Meadow Lake wind farm in Indiana. Anthony / CC BY-ND 2.0
By Tara Lohan
The first official tallies are in: Coronavirus-related shutdowns helped slash daily global emissions of carbon dioxide by 14 percent in April. But the drop won't last, and experts estimate that annual emissions of the greenhouse gas are likely to fall only about 7 percent this year.
<p>After that, unless we make substantial changes to global economies, it will be back to business as usual — and a path that leads directly to runaway climate change. If we want to reverse course, say the world's leading scientists, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/08/world-has-only-years-get-climate-change-under-control-un-scientists-say/" target="_blank">we have about a decade</a> to right the ship.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://therevelator.org/stokes-clean-energy/" target="_blank">The Revelator</a>. </em><em></em></p>
<p>That's because we've squandered a lot of time. "The 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s were lost decades for preventing global climate disaster," political scientist <a href="https://www.leahstokes.com/" target="_blank">Leah Stokes</a> writes in her new book <em><a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/short-circuiting-policy-9780190074265?cc=us&lang=en" target="_blank">Short Circuiting Policy</a></em><em>, </em>which looks at the history of clean energy policy in the U.S.</p><p>But we don't all bear equal responsibility for the tragic delay.</p><p>"Some actors in society have more power than others to shape how our economy is fueled," writes Stokes, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "We are not all equally to blame."</p><p><em>Short Circuiting</em> <em>Policy</em> focuses on the role of one particularly bad actor: electric utilities. Their history of obstructing a clean-energy transition in the U.S. has been largely overlooked, with most of the finger-pointing aimed at fossil fuel companies (and for good reason).</p><p>We spoke with Stokes about this history of delay and denial from the utility industry, how to accelerate the speed and scale of clean-energy growth, and whether we can get past the polarizing rhetoric and politics around clean energy.</p>
What lessons can we learn from your research to guide us right now, in what seems like a really critical time in the fight to halt climate change?
<p>What a lot of people don't understand is that to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we actually have to reduce emissions by around 7-8 percent <em>every single year</em> from now until 2030, which is what the emissions drop is likely to be this year because of the COVID-19 crisis.</p><p>So think about what it took to reduce emissions by that much and think about how we have to do that <em>every single year</em>.</p><p>It doesn't mean that it's going to be some big sacrifice, but it does mean that we need government policy, particularly at the federal level, because state policy can only go so far. We've been living off state policy for more than three decades now and we need our federal government to act.</p>Where are we now, in terms of our progress on renewable energy and how far we need to go?
<p>A lot of people think renewable energy is growing "so fast" and it's "so amazing." But first of all, during the coronavirus pandemic, the renewable energy industry is actually doing very poorly. It's losing a lot of jobs. And secondly, we were not moving fast enough even before the coronavirus crisis, because renewable energy in the<em> best </em>year grew by only 1.3 percent.</p><p>Right now we're at around 36-37 percent clean energy. That includes nuclear, hydropower and new renewables like wind, solar and geothermal. But hydropower and nuclear aren't growing. Nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the grid and hydro about 5 percent depending on the year. And then the rest is renewable. So we're at about 10 percent renewables, and in the best year, we're only adding 1 percent to that.</p><p>Generally, we need to be moving about eight times faster than we've been moving in our best years. (To visualize this idea, I came up with the <a href="https://grist.org/fix/how-quickly-do-we-need-to-ramp-up-renewables-look-to-the-narwhal/" target="_blank">narwhal curve</a>.)</p>How do we overcome these fundamental issues of speed and scale?
<p>We need actual government policy that supports it. We have never had a clean electricity standard or renewable portfolio standard at the federal level. That's the main law that I write all about at the state level. Where those policies are in place, a lot of progress has been made — places like California and even, to a limited extent, Texas.</p><p>We need our federal government to be focusing on this crisis. Even the really small, piecemeal clean-energy policies we have at the federal level are going away. In December Congress didn't extend the investment tax credit and the production tax credit, just like they didn't extend or improve the electric vehicle tax credit.</p><p>And now during the COVID-19 crisis, a lot of the money going toward the energy sector in the CARES Act is going toward propping up <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-15/-stealth-bailout-shovels-millions-of-dollars-to-oil-companies" target="_blank">dying fossil fuel companies</a> and not toward supporting the renewable energy industry.</p><p>So we are moving in the wrong direction.</p>Clean energy hasn’t always been such a partisan issue. Why did it become so polarizing?
<p>What I argue in my book, with evidence, is that electric utilities and fossil fuel companies have been intentionally driving polarization. And they've done this in part by running challengers in primary elections against Republicans who don't agree with them.</p><p>Basically, fossil fuel companies and electric utilities are telling Republicans that you can't hold office and support climate action. That has really shifted the incentives within the party in a very short time period.</p><p>It's not like the Democrats have moved so far left on climate. The Democrats have stayed in pretty much the same place and the Republicans have moved to the right. And I argue that that's because of electric utilities and fossil fuel companies trying to delay action.</p>And their reason for doing that is simply about their bottom line and keeping their share of the market?
<p>Exactly. You have to remember that delay and denial on climate change is a profitable enterprise for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities. The longer we wait to act on the crisis, the more money they can make because they can extract more fossil fuels from their reserves <em>and</em> they can pay more of their debt at their coal plants and natural gas plants. So delay and denial is a money-making business for fossil fuel companies and electric utilities.</p>There’s been a lot of research, reporting and even legal action in recent years about the role of fossil fuel companies in discrediting climate science. From reading your book, it seems that electric utilities are just as guilty. Is that right?
<p>Yes, far less attention has been paid to electric utilities, which play a really critical role. They preside over legacy investments into coal and natural gas, and some of them continue to propose building new natural gas.</p><p>They were just as involved in promoting climate denial in the 1980s and 90s as fossil fuel companies, as I document in my book. And some of them, like Southern Company, have continued to promote climate denial to basically the present day.</p><p>But that's not the only dark part of their history.</p><p>Electric utilities promoted energy systems that are pretty wasteful. They built these centralized fossil fuel power plants rather than having co-generation plants that were onsite at industrial locations where manufacturing is happening, and where you need both steam heat — which is a waste product from electricity — and the electricity itself. That actually created a lot of waste in the system and we burned a lot more fossil fuels than if we had a decentralized system.</p><p><span></span>The other thing they've done in the more modern period is really resisted the energy transition. They've resisted renewable portfolio standards and net metering laws that allow for more clean energy to come onto the grid. They've tried to roll them back. They've been successful in some cases, and they've blocked new laws from passing when targets were met.</p>You wrote that, “Partisan polarization on climate is not inevitable — support could shift back to the bipartisanship we saw before 2008.” What would it take to actually make that happen?
<p>Well, on the one hand, you need to get the Democratic Party to care more about climate change and to really understand the stakes. And if you want to do that, I think the work of the <a href="https://www.justicedemocrats.com/" target="_blank">Justice Democrats</a> is important. They have primary-challenged incumbent Democrats who don't care enough about climate change. That is how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was elected. She was a primary challenger and she has really championed climate action in the Green New Deal.</p><p>The other thing is that the public supports climate action. Democrats do in huge numbers. Independents do. And to some extent Republicans do, particularly young Republicans.</p><p>So communicating the extent of public concern on these issues is really important because, as I've shown in other research, politicians don't know how much public concern there is on climate change. They dramatically underestimate support for climate action.</p><p>I think the media has a really important role to play because it's very rare that a climate event, like a disaster that is caused by climate change, is actually linked to climate change in media reporting.</p><p>But people might live through a wildfire or a hurricane or a heat wave, but nobody's going to tell them through the media that this is climate change. So we really need our reporters to be doing a better job linking people's lived experiences to climate change.</p>With economic stimulus efforts ramping up because of the COVD-19 pandemic, are we in danger of missing a chance to help boost a clean energy economy?
<p>I think so many people understand that stimulus spending is an opportunity to rebuild our economy in a way that creates good-paying jobs in the clean-energy sector that protects Americans' health.</p><p>We know that <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200427-how-air-pollution-exacerbates-covid-19" target="_blank">breathing dirty air</a> makes people more likely to die from COVID-19. So this is a big opportunity to create an economy that's more just for all Americans.</p><p>But unfortunately, we really are not pivoting toward creating a clean economy, which is what we need to be doing. This is an opportunity to really focus on the climate crisis because we have delayed for more than 30 years. There is not another decade to waste.</p>
Read More
Show Less
A group of doctors prepared to treat coronavirus patients in Brazil. SILVIO AVILA / AFP via Getty Images
More than 40 million doctors and nurses are in, and they are prescribing a green recovery from the economic devastation caused by the new coronavirus.
