Let’s deploy the stuff we have right now, right away,” he said. “And let’s work hard as we can to innovate on the stuff that we need in the future.”
