It’s a recurring knock on clean technologies like solar PV and wind turbines. Critics like to argue that the metals and mineral extraction to make them entail exactly the kind of pollution – and sometimes political conflicts – that clean tech advocates hope to displace in the current fossil fuel supply chain.
We should be clear that we’re starting from a terrible baseline: the geopolitical negatives and pollution from the current regime of oil extraction, coal mining, and natural gas infrastructure dwarfs the likely risks and environmental footprint of producing most clean technology like solar PV and wind turbines.
But at the same time, it’s an area of legitimate concern and one that probably should be addressed at this relatively early stage in clean tech deployment, when advocates of better governance and pollution controls have potentially more leverage over the source countries and states.
Alex Tilley and David Manley of Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) explore the environmental and political footprint of the clean tech supply chain in a recent blog post and accompanying report. The researchers based their analysis on a World Bank report on various clean technologies and the minerals and metals needed to manufacture them, down to country-level data for the various commodities. They then ran the data against the 2017 Resource Governance Index (RGI) scoring:
[We] found that across the different minerals, on average 42 percent of reserves are in countries with “good” or “satisfactory” resource governance, 37 percent are in countries with “weak” scores (China accounts for 14 percent of this total) and a further 7 percent are in countries that score “poor.” Almost none of the reserves are in countries that are “failing” in their resource governance.
The outlook also presents some serious risks. A high average proportion of minerals reserves is found in countries with “weak” or “poor” governance and for some of the individual minerals, this proportion is much higher.
For example, 90 percent of the reserves of chromium, a mineral used in wind turbines, are in Kazakhstan and South Africa, two countries with “weak” RGI scores. Almost two-thirds of reserves of manganese, used in both wind turbines and lithium-ion batteries, are in countries that score “weak” or “poor” in the index—32 percent in South Africa, 23 percent in Ukraine, 7 percent in China, 4 percent in Gabon and 2 percent in Ghana.
The problems that could ensue from resource extraction in these “weaker” countries include worsening corruption, over-reliance on a single extractive industry, more political conflicts over resources, and local pollution of forests, rivers, and coastlines. For project developers, these impacts could result in delays and project cancellations.
The authors cite some potential solutions from a Nature article for the international community to consider:
Because avoiding disruption is so crucial for the progress of clean technologies, the group of experts writing in Nature propose a global governance approach to avert potential bottlenecks. They call for the international community to set targets for mineral production; map resources; monitor impacts; research and invest in new extractive technologies; and carry out exploration in new frontiers, from sea beds to deep in the earth’s crust. Additionally, they propose an early warning system, using data analysis to trigger alarms for impending supply, governance and environmental concerns.
The upside for the residents of these countries, if the extraction processes are sound with respect to governance and environmental impacts, is rising standards of living and potential growth of a more diversified, open and tolerant economy. The downside though is unfortunately all too possible, unless the international community and clean tech industry mobilize for coordinated policy action.
California’s 2030 climate goals will be a big step forward for the state. We’re already making good progress achieving our 2020 goals (to return to 1990 levels of carbon emissions), with the state likely to hit that goal a bit early thanks to the global recession and the plummeting price of renewables. But the 2030 goals require an additional 5% reduction per year in emissions for the 2020s, to reduce our levels 40% below 1990 emissions. That’s a tall order.
Electric utilities will be a big part of the solution, but not just because of their efforts to decarbonize the electricity supply. They’re also needed to expand the kinds of things that can run on electricity instead of petroleum or natural gas.
Southern California Edison makes that case and puts numbers behind it, in a recent white paper the utility commissioned, per E&E news:
SCE used an analysis from the consulting firm E3 that found the cheapest of three pathways to meeting the state’s 2030 emissions goals entails electrifying 24 percent of light-duty vehicles and 15 percent of medium-duty vehicles, in addition to reaching an 80 percent carbon-free electricity target. It also would require 30 percent of residential and commercial water and space heaters to run on electricity rather than gas.
This pathway seems achievable at a reasonable cost, given the advances in battery technologies on the vehicle side. Still, we will need to keep the federal tax credit in place or find a viable substitute to keep demand for EVs strong in the short run.
On the furnace and water heating side, we’ll need some new, cheaper products to wean buildings off of natural gas and onto clean electricity. But the good news is that achieving the 80% carbon-free electricity goal by 2030 may not be so daunting, given that we may be on track for 60% renewables by 2030 anyway, plus all the large hydropower that doesn’t count under the renewables mandate.
As always with the future, there are plenty of variables and unknowns. But California’s progress to date on clean tech gives us a clear idea of what’s needed — and what the costs may be — to achieve the 2030 goals.