<p>More than 350 health organizations representing some 40 million medical professionals, as well as more than 4,500 individual health workers from 90 countries, signed a <a href="https://healthyrecovery.net/" target="_blank">letter</a> to the G20 leaders Tuesday urging them to craft what they are promoting as a #HealthyRecovery by taking measures such as reforming <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> subsidies and fighting pollution and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/deforestation" target="_self">deforestation</a>.</p><p>"A truly healthy recovery will not allow pollution to continue to cloud the air we breathe and the water we drink," the health professionals wrote. "It will not permit unabated <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a> and deforestation, potentially unleashing new health threats upon vulnerable populations."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Health workers are at the frontline of the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> pandemic, working tirelessly to ensure that people receive the treatment they need. <br><br>Now millions of them have signed a letter with a simple message: We need a <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HealthyRecovery?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HealthyRecovery</a> from this crisis.<br><br> 👉<a href="https://t.co/MfkPaoUu8A">https://t.co/MfkPaoUu8A</a> <a href="https://t.co/XErStuXCAM">pic.twitter.com/XErStuXCAM</a></p>— UN Climate Change (@UNFCCC) <a href="https://twitter.com/UNFCCC/status/1265287853694738433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The signatories represent about half of the world's medical workers, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/26/world-health-leaders-urge-green-recovery-from-coronavirus-crisis" target="_blank">The Guardian reported</a>. They include the World Medical Association, the International Council of Nurses, the Commonwealth Nurses and Midwives Federation, the World Organization of Family Doctors and the World Federation of Public Health Associations, according to a <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/medical-professionals-want-green-recovery-from-covid-19" target="_blank">UN Climate Change press release</a>. The letter also has the support of the World Health Organization and the Global Climate and Health Alliance, <a href="https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/world-needs-green-recovery-health-experts-tell-g20-leaders-doc-1s95mj3" target="_blank">AFP reported</a>.</p><p>By writing the letter, the health workers are joining a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/un-earth-day-coronavirus-climate-crisis-2645802263.html">growing movement</a> for a recovery from the impacts of the virus and subsequent lockdown measures that also addresses the climate crisis and other environmental problems.</p><p>"Health professionals are at the frontlines of this emergency, and we are seeing the immense loss of lives because of acting too late," World Medical Association President Miguel Jorge said, as The Guardian reported. "We know now more than ever that healthy lives depend on a healthy planet. As we walk on the road to recovery, we need to build a system that will protect us from further damage. We need a healthy and green recovery."</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WMA joins +40 million doctors, nurses and health professionals calling upon <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/G20?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#G20</a> leaders to put public health at the center of their countries' <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#COVID19</a> recovery plans. <a href="https://t.co/QMZJuXj065">https://t.co/QMZJuXj065</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HealthyRecovery?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HealthyRecovery</a> <a href="https://t.co/Dz6tIRJQbc">pic.twitter.com/Dz6tIRJQbc</a></p>— World Medical Association (@medwma) <a href="https://twitter.com/medwma/status/1265284083082498050?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 26, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<p>The letter highlighted the damage caused by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution" target="_self">air pollution</a>, which led to seven million early deaths a year before the emergence of the new coronavirus. There is <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-air-pollution-fatality-2645656760.html" target="_self">evidence</a> that exposure to air pollution could make the new disease more deadly, and one of the most memorable effects of the lockdown measures has been the clearing of skies from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-china-pollution-2645356657.html" target="_self">China</a> to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/coronavirus-italy-air-pollution-2645508891.html" target="_self">Italy</a> as factories closed and cars stayed off the roads.</p><p>To maintain some of these gains while fighting the climate crisis, the health professionals recommended reforming fossil fuel subsidies and putting more of that money towards <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/renewable-energy" target="_self">renewable energy</a>, something they argued would grow global GDPs by nearly 100 trillion dollars by 2050.</p><p>They also urged G20 leaders to involve their chief medical and scientific advisors in creating economic stimulus plans.</p><p>"The enormous investments your governments will make over the coming months in key sectors like health care, transport, energy and agriculture must have health protection and promotion embedded at their core," they wrote.</p><p>The next G20 meeting has been scheduled for November, according to AFP.</p><p>However, some world leaders on the list, such as U.S. President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> and Brazil's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/jair-bolsonaro" target="_self">Jair Bolsonaro</a>, have already faced criticism for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/doctor-bright-coronavirus-trump-drug-2645811981.html" target="_self">sidelining science</a> in their response to the coronavirus and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/brazil-amazon-deforestation-coronavirus-2645950493.html" target="_self">using the crisis</a> as an excuse to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-dismantles-environmental-protections-under-cover-of-coronavirus-2645989316.html" target="_self">roll back environmental protections</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- A 'Green Stimulus' Could Battle Three Crises: Coronavirus ... ›
- German Business Leaders Call for Climate Action With COVID-19 ... ›
- Canadian Groups Fight for a Just Covid-19 Recovery - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
View of a windmill farm in the Tehuantepec Isthmus region, Mexico, on July 27, 2017. PATRICIA CASTELLANOS / AFP / Getty Images
By Sam Edwards
The Isthmus of Tehuantepec in southern Mexico is one of the windiest places on earth. Hemmed in by two mountain ranges, the flat strip of land between the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico is a natural wind tunnel. A single gust can flip over cars. It's the perfect place for turbines.
<p>The unique geography of the isthmus has brought it mixed fortunes. Union Hidalgo, once a sleepy, agrarian town, is among the predominantly indigenous communities in the area that began experiencing a "wind rush" in the 2000s. Some dubbed it "La Nueva Conquista" — the new conquest — as large, often European, corporations hurried to harness the isthmus' natural power.</p><p>Like so many in this area, Guadalupe Ramirez's home in Union Hidalgo is dwarfed by seemingly endless rows of wind turbines.</p><p>In 2009, Ramirez, an indigenous Zapotec housewife-turned-activist now in her 60s, signed a 30-year lease for her land to be used for a wind power project. She has been fighting ever since to ensure others are better informed than she was before making a similar deal.</p><p>"We want people to be informed of what will come [with new wind parks], to know that it won't just bring benefits but also many problems," she told DW. "When people have all the facts, it won't be so easy to convince them."</p><p>Ramirez and other activists argue that Mexico's wind farms bring little or no economic benefit to the local community. They also compete for space with small-scale farming, the main source of income for many in the town.</p><p>The principle problem, though, lies with the fraught consultation process. Under Mexican law indigenous communities should be given a deciding vote on projects but in practice, activists say, the information they are given beforehand is often incomplete or misleading, and those opposed to new developments sometimes face harassment and intimidation.</p><p>Ramirez is now placing her hopes on an ongoing legal battle that could shape the course of clean energy in Mexico by halting the latest controversial project before construction begins.</p>
Clean Energy at a Price
<p>The Gunaa Sicaru wind park is planned to be built next to Union Hidalgo. Run by French energy giant EDF, it would provide 252 megawatts of power. But first it needs approval from locals through an ongoing public consultation. And as for many multinational-backed wind parks in Oaxaca, that's proving a challenge.</p><p>In a country historically reliant on oil revenue, wind power and other renewables could bring a transition to cleaner energy. But Alejandra Ancheita, director of NGO ProDESC, warns green power must not replicate the environmental harm and mishandling of local communities typical of the global fossil fuel sector.</p><p>"Renewable energy projects can't be justified solely on the basis they are creating clean energy," Ancheita told DW. "It's not 'clean energy' if it isn't developed with a strict respect for the local communities where the project will be built."</p><p><span></span>ProDESC's legal team represents a group of Union Hidalgo residents in an injunction against EDF and local authorities, alleging violations of the consultation process. The NGO claims the local authorities and EDF failed to provide accurate information on the project's impacts and distributed misleading translations from Spanish to Zapotec.</p>Community Conflict
<p>Ramirez and other local activists say oil runoff from the turbines that already dominate the landscape pollutes waterways, while the sound of the wind farms — many of which are close to towns — disturbs residents and local birdlife.</p><p>But while Ramirez and others fight to prevent further damage to their land, some in Union Hidalgo support the development, particularly those who can earn a steady income from leasing their land.</p><p>"It's creating a lot of division in our community," Ramirez said.</p><p>According to a report by the Berlin-based <a href="https://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Publikationen/ECCHR_PP_WINDPARK.pdf" target="_blank">European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights</a> (ECCHR), conflict in the community escalated in 2018, after critics of the project were condemned as "enemies of development" in the EDF consultation meetings.</p><p>ProDESC and ECCHR said in a formal letter last year, that the company needed to do more to prevent conflict in the community.</p><p>EDF told DW it had met its obligations in the consultation process for Gunaa Sicaru but it was the Mexican authorities who ultimately bore the responsibility for ensuring residents were informed and free to make a decision. EDF has received no reports of threats against critics of the Gunaa Sicaru project, the company added.</p><p>The Oaxaca state government did not respond to DW's request for comment.</p>Future of Clean Energy
<p>Mexico, one of the world's top 15 carbon emitters, has committed to producing 35% of its electricity from clean energy by 2024. Renewables have drawn significant interest from investors since a reform opened the sector to private investment in 2013. Both the solar and wind sectors reported record growth last year.</p><p>But observers fear the future of renewables is uncertain under President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrado. Lisa Viscidi, from think tank The Inter-American Dialogue, told DW that regulatory changes under the current administration are undermining incentives to invest in the sector. Winning consent from communities in Oaxaca has been another significant challenge. A 2019 report authored by Viscidi on Mexico's first clean energy auction found several projects had been delayed due to a failure to get the community on board.</p>Alternative Development
<p>The challenges of wind energy in Oaxaca are not unique.</p><p>The transition to renewables will be an "epochal shift" in most countries, says Cymene Howe, an anthropologist with Rice University in Texas and author of a book about wind energy in Oaxaca. That's because energy infrastructure will move into parts of the planet untouched by fossil fuel industries.</p><p>"[It will be] a fundamental shift in how we imagine landscapes, what land is to be used for, who lives there and who has responsibility," she said. "This is a new frontier."</p><p>In Union Hidalgo, Ramirez says the conflicts over wind parks have already forced some people to move elsewhere searching for work or new land to farm. She fears that if Gunaa Sicaru goes ahead, the town will soon be bordered on most sides by wind turbines and unable to grow.</p><p>"No one is coming here to force us off our land. [But] one day we'll have to leave ourselves because we won't be able to handle being surrounded," Ramirez said.</p><p>For her, it is not about stifling wind power development, but empowering locals to shape it — for example through community-owned wind parks that would funnel profits back into the local community.</p><p><span></span>"Development can take many forms," Ramirez said.</p>From Your Site Articles
- The Promising Future for Solar and Wind Energy - EcoWatch ›
- Renewable Sources Made up 72% of New Energy Added in 2019 ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
The skyline of Houston at night seen from the Bank of America Center in Houston, Texas. James Leynse / Corbis / Getty Images
By Kimberly White
The City of Houston has committed to 100 percent renewable energy. Mayor Sylvester Turner announced that the city has teamed up with NRG Energy to power all municipal operations with renewable energy beginning in July.
