In the wake of President Trump’s decision to
withdraw from the Paris agreement, a dozen states and more than 300
cities have pledged to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in line with the
Paris targets.
The move suggests a possible future for climate
change policy in the Trump era: States and cities are taking on the
brunt of climate responsibility, building green energy capabilities and
meeting ambitious climate targets in the process.
There is no replacing the federal role in
setting the larger climate agenda, without which the country is unlikely
to meet more ambitious targets. But states and cities should still do
all they can to fight for sensible climate policy in the absence of a
sensible president. In many cases, that work is already underway and
shows no signs of slowing.
States Are Already Abandoning Coal
Despite the president’s focus on bolstering the
coal industry, the sector faced persistent declines over the past
decade. This is important for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions since
coal produces more carbon dioxide than other common forms of energy and
is one of the leading causes of global warming.
Megawatt-hours of electricity production, by energy source
2b
1.5b
Coal
Natural gas
1b
Nuclear
500m
Hydro-
electric
Wind
Other
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
States have been lured away from coal by cheaper
alternatives and an abundance of cleaner natural gas — market forces
that are not easily manipulated by Trump’s policies. The rise of natural
gas and decline of coal was partly responsible for falling CO2
emissions — 18 percent below projections made in 2008 by the Annual
Energy Outlook.
Metric ton of CO2 emissions from energy consumption
6.5k
AEO 2008
Forecast
6k
5.5k
Actual
5k
4.5k
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2016
Sources: EIA, Rhodium Group analysis
“Regulation will play a modest role in the
future,” said Mark Muro, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“But the main effect here is simply price. Gas and renewables are simply
becoming cheaper than coal for many plants and many situations.”
Federal regulations, if implemented, would force
some states to replace older, dirtier sources of energy with cleaner
fuels, or push them to find efficiency improvements in the grid and
engage in emissions trading with other states. Those regulations would
have included the Clean Power Plan, which set ambitious carbon emission
reduction goals for high-polluting states, but Trump ordered the E.P.A.
to roll back the plan in an executive order.
Percent change in net electricity generation from coal, 2004 to 2015
2004
2015
N.Y.
Del.
Calif.
Conn.
Nev.
N.J.
Mass.
N.H.
-77.0%
-78.6%
-83.0%
-85.4%
-85.9%
-86.7%
-87.4%
-89.6%
Maine
Miss.
S.D.
Ga.
Md.
Va.
Wash.
Tenn.
-47.3%
-51.5%
-51.7%
-52.3%
-53.6%
-58.7%
-63.4%
-74.4%
Ala.
Ohio
N.C.
Pa.
S.C.
La.
Ind.
Fla.
-33.9%
-35.2%
-35.9%
-41.9%
-44.0%
-44.7%
-44.8%
-47.2%
Mich.
Okla.
N.M.
Kan.
Minn.
W.Va.
Ill.
Ore.
-21.9%
-22.3%
-22.9%
-26.4%
-27.4%
-28.9%
-30.2%
-33.1%
Ky.
Utah
Ark.
Mo.
Hawaii
Idaho
Texas
Iowa
-12.9%
-13.5%
-14.3%
-15.5%
-15.7%
-16.6%
-18.4%
-20.4%
+18.2%
Ariz.
Mont.
N.D.
+2.9%
Colo.
Wyo.
Alaska
Wis.
Neb.
-0.6%
-1.2%
-7.9%
-9.2%
-11.8%
-12.0%
Only Alaska and Nebraska
increased their net electricity
generation from coal.
Note: Excludes Rhode Island, which had no coal energy production.
Coal measurements include anthracite, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal,
lignite, waste coal, and synthetic coal
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
Green Technologies Are More Affordable
Median price per watt for distributed solar systems
Net solar electricity generation, megawatt-hours
15m
$15
CA
$10
10m
5
5m
$4.1
AZ
NV
NC
0
0
2000
2005
2010
2015
2000
2005
2010
2015
Note: The system installed price is the upfront cost for photovoltaic solar energy, not including any
financial incentives, in 2015 dollars. Energy production includes solar thermal and photovoltaic but excludes rooftops.
Sources: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (price); U.S. Energy Information Administration (production)
Once prohibitively expensive, renewable energy
is becoming increasingly affordable, especially in sunnier and windier
parts of the country. The price of solar cells, for example, plummeted
in recent years, allowing states like California — a role model for
climate policy at the state level — to substantially increase investment
in that technology.
