|
||||||
These notes come from the Q&A section that immediately followed Jeff Hanson’s talk. This section was not recorded as part of the zoom. The notes have been lightly edited.
Maggie S Jeff H Michael O Jeff H On the second question “How much Infrastructure needs to be developed to use hydrogen?” The Midrex system dominates 70% of DRI furnaces right now. They have an older system that uses coal which we won’t discuss. Their natural gas system is designed to fairly easily incorporate hydrogen. They can incorporate a small percentage of hydrogen in the existing plants like the one that they have in Cleveland Cliffs in Toledo where our pellets go to. With small modifications in that plant they can do 100% hydrogen. Those plants are not cheap and they’re rather sophisticated. It would require having plants of that nature here. That’s pretty big infrastructure building. That’s a bigger step than doing electric arc furnaces which have a much smaller footprint. A DRI vertical shaft furnace is a big investment and we don’t have any around here at this time. But if we are going to produce DR grade pellets I would expect that is under consideration at a couple of different mining and steel companies. US Steel and Cleveland Cliffs definitely, and there will be others. Bill N Jeff H Hudson K Jeff H I have one very strong conviction, mining and steel companies are there for financial reward. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. That’s why I say environmentally there are two things going on. One, we have to hold their feet to the fire and see that they do the right thing. Historically, mining steel companies have not done exactly the best thing environmentally. And second, why am I more optimistic now? Because the economics are in favor of them doing it better. If they don’t make the transition to DRI, they will die. It’s not a good economic scenario for them to base their future on taconite pellets. The blast furnaces are going out, so the taconite pellets are going out too. They are going to have to make the change. And if you want to do it in the economic way, you work towards basing it on hydrogen. It is more energy efficient, it is more economical, and it’s in their best interest. The Inflation Reduction Act with the money that is going into green energy and infrastructure is a big deal. And it’s a real big deal to make hydrogen more economically feasible than fossil fuels. It has already started to happen. We are in that transition now. How fast are we going to go? We don’t know yet but it is a reason to be optimistic. And I think that understanding this whole myriad of factors coming together is significant here in northeastern Minnesota. I think we need to understand and promote it as “Hey Mr. Mining Companies and Steel Companies, nice to see you going in the right direction. I applaud that, but let’s see you do it faster and cleaner than you might do if you drag your feet.” Lourenco Goncalves is bombastic, strong industry leader. But he’s turned Cleveland cliffs into a much bigger and better company. Before he came in, the only thing they produced were taconite pellets. Now they’re the largest steel producer in the US, and they’re getting larger. US Steel have been dragging their feet. But they’re also being forced into going forward. Now we understand what’s going on, we can hold their feet to the fire and say “Hey, this is what we need for climate, for climate change, for our country, for the world and for Minnesota.” We have got to move forward, it’s not an option to not change. Barb J Jeff H Barb J Jeff H Barb J
July 26th 2022 Hi Folks, Our next climate change meeting will be August 2nd at 10am at the Ely Senior Center. We will be able to talk with two Ely residents who work on environmental and climate issues – Maggie Schuppert and Hudson Kingston, local Ely residents, will be coming. FYI the TG presentation that day will be given by John Shepard “Northern Nights, Starry Skies: Preview of a PBS Documentary”. Maggie is CURE’s Campaigns Director. Clean Up the River Environment (CURE) is a rural, nonprofit organization made up of people who care about the well-being of their neighbors, the health of the land and water, and the legacy we leave for future generations. She is helping to build CURE’s capacity for strategic communications, campaigns, and advocacy. Maggie is a Minnesota transplant from the East Coast. Before moving here in 2015, she worked around the world with communities that have been adversely impacted by large-scale energy and development infrastructure projects, helping them fight for their rights. She has brought this commitment to environmental rights, justice, and accountability to her environmental organizing work in Minnesota. Two of CURE’s keystone campaigns include Rural Electric Co-op reform and carbon pipelines. You can find more info about CURE and Maggie here: CURE, Maggie Schuppert Hudson Kingston (Sarah’s son) is an attorney who works for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) an organization that works with current and former public employees to protect the environment. He has experience with public health, consumer protection, and environmental organizations in both Washington DC and the Midwest. Over the course of his career he has worked on litigation and policy related to climate change, addressing the water pollution impacts of mining, pesticide regulation, the environmental and health impacts of e-cigarettes, and environmental injustices perpetuated by the administrative state, partnering with tribes, local nonprofits, low-income advocates, coalitions of environmental and social justice groups, and local, state, territorial, and federal public employees. And he has won a marathon. You can find more about PEER and Hudson here: PEER, Hudson Kingston Both Maggie and Hudson are quoted in this MPR story about CO2 pipelines: MPR on CO2 pipelines In the course of a month