Robert Pollin: Biden Not Phasing Out Fossil Fuel, Relies on Carbon Capture

Yves here. Biden has managed to steer clear of saying much about his plans, and reports from Democratic party foot soldiers state that that is no accident. Frankly, I can’t believe he’s flogging capture, but it appears he thinks he can satisfy climate change activists without ruffling any carbon producers or users. Robert Pollin gives a detailed critique of Biden’s program in his talk with Paul Jay.

I hate to sound negative about efforts to Do Something about accelerating global warming, but I had a considerable skepticism about the Green New Deal approach. It envisions a lot of new infrastructure building….which means front-loaded activity that required an even higher level of use of our current carbon-intenvise infrastructure. I don’t hear anywhere near enough emphasis on radical conservation, because no one seems willing to say that that will result in less output and consumption.

Also please forgive any funky formatting. The transcript had a lot of extra line returns and I stripped a ton out but I suspect some remain.

By Paul Jay. Originally published at

Paul Jay
Hi, I’m Paul Jay, and welcome to podcast.

The 2019 U.N. annual emissions gap report states that, if all the countries that made commitments to the Paris agreement fulfilled those promises completely, we are still headed for 2°C warming by 2050 and 3°C by the end of the century. I’ll say it again. If the Paris objectives are fully met, we hit almost unlivable conditions in 30 years, and a catastrophic tipping point in 80, maybe sooner, within the lifetime of our kids. These assessments were based on all countries meeting their Paris commitments, but that’s not happening. President Trump pulled the US out of the Paris agreements and is undoing the modest regulations the Obama administration enacted. What happens if we continue business as usual?

The IPCC, (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), says by the end of the century, warming hits 4.8°. The Independent reported in 2016 that the IPCC estimate may be low, quote, “Research by an international team of experts who looked into how the Earth’s climate has reacted over nearly 800,000
years warns this could be a major underestimate because they believe the climate is more sensitive to
greenhouse gases when it’s warmer. The actual range could be between 4.78°C and 7.36°C, by 2100,
based on one set of calculations,” end quote.

The IPCC says the world must avoid hitting 1.5° Warming because once one point five degrees is hit, it might be impossible to prevent further warming. And even at that level, the consequences of extreme weather are calamitous. When we assess Joe Biden’s climate plan, it shouldn’t just be in comparison to Trump’s, which is nothing. Under Trump, the worst-case scenario is almost guaranteed. At least with Biden, there’s a recognition of the problem and a real plan.

But does the Biden plan live up to the urgency and scale that science says is necessary to avoid climate catastrophe? Because if it isn’t, then while it looks and feels like significant progress, we still end up with much, or most of the world being unlivable.

While there are many things to discuss in the Biden plan, including, I’m concerned about the attitude towards China which we’ll discuss later in our interview, but perhaps the biggest concern is it seems to be very reliant on carbon capture technology, nuclear, and seems to downplay renewables; solar, wind, and geothermal. And these are the concerns of our guest. And now joining us is Bob Pollin, co-founder of the PERI Institute, that’s the Political Economy Research Institute in Amherst, Massachusetts, and is the author of an upcoming book co-authored with Noam Chomsky titled “Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal: The Political Economy of Saving the Planet.”

Paul Jay
Thanks for joining us, Bob.

Robert Pollin
Thanks very much for having me on, Paul.

Paul Jay
So what’s your overview to start with of the plan? What encourages you? Let’s start with that, and then let’s get to what concerns you?

Robert Pollin
Well, the first thing is encouraging. I know it’s a very low bar, but at least there is a plan, and it’s pretty serious in terms of the scale of the project. The scale of the project, if we just look at the overall amount of money they are suggesting should be spent, is in line with what I think is the right scale. They’re looking at a budget over the next 10 years of about 500 billion dollars a year total, which is, again, pretty much in line with my own research. And I’ve actually been doing work with some other progressive economists like Jeff Sachs, and his number coming from different places is also in that range. So the big, big, big number is decent, and the share of the 500 billion per year that would be coming from the federal government, I also think is pretty reasonable; about 35% of the total, with the rest coming from state and local governments and private investment.

Paul Jay
But what does it mean by reasonable, that dollar number in the sense of, doesn’t depend on what they’re going to do with those dollars?