An analysis by the University of Texas Energy
Institute found that for most of the country, natural gas and wind power
are the cheapest forms of new energy capacity. But when other factor
costs like health, availability of water and government regulations are
factored in, solar, wind, nuclear and other greener energies prove even
cheaper in some parts of the country. The institute based its findings
on 2015 data, and some of those technologies are probably even more cost
effective now.
Cheapest source of potential new electricity, by county
If counties were looking to add
electricity-generating capacity, natural gas plants and wind turbines
would be the cheapest option for many of them...
...But that changes when considering local rules, conditions, health costs and pollution costs:
Solar (large arrays or rooftop)
Wind
Natural gas
Nuclear
Coal
Nuclear
Natural gas
Wind
Natural gas
Note: These maps use 2015 estimates for solar
panel prices, which have dropped since then. Government subsidies,
which lower costs, are not included.
Source: University of Texas Energy Institute
It’s clear that Trump’s policies won’t affect
the economic calculus states are facing: for many of them, green energy
is the better option.
Investing in Green Energy
Makes Economic Sense
A standard criticism of climate policy is the
supposed negative impact on the economy. Trump cited this among his
justifications for leaving the Paris accord.
“The Paris Agreement handicaps the United
States’ economy in order to win praise from the very foreign capitals
and global activists that have long sought to gain wealth at our
country’s expense,” Trump said in his speech from the White House Rose
Garden.
But findings from the Sierra Club, an
environmental organization, showed clean energy account for more than
double the number of jobs from coal, oil and gas combined. The growth is
led by California, which has nearly half a million people employed in
solar, wind and other clean energy jobs.
Jobs by energy sector, 2016
Clean energy*
2.8m
Oil
533.8k
Gas
398.2k
Coal
160.1k
*Includes solar, wind, storage, energy efficiency and smart grid
Source: The Department of Energy; The Sierra Club
At the state level, there’s growing evidence
that cutting carbon dioxide emissions can be accomplished while
accelerating gross domestic product. The Brookings Institution found
more than 30 states have done this in recent years. The process, known
as “decoupling,” has also happened in at least 35 countries — including
the United States.
While the G.D.P. rose higher in states where CO2
increased, the ability to grow the economy while reducing harmful
pollutants is a reality for many states. Trump’s actions, no matter how
harmful, can’t stop that progress.
Percent change in state GDP and energy CO2 emissions, 2000 to 2014
GDP
CO2 Emissions
States where CO2 emissions fell
D.C.
Maine
Md.
Mass.
Alaska
Del.
N.Y.
Tenn.
–18.9%
–19.7%
–20.0%
–20.2%
–20.7%
–21.9%
–25.0%
–30.3%
Nev.
Conn.
Ga.
Mich.
Va.
N.C.
W.Va.
N.H.
–13.9%
–14.6%
–14.5%
–15.1%
–15.8%
–17.0%
–17.7%
–18.1%
N.M.
Vt.
Ind.
Wash.
Pa.
R.I.
Ohio
Ala.
–9.4%
–11.5%
–12.9%
–12.9%
–12.9%
–12.9%
–12.9%
–13.2%
Ore.
Kan.
Wis.
Ky.
La.
N.J.
S.C.
Calif.
–4.8%
–6.2%
–8.5%
–9.0%
–6.3%
–7.1%
–7.8%
–8.8%
Minn.
Hawaii
Fla.
–1.4%
–3.6%
–4.1%
States where CO2 emissions rose
Ill.
Utah
Texas
Mont.
Wyo.
Miss.
Okla.
+2.2%
+4.7%
+4.4%
+0.2%
+0.8%
+1.1%
+3.9%
Ark.
N.D.
+8.1%
Iowa
Idaho
Colo.
S.D.
Ariz.
Mo.
+8.7%
+8.1%
+7.8%
+6.2%
+5.2%
+5.0%
+16.0%
Neb.
+25.5%
Sources: Environmental Protection Agency (CO2); Bureau of Economic Analysis (GDP); the Brookings Institution
Vikas Bajaj is a member of the editorial board. Stuart A. Thompson is the graphics director for the Opinion section.
Source: The Rhodium Group (cities and states supporting the Paris agreement)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment