Why Biden’s Climate Plan Is Dead In The Water
By Paul Homewood
Let’s take a closer look at the US climate plan;
Biden’s pledge at COP26 was to cut GHGs by 50 to 52% from 2005 levels by 2030. This implies a cut of 40% from 2020 levels, and an even greater cut from 2019, as last year was artificially reduced by the pandemic.
His main plank in achieving this was a target of making electricity carbon free by 2035. Currently electricity accounts for about a third of total emissions.
As we know, he has been forced to drop his Clean Electricity Program, which was key to this objective. It is consequently hard to see how he can get anywhere near carbon free without this.
In 2019, fossil fuels accounted for 63% of US electricity generation, with wind and solar stuck at 9%. Nuclear, of course, counts as zero carbon, but this will be mostly closed down in coming years.
Biden’s Clean Electricity Program was to rely on a system of subsidies and penalties to force utilities to switch from fossil fuels to renewables. Without that, why should utilities change what they are doing now?
The Federal Government cannot mandate such changes or force fossil fuel power stations to shut, as it has no constitutional powers to do so. Instead, these powers are reserved to the States.
Some States may go ahead with decarbonisation on an ad hoc basis, as California is already doing. But these will just be piecemeal changes.
The only other possible option would be some sort of carbon tax, but this would stand no chance of passing Congress as things stand.
Carbon dioxide emissions have been cut by 14% from 2005 levels, as at 2019. This has effectively all come from the power sector. Significantly though, nearly two thirds have occurred through the switch from coal to gas, and just a third from renewables.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
Outside of the power sector, little progress has been made since 2005. The chart below includes embedded emissions from the power sector. Excluding these, emissions have been pretty much flat.
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/
The Federal Government does not have the power to ban petrol cars and gas boilers, as the UK is proposing. It is difficult to see therefore how Americans will be persuaded to give these up.
With the Democrats facing electoral wipe out at the mid-terms next November, it does not seem premature to declare Biden’s COP26 pledge as dead on arrival.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Fortunately, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin understands that fossil fuels are needed for reliable energy, especially for transportation…the renewable biofuels that Joe Biden just ordered the oil industry to make available at a lower cost. That, of course, can only add to the CO2 already in the atmosphere making it even harder to remove CO2 to reach net-zero by 2050…if ever. It’s really a pretty dumb energy policy.
The cynic in me, BL, says that JM didn’t go against BBB for altruustic reasons. I suspect that the WV coal industry lobby was sure to make his lifestyle very comfortable.
Probably both, Harry.
The B&H BBB uses tax money to promote the subsidies that energy industries accept while at the same time demonizing them for allowing us to create a climate emergency??? What goes around comes around?
As I posted yesterday, many West Virginians are scratching our heads on Joe’s stance. It is a correct one, but very unlike the usual game-playing Manchin.
Both AOC and Omar have spoken out on what West Virginians want and need in our impoverished state (according to them). First of all, both of them out of Congress would be a good first step. Secondly, I speak for most West Virginians when I say we highly resent their patronizing stances to tell Joe Manchin what is best for us. Together, AOC and Omar are an order of fries short of a Happy Meal.
Renewable made fuels arent counted as ‘new carbon’
Yes its crazy accounting but there you go.
if I had my life over I would be a carbon trading lawyer. Its better than being a criminal defence lawyer, where you dont believe a word of it but it pays OK. Same principles.
off topic – but just had letter from local transmission company offering “priority Services register” for extra support during a power cut ..
Do they know something we don’t? Plans in place ?
We had one mjr. It seems to have come to us old people – I threw it in the recycle bin. I decided we would take our chances with the rest of the citizenry. It is just another stick to beat boomers with. “You have all the money and now you want preferential treatment when the power goes off” – I can just see the comment in the DT.
As to whether they know anything – well they don’t normally know anything, but there is always a first time!!!
This boomer bought an 8kw generator to keep the heating and lights on.
My mother too a few weeks ago – offering to register her as a priority.
Private companies thinking ahead & making sure they don’t get blamed – and possibly doing the right thing too!
‘With the democrats facing electoral wipe out at the mid terms next November’.
Well they should be but, from recent experience, it would seem that the result is much more dependent on who’s doing the counting, not who’s doing the voting!
Precisely!
Many recounts after 2019 election in US at the time
Most often the result was to increase Democrats vote slightly- even with hand recounts
Even the private hand recount in Maricopa County – Phoenix for the state Senate had Biden with ‘more votes’
‘results that show Trump lost by a wider margin than the county’s official election results.’
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2021/09/23/arizona-audit-draft-report-confirms-biden-beat-trump-2020/5835521001/
another off topic. Watching sky news (i know, stupid idea!) but it is “Climate Crisis – life on the frontline” – in Bangladesh and Bengal coast . Mentions global warming almost ever sentence but basically is reporting on people suffering from the usual problems of pollution, poverty, overpopulation, development and the again usual problems of the Ganges delta continually moving and islands disappearing and reappearing and the regular cyclones .. So what is new ? but it is a climate catastrophe – apparently ……. Kolkata gets hot spells and heavy rains . The air is 2.6 degrees warmer than in the 50s. Really? and another 4.5 degrees in the next 40 years ?