As Republicans in Congress debut their proposed tax reforms today, climate and renewable energy advocates will be looking to see how the proposals will affect progress on these intertwined issues.
The most far-reaching — but unlikely impact — would be if congressional negotiators included a carbon tax. Many on the left, as well as some libertarians, have been urging a carbon tax for a long time (although some on the left would prefer command-and-control or sticking with the cap-and-trade schemes in the northeast and California). Republicans generally dislike taxes.
Despite the seemingly un-Republican nature of a carbon tax, leading Republicans like former secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz and other former top government officials and business leaders have proposed a revenue-neutral carbon tax to be included in the debate over tax reform.
Although Congressional leaders have thrown cold water on the idea so far, the idea may actually have legs. Here’s why: Republicans need new revenues to offset their giant tax cuts for businesses. The carbon tax would provide those revenues. But to make the tax palatable to Republicans, it would need to be accompanied with significant regulatory rollbacks, such as on National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review or the federal renewable fuel standard.
While it’s still doubtful a carbon tax will be included in the reforms, it would be a monumental policy shift. Those on the left would be wise to monitor its potential impact on environmental policy, particularly how it could preempt renewable and climate policies at the state level.
Meanwhile, tax reform could also impact electric vehicle and renewable energy deployment. Republicans want to completely eliminate the $7500 federal tax credit for battery electric vehicles, which would greatly hurt demand for the vehicles if it goes through.
On renewable energy, the obvious targets are the federal investment and production tax credits for solar and wind. While those are scheduled to phase out soon, the wind energy production tax credits would be more immediately undercut by the current proposed reform. And less obviously, a cut to the corporate tax rate would mean large profitable businesses would have less need to invest in renewable energy as a way to obtain tax credits (they would lose their “tax appetite,” in the parlance of energy deal-makers).
Either way, all this uncertainty around climate and energy policies involved in tax reform is likely dampening current investment plans in renewables and other clean technologies. So whatever the outcome of this process, it would probably benefit energy advocates if it wrapped up quickly.
The island of Molokai in Hawaii would be a good place to start a clean energy revolution, at least in the United States. The island imports oil to burn for electricity, leading to some of the highest electricity rates in the country, not to mention significant pollution. It also has abundant sunshine and a relatively small population.
So a solar array coupled with battery energy storage could potentially save the residents a huge amount of money on their electricity bills. It could also provide them with energy security and independence in the event of fuel shortages. And of course, it could reduce emissions per capita significantly, as the model scales eventually to meet 100% of the island’s electricity needs.
A mainland company called Half Moon Ventures produced a video with Molokai-based Quazifilms to feature their solar+storage proposal for Molokai. While the project will need community and utility buy-in to move forward, this video does a nice job explaining the issues and opportunities:
As the company spokesperson says in the video, if it can work on Molokai, it can work on the other islands. And eventually, as prices decrease, this basic model can benefit communities across the country and globe.
As most of Puerto Rico goes without power for the fifth day in a row following Hurricane Maria’s destruction, the event calls for a re-examination of how to rebuild the power infrastructure.
Satellite night images of #PuertoRico. #HurricaneMaria knocked out power grid, millions without electricity. More @ https://t.co/UxxCHH5OVC pic.twitter.com/yUDLk8V0Jf
— NOAA Satellites (@NOAASatellites) September 25, 2017
The old, fossil fuel-dependent grid clearly wasn’t resilient or in great shape to begin with. Instead of rushing to repair this old infrastructure, island leaders should consider a more distributed electricity system, with solar panels, batteries, and other clean sources of power. By spreading these resources out, the system is less vulnerable to extreme weather that can knock out one central power plant and cause whole areas to lose power, as happened there this time.
Richard Branson, a Caribbean neighbor, has the same idea, per Reuters:
British billionaire Richard Branson said on Tuesday he is in talks to set up a fund to help Caribbean nations recently ravaged by Hurricane Irma replace wrecked fossil fuel-dependent utilities with low-carbon renewable energy sources.
The British business magnate has approached governments and would rally support among financial institutions and fellow philanthropists on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
“As part of that fund we want to make sure that the Caribbean moves from dirty energy to clean energy,” he said.
Branson, who has lived in the British Virgin Islands for the past 11 years, weathered Irma on Necker, his private island.
Given this worsening trend of extreme weather, we’re going to need both to reduce carbon emissions through clean technologies, but also become more resilient to the storms of today. Luckily, clean, distributed power infrastructure can solve both problems — and keep the lights on for an island that is suffering from the impacts of this storm.