Robert Pollin
Yes, of course it does. So I want to just first say that at least they’re recognizing the magnitude of the level of investment needed by saying it’s in the range of five hundred billion a year, which is more or less my own range. And I would also add favorably that this number is much greater than the spending number that comes out of the European green deal, which has gotten a lot of publicity as a major breakthrough that finally some government entities are taking climate change seriously.

And if you read the documents of the European Green Deal, the rhetoric is excellent, about how urgent this is, the commitment. In fact, Christine Lagarde, the head of the European Central Bank, has already also said this is her top priority on and on. But when you actually get down to the level of spending they’re talking about, they’re talking about maybe 120 billion per year, 100 billion euros a year. So, the big number from Biden is the best thing, in my opinion, in the program. The other part that’s good is that he does say very positive, favorable things about the jobs that are going to be created by clean energy investments, being union jobs, being good-paying jobs, advancing opportunities for underrepresented cohorts like women and non-whites, most of the jobs held in the energy sector are for whites right now. And he has made a commitment, at least in the document, to just transition for workers and communities in the fossil fuel-dependent sector now.

The Obama administration, obviously of which he was a part, did also make a commitment around just
transition, what they called their POWER+ Plan. But as was typical, it was really good in terms of what it said was important and what they were concerned about, but the actual budgetary proposal was far below what was necessary. So that’s the big concern. I would say that we can say nice things like they have in Europe, but if they’re not willing to really move serious resources into advancing this agenda, that is a massive problem.

Now, then, to your point, yes, five hundred billion a year, but what are we spending on? One of the things that jumped out at me the most in reading, that I was surprised by, was the extent to which the Biden plan gives prominence to carbon capture technology, which I’ll explain a bit more in a second, nuclear energy, and bio-energy, and downplays, as far as my reading, the two biggest sources that are
really available and affordable right now, which is solar and wind power. So carbon capture technology
is a technology that aims to remove emitted carbon from the atmosphere.

So in other words, you have a coal-based power plant or utility, and you can keep burning the coal. At
the smokestack or someplace else, we have this technology that literally captures the carbon and is able to store it. So carbon capture technology has really been a research project for 30 years now. It has never been developed to the point where it’s technologically commercially viable. And then even if it does work, what we’re talking about is storing the carbon underground, forever, or else we’re back at the problem that we have with carbon being admitted into the atmosphere. So the problem with carbon
capture technology, even if it could be commercialized, and we don’t know that it can be, but even if it could be commercialized, we have the issue of leakage, so any problem with leakage is going to get us back into raising emissions.
And if we did carbon capture technology on a large scale, not just in the United States, but worldwide, of
course you’re going to have weak regulatory standards, and you’re going to see leakages. So that to me,
was the biggest single problem.

Paul Jay
The only thing I find to do with wind power in the Biden plan is to double offshore wind by 2030. But it
would seem to me, if you’re serious about hitting these targets, and if you’re not actually really
depending on carbon capture, and as you say, that means continuing to use fossil fuel, then you do a
heck of a lot more than just double wind by 2030. In a decade, if you put serious effort towards it, you
can have a lot more than doubling. So they really are not talking about phasing out fossil fuel, they’re
talking about carbon capture.

Robert Pollin
That to me is the thing that jumps out. And so to double wind power is nothing. Wind power is maybe
2% of all energy right now, so that gets us to 4%. Solar power is like 0.2%. So we have to think about
increasing solar power, you know, tenfold or sevenfold or something like that. And we have to increase
wind power five or six-fold to have a serious chance of hitting our emission reduction targets.

And I would just say also, on the issue of technology and costs, as I said, with carbon capture, we do not
have commercial-scale carbon capture as yet, even though there have been efforts for 30 years. And
even though, of course, the fossil fuel industry has been seriously committed to carbon capture because
that’s the way they can survive.
Now, what we do know is that solar has come down in price. In 2010, the average price of utility-scale
solar was about $0.36 And now it’s about $0.10. So solar has fallen in price by over 70%. Onshore wind
has fallen by 25%. These are numbers coming out of the Trump Energy Department. These aren’t
numbers coming out of Greenpeace, but I’m sure Greenpeace, (Greenpeace is a non-governmental
environmental organization), was happy to see them.
The average cost to generate a kilowatt of electricity from nuclear is twice that of solar and wind. So
why would we be developing carbon capture and nuclear? Nuclear, of course, has serious dangers in
terms of public safety, of radioactive waste, spent fuels, meltdowns. We know about the Fukushima
meltdown in 2011, and we have to recognize that if we build out nuclear to a very large extent, we are
going to put ourselves in more danger of more such meltdowns. Because Japan had a pretty good
regulatory structure, we have to assume that the rest of the world is not going to do a whole lot better
than Japan in terms of regulating nuclear power plants.

