“under-the-radar” elements of the Inflation Reduction Act, sea level rise challenging the Outer Banks and Miami, local resistance to renewable energy, lawns leaving southern California, solar powers Australia
The New York Times notes that one of the least publicized aspects of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is how it amends the Clean Air Act, the country’s key air-quality law, to define carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels as an “air pollutant.” (An op-ed in the Washington Post further describes the importance of this small amendment to the Clean Air Act.) This gives explicit authorization to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, which should allow it to use its power to push renewable-energy sources despite the recent decision by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA. At the very least, it will make legal challenges to the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide much more difficult, which is why Republicans tried unsuccessfully to strip this language from the bill during the Senate debate.
In the Atlantic, Robinson Meyer explains that the IRA will also allow the EPA to pass much stricter rules than it could have previously. This is because provisions of the law that support renewable energy will reduce the cost of complying with regulations for reducing carbon emissions. This should enhance the EPA’s ability to demonstrate that benefits of stricter regulations outweigh the costs and are therefore in the public interest.
Another important but poorly publicized component of the IRA is the expansion of the federal loan program to support commercialization of renewable technologies. This program, operated by the Department of Energy, will be able to offer up to $350 billion in additional federal loans and loan guarantees. This is the program that provided a crucial loan to help Tesla expand from a company that sold only expensive two-door electric sports cars into the world’s most valuable automaker (the program also backed Solyndra, which was a commercial failure that became a political football). National Geographic describes the fee on methane emissions, another “under the radar” component of the IRA (one of the few “sticks” in a bill full of “carrots”)…
U.S. Congress finally takes action on climate, fossil-fuel-dependent regions are worried about transition to renewables, Colorado River basin in historic drought, record flooding in the U.S. and around the world, USPS will electrify its vehicle fleet faster
Talk about a wonderful surprise! After unexpected announcements by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) regarding an agreement to remake the Build Back Better bill (now the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022), and with the subsequent support of Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the U.S. Senate passed the bill on Aug 7th (after an all-night “vote-a-rama” in which 41 mostly unfriendly amendments were offered). Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI) left the chambers in tears. “We’ve been fighting for this for decades. Now I can look my kids in the eye and say we’re really doing something about climate,” he said. Several other senators mentioned children and grandchildren as a reason to support the bill. The bill also represents “the largest change to national health policy since the passage of the Affordable Care Act,” as it includes continued Obamacare subsidies and grants Medicare the power to negotiate prices for prescription drugs. The House approved the bill on August 12th.
The Washington Post has an in-depth look at the two weeks of negotiations that caught almost everybody in Washington DC by surprise. These negotiations included secret meetings in a basement conference room between Senators Schumer and Manchin, and key conversations by Manchin with economist Larry Summers and with Bill Gates. In a public tribute to all the staff members who worked on the bill, Schumer said, “This bill is going to change America for decades, and you did it.” Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota said she considers this bill, “one of the most significant things that I’ve had an opportunity to work on,” and Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico said, “it will be transformative.” The New York Times describes the decades of effort that has been required to get the U.S. Senate to act, including the persistence of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who just gave his 285th weekly address on the Senate floor about the climate crisis.
Climate analysts are enthusiastic and astounded by the proposed legislation, which contains $369 billion for climate action (Biden’s climate advisor, Gina McCarthy, says she’s ready to “dance in the streets”). The power of Congress to tax and spend (and shape the economy) is now going to push the U.S. economy to decarbonize, writes Robinson Meyer in The Atlantic. He notes that the “core of the bill is a set of tax credits that could touch nearly every aspect of the energy economy,” representing a much broader and more easily accessed set of incentives for renewable energy than previously available. Dave Roberts takes a deep dive into the bill on his podcast. Among other things, his guests note that to have a 10-year term for the federal renewable-energy tax credits is extraordinary, given that previous credits for the industry would sunset after three or five years (this uncertainty is known as the “solarcoaster”). In addition, the credits themselves will become more easily claimed, including by nonprofit entities such as rural energy cooperatives, and they can be transferred to third parties as well…
climate policy on a “Manchin-go-round”, EV sales rising quickly, California’s last nuke may operate longer, Alaska burning, old coal plants go solar
In mid-July, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WVA), who the New York Times notes has taken more campaign donations from the fossil-fuel industry than any other Senator, decided to vote against action on climate change. Manchin has made his fortune by selling the dirtiest type of coal to a power plant in West Virginia, and then taking a slice of the revenue from that plant’s electricity sales. After previously rejecting two larger climate-action bills, he decided that he could not support even the pared-down version he requested (an article in the New Yorker chronicles this bad faith negotiating, and Bill McKibben notes this is but another American political failure on climate).
Manchin’s decision signaled that the U.S. will not take meaningful climate action, essentially ensuring the planet will blow past the temperature thresholds identified as dangerous by the world’s scientific community. John Podesta, a former senior counselor to President Barack Obama, remarked: “It seems odd that Manchin would choose as his legacy to be the one man who single-handedly doomed humanity.” In a New York Times op-ed, climate scientist Leah Stokes wonders how Manchin “looks his own grandchildren in the eye.” Also in the Times, Paul Krugman notes that Manchin only has this power because Republicans are unified in their opposition to clean energy, which he sees as the real problem.