<p>Through the partnership, the City of Houston will receive 1,034,399 MWh of renewable electricity from a utility-scale solar facility each year. The contract with NRG is set to last seven years and is projected to save the city a total of $65 million during its duration.</p><p>The transition to renewable energy is part of Houston's recently released Climate Action Plan. Mayor Turner, along with the City's Office of Sustainability, released the Houston Climate Action Plan in honor of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day. </p><p>"This announcement is a shining example of how the Houston Climate Action Plan is already in motion. Expanding our renewable energy investment through our partnership with NRG helps us build a more sustainable city and save over $9 million per year on our electric bill," <a href="https://www.houstontx.gov/mayor/press/2020/100-percent-renewable-energy.html" target="_blank">said</a> Mayor Sylvester Turner. "Together, we are leading by example and showing how to reduce emissions in the Energy Capital of the World."</p>
<p>Houston is no stranger to the impacts of climate change. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey pummeled Houston. The Category 4 hurricane caused widespread devastation and <a href="https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/UpdatedCostliest.pdf" target="_blank">$125 billion</a> in damage. According to Houston's Office of Sustainability, the Climate Action Plan is a key element of the Hurricane Harvey recovery effort. The City of Houston aims to reduce emissions and reach carbon neutrality by 2050. </p><p>"Houstonians have experienced the effects of climate change. Hurricane Harvey was larger, slower, and had 40 percent more rain than it would have if it had occurred 100 years ago. In Houston, spring arrives three weeks earlier than it did even a generation ago and our already hot summers keep getting hotter," <a href="http://www.greenhoustontx.gov/climateactionplan/CAP-April2020.pdf" target="_blank">stated</a> Turner.</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-902176734078017537" id="twitter-embed-902176734078017537" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-902176734078017537&created_ts=1503930669.0&screen_name=YEARSofLIVING&text=Here+are+the+%23ClimateFacts+about+%23HurricaneHarvey.+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FlECmNlmbCh&id=902176734078017537&name=The+YEARS+Project" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="45b3862780fc400f29290a319fcc2f63"></iframe>
<p>Houston is one of many U.S. cities that have stepped up their climate ambitions in an effort to fight the global climate emergency following the <a href="https://www.theplanetarypress.com/2019/11/u-s-announces-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/" target="_blank">United States' withdrawal from the Paris Agreement</a>. </p><p>"Houston is a global city and climate change is a global challenge, which is why as a member of C40 Cities Global Climate Leadership Group and Vice Chair of U.S. Climate Mayors, I am committed to doing our part to make Houston carbon neutral by 2050 in accordance with the Paris Climate Agreement," said Turner. </p><p>"We can't fix the problem overnight—but if we take bold, transformative action to lead our city down a more sustainable path, we'll leave behind a better Houston, and a better world, for future generations."</p>
<p class=""><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.theplanetarypress.com" target="_blank">The Planetary Press</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Ten U.S. Cities Band Together to Cut Climate Pollution - EcoWatch ›
- Top 10 Cities Embracing Solar Energy—Did Your City Make the List ... ›
- Historic Rainfall Slams Houston - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
April 2020 was the first month ever that renewables generated more electricity than thermal coal in the United States every single day. Crady von Pawlak / Getty Images
By Fino Menezes
April 2020 was the first month ever that renewables generated more electricity than thermal coal in the United States every single day, while across the Atlantic, the United Kingdom's rapid decarbonization of its electricity grid has achieved another significant milestone – completing a whole month (30 days) without coal power for the first time in 138 years.
Renewables Surpass Coal in U.S. Power Generation Every Day in April
<p>April 2020 was the first month in U.S. history that renewables generated more electricity than coal on every day of the month. That's based on new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and compiled by the nonprofit <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewables-surpass-coal-in-u-s-power-generation-throughout-the-month-of-april-2020/" target="_blank">Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA)</a>.</p><p>The daily consecutive run of renewables over coal began on March 25 and continued for 40 straight days through May 3. That breaks the previous record of just nine continuous days.</p><p>The strong output from utility-scale solar, wind, and hydropower is based on several factors, including low gas prices, warmer weather, new renewable capacity connecting to the grid late last year, and lower power demand because of the coronavirus.</p><p>IEEFA <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewables-surpass-coal-in-u-s-power-generation-throughout-the-month-of-april-2020/" target="_blank">reported</a>: "Coal's high cost has made it increasingly one of the last fuel choices for many utilities, a trend reflected by its declining market share for electric generation: just 15.3% in April, according to preliminary EIA figures.</p><p>"In January, coal's market share fell below 20% for the first time in many decades — and possibly for the first time in the entire history of the U.S. power industry — ending at 19.9%.</p><p>"EIA figures also show its share continued to erode, falling to 18.3% in February and 17.3% in March. As recently as 2008, coal's market share was above 50% in the months of January, February and March."</p><p>IEEFA had previously <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewable-generation-is-set-to-surpass-coal-in-2021/" target="_blank"></a><a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewable-generation-is-set-to-surpass-coal-in-2021/" target="_blank">forecasted that power generation from renewables</a> would likely surpass coal-fired generation in 2021, an important milestone in the energy transition that is well underway. But in the first quarter of 2020, renewable generation unexpectedly exceeded coal, and with this strong performance continuing in the second quarter, there is an increasing chance that the milestone could occur this year.</p>U.K. Goes a Month Without Coal Power for First Time for 138 Years
<p>The United Kingdom's rapid decarbonization of its electricity grid has achieved another significant milestone – completing a whole month (30 days) without coal power for the first time in 138 years, <a href="https://ieefa.org/u-k-electricity-goes-coal-free-for-a-month-a-first-in-138-years/" target="_blank">reported</a> The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) this week.</p><p>The milestone was reached on Sunday 10 May (U.K.) time and celebrated by National Grid ESO, the organization that runs the grid and is responsible for keeping the lights on nationwide. It was the first time this occurred since coal power was first used on the U.K. power system in January, 1882, at Holborn Viaduct.<br></p><p>Within a few years, there will be no coal generation at all – with the remaining plants shuttered, and one or two converted to gas by 2025. National Grid aims to be able to operate a fully zero emission grid when weather conditions allow from 2025, and is accelerating its adoption of new technologies and management systems that will allow it to side line gas power plants when possible.<br></p><p>Just a few days before the new month-long coal-free milestone, National Grid released its latest end of year planning report outlining the main achievements it has made in the long path to a fully decarbonized grid before 2050.</p><p>"We're really proud of our zero carbon targets," National Grid wrote in a blog a few days earlier. "In May 2019 there was a 2-week period where there was coal free operation of Great Britain's electricity system. This has quickly been beaten after the record breaking sunlight in April."</p><p>It noted that the carbon intensity of the electricity system has halved over the last five years, and is down 60 per cent when compared to 2013. "The recent <a href="https://www.nationalgrideso.com/news/day-life-energy-forecasting-manager" target="_blank">low demand for energy</a> due to COVID-19 has dramatically reduced the use of fossil fuel based generation, and this has been supported by our optimized renewable generation," it says.</p><p>"And as supply changes, so to does demand, as renewables capacity and smart grid functionality increases further to enable the side-lining of gas power plants when possible."</p>From Your Site Articles
- Top 4 States for Wind Energy - EcoWatch ›
- Renewable Energy Jobs Surpass 10 Million for First Time - EcoWatch ›
- 7 Reasons Renewable Energy Will Soon Surpass Coal and Nuclear ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Clear skies are seen above Kathmandu Valley during the nationwide coronavirus lockdown on March 29, 2020 in Kathmandu, Nepal, one of the most polluted cities in the world. Narayan Maharjan / NurPhoto / Getty Images
By Stephanie Hanes
Earlier this month, health care experts from across the United States gathered to address hundreds of journalists and policymakers by webinar. But their focus was not testing, nor vaccines, nor "herd immunity." It was not even COVID-19, really. Instead, their focus was climate change.
