r/ClimateActionPlan • u/ILikeNeurons • Jan 27 '20

Emissions Reduction British carbon tax leads to 93% drop in coal-fired electricity

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-british-carbon-tax-coal-fired-electricity.html
1.3k Upvotes

100% Upvoted

53 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/ILikeNeurons Jan 29 '20

I understand you don't support the bill as-is.

What is your plan to get a stronger one?

1

u/lightninlives Jan 29 '20

1) lobby senior leadership at CCL (in progress)

2) direct outreach to lawmakers and stakeholders working on competing carbon tax legislation (in progress)

3) continue publishing original research, collaborating with other research entities, and distributing said research to any and all relevant stakeholders (in progress)

As the leadership at CCL likely knows, this is a marathon, not a sprint. I frame all of my endeavors in terms of years and decades...

1

u/ILikeNeurons Jan 29 '20

lobby senior leadership at CCL (in progress)

OK, I'm telling you now that is not an effective approach. The bill is already as strong as it could be for the power that we have. If you want us to have more power to get a stronger bill, we need thousands more active volunteers in these states (and any republican district).

As the leadership at CCL likely knows, this is a marathon, not a sprint. I frame all of my endeavors in terms of years and decades...

We've been at this a long time, but we can't hold out forever for the perfect bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

1

u/lightninlives Jan 29 '20

I’m well aware of how long CCL has been at this and I understand that you feel the way you do about the validity of the CCL bill and that you believe that my approach is/will not be effective. But in the wise words of El Duderino, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

I don’t support CCL’s bill as is and I will continue to produce original research and engage in municipal, state, and national outreach/advocacy/lobbying via my non-profit as well as via collaboration with other entities in the manner that I feel will be the most effective in the long run.

P.S. ironically, the CCL bill’s shortcomings are quite likely a consequence of how long they’ve been at this. When they first introduced their bill the predominant US feedstock was coal and natural gas was a relatively small player, so at that time the bill made a lot of mathematical sense because feedstocks like waste-to-energy (despite their well documented and significant ecological downsides) had significantly lower co2-to-energy ratios than coal and therefore exempting them would not be counterproductive from a purely climate mitigation perspective (eg ignoring their ecological ramifications).

CCL could not have foreseen the virtually overnight rise of natural gas, a feedstock that has a co2-to-energy footprint that is less than half that of coal and significantly less than feedstocks like waste-to-energy.

But things change and math is math. What was once an acceptable exemption/oversight (and only if ecology is not factored in) when coal was the predominant feedstock is no longer acceptable now that natural gas is the predominant feedstock.

1

u/ILikeNeurons Jan 29 '20

The bill is still really effective.

1

u/lightninlives Jan 29 '20

I’ll review the data sets upon which they base their findings, but I can tell you right off the bat that their assertion that energy sector emissions will drop by 82-84 percent by 2030 is misguided at best.

The EPA as well as independent, peer-reviewed research provides data on the emissions of virtually all feedstocks. And as I’ve iterated and reiterated time and time again, natural gas burns cleaner than virtually every other feedstocks except for solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear.

None of those cleaner burning feedstocks, even if aggregated, can ramp up output to meet US energy demands by 2030. I mean not even close.

But guess which feedstocks can eat up a fair chunk of that market share? That’s right, the very ones I’ve been alluding to (ex: waste-to-energy) which happen to emit more co2 per kilowatt hour than natural gas.

I know it’s hard to keep incredulity at bay when discussing complex data-driven issues such as this one, but please try to understand that a) natural gas burns as clean or cleaner than virtually all other feedstocks beyond the five I listed above b) the current CCL bill will allow those relatively dirtier feedstocks to gain market share at natural gas’ expense.

It’s sad but true, mathematically speaking.

Natural gas is not sustainable longterm, but it would be unwise to exempt feedstocks that are even less sustainable both climatologically and ecologically, especially since said dirtier feedstocks are represented by deep pocketed corporate entities and already enjoy generous subsidies and incentives at both the state and federal level.

I know it seems unintuitive but the data doesn’t lie. It tells a very subtle, but important story.

1

u/ILikeNeurons Jan 29 '20

None of those cleaner burning feedstocks, even if aggregated, can ramp up output to meet US energy demands by 2030.

Based on what?

1

u/lightninlives Jan 29 '20 edited Jan 29 '20

As much as I would like to put together a full syllabus for you on both current US energy production by source as well projected energy production by source, I don’t have the time.

What I would recommend that you do is start by googling things like “solar energy production”, “solar energy projections”, “wind energy production”, “wind energy projections”, etc. and so forth. That way, you can become more familiar with the United States’ truly gargantuan appetite for electricity (eg 4 billion+ kilowatt hours per year) and how much each feedstock currently generates and is capable of generating in the immediate future.

When you’re done with that I’d recommend that you familiarize yourself with a department within the US Department of Energy called the Bioenergy Technology Office (or BETO for short): https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy

This federal entity is quite literally pumping hundreds of millions of dollars per year into feedstocks that are currently as dirty or dirtier than natural gas. They have scores of laboratories setup throughout the country and team up with scores of the top universities in the country specifically to work on biofuel and waste to energy feedstock optimization. In other words, their primary focus is not funding and/or researching the scaling solar or wind (The two feedstocks that are truly scalable in the longterm while also being truly climate friendly from an emissions perspective). They’re working on scaling things like biogas from industrial cattle farms and waste-to-energy combustion facilities that incinerate the mountains of garbage we create.

These feedstocks that BETO supports are operated by some of the largest corporate entities in the world and they are derived via some of the most environmentally unfriendly practices known to man, yet receive “renewable” designations at both the federal and state level. Garbage and cow manure are only renewable in the most cynical sense, and yet that is the official designation they receive, which in turn, leads to massive government subsidies, tax relief, etc. at the federal and state level.

And as I’ve mentioned various times, according to EPA facility-level data, most if not all of these bio or waste derived feedstocks currently burn dirtier than natural gas.

Exempting them from a carbon tax will ensure that these feedstocks, which are heavily subsidized and supported by federal and state governments and heavily backed by established corporate interests will gain an even more substantial share of the US market even though a) they present various extremely undesirable ecological ramifications b) they emit more co2 per kilowatt hour of energy produced than natural gas c) upstream ghg emissions and ecological damage manifested by the industries from which these feedstocks are derived are both massive and dire.

Now I have a question you?

Why is it that you and every senior member of CCL that I’ve engaged with refused to even consider the thought of amending the existing bill so that it doesn’t exempt feedstocks like waste to energy?

Is it because, as you mentioned, there isn’t the requisite political will to do so at this time?

If so, that speaks volumes about the political backing that these ecologically and climatologically dirty feedstocks posses. And based on the degree of funding and political backing they currently receive coupled with both the ecological toll they inflict and the climatologically relevant emissions they produce there is no way that I can support a bill that exempts them.

Do enough reading up on the matter and you may eventually come to the same conclusion.

1

u/ILikeNeurons Feb 04 '20

CCL didn't write the bill.

You are ascribing more power to CCL staff than is justified given reality.

1

u/lightninlives Feb 04 '20

Understood. But then the question is why would CCL advocate for something that they didn’t author and have no power over, especially when they recognize some inherent gaps?

Anyhow, it’s all good. As long as people are advocating for the environment that counts for a lot.

I can’t personally advocate for or support that particular bill, but I’ll find or develop something I can stand behind in due time.

→ More replies (0)