Paul Jay
The specific recommendation in the Biden plan, I’m not exactly sure what it means. They want to create
small modular nuclear reactors at half the construction cost of today’s reactors. Doesn’t that just sound
like a whole lot of small reactors, which I would think even increases the danger?

Robert Pollin
Absolutely you’re right, because at least if you have centralized big reactors, then you know how to
protect them. If you spread out the reactors all over the place, then yes, you’re increasing the difficulty of seriously regulating.

And again, nuclear power has been around for, what, 15 years. And the costs, according to the Energy
Department, the Trump administration’s Energy Department, the cost of nuclear to generate a unit kilowatt of electricity are roughly double that of solar, wind, and geothermal. So of course, we can improve those technologies, especially around storage, but why wouldn’t we go with these technologies
that are safe, that work perfectly fine right now, as opposed to emphasizing carbon capture and nuclear? Well, we know the answer. The answer for carbon capture is that’s the way that the fossil fuel industry is going to survive. So that’s what’s going on there.

Paul Jay
I think we should highlight that there is another, I guess it’s a form of carbon capture, which is mentioned in the plan, but not highlighted and emphasized to the extent I would think it should be, and that’s planting trees and restorative agriculture. They mention it, but it’s just part of a grocery list of things. And you take this massive investment of 500 billion a year and the question is, what are they going to spend it on? You would spend it on retrofitting buildings, which they do talk about, which obviously needs to be done. But then it’s about investing in new sustainable energy sources, wind and solar primarily. And then it is all about restorative agriculture and lots of trees, because if you want to suck carbon out of the air, you’ve got to suck it out of the atmosphere, not keep fossil fuel going.

Robert Pollin
Yeah, reforestation and organic agriculture, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, as you cited, IPCC, it’s reasonable to think that through investments and reforestation and
organic agriculture, we can reduce emissions in the range of 20% of where we have to be. So it is a
major part of the solution, 20% is a big part of the solution, but the other 80% has to come from raising efficiency standards and transitioning to renewables.

If we’re going to focus on carbon capture, which, as I said, is an unproven technology despite decades of efforts, and is essentially a way through which to keep the fossil fuel industry going, and it’s a way through which you maintain the extreme danger that would come through leakages of this captured
carbon, you are really going off track and you’re not investing the way that we need to invest. The way we need to invest is to massively expand efficiency, massively expand solar, wind, geothermal,
and invest in reforestation and organic agriculture.

Paul Jay
I’ll just quote again from when you go down the list of the recommendations, this issue of decarbonization, carbon capture is at the heart of this whole plan. They talk about decarbonizing
industrial heat needed to make steel, concrete, and chemicals, re-imagining carbon-neutral construction materials. I don’t know what time frame they think that’s going to take place. And then they have capturing carbon dioxide from power plant exhaust, followed by sequestering it deep underground, or using it to make alternative products.

And again, there’s no such technology that’s actually effective right now, maybe there will be in the
future, but there’s some rhetoric at the beginning of the plan that gives you the impression that they understand the urgency of all this.

When you get into this issue of carbon capture and these other issues we’re talking about, the time frame just doesn’t seem to have any sense of urgency, which goes back to what you said early on. I’m
not sure if you said this to me while we were talking online or offline, but they still seem to think the Paris agreement timeline means something.

Robert Pollin
Yeah, they do cite the Paris agreement, and they say that under Biden, we’re going to rejoin Paris, which again, relative to Trump is an improvement since Trump has already pulled the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. But as you said, and I think you told the story very well, I mean, the shocking news that is almost never discussed is if everybody follows the Paris agreement, which they’re not doing, especially the US, if everybody follows it, there’s no chance for us hitting any emission targets.
I mean, this is recognized by the International Energy Agency, which is the largest body doing energy modeling other than the US Energy Department. If you look at their own model that incorporates all the countries doing everything they say they’re going to do under the Paris agreement, in 20 years, we reduce emissions, well, we actually increase emissions absolutely from about 33 billion tons to about 37 billion tons, so emissions would be going up.

