[The Inflation Reduction Acts $400B investment in clean energy
will make a significant dent in emissions, but not enough to meet US
carbon reduction goals. A Union of Concerned Scientists team showed
how to lower emission by 50 percent by 2030.]
[[link removed]]

ASK A SCIENTIST: HOW TO AVOID CLIMATE DISASTER  
[[link removed]]


 

Elliott Negin
November 16, 2023
Union of Concerned Scientists blog
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Inflation Reduction Act's $400B investment in clean energy will
make a significant dent in emissions, but not enough to meet US carbon
reduction goals. A Union of Concerned Scientists team showed how to
lower emission by 50 percent by 2030. _

Improving Efficiency of Solar Panels @ Google, by Avinash Kaushik (CC
BY 2.0)

 

Last year, Congress passed the most ambitious climate bill ever
enacted, the Inflation Reduction Act
[[link removed]].
The legislation committed nearly $400 billion to support, among other
things, wind and solar power, battery storage, electric vehicles, and
other clean energy technologies that will make a significant dent in
US heat-trapping emissions. However, several analyses—including a
recent one by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)—have concluded
that the IRA, even when coupled with the bipartisan infrastructure
act
[[link removed]] and
other federal and state climate policies, will not be enough to meet
US carbon emission reduction goals.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, the United States voluntarily pledged
to reduce its global warming emissions at least 50 percent below their
2005 levels by the end of this decade and reach net-zero
[[link removed]] emissions no
later than 2050. UCS found that the IRA more than doubles the current
rate of annual US emissions reductions to roughly 3 percent through
2030. But to lower emissions by 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030,
the United States would have to cut emissions by more than 5 percent a
year.

How is that going to happen?

An interdisciplinary team of UCS experts put their heads together to
answer that question. The result: a new report, _Accelerating Clean
Energy Ambition_
[[link removed]],
showing that there are viable, cost-effective ways for the United
States to meet its emissions reduction targets. Their report, however,
comes with a warning. “Without decisive action within this decade to
accelerate US and global ambition, the Paris Agreement temperature
goals could slip from our grasp.”

That would be potentially disastrous.

I recently sat down virtually with one of the report’s lead
authors, Steve Clemmer
[[link removed]], director of
energy research for the UCS Climate and Energy program, to ask him
some questions about his team’s findings. Below is an abridged
version of our conversation.

EN: AS I MENTIONED IN MY INTRODUCTION, A NUMBER OF ANALYSES HAVE FOUND
THAT THE IRA AND OTHER CURRENT POLICIES WILL NOT BE ENOUGH FOR THE
UNITED STATES TO MEET ITS 2030 EMISSION REDUCTION GOALS. WHAT EXACTLY
WILL THE IRA ACCOMPLISH, AND WHERE DOES IT FALL SHORT?

SC: Our analysis shows that effective implementation of the IRA, the
infrastructure act, and state policies would enable the United States
to make significant progress toward achieving its near-term climate
goals and yield substantial economic and public health benefits at the
same time. Taken together, these federal and state initiatives could
help cut total US heat-trapping emissions 34 percent below 2005 levels
in 2030 and 53 percent by 2035, which would fall short of our 2030
targets but meet them a few years later.

The IRA will stimulate most of the near-term private investment in
clean energy and related infrastructure to decarbonize the US economy,
spurring more than a trillion dollars in capital investments through
2035. It also will save US consumers money because they will spend
less on fossil fuels. Combining those savings with IRA incentives,
which reduce the cost of investing in clean energy technologies, will
lower overall US energy expenditures by 3 percent in 2030 and save US
households and businesses nearly $89 billion in that one year alone.

IRA clean energy investments also will protect public health by
cutting key toxic air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide, by more than 50 percent by 2050, and drastically reduce fine
particulate matter, which will save hundreds of billions of dollars in
2035 alone from avoided premature deaths.

Even with all that, we will still need additional policies and
investments across all sectors just to close the near-term gap of
slashing emissions in half by 2030, let alone close the much larger
long-term gap to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Our analysis found there are practical pathways for the United States
to meet its near-term and long-term climate targets, but it will
require immediate action that dramatically ramps up the deployment of
clean energy technologies and related infrastructure. Doing so would
generate even greater benefits, including a $100-billion reduction in
consumer energy costs in 2030 and, by 2050, as much as $800 billion in
public health benefits and nearly $1.3 trillion in avoided climate
change-related damages.