<p>"While many see issues like climate change and biodiversity loss as far from what's going on right now … I see this as the time to talk about it," said Aaron Bernstein, a pediatrician at Boston Children's Hospital and a professor at Harvard Medical School. "Climate solutions are, in fact, pandemic solutions."</p><p>A few days later, economists and policy experts with the World Resources Institute held their own panel discussion. The message was similar, and the audience one of the largest in the organization's history. The experience of and response to COVID-19, proclaimed expert after expert, was intricately tied to climate.</p><p>Indeed, increasing numbers of researchers and policymakers, scientists and health care practitioners, are looking at the coronavirus through an ecological lens. Whether they are focused on consumer behavioral shifts, changes in emission outputs, or policy decisions that might help or hurt long-term goals for green infrastructure, they are seeing in this moment a pivotal chance to address climate change.</p><p>"As we respond to the very imminent economic and health crisis, can we also tackle the climate and sustainability crisis?" asked Manish Bapna, WRI's managing director and executive vice president.</p>
<p>There have been a number of short-term environmental shifts connected with how the world is coping with the pandemic. China's carbon emissions dropped 18% between the beginning of February and mid-March, according to data compiled by the website CarbonBrief. Pollution over India has decreased dramatically, according to satellite images from NASA's Earth Observatory. And in the U.S., a dramatic decrease in air travel, as well as a drop in vehicular travel, has also lowered emissions. </p><p>But many of these changes are temporary, researchers say, and may barely register on any long-term analysis of global carbon emissions. The drop in China's carbon output, for instance, came alongside a lockdown over much of the country and a related plunge in factory operations. As the country reopens, says Fang Li, chief representative of the World Resources Institute in Beijing, emissions are expected to rebound along with the economy. After the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009, Dr. Fang and others point out, global emissions grew rapidly. </p>
Renewing a Focus
<p>For many climate advocates, this is a reason to push green initiatives now. Environmentalists worry that unless policymakers focus on climate as part of their economic packages, the pandemic could lead to policy shifts that would undermine years of hard-won climate victories. Indeed, the Trump administration in late March announced that it would weaken Obama-era fuel standards that mandate increased fuel efficiencies for automobiles. It also announced last month that the Environmental Protection Agency will not enforce environmental regulations during the pandemic.</p><p>"What we have to worry about is whether ... policy changes are going to be long term or short term," says Christopher Jones, director of the CoolClimate Network at the University of California, Berkeley. "If we roll back standards and they remain in place when the economy comes back, we are going to have a real problem." </p><p>Researchers say that a green economic stimulus package could both help the U.S. ensure long-term sustainability and rebound from the crushing economic impact of the pandemic. (More than 26 million Americans have filed for <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2020/0401/Faces-of-the-new-jobs-crisis-from-restaurants-to-real-estate" target="_blank">unemployment</a> benefits since March 15, according to the U.S. Labor Department.) Many environmentalists look at the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the stimulus package signed by President Barack Obama in 2009, as an example of how government initiatives can spur climate-friendly industry. That bill, which earmarked some $90 billion to promote green energy, is widely credited with launching the widespread renewable energy sector in the U.S. </p><p>"Economic measures should focus on climate as well as jobs and livelihood," Mr. Bapna said during the WRI panel.</p><p>But as Kenneth Gillingham, a professor at Yale University and a research fellow at the National Bureau of Economics Research, points out, the pandemic itself has slowed renewable energy efforts.</p><p>"There's a slowing down of building new solar farms, of new wind facilities," he says. "Some projects are hitting the pause button. Other projects may not happen for a long time."</p><p>And while there is hope for a green renewal, he suspects the future will be a good deal more nuanced.</p><p>"Entirely rebuilding our economy as a green economy? It's a wonderful vision, but I don't believe that's what we'll likely see," he says.</p>
Inequality, Exacerbated
<p>But a move toward environmental sustainability, says Dr. Bernstein, is going to be crucial not only for combatting a climate crisis, but for helping some of the people most impacted by the coronavirus. As he points out, both the pandemic and the impacts from climate change disproportionately affect people of color and other marginalized groups.</p><p>There is, he and others say, a hopeful lesson to be taken from the massive lifestyle and economic shifts seen across the globe in response to COVID-19. For years, popular wisdom has said that people simply would not engage in the sort of behavior changes necessary to fight climate change; that they wouldn't stop traveling, wouldn't stop consuming, wouldn't sacrifice material comforts and help save others who are most immediately at risk from climate change. Now, the response to the pandemic suggests otherwise. </p><p>"We are able to mobilize the entire global economy and population for an imminent threat," says Dr. Jones. "Both climate change and this pandemic both affect the most vulnerable. But everybody is willing to make personal sacrifices to protect the most vulnerable. I think that's quite new."</p><p>The question, he and others say, is whether people will be able to see climate change as a similarly "imminent threat," deserving of action. While climate researchers look at the world's increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters and see a direct connection to human behavior, research shows that most everyday people still feel disconnected from both the impacts and causes of climate change.</p><p>"We don't experience risk properly," says Katharine Hayhoe, professor and director of the Texas Tech University Climate Science Center. </p><p>But with the coronavirus, researchers say, there is a chance to shift.</p><p>"It can make people feel that what was previously unthinkable is plausible," Dr. Jones says. "They know what the experience feels like."</p>
<p class=""><em style="">This story originally appeared in <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/" target="_blank">The Christian Science Monitor</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- 5 Things About Climate Change and Coronavirus From WHO ... ›
- A 'Green Stimulus' Could Battle Three Crises: Coronavirus ... ›
- Coronavirus Response Proves the World Can Act on Climate Change ›
- Coronavirus Lockdowns Led to Record 17% Emissions Drop - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
An aerial view of Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium and the city's green cover during lockdown, on April 17, 2020 in New Delhi, India. Sonu Mehta / Hindustan Times via Getty Images
By Lauri Myllyvirta and Sunil Dahiya
An economic slowdown, renewable energy growth and the impact of Covid-19 have led to the first year-on-year reduction in India's CO2 emissions in four decades. Emissions fell by around 1% in the fiscal year ending March 2020, as coal consumption fell and oil consumption flatlined.
<p>The decline in emissions reflects the headwinds <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/economy-trapped-in-four-balance-sheet-problem-ex-cea/articleshow/72867290.cms?from=mdr" target="_blank">alread</a><a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/economy-trapped-in-four-balance-sheet-problem-ex-cea/articleshow/72867290.cms?from=mdr" target="_blank">y</a><a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/economy-trapped-in-four-balance-sheet-problem-ex-cea/articleshow/72867290.cms?from=mdr" target="_blank"> affecting</a> the Indian economy since early 2019, and increasing renewable energy generation. But our analysis of official Indian data across the nation's entire 2019-20 fiscal year shows the fall has steepened in March, due to measures to combat the coronavirus pandemic. The country's CO2 emissions fell by an estimated 15% during the month of March and are likely to have fallen 30% in April.</p><p>As with the <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/iea-coronavirus-impact-on-co2-emissions-six-times-larger-than-financial-crisis" target="_blank">global CO2 impact</a> of the pandemic, the longer-term outlook for India's emissions will be shaped, to a significant degree, by the government response to the crisis. This response is now starting to emerge – as set out below – and will have major long-term implications for India's CO2 emissions and air quality trajectory.</p>
<h3>Coal Bearing Brunt of Demand Crunch</h3><p>As lower power demand growth and competition from renewables weakened the demand for thermal power generation throughout the past 12 months, the drop-off in March was enough to push generation growth below zero in the fiscal year ended March, the first time this has happened in three decades.</p><p>Over the preceding decade, thermal power generation grew by an average of 7.5% per year. As seen in the figure below, the dramatic drop-off in total power demand was entirely borne by coal-based generators, amplifying the impact on emissions.</p><p>Coal-fired power generation fell 15% in March and 31% in the first three weeks of April, based on <a href="https://posoco.in/reports/daily-reports/" target="_blank">daily data</a> from the national grid. In contrast, renewable energy (RE) generation <a href="https://posoco.in/" target="_blank">increased</a> by 6.4% in March and saw a slight decrease of 1.4% in the first three weeks of April.</p>
<iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" marginheight="0px" marginwidth="0px" style="display: initial; margin: 0 auto;" src="https://cbhighcharts2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/india-emissions-fall/india-power-gen-small-multiples.html" width="800px" height="900px"></iframe><span style="display:block; height:22px; max-width:800px;"><img src="https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/cbhighcharts2019/cb-logo-highcharts.svg" style="width: 22px; height: 22px; margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; float:right; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: contain;"/></span><p>Daily power generation by source and by year in India. Source: <a href="https://posoco.in/reports/daily-reports/" target="_blank">POSOCO</a>. Chart by Carbon Brief using <a href="https://www.highcharts.com/" target="_blank">Highcharts</a>.</p>
<p>The fall in total coal demand extends beyond the power sector and is evident in data on coal supply. In the fiscal year ending March, coal sales by the main coal producer Coal India Ltd fell by 4.3%, while coal imports increased 3.2%, implying that total coal deliveries fell by 2% and signaling the first year-on-year fall in consumption in two decades.</p><p>The trend steepened in March, with coal sales falling 10% while coal imports <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/coronavirus-impact-india-s-coal-import-drops-over-27-pc-to-16-mt-in-march" target="_blank">fell 27.5%</a> in March, meaning that total deliveries of coal to end users fell by 15%, in line with the reduction in power generation.</p><p>In March, coal <a href="https://www.coalindia.in/DesktopModules/DocumentList/documents/nsebseprodmar2001042020.pdf" target="_blank">output increased 6.5%</a> even as sales fell by a record amount. Also, during the full year, more coal was mined than sold, indicating that the reason for the drop was on the demand side.</p>