They only go down modestly relative to doing almost nothing. So the Paris agreement is extremely flimsy. It’s not the foundation for accomplishing anything. At the same time, we do have the technologies. This is not a massive technological challenge. We have the solar technology, we have the wind technology, we have the efficiency technology, and we know how to plant trees and do organic
agriculture. Of course, we can improve them. But the main thing is to move these technologies to scale.

And when I talk about the 500 or so billion dollars a year, that’s really the thrust of the agenda hat I think is necessary.

Paul Jay
Now, there was a recognition, that’s why there was a Paris agreement, but this had to be part of a global agreement. I mean, even if the United States hit every target imaginable, which is unlikely if the rest of the world isn’t doing the same, then it’s not going to mean that much.

So when you come down to it, the two biggest economies in the world, or maybe three, if you take the E.U. as one economy, which it kind of is, but still, the relationship between the United States and China, and some kind of agreement on climate, is going to be critical in this game going on for years. You have the anti-climate change people, not only are they in denial of the science, but one of their arguments always is, “well, it’s just going to make us uncompetitive with China, if China doesn’t do it, why should we,” and you get this childish game that goes on.

But what’s been happening in terms of the U.S. China relationship is, not only has Trump inflamed and intensified the rivalry, but Biden’s coming in with similar rhetoric. In fact, he’s even trying to be more “militant”, quote-unquote, about China than Trump.

And one of the things that jumped out at me in this plan was the extent of several paragraphs of an attack on China. Here’s one quote from the agreement, it goes, “Biden will stop China from subsidizing coal exports and outsourcing carbon pollution. China is far and away the largest emitter of carbon in the world, and through its massive belt and road initiative, Beijing is also annually financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel energy projects across Asia and beyond. Biden will rally a united front of nations to hold China accountable to high environmental standards in its belt and road initiative infrastructure projects so that China can’t outsource pollution to other countries…”, and then further down Biden calls for the United States and its allies offering alternative financing to the countries that are buying into the Belt and Road initiative so that they don’t have to be part of this climate villain in China’s plan. What do you make of this? You know, China is the villain of the piece here.

Robert Pollin
It’s true. China is now the largest emitter of emissions and the US is second in absolute terms. In per capita terms, in other words, how much the average person is contributing to emissions, emissions in China are about 1/3 that of the United States. So that to portray China as the big villain in the whole story ignores the fact that on average, people in the United States are emitting 3 times the amount of China.

Moreover, of course, we know that in terms of income distribution, the people in the top 1% of the total global income distribution are emitting about 170 times more emissions than the lowest 10%. So, China is not the big villain. China could do a lot better, there’s no question about it, and they must, but everybody must. But to portray China as being the main cause of the problem is grossly inaccurate for today’s world, but is even more so if we look at the historical pattern as to how our atmosphere got loaded up with greenhouse gases in the first place.

If we look at the entire era of industrial development, then about 80% of all emissions up through the year 1980 are really due to the United States, Europe, and Japan, not China, not India, none of the developing economies. So it’s not their fault, and to portray it that way is obviously going to create a huge distraction. And it is unfair, it’s unjustified. On top of that, when when I told you that the costs of solar have come down by over 70% in just the last seven years, the single most important reason for that is because China is producing solar panels, and they are effective solar panels and they’re producing them cheaply.

Now, sure, the United States should get in on it. We should have an industrial policy that will enable us to compete with China in doing something good, like producing solar energy at low cost that everybody can afford and that can be easily installed anyplace in the United States and China everywhere in the world. So let’s let China and the United States compete over that and drive down the price of solar, and not worry about this rhetoric, which is obviously just intended to, again, portray China as being the chief villain in the story, which they’re not.

Paul Jay
Now, China is expanding its coal production, which is something, if they understand climate science, and they seem to, why are they? Don’t they have alternatives to the expansion of coal?

Robert Pollin
So China has been operating on two tracks for some time now, which is they want to be ahead of everybody and the biggest manufacturer of clean energy technology, and they’re pretty much getting there, and they keep building coal plants because right now it’s still the case that coal plants are very cheap, easy, the technology is well known, and they don’t want to slow down development to wait for having to develop solar technology, wind technology at scale. They’re doing both things at the same time.

So, in fact, the largest proportion of all the solar panels that are being built in China are really being built for the global market. So that is a massive deficiency with China. So if we’re going to criticize China, let’s criticize them for that.