there are many interesting new articles related to climate. If it is too hot or too wet to enjoy the outdoors try reading! I will share three thought provoking or just plain shocking articles today. Two come from the NY Times. I will share the NY Times text if you have paywall problems, let me know. The last is from the Guardian which is always accessible. The first comes from the NY Times and was passed along by Frederica. This is quite a long read about the many efforts to plant trees to try to draw down CO2. Many of these are close to scams although the basic idea is attractive. This is a long and comprehensive article. NY Times – a trillion trees The second is a shorter piece about the peatlands and rainforests in the Congo basin which are to be auctioned off for oil and gas drilling. This is also protected gorilla habitat. Congo is desperately poor and needs the income. NY Times Congo Basin Finally, the oil sector has yielded profits of $3 trillion per day for the last 50 years. This article is short and to the point. Guardian: Staggering oil profits Hope to see you August 2nd Thanks Barb Divestment Outline Valerie Myntti July 5, 2022
Discussion
Policy Objectives of FF Divestment (Please Note: this is the longest section)
*We will break after each section for about 10 minutes to take comments/ questions.
What is Divestment? Divestment is a socially responsible investing tactic to remove assets from an industry based on moral objections to its business practices.
What has the fossil fuel divestment movement achieved so far?
How to Personally DIVEST? Talk to the institutions in your life to see if they invest in FF. These institutions will include your banks, credit card companies, your brokerage companies and investment advisors, the companies with whom you invest, the charitable organizations you support with donations, your pension fund and IRA, your insurance companies, your union, your faith organization, your prep schools & universities, your city and state governments. Tell them you want your investments and donations to reflect your values. You want to divest from any stocks or other investments in FF or its infrastructure. You wish to re-invest in green climate solutions. You will not give philanthropic gifts to any organization (university, church, or other non-profit organization) that invests in FF or its infrastructure. You will not give another donation until they divest. You will not bank in, or use credit cards from banks, that are invested in or finance FF operations/ transport/ infrastructure. You will put your money in banks that do not invest in FF. You will find an insurance companies that invests in fossil fuel-free companies. You will apply pressure on your pension fund manager, your union, and your city & state governments to divest from investing in FF.
There are many online resources to help you do this. Banks & Credit Card Companies * See how your bank scores at Banking on Climate Chaos at https://www.bankingonclimatechaos.org * Find a better bank at https://greenamerica.org/get-a-better-bank * Determine what your bank or credit union does with your money at www.mightydeposits.com * Find socially responsible credit cards from community development banks at https://www.greenamerica.org/take-charge-your-card
Divest From FF Companies *Identifies the top 100 coal and the top 100 oil & gas publicly-traded producers & reserve holders globally, ranked by the potential carbon emissions content of their reported reserves. This list is used by FF campaigns and individual divestors to divest. https://fossilfreefunds.org/carbon-underground-200 *List of 100 top Greenhouse Polluters by the Political Economy Research Institute at https://peri.umass.edu/greenhouse-100-polluters-index-current
Reinvest in Climate Solutions and Socially Responsible Stocks & Mutual Funds *Check out The S & P Fossil Free Index that measures the performance of companies in the S & P that do not invest in FF at https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/esg/sp-global-1200-fossil-fuel-free-index *To better understand green & socially responsible investing check out https://www.greenamerica.org/socially-responsible-investing https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/green-investing/
Sources
This talk is not based on original research, but is a synthesis of the many articles I have researched, read & used in preparation, including articles from: Brookings Institution, NPR, Investopedia, Yale Climate Connection, Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Science Policy Institute at the University of Sussex (UK), Sustainable Development News, London School of Economics, University of California at Hastings Law Review, Green America.org, Global Citizen.org, Pension Fund Divestment by Jeremy Brecker, Climate Newsletter, Mighty Deposits Guide, NRDC, Wall Street Journal, 350.org, Forbes Magazine, Inside Higher Ed, The Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, Harvard Crimson, Vox, Wired, Scientific American, Axios, Schroders Executive Summary on Divestment, Ethical Consumer.org, What do We Owe the Future by William MacAskill, Laudato Si Movement.org, Operation Noah.org, Ozy
The Ely Climate Change Group is Hosting a Presentation by Valerie Myntti on Fossil Fuel Divestment and Tom Omerza on Local Banks’ Investment Policies. Where: Grand Ely Lodge When: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. **No charge, open to the public
Please join us to hear about a climate action all of us can participate in now. While governments are distracted by our immediate, unfolding global crises, and not taking the urgent steps necessary to meet their Paris Accord & Glasgow carbon emissions targets, we, the citizens, can take climate action now by minimizing our carbon footprint, voting for climate activists for political office, and by joining the Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign.