The frenzy is over. The California legislature finished its session last week and sent its approved bills onto the governor. Casual observers note the big “victories” on housing:
- A supermajority vote to raise fees on real estate documents to fund affordable housing;
- Another supermajority vote to approve a bond measure to go before the voters to fund even more affordable housing;
- A win for SB 35, to streamline local approvals for new housing in cities and counties that aren’t providing enough of it also passed; and
- The “sleeper” AB 1568 (Bloom), which will improves infrastructure financing for infill projects under the acronym NIFTI (Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act).
But as I wrote last week, SB 35 is the one that really gets to the heart of the problem of the housing shortage in California. The new revenue measures are drops in a seemingly bottomless bucket, as local governments consistently prevent new housing from getting built, particularly in job-rich infill areas. SB 35 instead starts to deregulate housing at the local level. California will need much more of that approach to solve this crisis.
Finally, on renewable energy, the state suffered a setback. SB 100, to increase the renewable mandate to 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2045, was kicked into next year, as was the plan to regionalize California’s grid to encourage more renewables across the west and lower electricity rates for all. But the stalling of these bills gives the legislature and climate advocates a good place to start on next year’s priorities.
Next up: we’ll see what the governor signs in the coming weeks.
California legislators are in the final week of the session, and there’s a scramble on bills related to housing and renewable energy. Here’s a rundown:
Housing
What was supposed to be the “Year of Housing” to address the state’s severe, decades-long undersupply of homes, is turning out to be pretty weak. There are basically three bills in play, out of the 150 or so to start the session:
- SB 2 (Atkins) would impose a $75-225 fee on individual California real estate transactions (which requires two-thirds vote);
- SB 3 (Beall) would authorize a $4 billion bond measure for California’s November 2018 general election ballot (which requires two-thirds vote and then approval by voters); and
- SB 35 Wiener) to force recalcitrant cities and counties to approve new infill housing projects without discretionary review.
SB 35 is the most promising, although its prevailing wage requirement will make it essentially worthless in under-performing markets in the state. All three bills are being bundled, and Democrats in the Assembly are skittish about voting for the SB 3 real estate fee in particular. If SB 2 goes down, will legislative leaders peal off SB 3 and SB 35 for separate votes, which might be successful on their own? And if they do strip SB 2 from the package, will the other two bills lose support? Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, a sleeper bill on housing is AB 1568 (Bloom), which improves infrastructure finance districts for infill projects. Using the acronym NIFTI (Neighborhood Infill Finance and Transit Improvements Act), the bill would allow these districts to capture future increases in revenue from sources like sales and occupancy taxes to pay for infrastructure improvements up front. It’s up for a floor vote shortly.
But in the end, of the big housing bundle, only SB 35 shows real promise for lasting reform by removing authority from local governments on land use. The affordable housing money is otherwise badly needed, but it’s ultimately not going to solve much of the problem. And affordable housing suffers from increased costs due to the same local land use policies that thwart market-rate housing, such as high parking requirements and limits on density. So much of these dollars will be wasted without broader land use reform.
Renewable Energy
The big bill is SB 100 (de Leon) to boost the renewable mandate in the state to 60% (from 50%) by 2030, plus a new 100% target by 2045. The goals have broad support, but the details are now creating opposition from utilities. A defeat on this bill would be a big blow, as utilities (despite their opposition) need the stronger market signal and legal permission to procure more renewables now while the federal tax credit — set to sunset soon — is still in effect.
Meanwhile, AB 726 (Holden) to restart the process of integrating California’s grid with other western states is apparently stalling. Some environmental groups and labor unions are concerned with how it would get implemented. It’s too bad, because a regional grid is going to be necessary to meet California’s long-term climate and energy goals in an affordable manner. Plus, it could help solidify political support for renewables in the states that join us, by building up a domestic clean tech industry in each of those states. If it fails this year, climate advocates should prioritize it for next year.
So on both housing and energy, there’s a lot to follow in the Golden State this week. I’ll blog again on any successful bills once the dust settles.
Following the state legislature’s landmark approval extending California’s cap-and-trade program through 2030 by a supermajority vote, Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy & The Environment (CLEE) and our research partners have completed the first comprehensive, academic study of the economic effects of existing climate and clean energy policies in Southern California’s Inland Empire.
Together with UC Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education, and working with the nonpartisan nonprofit Next 10, the study found that between 2010 to 2016 the Inland Empire received:
- an estimated net benefit of $9.1 billion in direct economic activity and
- 41,000 net direct jobs, some of which are permanent and ongoing and many of which resulted from one-time construction investments.
Join the report authors as we discuss our findings on a webinar next Tuesday. We’ll cover the impact of cap and trade, the renewables portfolio standard, distributed solar policies and energy efficiency programs and their effects on the Inland Empire’s economy to date and going forward, as well as what these findings mean for other regions of the state and beyond.