And let’s tell China that, you, China, and we, the United States, are going to compete to deliver affordable, renewable energy, clean energy to developing countries, to sub-Saharan Africa, for example, where 50% of the rural population has no access to electricity, as of right now. So let’s deliver 100% clean energy to sub-Saharan Africa so that, by the way, then they don’t have to keep burning wood as an energy source, which is a very dirty source of energy.

Paul Jay
What I didn’t see in the plan, and maybe I missed it because I haven’t read every word of the Biden plan, but is a call for a new global treaty on climate, essentially like the Paris, but with actual, enforceable, legally enforceable, binding commitments, and more importantly, targets that are scientifically justified.

And as we’ve discussed a couple of times already, Paris didn’t do it. So what would do it? I mean, my understanding is what science is saying is you can’t hit 1.5, and we have less than a decade to prevent that from happening, assuming we actually can, because some people think it’s even too late to prevent it. But one way or the other, the urgency is 1.5, not this 2° in 2050 business of Paris. That doesn’t happen without a U.S.-China agreement. That doesn’t happen without a global agreement.

And there’s no way you get to a global agreement with this kind of rhetoric which is intensifying against China. China’s not changing its strategy on coal because the US threatens it. If it does it, it does it as part of a collaborative global agreement.

Robert Pollin
Yeah, well, I think the only way that we hit anything like the IPCC’s emission reduction targets, which are 45% emissions, with a global emission reduction of CO2, carbon dioxide, emissions by 2030, and net- zero by 2050. OK, so if we’re going to focus on those, basically we have to assume that, yes, the US and China and Europe are going to have to finance a whole lot of this because not just China, if we just focus on China, we’re missing another big part of the story, which is that the developing world, which wants to grow, if we, for example, assume that India is going to grow at even half the rate they’ve been growing at for the last 20 years.

And if we don’t focus on what India is doing, then India alone, India, Indonesia, Mexico, they will bust the carbon budget by themselves, even if China and the US stabilize. Because China and the US, add them up they are 42% of emissions, global emissions, China, the US, and Europe are 55% of the emissions. So, we already have 45% of emissions outside the US, China, and Europe. So what we have to do is get the high-income countries, Europe, the United States, to finance clean energy investments in the developing world.

And that really has to be central. China has to be committed to it, but again, not just China, China, the United States, and Europe. And the way that you mentioned, thank you, the book that Noam Chomsky
and I have coming out next month. We talk about a financing program, and we do talk about eliminating all fossil fuel subsidies, and that’s good, that’ll get us some of the way, that’ll get us about half the way.

The only problem with that is a lot of the fossil fuel subsidies are really subsidies for poor people to get cheap energy. So if you’re going to take away the fossil fuel subsidies, you have to give people direct subsidies, income subsidies so that they can survive. That’s not a huge pot of money that’s just there, so we have to do some other things. We have to take money out of military budgets. I think we should have a carbon tax, and generate revenue and discourage the fossil fuel consumption there. And then, in addition, we do need to use the powers of the central bank, the Fed, and the European Central Bank. We’ve seen just in the last six months the Federal Reserve in a crisis is coming up with, you know, four trillion dollars at the drop of a hat. So they can easily finance a significant part, not just of the US clean energy project, but a global clean energy project.

Paul Jay
Yeah, I just saw a quote from a guy who’s, I forget his name, he’s a senior fellow at the Peterson
Institute. And the Peterson Institute’s been the home of Austerity Hawks, and “they’ll reduce the debt” and all this. And he’s saying, he doesn’t see where the end in sight is about how much debt there can be right now. And yet I listen to Bloomberg Radio and you hear all kinds of Wall Street types saying, “yeah, even more subsidies are fine, we don’t have to worry about the debt.” You know, it’s remarkable to hear after being clobbered by these people for so long with this rhetoric about being afraid.

So does this pandemic moment make it more difficult, or does it even make it easier to have a far more
ambitious plan than what Biden’s talking about?

Robert Pollin
Well, certainly the pandemic has opened up the discussion about where do we go next, now that we’re in a depression, how do we get out of it? I, myself, am working with state-level groups, obviously not the federal government, but I’m doing studies now in nine different states on a program that incorporates a short term recovery, issues around public health, but then moving us onto a sustainable path that is focused around a clean energy transition. So at least, there seems to be significant interest in it. I’m even doing it in four Appalachian states, including West Virginia. So people want to see some serious alternative. I’m writing these nine state studies right now, in fact, the one from Maine is coming out tomorrow, and if I were to say, “oh, let’s wait until we get carbon capture technology really, really up to speed,” that’s no plan at all. I mean, the plans I’m talking about are to start investing in solar with existing technologies. Start investing in energy efficiency with existing technologies such as buses, public transportation, such as retrofitting buildings, let’s move that, and that is a stimulus program as well as being a, Save the Planet program.