You do not need to own stocks to take action to divest. We can all help. Where you do your banking matters. According to 350.org, the Fossil Fuel Divestment campaign is a key strategy that systematically challenges the political power of the fossil fuel industry, creates uncertainty about the long-term financial viability of the industry, and moves money away from dirty energy towards climate solutions.
Join us for a presentation and discussion on Fossil Fuel Divestment. Learn how you can participate. Valerie Myntti will talk about the History of Divestment Movements, the Policy Objectives of Fossil Fuel Divestment, and the Nuts & Bolts of Personal Divestment. Local banker, Tom Omerza, will offer a perspective on community banking and investment policies.
May 31st 2022 Hi Folks, Our next climate change meeting will be June 7th at 10am at the Ely Senior Center. The TG presentation that day will be given by Grant Hauschild, the DFL candidate for Minnesota’s senate seat currently held by Tom Bakk who is retiring. Grant was invited to our CC meeting but was unable to fit us into his schedule. Save your climate questions for him at Tuesday Group. For our 10am meeting here are some suggestions. I would like to take some time to reflect on how we feel about the current climate situation and how we talk to others about climate. Talking to others is important. We have a better chance of achieving useful goals when more people are informed. There is so much climate news and it’s the bad news that gets the headlines. Sometimes it is useful to concentrate on the good news for talking points and to keep our spirits up. Citizens’ Climate Lobby has recently discussed how to use “The Six Americas” as a conversation starter. This comes from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Most people have heard about climate change (aka “Global Warming”) and most have some opinion about how serious it is. The crew at Yale asked 1000 people how they felt on a scale that goes from Alarmed to Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged, Doubtful and Dismissive. The sizes of the bubbles show their results. Where are you on this scale? Since you are reading this email I would guess you are in the Alarmed or Concerned categories. Ask your friends and neighbors. CCLers have been using this at tabling events with good success in getting people engaged. You can read about the program here: Six Americas With only about 10% in the “dismissive” category that means that most people are willing to consider a discussion. Another approach that maybe useful is inspired by the Peanuts cartoon where Lucy gives Climate Anxiety Advice in lieu of
Katharine Hayhoe is a leader in how to talk about climate. She is a Prof of Climate Science in Texas. Here is her biography: Heyhoe bio She is an author and popular public speaker. Her most recent book is “Saving Us: A Climate Scientist’s Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World”. If you search for her on YouTube there is a lot of material. I have picked out 2 videos. The first, which will give you a quick taste of her style, is an 8 minute segment with Jimmy Kimmel KH with Kimmel The next is a longer interview with Citizens’ Climate Lobby about her recent book “Saving Us”. If you don’t have time to watch it all go to 21 minutes and watch a few minutes from there. KH with CCL If you have favorite authors, speakers that help you understand our climate while staying positive please share! Hope to see you June 7th Thanks Barb An Opportunity for Ely Schools – The EPA Clean School Bus ProgramFrom the EPA’s Clean School Bus website:The bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Clean School Bus Program provides $5 billion over 5 years to spur the transformation of the nation’s school bus fleet. Half of the $5 billion total funding is dedicated for zero-emission school buses. $500 million available in 2022. Applications accepted between May and August 2022.Benefits of zero-emission buses: zero tail pipe pollution, reduced greenhouse gas emission compared to diesel school buses, potential for reduced maintenance and fuel costs, potential for fleets to partner with local utilities to feed power back into the grid when buses not in use and electricity demand is high.