EN: UCS’S ANALYSIS LOOKS AT VARIOUS WAYS THE UNITED STATES COULD
MEET ITS CLIMATE TARGETS. WHAT ARE THE MAIN SOLUTIONS?

SC: There are three primary solutions that can get us most of the
way. First, decarbonizing the electricity sector mainly with wind and
solar to replace coal and fossil gas. Second, replacing fossil fuels
with clean electricity in the transportation, building, and industrial
sectors. And third, increasing energy efficiency and lowering overall
energy demand in those sectors.

Many of these solutions, which are proven and commercially available,
can lower energy bills and be readily ramped up to achieve US climate
targets. Transitioning to alternative, zero-carbon fuels in the
transportation sector would be another important strategy for reducing
emissions, but those fuels are at an earlier stage of development.

Decarbonizing the power sector is the most important near-term
strategy to meet US climate goals. It is also critical for enabling
longer-term initiatives that replace fossil fuels and reduce emissions
in other sectors. The IRA and current state policies recognize this
fact by including incentives for consumers and businesses to purchase
electric vehicles and replace inefficient gas, oil, and propane
boilers, furnaces, and water heaters with highly efficient electric
heat pumps, which also provide cooling in the summer. As a result of
these and other strategies we explored in our report, we found that
electricity use as a share of US energy demand would jump from 21
percent in 2021 to 53 percent in 2050 under the two net-zero scenarios
we analyzed.

Energy efficiency also plays a critical role. It reduces the use of
and emissions from fossil fuels by providing the same level of service
while consuming less energy, lowering energy costs, improving health
and comfort, creating jobs, and reducing waste. Weatherizing homes and
improving their efficiency can simultaneously lower energy needs and
offer critical protection in the event of extreme weather power
outages. Efficiency is also indispensable because it can greatly
reduce the amount of new clean energy infrastructure, including power
plants and transmission lines, that would be needed to decarbonize the
economy.

EN: WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN A GREAT DEAL OF PROGRESS. IN 2007
[[link removed]], WHEN US CARBON
EMISSIONS PEAKED, RENEWABLES—INCLUDING HYDROPOWER—GENERATED ONLY 8
PERCENT OF US ELECTRICITY. FIFTY PERCENT CAME FROM COAL AND 20 PERCENT
CAME FROM FOSSIL GAS. IN 2022
[[link removed]], 23 PERCENT OF US
ELECTRICITY CAME FROM RENEWABLES INCLUDING HYDRO, SURPASSING BOTH COAL
AND NUCLEAR. OVER THOSE 15 YEARS, US GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS DECLINED
ABOUT 17 PERCENT
[[link removed]].
AND EARLIER THIS YEAR, WIND AND SOLAR ALONE GENERATED MORE
ELECTRICITY
[[link removed]] THAN
COAL FOR THE FIRST TIME. WHAT SHOULD THE UNITED STATES DO NOW TO
ACCELERATE THE PACE OF ELECTRICITY SECTOR EMISSION REDUCTIONS?

SC: The growth we have seen in wind and solar over the past 15 years
has been nothing short of amazing. Federal tax credits combined with
state renewable electricity standards
[[link removed]] and
plummeting costs have been key drivers of this phenomenal expansion.
And even with the recent uptick in costs due to inflation, supply
chain constraints, and higher commodity prices that have affected all
technologies, the national average cost of producing electricity from
land-based wind power fell 70 percent
[[link removed]] between 2009
and 2022, while the cost of utility-scale solar photovoltaics has
dropped by more than 84 percent
[[link removed]] since
2010.

The United States needs to accelerate this momentum and ramp up
renewables to much higher levels to meet climate goals. Our analysis
shows the country has to nearly triple the share of electricity from
renewables to 60 percent by 2030, 81 percent by 2035, and 92 percent
by 2050. Almost all of this new generation would come from wind and
solar, and most of the near-term deployment would be due to IRA tax
incentives and existing state policies. This increase in wind and
solar would lead to a phaseout of coal by 2030, while fossil gas would
fall to a 25-percent share of US electricity in 2030 and just 2
percent in 2050.