In addition to yours truly, the webinar will feature:
- Betony Jones, UC Berkeley Labor Center
- F. Noel Perry, Next 10
The webinar will run from 10 to 11am on Tuesday, September 12th. Register now to join the discussion!
UPDATE: The webinar video recording is now available:
Eclipse watchers around the country are braving traffic and crowds today to venture into the path of totality. But for grid operators in California, it presents a distinct challenge, as solar power represents about 8 percent of the state’s electricity mix. The New York Times reports:
As the eclipse carves a long shadow over California on Monday morning, it is expected to knock offline more than 5,600 megawatts’ worth of solar panels at its peak — a big chunk of the 19,000 megawatts of solar power that currently provide one-tenth of the state’s electricity. The California I.S.O. plans to fill the void by ramping up natural gas and hydroelectric power plants.
Then, a few minutes later, when the eclipse passes, all those solar panels will come roaring back to life, and grid operators will have to quickly make room for the sharp rise in generation by scaling back gas and hydropower.
Fortunately, grid operators have been planning for this event for a year. Future eclipses may present more of a challenge as solar power proliferates, but for now, the state should be okay. Still, residents are encouraged to conserve electricity during peak eclipse hours.
Meanwhile, a flashback ABC news report from the last total eclipse in the continental United States in 1979:
Climate change is one of the most difficult political — let alone natural — challenges we face. It’s a relatively far-off calamity that requires action now among the entire developed and developing world, with uncertain costs associated. So how do we motivate people to act?
One option is to scare them with the worst-case scenarios. David Wallace-Wells tried this approach recently with a widely circulated New York Magazine cover story describing the absolute worst-case scenarios for climate change, starting with this intro:
It is, I promise, worse than you think. If your anxiety about global warming is dominated by fears of sea-level rise, you are barely scratching the surface of what terrors are possible, even within the lifetime of a teenager today. And yet the swelling seas — and the cities they will drown — have so dominated the picture of global warming, and so overwhelmed our capacity for climate panic, that they have occluded our perception of other threats, many much closer at hand. Rising oceans are bad, in fact very bad; but fleeing the coastline will not be enough.
Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century.
Lots of climate advocates and scientists pushed back on this approach though, arguing essentially that “despair is never helpful.”
But David Roberts at Vox.com celebrated this kind of journalism, pointing out that we need to hear more of this alarming, worst-case potential to motivate action:
It may be that there are social dynamics that require some fear and paralysis before a collective breakthrough. At the very least, it seems excessive to draw a pat “fear never works” conclusion from these sorts of data.
Second, even if it’s true that fear only “works” when it is joined with a sense of agency and efficacy, that doesn’t mean that every single instance of fear has to be accompanied by a serving of hope. Not every article has to be about everything. In fact, if you ask me, the “[two paragraphs of fear], BUT [12 paragraphs of happy news]” format has gotten to be a predictable snooze. Some pieces can just be about the terrible risks we face. That’s okay.
Finally, fear+hope requires fear.
Julie Beck at The Atlantic meanwhile reports on the counter-productive tactic of simply making people anxious, particularly via social media. While the thought may be that anxiety leads to action, it can often instead just immobilize and distract people:
Just as social media allowed fake news to spread untrammeled through ideological communities that already largely agreed with each other, it also creates containers for anxiety to swirl in on itself, like a whirlpool in a bottle.
“If you look at the right-hand side of the aisle, and the left, they’re each talking about the things they fear the most,” says Morrow Cater, the president of the bipartisan consulting firm Cater Communications. “The anxiety that you’re talking about—be vigilant!—it comes when you’re fearful.”
But the article also notes that fear-based messaging can work:
Though several people I spoke to said that fear-based appeals to action don’t work, and may even backfire, there’s actually evidence that they do work. Dolores Albarracin, a professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, did a meta-analysis in 2015 of all available research on fear-based appeals and found that overall, inducing fear does change people’s attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. She and her team did not find a backfire effect.
But the fear appeals that Albarracin studied came with recommended actions. “If the message is not actionable, then you’re not going to get effects overall,” she says.
For my part, I think the public should think about the absolute worst-case effects of climate change. While the worst-case scenario may not come to pass, we need to be prepared for the full range of impacts. Second, we’ve seen fear lead to some of the biggest mass mobilization efforts in history: namely, wars. And climate change will require a similar level of mobilization and urgency.
But I agree that fear-based messages should be paired with actions. Those steps should range from the individual (eat less red meat, install LED light bulbs, buy an electric vehicle if you need one, install solar panels, etc.) to the political (support candidates and policies that address the problem, such as carbon pricing, renewable energy and energy efficiency mandates, and transit-oriented housing).
Otherwise, anxiety without hope or a achievable remedy will be self-defeating.