Electric School bus action – please contact school board members to urge them to apply for an electric school bus for Ely. Suggested email language- also feel free to add your own message.
Dear School Board Chair Marsnik, I am a concerned taxpayer in the Ely School District ISD 696. I’m writing today to urge Ely’s Schools to take advantage of federal funds available to purchase electric school buses. It’s time to phase out diesel buses to protect the health of students and bus drivers and to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. Electric school buses have lower fuel costs and need less maintenance. The first round of EPA funding applications will be opening up in May of this year and we hope that you are prepared to apply for these electric school bus grants and rebates. We ask that you and your transportation leadership review the EPA clean school bus program web page where you will find up to date information about the benefits of electric school buses and how to apply for rebates that could fully fund the cost of purchasing new electric school buses for our district. Google “EPA clean school bus program” to get to the web site. Ensure your school district has applied for federal unique identity number at https://sam.gov/content/duns-uei which is necessary to receive federal rebates and grants The MN Clean Cities Coalition is a great resource for school districts. Contact Lisa Thurstin, 651-223-9568, Lisa.Thurstin@lung.org to find out about their webinars, how to do a fleet inventory, and other resources. You can find additional links on the Ely Climate Change website https://elyminnesota.com/elyclimate/ Thank you for taking steps to procure federal funds for electric school buses to support student health and a healthy climate!
Signed _______________________________ May xx, 2022
Ely School District 696 School Board members Tony Colarich School Board Director tcolarich@ely.k12.mn.usHollee Coombe School Board Director hcoombe@ely.k12.mn.usChad Davis School Board Director cdavis@ely.k12.mn.usRay Marsnik School Board Chairperson rmarsnik@ely.k12.mn.usTom Omerza School Board Treasurer tom.omerza@ely.k12.mn.usRochelle Sjoberg School Board Clerk rsjoberg@ely.k12.mn.us
Excerpts from The Minnesota Reformer “Electrifying Minnesota school bus fleet will pay big dividends” by Madi Johnson Mar 2, 2022 It’s time for Minnesota to electrify our school bus fleet. The biggest winners when we do it will be our school kids. Diesel fumes inside of buses and at bus stops are respiratory hazards for developing lungs. Ground level air pollution in high-density and high-traffic neighborhoods has been shown to disproportionately impact low income and marginalized communities. There is strong correlational data showing that exposure to air pollution leads to poorer grades and increased absenteeism. Especially in denser areas, cleaning up our buses and converting other diesel trucks to electric will have measurable health benefits. And, reducing the amount of pollution drivers are exposed to also helps create safer jobs. Regarding cost: Over its lifetime and given the health and climate benefits, an electric school bus at full price is still more cost effective than diesel. They benefit from cheaper fuel, lower maintenance costs and a longer lifespan. The health benefits of electrifying our fleet of trucks and buses also mean savings. According to the MPCA, between 2,000 and 4,000 Minnesotans die each year due to air pollution. Reducing vehicle pollution will result in hundreds fewer premature deaths and hospital visits each year. Electric vehicle fleets also promote economic stability and local self-reliance. Interruptions in the supply of petroleum should untoward events occur on the international stage — like Russia’s recent invasion of Ukraine — will not affect the price or availability of wind and solar generated electricity. Also, battery prices, which have plummeted in the past 10 years, are expected to drop even further and may become more technologically advanced. Which could mean significant improvements in range and reduction in cost. Finally, the use of home grown, often Minnesota-made electricity to power our fleet of buses and trucks — instead of spending our money in other states or other countries — has economic benefits. An electric and conventional bus will be the same price after about 12 years of regular use, according to the transportation managers responsible for the electric buses. Electric utilities such as Xcel Energy, Great River Energy and Dakota Electric are also doing their part to hasten this transition. The utilities are helping with charging infrastructure and offering energy credits to incentivize schools to fuel their buses with electrons instead of diesel. The federal infrastructure bill made $2.5 billion available for electric school buses and $2.5 billion for low emission buses. In short, the buses are great, the price is right, and the money is there. But not necessarily in Minnesota, which hasn’t created a comprehensive plan to transition its buses; we are positioning ourselves to miss out on that investment. Unlike 16 other states, Minnesota has not set commitments to replace conventional school buses or medium and heavy duty vehicles with electric. At the local level, we are seeing some progress. Metro Transit just announced a zero emission bus plan, and the cities of Duluth, St. Cloud and Rochester have had electric buses on the ground for years. This has been despite state government inaction. There are also jobs at stake. To bring them to fruition, our state needs to set goals — not just to hit the climate goals we are legally bound to meet in the Next Generation Energy Act — but to create a robust green economy that keeps manufacturing in Minnesota. Electric vehicle manufacturing provides more than 1,000 jobs in Minnesota. Minnesota’s going to miss out on these jobs and this investment if we don’t start positioning ourselves. This is how school buses should be supported in MN: https://environmentminnesotacenter.org/reports/amc/electric-school-buses-and-grid
Additional practical information and help for school board members writing proposals can be found from Lisa Thurstin MN Clean Cities Coalition Coordinator. This is from Lisa:
Below are resources from the webinar as well as what we can offer:
April 8th, we hosted a webinar on Electric School Buses. Our speakers provided a variety of perspectives on the benefits and considerations of deploying electric buses. And we hope what we shared on the upcoming EPA Clean School Bus Rebate program will be helpful. The recording can be found on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTK_jaT20VE
We have a plethora of links and opportunities for more information listed below. By signing up to receive our monthly newsletter with Clean Cities Coalition you can be kept updated on funding opportunities, news, events and more.