<h3>Oil Demand: From Weak to Negative</h3><p>Similar to electricity demand, oil consumption has been slowing down since early 2019. This is now compounded by the dramatic impact of the Covid-19 lockdown measures on transport oil consumption. During the national lockdown, oil consumption fell 18% on year in March 2020.</p><p>As a result of low demand due to the coronavirus outbreak and <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-indias-co2-emissions-growth-poised-to-slow-sharply-in-2019" target="_blank">already slower demand growth earlier in the year</a>, consumption during the fiscal grew at 0.2%, the slowest in at least 22 years. Natural gas consumption <a href="https://www.ppac.gov.in/content/152_1_Consumption.aspx" target="_blank">increased</a> 5.5% in the first 11 months of the fiscal year, but is <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/032620-india-lockdown-domestic-natural-gas-demand-set-to-plummet" target="_blank">expected</a> to fall by 15-20% during the lockdown.</p><p>Crude oil production in India decreased by 5.9% compared to last financial year and a 5.2% drop <a href="http://petroleum.nic.in/sites/default/files/mprmarch20.pdf" target="_blank">has been observed</a> in natural gas production during the same time. Refinery production – in terms of crude oil processed – also <a href="http://petroleum.nic.in/sites/default/files/mprmarch20.pdf" target="_blank">fell</a> by 1.1% over the last financial year, compared to 2018-19.</p><p>Crude steel production dropped by 22.7% in March 2020 compared to the previous month and, cumulatively, the financial year 2019-20 saw a decline of 2.2% compared to last year, according to <a href="https://steel.gov.in/sites/default/files/March%202020_0.pdf" target="_blank">Ministry of Steel</a> data.</p>
<h3>CO2 Emissions Down 30% in April</h3><p>Using the indicators above for coal, oil and gas consumption, we estimate that CO2 emissions fell by 30m tonnes of CO2 (MtCO2, 1.4%) in the fiscal year ending March, in what is likely to have been the first annual decline in four decades.</p>
<iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" marginheight="0px" marginwidth="0px" style="display: initial; margin: 0 auto;" src="https://cbhighcharts2020.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/india-emissions-fall/india-co2-emissions-fall.html" width="770px" height="550px"></iframe><span style="display:block; height:22px; max-width:770px;"><a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org" target="_blank"><img src="https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/cbhighcharts2019/cb-logo-highcharts.svg" style="width: 22px; height: 22px; margin-top: 2px; margin-bottom: 2px; float:right; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: contain;"/></a></span><p>Annual emissions from fossil fuel use in India, millions of tonnes of CO2, 1965-2020. Figures for 2009 onwards correspond with financial years ending that March, with the 2020 number showing fiscal year 2019-20. Source: Analysis of Indian government data for this article and <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html" target="_blank">BP Statistical Review of World Energy</a>. Chart by Carbon Brief using <a href="https://www.highcharts.com/" target="_blank">Highcharts</a>.</p>
<p>Furthermore, emissions fell by 15% year-on-year in March and by 30% in April. The April estimate is based on power-sector emissions estimated from daily generation data. This assumes oil consumption falls as much in April as in March, which is very likely to be conservative as the national lockdown is continuing until the end of the month, and gas consumption falls 15-20% <a href="https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/natural-gas/032620-india-lockdown-domestic-natural-gas-demand-set-to-plummet" target="_blank">as projected</a>.</p>
<h3>Government Response</h3><p>While the current crisis is having a significant impact on India's CO2 emissions in the short term, it could also influence the longer-term trajectory of India's energy use and emissions.</p><p>Although the situation is only beginning to unfold, three possible consequences are already emerging:</p><ul><li>Post-crisis economic stimulus could be directed towards reinvigorating the country's renewable energy program.</li><li>Plummeting electricity demand has brought the power industry's <a href="https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/rs-1-lakh-crore-bad-loans-ailing-indias-power-sector-teri/71721715" target="_blank">long-brewing financial problems</a> to a head, necessitating bailouts with the <a href="https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/opinion-power-purchase-agreements-as-an-albatross-11587489054847.html" target="_blank">potential</a> for structural changes.</li><li>Experience of <a href="https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/oil-and-gas/covid-19-lockdown-air-quality-in-indias-major-industrial-cities-improve-by-up-to-60-compared-to-last-yr/74931010" target="_blank">exceptional air quality</a> could add momentum to efforts against <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/air-pollution">air pollution</a>, resulting in strengthened targets and standards.</li></ul>
<p>In each case, the crisis could act to catalyse, reinforce or accelerate the factors that have already been driving Indian policymaking in this area.</p><p>For example, the Indian government has already started talking about <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/mnre-urges-states-to-provide-incentives-to-manufacturers/articleshow/75232158.cms?from=mdr" target="_blank">support for renewable energy</a> as a part of the recovery, alongside similar <a href="https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04/14/european-leaders-push-green-recovery-plan-for-post-covid-economy/" target="_blank">statements</a> by European leaders. One reason for this continued support is the fact that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar">solar</a> already offers far cheaper electricity than coal.</p><p>A <a href="https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=202339" target="_blank">rec</a><a href="https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=202339" target="_blank">e</a><a href="https://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=202339" target="_blank">nt auction</a> secured 2,000 megawatts (MW) of new solar capacity at an average of 2.55-2.56 rupees per kilowatt hour (Rs/kWh, around $34 per megawatt hour). This result came despite the auction being held during the lockdown amid a period of severe uncertainty over the future market and financial situation.</p><p>In contrast, the average cost of a unit of electricity from India's biggest coal generator, the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC), stood at <a href="https://www.ntpc.co.in/presentations/8262/presentation-15th-analysts-investors-meet-held-mumbai-19082019" target="_blank">3.38 Rs/kWh</a> in the financial year 2018-19 ($45/MWh). This figure will likely keep moving upwards with every passing year due to inflation, increasing operational costs and with implementation of <a href="http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Thermal_plant_gazette_scan.pdf" target="_blank">stricter emission standards</a>.</p><p>Another example of Indian government support for the renewable industry came in early April when it <a href="https://mnre.gov.in/img/documents/uploads/file_f-1586142405322.pdf" target="_blank">stressed</a> the "must-run" status of wind and solar projects and <a href="https://mnre.gov.in/img/documents/uploads/file_f-1585801699131.pdf" target="_blank">called on</a> distribution companies to make timely payments to power generators.</p><p>The <a href="https://mnre.gov.in/img/documents/uploads/file_f-1587398024891.pdf" target="_blank">Ministry of New and Renewable Energy</a> also extended the timelines for renewable energy projects to be completed for the period of the lockdown and the following 30 days. This will safeguard renewable energy developers from penalties arising due to delays from their committed schedules.</p><p>The ministry has also <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/mnre-urges-states-to-provide-incentives-to-manufacturers/articleshow/75232158.cms?from=mdr" target="_blank">written to various states</a> in recent weeks to give a "major push" to domestic renewable manufacturing capacity. Increased domestic supply will strengthen the renewable energy program by strengthening supply chains and political weight for the industry, as long as it does not give rise to excessive protectionism.</p>
<h3>Blue-Sky Thinking</h3><p>Over the past year, CO2 emissions as well as air pollution levels have <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-pollution-quality-2019-saw-more-good-air-days-6198725/" target="_blank">declined</a>. More recently, the sight of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-52313972" target="_blank">blue skies</a> during the national lockdown across the country has created a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-coronavirus-delhi-clean-air-pollution/2020/04/10/ac23dd1e-783e-11ea-a311-adb1344719a9_story.html" target="_blank">sense of optimism</a> among the public as well as policymakers that the air in India can be cleaned, if appropriate steps are taken.</p><p>Since many of the major sources of pollution – transport, power stations and industry – are also responsible for significant shares of the country's CO2 output, any strengthening of air quality standards – or their implementation – would have knock-on effects on emissions.</p><p>Earlier last year, in response to building public pressure, the environmental ministry announced India's first-ever <a href="http://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NCAP_Report.pdf" target="_blank">National Clean Air Programme</a>. This aims to reduce particulate matter pollution levels across 102 cities by 20-30% by 2024.</p><p>The program also pointed out that India's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), dating back to 2009, need revision. The standards are much weaker than the World Health Organization <a href="https://www.who.int/airpollution/publications/aqg2005/en/" target="_blank">guidelines</a> and there is more evidence of health impacts of air pollution <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30077140" target="_blank">being reported</a> even at low concentrations of pollutants.</p><p>The recent experience of cleaner air and the drastic drop in pollution levels due to coronavirus lockdowns have <a href="https://twitter.com/CSTEP_India/status/1252578515255468032?s=20" target="_blank">started these conversations</a> to strengthen the NAAQS among public, research institutes and civil society organizations. As a result, any return of India's poor air quality and smog can be expected to trigger a stronger public response.</p>
<h3>Power-Sector Bailouts</h3><p>As demand for thermal <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rs-70-000-cr-covid-19-package-for-power-firms-cabinet-approval-expected-soon/story-QJpV5trLmebMW9NEnl0ZnO.html" target="_blank">power generation plummets</a>, so too do the earnings of India's electricity industry. In this way, the coronavirus crisis has brought the long-brewing financial woes of the country's power sector to a head.</p><p>The Indian government is working to finalize an economic relief package for the sector, initially <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/rs-70-000-cr-covid-19-package-for-power-firms-cabinet-approval-expected-soon/story-QJpV5trLmebMW9NEnl0ZnO.html" target="_blank">pegged at</a> INR 70,000 crore ($9bn) and now <a href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/rs-90000-crore-scheme-in-offing-for-power-companies/articleshow/75436263.cms?from=mdr" target="_blank">reportedly</a> worth INR 90,000 crore ($12bn).</p><p>The sector was already struggling before the coronavirus crisis, making it a major source of <a href="https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/rs-1-lakh-crore-bad-loans-ailing-indias-power-sector-teri/71721715" target="_blank">bad loans and financial distress</a>.</p><p>The reasons behind the <a href="https://www.livemint.com/industry/energy/producers-feel-the-heat-as-power-distribution-losses-widen-11579632769183.html" target="_blank">chronic financial losses</a> of the power industry and <a href="https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/covid-19-power-discoms-will-require-subsidies-of-rs-1-lakh-crore-in-2020-21/75539215" target="_blank">dependence</a> on government bailouts are easy enough to see. <a href="https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/delhi-govt-to-use-pvt-discom-subsidies-to-clear-dues-of-state-run-power-stations/1935729/" target="_blank">Discounted electricity tariffs</a> are offered for agricultural and domestic consumers, with farmers even being provided with electricity for <a href="https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/policy/proposed-electricity-act-may-rework-slabs-for-residential-consumers/article31395464.ece" target="_blank">free</a>, and losses covered from industrial and commercial consumers and state budgets. There are major <a href="https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/power/covid-19-impact-turbulent-times-for-power-distribution-sector/75420652" target="_blank">losses</a> in transmission and <a href="http://bwsmartcities.businessworld.in/article/Smart-meters-Invaluable-in-the-current-scenario-imperative-in-a-post-COVID-world/06-05-2020-191305/" target="_blank">theft</a> of power. Distribution companies have <a href="https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/opinion-power-purchase-agreements-as-an-albatross-11587489054847.html" target="_blank">committed</a> to purchasing excessive amounts of power as a part of a push to expand thermal power generation, leading to the country's coal <a href="https://thewire.in/energy/climate-change-coal-india" target="_blank">power overcapacity</a> issue.</p><p>If the forthcoming government bailout allows these structural problems to persist then it could mean old coal power stations are able to continue operating, entrenching the country's dependence on fossil-fired generation. On the other hand, the bailout could be conditioned on reforms and restructuring, facilitating the achievement of national clean-energy goals.</p><p>There are already <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/the-clean-environment-were-enjoying-currently-will-only-be-short-term-without-fundamental-changes/" target="_blank">calls</a> for a <a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/covid-19-india-needs-a-green-economic-stimulus-opinion/story-MnFm3MdzRWWv1pD5COFKzJ.html" target="_blank">g</a><a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/covid-19-india-needs-a-green-economic-stimulus-opinion/story-MnFm3MdzRWWv1pD5COFKzJ.html" target="_blank">r</a><a href="https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/covid-19-india-needs-a-green-economic-stimulus-opinion/story-MnFm3MdzRWWv1pD5COFKzJ.html" target="_blank">een</a> recovery package in India. These questions — re-invigorating the renewable energy program, mitigating the rebound of air pollution and addressing the structural problems of the thermal power sector — will be at the heart of determining the outcome.</p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-indias-co2-emissions-fall-for-first-time-in-four-decades-amid-coronavirus" target="_blank">Carbon Brief</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions Set for Record Decline Due to ... ›