Paul Jay
Thanks very much for joining us Bob.

Robert Pollin
Thank you.

Paul Jay
And thank you for joining us on podcast. And if you have any questions for Bob, write
in and I’ll send them to Bob, and maybe we’ll do a follow up based on your questions. And also keep in
mind is totally dependent on its listeners and viewers for its existence. Now’s the time, if you haven’t become a donor, please click the donate button. If you’re listening on one of the podcast platforms, come on over to the website at and you can donate from there, hopefully monthly. But we need you if this is going to be a sustainable project.

Thanks again for joining us on

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. John Steinbach

    +1 on Yve’s comment about radical conservation. Going back to the 70s with Harvard’s “Energy Futures” study and Barry Commoners “The Closing Circle”, the message was that radical conservation was the only effective way of addressing pending global environmental catastrophe. Commoner’s message was that radical reductions in energy & resource usage were/are inevitable & the only mitigation was/is socially planned transition to a low energy future, and that the window for action was rapidly closing. Now the window is effectively closed and all that is left are fantasies of “clean” energy, nuclear power, and carbon capture permitting BAU.

    Any discussion or plan about addressing climate change that doesn’t reflect this reality is delusional.

  2. Oh

    Yes, conservation makes a lot of sense and will immediately help not just in reducing emissions but make a big difference in energy expenses for all. We must all drive less, use less resources, turn down our thermostats, reduce use of air conditioning and most of all consume less of everything.

    1. Ian Ollmann

      If you look at the magnitude of the problem for Americans — your carbon expenditure is probably 10x what it needs to be — simple conservation is not enough. That is if we are to do this by conservation alone, simply turning down the thermostat is not enough. You need to turn it off. You need to turn everything off. The problem is that the greenhouse gas emissions from the food you eat alone may exceed your carbon budget. The agricultural sector has already spent your allowance for you. Try a carbon calculator some time, and see what it takes to just get down to median per capita expenditure.

      Consider also that not all products are equal. Dollars are very poor proxies for carbon emissions, which is probably why we are so bad at solving this problem. You maximize for dollars. Apple and Microsoft, for example are working on going carbon neutral or negative. Assuming they succeed, as valued in “carbon dollars” your $1100 iPhone would be free, so you can have as many of those as you like. Whereas, depending on where you live, the electricity that you consume, which is frankly not really costing you that much despite all the complaining, is actually a huge component of your carbon budget. Depending on how you account for it, the rent is probably free. Taxes certainly are. Air travel, definitely not!

      The fact of the matter is that the solution to the greenhouse gas problem is a wholesale _replacement_ of technologies with those that don’t produce carbon. This will get easier as various sectors that spend much of your carbon allowance for you, notably consumer products, agriculture and transportation go green too. Your job is to ditch your SUV and make your next car electric, buy products from green producers (instead of less products), and consider putting in solar + battery in your home.

      I haven’t a clue how to get landlords to do their part, but it needs to happen, and with an iron fist if necessary.

      1. Ian Ollmann

        I should add that when I read the headline, the words that crossed my mind was, “The Bastard!” I’ll vote for him anyway, because the other rat bastard is worse. The fact of the matter though is that capture is doomed, and everyone knows it. It is too expensive, both financially and thermodynamically to compete with renewables, and I’m quite certain that Biden’s efforts to promote capture will fail even worse than Trumps Pro-Coal agenda. At least with “coal now, coal tomorrow and coal forever!” no additional money would need to be spent to keep existing coal plants running. They will probably shut down before they retrofit with large scale capture and basalt injection equipment. Shutting down is good. It was going to happen anyway.

        It’s all just lip service. Let-the-market-decide approaches will land us with renewables, and a diversity of energy storage technologies. It is just a question of how quickly. What Biden could do that would be helpful would be to install a super grid to allow efficient energy trading between more distant energy localities. This allows Intermittent solar and wind to be distributed across more time zones, even to places where the sun has set. Energy temporal local diversification should be the buzzword for the day.

      2. drumlin woodchuckles

        ” The food you eat ” . . . . hmmmm . . .

