THE INFLATION UNREDUCTION AND STILL CHANGING CLIMATE ACT OF 2022.
It’s well established that the deceptively mis-titled Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has nothing to do with inflation. See the non-partisan UPenn/Wharton Budget model for details. It’s really mostly a climate change bill. However, in his desperation to show voters that Congress could do something about their highest priority issue, inflation, rather than lower voter priority climate change, Schumer gave voters a title instead of substance.
Since the bill spends nearly $400 billion on climate change, it’s more surprising that the this massive investment will reduce emissions by only about 16% and have no measurable impact on the climate. Analyzing these impacts is complicated. It’s tempting, but wrong, to assume that since we cut 2020 CO2 emissions by about 17% from their peak in 2005, it can’t be that hard to cut emissions by another 23% to reach the President’s promised 40% reduction by 2030. The problem is that this past reduction was due almost entirely to the Covid economic collapse and the relatively easy substitution of natural gas for coal in the generation of electricity.
The next steps in emission reductions will be much more difficult. Take off the temporary 10% emission reduction from the Covid economic collapse and the emission reduction from today necessary to reach the 40% goal is more like 33%. Converting 100% of the few remaining coal-fired electric generating plants to natural gas would reduce emissions by only 5%. To get the other 28% reduction the President plans on a massive electrification of transportation and a switch to renewable electricity. The problem is that switching as little as 25% of the vehicle fleet to all electric (a nearly impossible task by 2030) would require a massive, 30%, increase in electric generation.
The even more difficult problem is the fundamental incompatibility between renewable electricity and electrifying transportation. My wealthy friends who love their federally subsidized $100,000 electric car/toys are mostly switching from oil to coal. My 35 mpg hybrid emits about the same CO2 per mile as their electric cars. They use their vehicles during the day and recharge at night, when there is little renewable energy. Electric vehicles mostly using coal power. The photovoltaic system on my roof provides a lot of power from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., but nothing at night. Wind peaks in the late afternoon, but there is normally much less wind at night.
The unreliability and timing problems of renewable electricity place a fundamental limit on renewable’s share of electric generation. Renewable electricity cannot reliably provide more than about 40% of electricity given existing use patterns. Germany, Texas and California all suffered major blackouts as their electric systems approached 40% solar and wind. Adding nighttime electric vehicle recharging makes the renewable limit more like 30%. Altogether, this means that the additional power needs for recharging electric vehicles must be mostly from fossil fuels or nuclear and it’s too late to build nuclear plants that would be in operation by 2030. Because of these issues, the net additional emission reduction by 2030 available from electrifying transportation and shifting to more renewable electricity is only about 8%. Grand total, without another economic collapse, CO2 emissions might drop another 16% by 2030, not the promised 33% from today.
The really strange thing is that hugely expensive US emission reductions, whether the promised 33% or the more likely 16%, are too small to have any noticeable impact on climate change. The increased emissions from coal plants already under construction in China, India and Africa will overwhelm our puny reductions. Even a reduction of the full 33% of US emissions would reduce worldwide emissions by only 5%, leading to an
immeasurably tiny change in world temperatures, less than .001 degrees C. per year. Welcome to the Black Hole of climate policy: Throw in $400 billion and nothing happens.
As Senior Economist at Stanford Research Institute Richard Carlson served on the first Federal Global Warming Review Panel in 1979 and co-authored the ground-breaking study Solar Energy in America’s Future both for the Department of Energy (then ERDA). He led the economic team in the then largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history, the Washington Public Power Supply System. He received his BA from Harvard and did Ph.D work at Stanford.
the incontrovertible evidence that climate change has already arrived— in the form of frighteningly extreme wildfires, drought, storms and floods afflicting every corner of the United States — has helped build political support"
Decarbonization is a means to an end, so the question is begged, how much impact will all of this nonsense have on the global mean surface temperature? Why is this metric not front-and-center in the debate by policy makers?
Any one policy, even a supposedly big one, will have limited impact on overall global temperatures. That is not an argument against mitigation policy, just a reality check on the magnitude of the decarbonization challenge.
Ah yes. Assuming that decarbonization will indeed have any meaningful impact on climate. I have yet to see that smoking gun. I have followed the work of both you and your farther with appreciative interest for many years, but have yet to understand your argument for industrial GHG as a global thermostat.
What you don't mention is that even achieving the "promised" emission reductions, applying the EPA's climate model, which overstates the effect of CO2, projects a reduction in atmospheric temperature too small to see in the satellite measurements. Or that there's no believable plan to provide the battery storage backup needed for the increased reliance on wind & solar.
As you probably know from reading here, I'm not a big fan of temperature targets as a justification for mitigation policies. There are plenty of good reasons to accelerate decarbonization based on policy goals more closely linked to widely shared outcomes (like energy costs, security, air pollution, energy access and broader environmental objectives).
But since CO2 is not an air pollutant but rather useful plant food, doesn't massive deployment of wind & solar fail on all the other factors you mention, especially when taking their manufacture and disposal into account?
Typo? The number is (2021 to 2031). ?