- Social Distancing Is Also Helping the Climate - EcoWatch ›
- India's Air Pollution Plummets in COVID-19 Lockdown - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Wind turbines are a source of renewable energy. chain45154 / Getty Images
By Deidra Miniard, Joe Kantenbacher and Shahzeen Attari
Political divisions are a growing fixture in the United States today, whether the topic is marriage across party lines, responding to climate change or concern about coronavirus exposure. Especially in a presidential election year, the vast divide between conservatives and liberals often feels nearly impossible to bridge.
<p>
<br/>
</p>
<p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/deidra-miniard-1006054" target="_blank">Deidra Miniard</a> is a PhD Student in Environmental Science at Indiana University.</em>
</p><p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joe-kantenbacher-1006141" target="_blank">Joe Kantenbacher</a> is a Research Associate in Environmental Science at Indiana University.</em>
</p><p>
<em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shahzeen-attari-1006142" target="_blank">Shahzeen Attari</a> is an Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University.</em>
</p><p>
Disclosure statement: Shahzeen Attari receives funding from the National Science Foundation from Decision, Risk and Management Sciences. This work was also possible in part by the Andrew Carnegie Foundation fellowship and the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences fellowship to Attari. <em>Deidra Miniard and Joe Kantenbacher do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</em>
</p><p>
<em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/both-conservatives-and-liberals-want-a-green-energy-future-but-for-different-reasons-134534" target="_blank">The Conversation.</a></em>
</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920558117" target="_blank">Our research</a> examines <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Mxn0PmkAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">what people know</a> about the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YRtYhoMAAAAJ&hl=en" target="_blank">energy sources</a> in use today in the United States, and what types of energy they would like to see the nation <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DKLxPT8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao" target="_blank">using in 2050</a>. Energy connects to many important issues, including climate change, jobs and economic growth, equity and social justice, and international relations. It would be easy to assume that America's energy future is a highly polarized topic, especially when the Trump administration is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-13/trump-team-is-sued-by-states-over-epa-s-new-dirty-power-rule" target="_blank">clashing with many states led by Democrats</a> over energy policies.</p><p>However, in a nationwide online survey, we recently found that broad support exists across the political spectrum for a future <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920558117" target="_blank">powered mostly by renewable energy sources</a>. Our work highlights a consensus around the idea that the United States needs to move its entire energy system away from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources.</p>
Assessing Perceptions
<p>To explore people's views on energy sources, we conducted an online survey of 2,429 adults across the U.S. Our participants represented a range of political ideologies, with 51% self-identifying as liberals, 20% as moderate and 29% as conservative. To investigate patterns in the data, we analyzed responses based on participants' political ideologies.</p><p>Our survey asked people to estimate the shares that various energy sources contributed to all energy use in the United States, including activities like generating electricity, running factories, heating homes and powering vehicles. We asked participants to estimate what percentage of U.S. total energy used came from nine energy sources: coal, oil, natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, biomass, geothermal and nuclear power.</p><p>Next we had participants describe what they viewed as an optimal mix of these nine energy sources that they hoped the U.S. would use in the year 2050. We also asked what kinds of policies they would support to move the nation from its current status to the future that they envisioned. In a follow-on study, we are examining how factors such as cost and environmental impact influence people's preferences for one energy source versus others.</p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7577c70dfbaf7dc44448c72d61be5800"><iframe lazy-loadable="true" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ppjmvjpDrbE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Estimations of Today’s Energy Mix
<p>We found that our respondents had some misperceptions about <a href="https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/" target="_blank">where energy in the U.S. comes from</a>. They tended to underestimate U.S. reliance on oil and natural gas and overestimate coal's contribution. We believe Americans may not realize how dramatically electric utilities have <a href="https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-2019/" target="_blank">switched from coal to gas for power generation</a> over the past decade, and may therefore have dated impressions of coal's prevalence.</p><p>Conversely, we found that participants overestimated the contribution of lesser-used energy sources – specifically, renewables like wind and solar power. This pattern may partially be explained by people's general tendency to inflate estimates of small values and probabilities, which has been seen in areas ranging from <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/107/37/16054" target="_blank">household energy use</a> and <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/111/14/5129.short" target="_blank">water use</a> to <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-20983-001" target="_blank">risk of death</a>.</p><p>In the case of the U.S. energy system, this bias means that people think our current energy system is greener than it really is, which could reduce the perceived urgency of shifting to lower-carbon sources.</p><iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1252567935807299586" id="twitter-embed-1252567935807299586" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1252567935807299586&created_ts=1587470442.0&screen_name=EIAgov&text=%23TodayInEnergy+-+Wind+and+natural+gas-fired+generators+led+U.S.+power+sector+capacity+additions+in+2019%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FRB0EUmVxlL&id=1252567935807299586&name=EIA" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="ab20141afc9af14a89ad91b6c5b48746"></iframe>
Shared Goals, Divergent Pathways
<p>When we asked participants to indicate the amount of each energy source they hoped the U.S. would use in 2050, the broad consensus favored a future in which the nation primarily relied on renewable energy and used much less fossil fuel. Conservatives, moderates and liberals shared this outlook.</p><p>Particular preferences for a lower-carbon future varied somewhat by political ideology, but on average all groups supported an energy mix in which at least 77% of overall energy use came from low-carbon energy sources, including renewable fuels and nuclear power.</p><p>This bipartisan consensus wavered, though, when we asked participants whether they supported or opposed 12 energy policies – six that would lead to larger roles for low-carbon energy sources, and six that would increase use of fossil fuels.</p><p>Liberal participants showed strong support for policies consistent with increased use of low-carbon energy sources, such as providing government funding for renewable energy and subsidies for purchasing electric vehicles. They strongly opposed actions that would increase reliance on fossil fuels, such as relaxing oil drilling regulations or lowering fuel economy standards.</p><p>On average, conservative participants supported several policies that favored low-carbon energy use, though not as strongly as their liberal counterparts. Conservatives tended to be closer to neutral or only slightly opposed to policies that promote fossil fuel use.</p><p>The sharpest contrast between the two political groups was over building and completing pipelines to move oil from extraction points to refineries in the U.S. Several <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/03/31/824445928/builder-of-controversial-keystone-xl-pipeline-says-its-moving-forward" target="_blank">proposed pipelines</a> have generated <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/climate/dakota-access-pipeline-sioux.html" target="_blank">intense controversy</a> in the past years. Conservatives generally supported pipeline development, and liberals generally opposed it.</p>Achieving a Low-Carbon Future
<p>An important argument for transitioning to low-carbon energy sources is to limit climate change to manageable levels. Recent polls show that climate change remains a politically divisive issue, with <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/276932/several-issues-tie-important-2020-election.aspx" target="_blank">far more Democrats than Republicans</a> rating it as extremely important to their vote in the 2020 presidential race.</p><p>Recent research has shown that both Democrats and Republicans strongly support renewable energy development, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111448" target="_blank">do so for different reasons</a>. Democrats prioritize curbing climate change, while Republicans are more motivated by reducing energy costs. We see these motivations playing out in the real world, where conservative oil-producing states like Texas are experiencing <a href="https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/03/12/a-renewable-energy-boom-is-changing-the-politics-of-global-warming" target="_blank">huge booms in renewable energy generation</a>, driven primarily by the improving economics of renewable energy.</p><p>Realizing the shared vision of an energy system dominated by renewable energy will mean reconciling partisan differences over how to achieve that future. While there is no single rationale that will convince all Americans to support a transition to low-carbon energy sources, our results are encouraging because we find consensus on the U.S. energy future – everyone agrees that it should be green. </p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Admin Sits on $43 Billion Intended for Clean Energy Loans ... ›
- Renewable Energy Could Power the World by 2050 - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Wind turbines generate electricity at the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm near Palm Springs, California, with snow-covered Mt. San Jacinto in the background on Feb 27, 2019. Robert Alexander / Getty Images
Renewable energy in the U.S. has beaten coal as the country's leading electricity source for a record 40 days.