Presentation slides:
Keep informed:
Other resources:
Best regards, Lisa
Lisa Thurstin Director | Clean Air Minnesota Clean Cities Coalition American Lung Association in Minnesota 490 Concordia Ave | Saint Paul, MN 55103 O: 651-223-9568 | Lisa.Thurstin@Lung.org
This is from the Publications of the National Academy by Jason Hill at the University of Minnesota https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2200997119 The sobering truth about corn ethanol Evidence that RFS2 increases rather than reduces GHG emissions adds to long-standing criticism of its high economic and environmental costs. At current prices, $20 billion of corn is converted to ethanol annually, which is approximately a third of all corn grown in the United States. This requires an area of cropland equivalent to all the land planted to corn in Iowa and Minnesota, the first and fourth largest corn-producing states, yet it offsets just 6% of domestic gasoline use. To put this in perspective, the current US average vehicle fuel economy is 22 miles per gallon (MPG), and a modest improvement of just 2 MPG (from 22 to 24) would, all else being equal, offset as much gasoline. What is more, this 6% offset is a gross value, not net, and does not account for fossil fuel use in ethanol production. Ethanol’s small contribution to the domestic fuel supply, while providing a sizable guaranteed market for corn farmers and ethanol producers, comes at substantial cost to the American public, three times over in fact. First, they pay higher taxes to subsidize crop insurance programs. Second, they pay more for fuel at gas stations and for food at supermarkets and restaurants. Third, they pay the economic costs of climate change, reduced water and air quality, degraded soils, habitat loss, and other environmental damage caused by corn ethanol production and use (8, 17). April 26th 2022 Hi Folks Our next climate meeting will be May 3rd at 10am in the Ely Senior Center. FYI the Tuesday Group meeting that day is “Meet New Elyites”. There is a lot to share this month. I’ll start with the Minnesota Climate Action Framework. In 2019 Gov. Walz established a Climate Change Subcabinet. The MN Climate Action Framework is the plan they and other state agencies have developed. You can find details here: MN Climate Action Framework This web page gives you some background and links to download the material. The draft document includes summaries of how our climate has changed, our history of success and failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and proposals for actions. Comments on this plan are due by April 29th. My apologies for the short notice. We should have discussed this last month. This means we cannot respond as a group, but I plan to send comments personally and have attached my draft letter to this email. I encourage you to write your own letter or co-sign mine if you agree with it. Email your responses to climate.mn@state.mn.us Next, the EPA has released an Environmental Justice Screening tool. You can find it here: EPA EJ mapping tool. If you launch the tool you get maps of many environmental, social and climate issues. To give you an example I have attached a map of the unemployment rate across the Twin Cities. If you love maps there is a lot to look at here. Finally, we have been discussing inviting Rob Ecklund to a meeting. This is unlikely to happen before the end of this legislative session at the end of May, but still worth doing. I have made a summary of his background and interests and some lines of questioning we might use in a file attached. What would you want to discuss with him? His republican opponent for the November election is not yet decided but is likely either Roger Skraba or Bob Wolfe. There is always more to discuss, so come to the meeting next week Thanks Barb
On 22 February, Germany scuttled its approval of a newly built gas pipeline from Russia, and is now planning to import liquefied natural gas from countries such as Qatar and the United States. Belgium is reconsidering its exit from nuclear power, while Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are all accelerating efforts to install wind power. Fertilizer plants across Europe have announced they will scale back production, and 31 countries around the world have agreed to release oil from their strategic reserves. Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has roiled the markets and geopolitics of energy, driving oil and gas prices to their highest levels in nearly a decade and forcing many countries to reconsider their energy supplies. According to the International Energy Agency, Russia is the world’s largest oil exporter to global markets, and its natural gas fuels the European economy. The United States, the European Union and others have imposed economic sanctions on Russia, and have announced plans to wean themselves off that country’s fossil fuels. But even as Russia’s bombs rain down on Ukraine, its oil and gas continues to flow to Western nations that have condemned the invasion (see ‘Where Europe gets its gas’).  Sources: Bruegel/European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas/Eurostat/UK Government/Government of Ukraine This isn’t the first time that Russian military aggression has prompted world leaders to fret about energy security. Similar concerns arose when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, and in 2014 when it invaded and then annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. The allure of cheap Russian energy proved too strong in the past, but this time might be different, says Veronika Grimm, an economist at the Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen–Nuremberg in Erlangen, Germany. “We have a war at our back door,” she says. “It’s hard to avoid taking action.” The war has prompted political leaders to rethink their energy plans, which could have profound impacts on a range of issues, from a burgeoning food crisis to global efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. Here, Nature takes a look at some of the choices the world faces, as well as potential repercussions that could play out over the course of years or even decades. Energy crunchFor now, the biggest question facing world leaders is how to sever their energy dependence on Russia. The United States and the United Kingdom were the first major countries to ban Russian oil, but neither depends heavily on these imports. Moreover, the impact of such actions is minimal because Russia can simply redirect that oil elsewhere on the global market. An embargo would only work if the EU took part, economists say, because it would be difficult for Russia to quickly find new customers for the oil and gas it sends to Europe.  Coal wagons await export at the Russian port of Murmansk.Credit: Andrey Rudakov/Bloomberg via Getty The EU imported around 40% of its natural gas, more than one-quarter of its oil and about half of its coal from Russia in 2019. And despite bold promises about cutting ties with Russia, European nations have thus far opted for easy energy: the amount of Russian oil and gas entering Europe has actually increased since the war in Ukraine began. Europe sent Russia around €22 billion (US$24 billion) for oil and gas in March alone, according to Bruegel, a think tank based in Brussels. But that could change in the coming months, as countries implement plans to diversify their energy sources and reduce the flow of Russian oil and gas. Poland, for example, has announced it will ban all imports of Russian oil, gas and coal by the end of this year, and Germany and Austria are laying the groundwork for rationing natural gas. The European Commission has released plans to curb imports of Russian gas by around two-thirds by the end of the year. That strategy relies largely on increasing imports of natural gas from abroad, and is it not clear whether individual nations in Europe will follow this plan. On 25 March, US President Joe Biden pledged to send more liquefied natural gas to Europe, and Germany has already signed a deal to import the product from Qatar. European officials have also been in talks with Japan and South Korea about redirecting liquefied natural gas that would otherwise go to those two countries. The commission’s plan seeks to replace 101.5 billion cubic metres of Russian gas by the end of the year. Boosting imports to Europe from other countries could account for nearly 60% of that reduction, and another 33% would come from new renewable-energy generation and conservation measures, the plan suggests. “We need a portfolio of options to replace Russian gas and safeguard energy security in the short term,” says Simone Tagliapietra, an economist at Bruegel. That portfolio includes ramping up natural-gas imports to Europe, as well as increasing the use of coal-fired power plants to ensure that the lights stay on and houses remain warm next winter, he says. “And then we need to really double down on the clean energy transition.”