But wait! In a last-minute reversal, Senator Manchin changed his position and agreed to a bill that, according to the New York Times, represents “the largest investment in renewable energy in the history of the United States.” Maybe the Senator had a moment with his grandchildren after all. At the time of this writing, it is still unclear what will be contained in the agreement, which Manchin has called the Inflation Reduction Act. Of course, the “Manchin-go-round” could just keep on spinning (and don’t forget the “Sinema-go-round”). I’ll have more on this bill in the next In Brief…
Supreme Court limits the EPA’s ability to act on climate, extreme weather collapsing insurance markets, the value of natural infrastructure, record-breaking floods hit Bangladesh and Australia, indoor agriculture’s use of fossil fuels
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case West Virginia v. EPA, limited the ability of the federal government to require reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants. While not preventing the EPA from regulating these emissions, the court constrained how the EPA could approach the problem, specifically preventing the agency from issuing a rule that would transform the entire electricity sector. Instead, the EPA must take a plant-by-plant approach and restrict emissions with devices such as scrubbers on smokestacks. Of course, the science dictates that such a sector-wide transformation is necessary to protect public health and safety. The New York Times describes how the court’s decision makes it almost mathematically impossible to meet the emissions-reduction goals the Biden Administration has announced.
The plaintiffs in the case, a group of Republican Attorneys General, were originally led by Scott Pruitt when he was AG of Oklahoma before becoming Trump’s first EPA Administrator (I know you hoped that we were done with him… at least he did get crushed in the Republican primary for Senate in Oklahoma). This group argued that Congress did not give the EPA explicit authority to take a sector-wide action, and therefore it should not be able to do so. The majority of the court agreed, embracing the “major questions” doctrine for the first time. Historian Heather Cox Richardson notes that this “reversed almost 100 years of jurisprudence by arguing that Congress cannot delegate authority on ‘major questions’ to agencies in the executive branch,” and in a broader context signals “the end of the federal government as we know it.” The major-questions doctrine could be invoked to prevent federal government agencies from taking technically-nuanced action on any number of issues, all depending upon what the Supreme Court might decide is a “major question.” For a deep dive into the complexities of the decision, you can listen to the Volts podcast that interviews one of the attorneys supporting the EPA’s position (spoiler: even the attorney is not sure what the decision actually requires)…
the Arctic is warming quickly, early-season heat waves abound, flooding in Yellowstone, green aluminum, is creating fossil-fuel PR immoral?
Recent measurements have documented that a region of the Arctic is warming faster than any place on Earth. The Guardian reports on these temperature increases on the islands of Svalbard and Franz Josef Land in the Barents Sea. That the Arctic would warm more rapidly relative to the rest of the planet has been predicted since the 1970s, due mainly to ice (that reflects solar radiation) being replaced by water (that absorbs solar radiation). However, the heating appears to be happening faster than previously estimated. This will likely have significant impacts on weather outside of the Arctic as the historical temperature gradient between the tropics and the Arctic gets smaller.
Water availability is declining in the western U.S. through a combination of drought, population growth and lack of conservation (John Oliver has a nice primer on the problem). This reduction can be seen in Utah as the Great Salt Lake dwindles in size. The New York Times examines the implications of this change, which extends far beyond the loss of water itself. In particular, the exposed lake bed is becoming an air-quality hazard for the region, and there is no indication yet that the growth in water use that’s driving this problem is being addressed. A similar problem has already played out at Owens Lake east of the Sierra Nevada mountains in California, which has resulted in the town of Keeler essentially being abandoned. An article in the Washington Post describes the potential for taps to go dry in the South African city of Gqeberha, due to climate change and inadequate water-system maintenance.
The Washington Post reports that the “immediate crises — among them war, spiking gas prices and an open-ended pandemic — are hindering the ability of leaders to take necessary action on the longer-term threats posed by climate change.” At our present rate of emissions, we will fly past the 1.5°C target by 2030. One leading climate scientist noted, “we know what we need to do, but we are not doing it yet.” An article in the New York Times describes the growing challenges facing countries in Asia due to climate change and extreme weather…
carbon dioxide at all-time high, it’s cheaper to transition off fossil fuels, consumer demand for EVs grows, Americans reduce beef consumption, flows decline in Colorado and Rio Grande rivers
NOAA announced that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached nearly 421 parts per million in May. This means that there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any time in at least 4 million years. It comes as no surprise. As reported by the New York Times, emissions totaled 36.3 billion tons in 2021, the highest level in history. As three past Secretaries of the UNFCCC note in an op-ed, this makes the failure to pursue aggressive decarbonization by the leadership of the major industrialized nations all that more sad and painful.
This increase in carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) continues to heat the planet. The Washington Post describes a recent atmospheric river that caused it to rain at the summit of Greenland. This led to an enormous melt event on the ice sheet. “In the past decade, Greenland experienced three major melt years, 2012, 2019 and 2021, which were all tied to atmospheric rivers. Before 2012, the last major melt event connected to an atmospheric river was more than 100 years ago.”
A recent study examined the net warming effect of carbon dioxide and non-carbon-dioxide pollutants from both fossil-fuel and non-fossil-fuel sources. Anthropocene Magazine reports that the short-lived greenhouse pollutants methane, black carbon soot, ground level ozone and hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants cause just as much warming as carbon dioxide. This shows that, while decarbonization is crucial to meeting our long-term climate goals, it is essential that we also reduce short-lived climate pollutants this decade to keep global temperatures lower by mid-century…