<p>The record, <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewables-surpass-coal-in-u-s-power-generation-throughout-the-month-of-april-2020/" target="_blank">reported</a> by the <a href="https://ieefa.org/" target="_blank">Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis</a> (IEEFA) Monday based on U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data, far surpasses the previous record of nine days during April 2019. It suggests that the falling energy demand due to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> lockdowns could lead renewables to generate more electricity than coal overall for the first time this year.</p><p>"IEEFA had <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-update-renewable-generation-is-set-to-surpass-coal-in-2021/" target="_blank">forecasted that power generation from renewables</a> would likely surpass coal-fired generation in 2021, an important milestone in the energy transition that is well underway," the group wrote. "But in the first quarter of 2020, renewable generation unexpectedly exceeded coal, and with this strong performance continuing in the second quarter, there is an increasing chance that the milestone could occur this year."</p>
<iframe width="100%" height="150" scrolling="no" class="rm-shortcode twitter-embed-1257400871660462090" id="twitter-embed-1257400871660462090" lazy-loadable="true" src="/res/community/twitter_embed/?iframe_id=twitter-embed-1257400871660462090&created_ts=1588622703.0&screen_name=ieefa_institute&text=IEEFA+had+forecasted+that+power+generation+from+%23renewables+would+likely+surpass+coal-fired+generation+in+the+U.S.%E2%80%A6+https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2F4tknDUCPbT&id=1257400871660462090&name=IEEFA.org" frameborder="0" data-rm-shortcode-id="334d4be4838cb92d6f2cb71c495b1902"></iframe>
<p>In 2019, renewables only beat out coal for a total of 38 days. April was their most successful month, when they generated more electricity than coal for a total of 19 days. April of 2019 was <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/renewables-beat-coal-us-april-2639001918.html" target="_self">also the first month</a> when renewables generated more electricity than coal in the U.S. overall.</p><p>This April, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/hydropower" target="_self">hydropower</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind" target="_self">wind</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar" target="_self">solar</a> generated more electricity than coal for every day of the month, but clean power's winning streak actually began March 25 and has extended at least to May 3, IEEFA said.</p><p>Green energy's success is down to a number of factors, IEEFA explained:</p><ol><li>Low gas prices</li><li>Warmer weather</li><li><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/us-renewable-energy-capacity-coal-2638790502.html" target="_self">Increased renewable energy capacity</a> added to the grid last year</li><li>Decreased energy demand due to the coronavirus lockdowns</li></ol>
<p>Falling energy demand is a boon for renewables because coal is more expensive, meaning it is usually cut first by utilities when demand falls, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-lockdowns-renewable-energy-overtakes-coal-record-40-days/" target="_blank">CBS News explained</a>. This has played out internationally as well. The International Energy Agency (IEA) <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gas-emissions-coronavirus-lockdowns-2645880717.html" target="_self">reported last week</a> that only renewable energy sources had grown in 2020 so far and were expected to continue growing, while all the major <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> were in decline.</p><p>"This is a historic shock to the entire energy world. Amid today's unparalleled health and economic crises, the plunge in demand for nearly all major fuels is staggering, especially for coal, oil and gas. Only renewables are holding up during the previously unheard-of slump in electricity use," IEA Executive Director Dr. Fatih Birol said at the time. "It is still too early to determine the longer-term impacts, but the energy industry that emerges from this crisis will be significantly different from the one that came before."</p><p>The IEEFA data also affirms that coal is on the way out despite the efforts of President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" target="_self">Donald Trump</a> to bolster the industry, as CBS pointed out. And while the pandemic may have accelerated the shift, it did not cause it. As early as January, coal's market share fell below 20 percent for the first time in decades, IEEFA said. Several utilities have also promised to phase out coal-fired plants between 2030 and 2050, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/496181-renewable-generation-surpasses-coal-for-40-straight-days" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p><p>"The fate of coal has been sealed, the market has spoken," University of Texas energy expert Michael Webber told The Guardian in 2019. "The trend is irreversible now, the decline of coal is unstoppable despite Donald Trump's rhetoric."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Renewable Sources Made up 72% of New Energy Added in 2019 ... ›
- U.S. Renewable Energy Capacity Beats Coal for the First Time ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump Admin Sits on $43 Billion Intended for Clean Energy Loans While Unemployment Soars
01 May
Politics
In September 2011, the DOE issued a $90.6 million loan guarantee to finance Alamosa, a 29.3-MW high concentration photovoltaic solar generation project in Colorado. The project started commercial operations in April 2012 and created 75 construction jobs and hundreds of supply chain jobs across several states. U.S. Department of Energy
While the nation struggles to find ways to put money in peoples' pockets and to ramp up the economy so people can get back to work, over $43 billion in low-interest loans earmarked for clean energy projects sits undistributed by the Trump administration, according to The New York Times.
<p>The president has long questioned the efficacy of renewable energy sources, has suggested that <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind">wind</a> turbines cause cancer, and championed <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a> as a clean and efficient source of power. Despite his reluctance to champion green energy infrastructure, some lawmakers and energy experts think it is unacceptable that tens of billions of dollars that Congress long ago authorized, with bipartisan support, has not been dispersed.</p><p>"We're searching high and low all over Washington, DC, for money to put people back to work and here we have more than $40 billion," said Dan Reicher, executive director of the Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance at Stanford University, who served at the Energy Department in the Clinton administration, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/climate/clean-energy-loans-coronavirus-trump.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "This is the moment to really put these programs back in gear."</p><p>The loans passed through Congress well before the coronavirus forced nearly 30 million people into unemployment. However, they have been held up by the Energy Department.</p>
<p>"They haven't put out any or almost any of these loans since he's become president," said Representative Frank Pallone Jr. of New Jersey, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/climate/clean-energy-loans-coronavirus-trump.html" target="_blank">The New York Times</a> reported. "There's an ideological or political aspect to this. The president is not someone who seeks to promote the clean energy sector."</p><p>Holding up the loans during the pandemic seems particularly strange since the money could help many people to start working. Anne Reynolds with the Alliance for Clean Energy told <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/04/19/dead-in-the-water-new-yorks-clean-energy-sector-looks-for-a-jump-start-1277764" target="_blank">POLITICO</a> that energy efficiency companies have laid off between 40 and 50 percent of their workforce.</p><p>In New York, for example, the state saw layoffs to nearly 5,000 clean energy jobs in March. Congressman Pallone said that the renewable energy sector had created more than 3 million jobs.</p>
<p>"These utility-led programs could drive significant job and economic growth statewide as we step out of our current pause," said Reynolds, as <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/new-york/city-hall/story/2020/04/19/dead-in-the-water-new-yorks-clean-energy-sector-looks-for-a-jump-start-1277764" target="_blank">POLITICO</a> reported. "We are at risk of losing a skilled and trained workforce as work is stalled, and job losses and furloughs accelerate."</p><p>While an injection of capital would help restart green energy projects and allow companies to hire back employees, there is little reason to believe the Trump administration will issue any of the loans.</p>The last new project to be approved under the loan program was in 2016, under the Obama administration. To get the money out of the government's hands and into an investment in renewable energy infrastructure, Pallone said he plans to find a way to address the unspent loans in the next stimulus.
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Michael Moore's 'Planet of the Humans' Documentary Attacks Climate Solutions
01 May
Insights + Opinion
Michael Moore at the 72nd annual Cannes Film Festival on May 25, 2019 in Cannes, France. Vittorio Zunino Celotto / Getty Images
By Dana Nuccitelli
Environmentalists and renewable energy advocates have long been allies in the fight to keep unchecked industrial growth from irreversibly ruining Earth's climate and threatening the future of human civilization. In their new YouTube documentary "Planet of the Humans," director Jeff Gibbs and producer Michael Moore argue for splitting the two sides. Their misleading, outdated, and scientifically sophomoric dismissal of renewable energy is perhaps the most dangerous form of climate denial, eroding support for renewable energy as a critical climate solution.