"Note that my analysis is conservative in that I give 10 years for emissions reductions to occur (2021 to 2022). "
thanks for the eagle eyes!
THE INFLATION UNREDUCTION AND STILL CHANGING CLIMATE ACT OF 2022.
It’s well established that the deceptively mis-titled Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has nothing to do with inflation. See the non-partisan UPenn/Wharton Budget model for details. It’s really mostly a climate change bill. However, in his desperation to show voters that Congress could do something about their highest priority issue, inflation, rather than lower voter priority climate change, Schumer gave voters a title instead of substance.
Since the bill spends nearly $400 billion on climate change, it’s more surprising that the this massive investment will reduce emissions by only about 16% and have no measurable impact on the climate. Analyzing these impacts is complicated. It’s tempting, but wrong, to assume that since we cut 2020 CO2 emissions by about 17% from their peak in 2005, it can’t be that hard to cut emissions by another 23% to reach the President’s promised 40% reduction by 2030. The problem is that this past reduction was due almost entirely to the Covid economic collapse and the relatively easy substitution of natural gas for coal in the generation of electricity.
The next steps in emission reductions will be much more difficult. Take off the temporary 10% emission reduction from the Covid economic collapse and the emission reduction from today necessary to reach the 40% goal is more like 33%. Converting 100% of the few remaining coal-fired electric generating plants to natural gas would reduce emissions by only 5%. To get the other 28% reduction the President plans on a massive electrification of transportation and a switch to renewable electricity. The problem is that switching as little as 25% of the vehicle fleet to all electric (a nearly impossible task by 2030) would require a massive, 30%, increase in electric generation.
The even more difficult problem is the fundamental incompatibility between renewable electricity and electrifying transportation. My wealthy friends who love their federally subsidized $100,000 electric car/toys are mostly switching from oil to coal. My 35 mpg hybrid emits about the same CO2 per mile as their electric cars. They use their vehicles during the day and recharge at night, when there is little renewable energy. Electric vehicles mostly using coal power. The photovoltaic system on my roof provides a lot of power from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., but nothing at night. Wind peaks in the late afternoon, but there is normally much less wind at night.
The unreliability and timing problems of renewable electricity place a fundamental limit on renewable’s share of electric generation. Renewable electricity cannot reliably provide more than about 40% of electricity given existing use patterns. Germany, Texas and California all suffered major blackouts as their electric systems approached 40% solar and wind. Adding nighttime electric vehicle recharging makes the renewable limit more like 30%. Altogether, this means that the additional power needs for recharging electric vehicles must be mostly from fossil fuels or nuclear and it’s too late to build nuclear plants that would be in operation by 2030. Because of these issues, the net additional emission reduction by 2030 available from electrifying transportation and shifting to more renewable electricity is only about 8%. Grand total, without another economic collapse, CO2 emissions might drop another 16% by 2030, not the promised 33% from today.
The really strange thing is that hugely expensive US emission reductions, whether the promised 33% or the more likely 16%, are too small to have any noticeable impact on climate change. The increased emissions from coal plants already under construction in China, India and Africa will overwhelm our puny reductions. Even a reduction of the full 33% of US emissions would reduce worldwide emissions by only 5%, leading to an
immeasurably tiny change in world temperatures, less than .001 degrees C. per year. Welcome to the Black Hole of climate policy: Throw in $400 billion and nothing happens.
As Senior Economist at Stanford Research Institute Richard Carlson served on the first Federal Global Warming Review Panel in 1979 and co-authored the ground-breaking study Solar Energy in America’s Future both for the Department of Energy (then ERDA). He led the economic team in the then largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history, the Washington Public Power Supply System. He received his BA from Harvard and did Ph.D work at Stanford.
who are you quoting here
the incontrovertible evidence that climate change has already arrived— in the form of frighteningly extreme wildfires, drought, storms and floods afflicting every corner of the United States — has helped build political support"
Decarbonization is a means to an end, so the question is begged, how much impact will all of this nonsense have on the global mean surface temperature? Why is this metric not front-and-center in the debate by policy makers?
Any one policy, even a supposedly big one, will have limited impact on overall global temperatures. That is not an argument against mitigation policy, just a reality check on the magnitude of the decarbonization challenge.
Ah yes. Assuming that decarbonization will indeed have any meaningful impact on climate. I have yet to see that smoking gun. I have followed the work of both you and your farther with appreciative interest for many years, but have yet to understand your argument for industrial GHG as a global thermostat.
What you don't mention is that even achieving the "promised" emission reductions, applying the EPA's climate model, which overstates the effect of CO2, projects a reduction in atmospheric temperature too small to see in the satellite measurements. Or that there's no believable plan to provide the battery storage backup needed for the increased reliance on wind & solar.
As you probably know from reading here, I'm not a big fan of temperature targets as a justification for mitigation policies. There are plenty of good reasons to accelerate decarbonization based on policy goals more closely linked to widely shared outcomes (like energy costs, security, air pollution, energy access and broader environmental objectives).
But since CO2 is not an air pollutant but rather useful plant food, doesn't massive deployment of wind & solar fail on all the other factors you mention, especially when taking their manufacture and disposal into account?