The good news is that there are currently more than 10,000
[[link removed]] proposed
wind and solar projects across the country representing 1,260
gigawatts
[[link removed]] (GW)
of new capacity and 680 GW
[[link removed]] of
storage capacity actively seeking interconnection to the transmission
system, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The
challenge is getting these projects and the additional transmission
capacity to support them approved, permitted, and sited in a timely
fashion.

Our analysis also shows that broader investments to lower overall
energy demand would provide another crucial pathway for meeting US
climate goals. When technological changes to the energy system are
combined with achievable reductions in demand in such sectors as
transportation, buildings, and industry, our analysis found even more
potential for public health and economic benefits. Additional
reductions in energy demand also lessen the need for new wind, solar,
storage, transmission and other low-carbon technology infrastructure.
Furthermore, it would limit the need for minerals and land, and help
mitigate siting, permitting, supply chain, and public-acceptance
challenges.

EN: IN 2021, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WORLD’S FOREMOST ENERGY
AUTHORITY, THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY (IEA), WARNED
[[link removed]]:
“IF GOVERNMENTS ARE SERIOUS ABOUT THE CLIMATE CRISIS, THERE CAN BE
NO NEW INVESTMENTS IN OIL, GAS AND COAL….” REGARDLESS, MAJOR OIL
AND GAS COMPANIES ARE DOUBLING DOWN ON FOSSIL FUELS. YOUR THOUGHTS?

SC: Both the IEA and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
have been sounding the alarm about the need to stop making new
investments in fossil fuel infrastructure—and the need to replace
existing fossil fuel infrastructure with clean energy—if the world
is going to have a fighting chance of keeping global average
temperatures from surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius and well below 2
degrees C. Oil and gas company plans to boost production and build new
pipelines and other infrastructure are not only extremely dangerous
from a climate perspective, they also could leave them with billions
of dollars in stranded assets. Their plans also fly in the face of the
commitments many of these companies have made to reduce their
emissions consistent with net-zero targets.

The urgency of the climate crisis requires a sharp turn away from
fossil fuels toward clean energy solutions, so any momentum from the
IRA’s incentives to significantly cut emissions could be at risk if
fossil fuel use increases at the same time. Our analysis found that an
ambitious suite of policies to meet US climate goals would cause
overall fossil fuel use to fall 82 percent between 2021 and 2050. Oil
would drop by 85 percent, gas by 72 percent, and coal would be
eliminated entirely. 

EN: WHAT DOES YOUR REPORT RECOMMEND THAT THE FEDERAL AND STATE
GOVERNMENTS DO GOING FORWARD?

SC: We recommend that federal and state policymakers build on the IRA
and other current policies by setting science-based reduction goals
for all heat-trapping emissions and enacting ambitious policies for
every sector. We also recommend that they adopt near- and long-term
plans to cut fossil fuel production and use, reject fossil fuel
infrastructure expansion, limit the role of carbon capture and storage
and other carbon management strategies, and hold fossil fuel companies
accountable for fraud and damages.

Last but not least, state and federal authorities have to ensure that
whatever initiatives they take protect disadvantaged communities that
have borne the brunt of industrial pollution. These communities must
be prime beneficiaries of investments in clean energy technologies and
efforts to cut toxic pollutants and carbon emissions.

Our policymakers have the responsibility to put our nation firmly on
the path to a better future that runs on clean energy and is free of
the fossil fuel pollution that has caused the twin crises of climate
change and environmental injustice. With the well-being of people,
ecosystems, and the planet at stake, the choice is clear.

_Elliott Negin [[link removed]]__
writes about UCS-related topics for a range of news organizations.
Prior to joining UCS, Elliott was the Washington communications
director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, a foreign news
editor at National Public Radio, the managing editor of American
Journalism Review, and the editor of Nuclear Times and Public Citizen
magazines._

_The Equation is a blog of the Union of Concerned Scientists
[[link removed]] on science, solutions and justice._

 

* Science
[[link removed]]
* carbon emissions
[[link removed]]
* clean energy
[[link removed]]
* Global warming
[[link removed]]
* Inflation Reducation Act
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]