<p><br/></p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from </em><a href="https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/05/michael-moores-planet-of-the-humans-documentary-peddles-dangerous-climate-denial/" target="_blank"><em>Yale Climate Connections.</em></a></p>
<p>"Planet of the Humans" by the end of April had more than 4.7 million views and fairly high scores at the movie critic review aggregator <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/planet_of_the_humans" target="_blank">Rotten Tomatoes</a>. The documentary has received <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/4/24/1939980/-Planet-Of-The-Humans-Is-Moore-Trouble-Than-It-s-Worth-A-Non-Review" target="_blank">glowing reviews from numerous climate "deniers"</a> whose names are familiar to those in the climate community, including Steve Milloy, Marc Morano, and James Delingpole. Some environmentalists who have seen the movie are beginning to oppose wind and solar projects that are absolutely necessary to slow climate change.</p><p>The film by these two "progressive" filmmakers may succeed where Fox News and right-wing talk radio have failed: to undermine humanity's last best hope for positive change. As energy journalist <a href="https://ketanjoshi.co/2020/04/24/planet-of-the-humans-a-reheated-mess-of-lazy-old-myths/" target="_blank">Ketan Joshi wrote</a>, the film is "selling far-right, climate-denier myths from nearly a decade ago to left-wing environmentalists in the 2020s."</p><p>The film follows Gibbs as he visits various green technology sites in the United States and ostensibly learns that each one is just as bad as the fossil fuel infrastructure that it would replace. Unfortunately, the movie is littered with misleading, skewed, and outdated scenes.</p><p>"Planet of the Humans"' approach is fundamentally flawed – Gibbs focuses almost exclusively on the imperfections of technologies like solar panels, wind turbines, biomass, and electric cars without considering their ability to reduce carbon and other pollutants. The film suggests that because no source of energy is perfect, all are bad, thus implying that the very existence of human civilization is the problem while offering little in the way of alternative solutions.</p>
A Badly Outdated Portrait of Solar and Wind
<p>In an interview with Reuters, Michael Moore summarized the premise of the film: "I assumed solar panels would last forever. I didn't know what went into the making of them."</p><p>It's true. Solar panels and wind turbines don't last forever (though they do last several decades), and like every other industrial product, they require mining and manufacturing of raw materials. Sadly, that's about as deep as the film delves into quantifying the environmental impacts of renewable energy versus fossil fuels. In fact, the misinformation in the film is at times much worse than ignorance.</p><p>In one scene, author and film co-producer Ozzie Zehner falsely asserts, "You use more fossil fuels [manufacturing renewables infrastructure] than you're getting benefit from. You would have been better off burning the fossil fuels in the first place instead of playing pretend."</p><p><span></span>That's monumentally wrong. A <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints" target="_blank">2017 study in Nature Energy</a> found that when accounting for manufacturing and construction, the lifetime carbon footprints of solar, wind, and nuclear power are about 20 times smaller than those of coal and natural gas, even when the latter include expensive carbon capture and storage technology. The energy produced during the operation of a solar panel and wind turbine is 26 and 44 times greater than the energy needed to build and install them, respectively. There are many life-cycle assessment studies arriving at similar conclusions.</p><p>The film's case is akin to arguing that because fruit contains sugar, eating strawberries is no healthier than eating a cheesecake.</p><p>It's true that the carbon footprint of renewable energy is not zero. But the film somehow fails to mention that it's far lower than the fossil fuel alternatives, instead falsely suggesting (with zero supporting evidence) that renewables are just as bad. The closest defense of that argument comes when Zehner claims that wind and solar energy cannot displace coal, and instead retired coal power plants are being replaced by even larger natural gas plants.</p><p>In reality, coal power generation in the U.S. has declined by about half (over 1 trillion kilowatt-hours) <a href="https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-2019/" target="_blank">over the past decade</a>, and it's true that natural gas has picked up about two-thirds of that slack (670 kWh). But growth in renewables has accounted for the other one-third (370 kWh). As a result, power sector carbon emissions in the U.S. have fallen by one-third since 2008 and continue to decline steadily. In fact, electricity is the only major sector in the U.S. that's achieving significant emissions reductions.</p><p>It's true that natural gas is a fossil fuel. To reach zero emissions, it must be replaced by renewables with storage and smart grids. But thus far the path to grid decarbonization in the U.S. has been a success story that the film somehow portrays as a failure. Moreover, that decarbonization could be accelerated through policies like pricing carbon pollution, but the film does not once put a single second of thought into policy solutions.</p><p>In perhaps its most absurd scene, Gibbs and Zehner visit a former solar facility in Daggett, California, built in the mid-1980s and replaced 30 years later. Gazing upon the sand-covered landscape of the former facility, Gibbs declares in an ominous tone, "It suddenly dawned on me what we were looking at: a solar dead zone."</p><p>Daggett is located in the Mojave Desert. Sand is the natural landscape. Solar farms don't create dead zones; in fact, <a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/09/crops-under-solar-panels-can-be-a-win-win/" target="_blank">some plants thrive</a> under the shade provided by solar panels.</p><p>It suddenly dawned on me how hard the film was trying to portray clean energy in a negative light.</p>
A Shallow Dismissal of Electric Vehicles
<p>In another science, Gibbs travels to a General Motors facility in Lansing, Michigan, circa 2010, as GM showcased its then-new Chevy Volt plug-in electric hybrid vehicle. Gibbs interviews a representative from the local municipal electric utility provider, who notes that they generate 95% of their supply by burning coal, and that the power to charge the GM facility's EVs will not come from renewables in the near future.</p><p>That is the full extent of the discussion of EVs in the film. Viewers are left to assume that because these cars are charged by burning coal, they're just <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing" target="_blank">greenwashing</a>. In reality, because of the high efficiency of electric motors, an electric car charged entirely by burning coal still produces less carbon pollution than an internal combustion engine car (though more than a hybrid). The U.S. Department of Energy has <a href="https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html" target="_blank">a useful tool</a> for comparing carbon emissions between EVs, plug-in hybrids, conventional hybrids, and gasoline-powered cars for each state. In Michigan, on average, EVs are the cleanest option of all, as is the case for the national average power grid. In West Virginia, with over 90% electricity generated from coal, hybrids are the cleanest option, but EVs are still cleaner than gasoline cars.</p><p>In short, EVs are an improvement over gasoline-powered cars everywhere, and their carbon footprints will continue to shrink as renewables expand to supply more of the power grid.</p>A Valid Critique of Wood Biomass
<p>The film devotes a half hour to the practice of burning trees for energy. That's one form of biomass, which also includes burning wood waste, garbage, and biofuels. Last year, <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3" target="_blank">1% of U.S. electricity</a> was generated by burning wood, but it accounted for 30% of the film run time.</p><p>In fairness, Europe is a different story, where wood biomass accounts for around 5% of electricity generation, and which imports a lot of wood chips from America. It's incentivized because the European Union considers burning wood to be carbon neutral, and it can thus be used to meet climate targets. That's because new trees can be planted to replace those removed, and the EU assumes the wood being burned would have decayed and released its stored carbon anyway.</p><p>There are <a href="https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/3/4/18216045/renewable-energy-wood-pellets-biomass" target="_blank">numerous problems</a> with those assumptions, one of which is unavoidable: time. Burning trees is close to carbon neutral once a replacement tree grows to sufficient maturity to recapture the lost carbon, but that takes many decades. In the meantime, the carbon released into the atmosphere accelerates the climate crisis at a time when slashing emissions is increasingly urgent. That's why <a href="https://www.dogwoodalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Scientist-Letter-to-Governor-Cooper_11-15_2017.pdf" target="_blank">climate scientists are increasingly calling on policymakers</a> to stop expanding this practice. So has 350.org founder Bill McKibben since 2016, <a href="https://350.org/response-planet-of-the-humans-documentary/" target="_blank">despite his depiction in the film</a> as a villainous proponent of clearcutting forests to burn for energy.</p><p>It's complicated, but the carbon footprint of biomass <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/is-burning-wood-for-energy-worse-for-the-climate-than-coal" target="_blank">depends on where the wood comes from</a>. Burning waste (including waste wood) as biomass that would decay anyway is justifiable, but also generally only practical at a relatively small scale. A more detailed investigation of the wood biomass industry could make for a worthwhile documentary. It's still a small-time player, but it does need to stay that way.</p>The Bottom Line
<p>Gibbs asks, "Is it possible for machines made by industrial civilization to save us from industrial civilization?"</p><p>Why not? Industrial civilization has a non-zero climate and environmental footprint, but the impact of green technologies like EVs, wind turbines, and solar panels is much smaller than the alternatives. They represent humanity's best chance to avoid a climate catastrophe.</p><p>The filmmakers call for an end to limitless economic growth and consumption. It's difficult to envision that goal being achieved anytime soon, but even if it is, human civilization will continue to exist and require energy. To avert a climate crisis, that energy must be supplied by the clean renewable technologies pilloried in the film. To expand on the earlier analogy, the filmmakers seem to believe we should improve nutrition not by eating healthier foods like strawberries, but rather by eating a bit less cheesecake.</p><p>Like Fox News and other propaganda vehicles, the film presents one biased perspective via carefully chosen voices, virtually all of whom are comfortable white men. It applies an environmental purity test that can seem convincing for viewers lacking expertise in the topic. Any imperfect technology – which is every technology – is deemed bad. It's a clear example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. In reality, this movie is the enemy of humanity's last best chance to save itself and countless other species from unchecked climate change through a transition to cleaner technologies.</p>
Read More
Show Less