IPCC climate report: Earth is warmer than it’s been in 125,000 years The energy crisis is particularly acute in Germany, which relies on Russia for roughly half of its natural gas and coal and for more than one-third of its oil. Germany’s immediate challenge is to reduce reliance on natural gas in the power-generation sector, which is further complicated by the country’s exit from nuclear power: its last three nuclear stations are scheduled to close down this year. A report last month by Leopoldina, the German National Academy of Sciences, found that Germany could survive the next winter without Russian energy (see go.nature.com/3jdtes1; in German), but only with extreme efforts to replace Russian gas with imports while ramping up coal-fired power plants and promoting large-scale conservation and energy efficiency. It also depends on higher prices causing a slowdown in heavy industry in the country. Although the next few years could be tough, the long-term impact on energy policy and greenhouse-gas emissions in Europe could be beneficial, according to Grimm, a co-author of the Leopoldina report. The power sector is covered by the European trading system, which caps cumulative carbon emissions, so a temporary increase in coal power, for instance, should drive up the price of carbon credits and force emissions reductions elsewhere. In the longer term, Grimm says, the German government is proposing to increase the share of renewable energy sources in the power sector from around 40% today to 100% by 2035, 5 years earlier than planned. “That’s quite ambitious,” Grimm says. A sustained period of high energy prices could also drive significant investments in energy efficiency, an area that has enormous potential but has attracted less attention than renewables. “This will speed up a lot of work that we needed to do anyway.” Longer-term outlookThe energy picture is less clear at the global level. When prices for oil and gas have surged in the past, it has spurred a series of changes in opposite directions: consumers tended to drive vehicles less and purchase more fuel-efficient versions, whereas companies and nations invested in oil and gas infrastructure around the globe to ramp up production. But the current crisis might not trigger the same response.
The hard truths of climate change — by the numbers On the consumer side, growing gaps between the richest and poorest people in many countries are changing patterns of car buying. Although consumption is likely to drop in the short term as drivers respond to rising prices, that doesn’t mean we should expect a massive shift towards smaller or electric vehicles, says John DeCicco, an engineer at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor who tracks the vehicle industry. That’s because the people who tend to buy new vehicles are wealthier than they were in decades past, meaning they won’t react to the economic pressure of higher petrol prices as much as before. “Compared to previous oil shocks,” DeCicco says, “this is a different world.” By contrast, economists have yet to see major oil and gas companies ramp up their investments in fossil-fuel production. Global leaders have been emphasizing the need for decarbonization in the past few years, and companies are now more wary of sinking their own capital into assets that could be stranded as climate policies are ratcheted up in the future, says Ricardo Hausmann, an economist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “The market is scared,” Hausmann says, but so far, global supply and demand haven’t changed much — a dynamic that could change if prices remain high for a sustained period.
COP26 climate summit: A scientists’ guide to a momentous meeting Although the war in Ukraine will probably speed up Europe’s move away from fossil fuels, it could slow the clean energy transition — and boost greenhouse-gas emissions — in other parts of the world, fears Nikos Tsafos, who tracks global energy and geopolitics at the Center For Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington DC. Southeast Asia, in particular, could turn back towards coal if Europe effectively corners the international market for liquefied natural gas, according to Tsafos. And then there’s Russia itself, which accounted for nearly 5% of global emissions in 2020 and is unlikely to move forward with decarbonization in the absence of international political and economic engagement. Food pricesAnother key question, some economists say, is how rising energy prices and the potential loss of grain supplies from Ukraine and Russia could reinforce inflationary effects and drive up prices for food and other commodities. “The potential reverberations on food prices and therefore on conflict and politics around the world are vast,” says Nathaniel Keohane, president of the Center For Climate and Energy Solutions, an environmental think tank in Arlington, Virginia. In the short term, prices have increased owing to hoarding and bidding wars. But global food stocks are sufficient to cover the loss of wheat and other grains from Ukraine as a result of the war itself, and losses from Russia owing to economic sanctions, says Christopher Barrett, an economist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. There could be disruptions to fertilizer markets because fossil fuels are a major feed stock, but Barrett says farmers around the world should be able to negotiate these changes by using substitutes. Still, the cost of rising petrol and electricity prices to the larger food-supply system could be substantial, says Barrett. “One of the big casualties of the Russian invasion will be people who are already teetering on the edge in other places,” he says. “It’s not just Ukrainians. It’s Yemenis, and Syrians and Nigerians.” doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00969-9 |
||||||
|
Copyright © 2024 Ely Climate Change - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||
Psychiatric Advice for 5¢. You might make enough to buy a cup of coffee. Anyone want to try this at the farmers market? What advice or counselling would you give? Here is a link:
Recent Comments