Warmer “on average” which means it might not have been “warmer” at any point than any other previous point. Nor, if it is a long term average that is warmer would anybody or anything have noticed because it is probably simply fewer cooler years.
Most people you ask in the USA if they ‘believe’ in man made climate change will say yes. If you ask them why they believe they can’t answer you other than ‘because the news and politicians tell them so’. Most people you ask in the USA if they are willing to downgrade their lifestyle to save the world from climate change will say no. It’s easy to commit to anything when there’s no consequences.
I have numerous close friends that “believe” in man made climate change but have no problem traveling around the world every year!
It’s buzzword, most people don’t have a clue what it means.
The majority of people are ignorant and a lot of them are idiots. It is a flaw in a democratic system that these people get an equal vote. Not something we have to worry about in the UK as we have not been a functioning democracy for decades. Neither is the USA as we see the evidence of electoral fraud being uncovered and lots of Demotwats running scared and trying to block the audits which they claim have nothing to find.
This news is the best Christmas present EVAH! It gives me hope that in the end the ordinary public (including West Virginia coal miners) will prevail.
In terms of total energy use, is there a pie chart showing oil, gas, solid fuel, electricity? Those are the bills that most people see and have to pay, including for vehicle use, and the proportions may be more compelling than charts showing what has been used to generate electricity. It, or an accompanying one, may also show just how much more electricity generation would be needed to replace the fuels used in households and by industry and IC vehicles. And therefore the scale of what still needs to be done?
I have no idea how to attach an image to a comment.
But you can find such a chart in this report
Click to access Princeton%20NZA%20FINAL%20REPORT%20SUMMARY%20(29Oct2021).pdf
on page 19. They also have projections to 2050 for three different scenarios (business as usual, moderate electrification, maximum possible electrification). The apparent reduction in demand is due to electric alternatives being more than twice as efficient.
But those numbers don’t tell the whole story. If you simply multiply prices of fuel/electricity and fuel/electricity demand, you might come to a conclusion that using electricity is the cheaper option.
But most of the cost is in the devices (electric cars and heat pumps) themselves though, not in the electricity bills. Also, if electrification was to take place, electricity bills would go up, as someone would have to pay for the supportive infrastructure, such as expanding the grid to accommodate the increased load, building more power plants to satisfy higher peak demand, building car chargers, etc.
This report looks to be worth reading and full of quantitative estimates from a energy science perspective. This is what is needed. Must study carefully. However, do we want solar panels and wind turbines all over the place (latter killing thousands of birds each year?). Just asking for a friend. I’m all for more safe nuclear. Much more (cf. France!!). But I’m not in favor of abrupt cessation of natural gas turbines and fossil fuels. That looks to be nuts. Also, a tremendous amount of investment will be needed to go in this direction so rapidly and the free market will not support such a transformation over a 30 year period. Evidently, the American people under Biden-Harris will be forced to pay for this transformation out of increased debt and millions of people will lose their energy jobs UNTIL a resilient renewable infrastructure is established and people are retrained, etc. I’ve gone on too long obviously. Don’t tell me that we already have such infrastructure. You would be lying. My suggestion (barring a close examination of this Princeton Report with hundreds of bar graphs, etc., overdone in my opinion!) is to let the free market slowly evolve in this direction and use an efficient mix of traditional fossil fuels, gas turbines, nuclear power + wind and solar in the meantime. Let’s be reasonable and compromise. Going Zero Carbon in 30 years seems UNREALISTIC!
Thank you Sobaken. That report contains a huge amount of useful information (certainly for the US) but I think what we need to be putting out to voters is something really simple. Something that shows where we are getting our energy from now and the scale of what would be required from intermittent renewables to replace the natural fuels we are using now. Most arguments at the moment seem to concentrate on alternative methods of generating the electricity we use now and don’t put across the size of the task should all energy use be converted to “clean” electricity. It must be mind-boggling but also boggling re the costs to each and every household who, I guess, have little idea of what is coming down the line at the moment.
” Nuclear, of course, counts as zero carbon, but this will be mostly closed down in coming years. ”
I think this will be an issue to watch in the USA. There should be an acceptance when the Climate Cult and politicians realize their current fantasies won’t work.
This may take Republican control of all three branches of the federal government; so 2024 into ’25. Plus, the nuke industry has to step up to the need. Maybe in 10 years this will become clear. I hope to be around to watch.
O/T to raise a smile:
I’ve just seen a new measurement:
kilowatt hours per hour: kWh/h
(at 4:00)
Was it at least used correctly, to mean a simple kW of power?