        It depends on how much fossil carbon was burned at every stage of the food, from growing all the way to buying and cooking in the home. As aGAINST, how much sky carbon the plant sucked down and stored in the non-food part of its body mass, and in the soil around its roots, in the process of growing the parts of itself that we eat as food.

        We would need a comparative carbon audit for each kind of food and each method of growing, handling-processing at all stages, and final cooking of the food to know whether that food burned more fossil carbon than the skycarbon it captured . . . or whether that food captured more skycarbon than the fossil carbon it burned.

        Till we know all of that for each and every particular kind of food, and each and every particular method of food growth-handling-final pre-eating preparation, we won’t know whether that particular ” food you eat” emitted or bio-sequestered more carbon.

        Once we know all of that, then we can make informed decisions about what to do about all of that . . . either at the individdle level, or the klektiv level, or both together.

  3. Bob

    Here are some suggestions for combating climate change –

    Reduce Methane emissions to a minimum.
    Much of methane emissions are point source notably from oil and gas drilling, large waste lagoons, gas distribution leaks, coal mines. Mitigation methods are well understood and reasonably inexpensive.

    Amend the tax structure to reduce flaring to a minimum.
    At present well field losses (flaring) are tax write offs.

    The DOD is one of the largest energy users in the USA.
    Enforce a standard thermostat setting with setbacks. Enforce an outside air standard (O/A).

    Lighting accounts to approximately 25% of the total electrical load.
    Widespread use of LED lighting systems can reduce the lighting load by half or the total electrical load by 12%.

    A significant reduction in electrical use and a significant reduction in methane emissions will directly impact climate change.

  4. Anon II, First of the Name

    Please (and I mean this genuinely) explain how conservation would work globally. If the US magically reduces its demand by 50%:

    1. Who determines how that 50% is allocated? How is it enforced?
    2. What prevents another country or set of countries from just increasing their consumption accordingly?

    I’m sure this has been thought through, but I don’t quite get it

    1. BlakeFelix

      While I’m not sure that it has really been thought through, the best ideas in my opinion, are to raise a carbon tax, and hit imports with carbon tariffs, so there is no incentive to offshore the pollution. That doesn’t solve all the problems, but it would be a good start.

      1. drumlin woodchuckles

        The way to make a carbon tax-and-tariffs system work would be to remove America from the Forced Free Trade System and restore around America a wall of rigid and belligerent Protectionism. That way, our Trading Enemies won’t be able to dump their No-Carbon-Tax-In-Their-Countries production into our Carbon Taxed-and-Tariffed economy and society.

        Without Unilateral Militant and Belligerent Protectionism, not one single good thing will ever happen.
        Never. Ever.

  5. JimL

    The idea that planting trees will have any mitigating effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is as misguided as believing in carbon capture. The only realistic goal at this time to reduce the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 – and thereby the rate of increase in global warming – is to reduce our emissions of CO2. The worldwide response this year to COVID-19 might cause us to reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 7% (Nature Climate Change 10, 647-653 (2020)). Seven percent is the approximate rate of reduction needed every year to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 which is the first goal the IPCC has set to keep global warming to 1.5 C. If it took COVID-19 for us to reduce emissions this year what will we need next year to again reduce our emissions by 7%?

  6. Jeremy Grimm

    Fossil fuels are not infinite and when they’re gone there is nothing to replace their loss. The existing sources for alternative energy will not scale to meet our present demands for energy. The oft promised technology ‘fixes’ remain 30 years in the future, as they have for the last 70+ years. Our Civilization, the Civilization of Capitalism — now Global Neoliberal Capitalism — will have burned the better part of the Earth’s fossil fuel legacy in a mere two centuries. We consumed the greatest part of the Earth’s fossil fuels since 1950. Our economy, our way of life, our secular religion — all are predicated on consuming large and ever growing amounts of energy. Putting aside concerns about Climate Chaos, our Civilization is heading toward collapse as the supplies of energy collapse.

    Fossil fuels are not the only vital resource we are using up. Many of the aquifers supporting agriculture are being depleted. Recycling served as a ploy more than practice. Most recycling to produce glass, steel, and plastic of consistent quality and composition requires more energy and labor than using the quality ores or petroleum by-products we are using up.

    Conservation makes a lot of sense. As resources like fossil fuel are used up we will have no choice but to conserve on many things. I suspect “drive less, use less resources, turn down our thermostats, reduce use of air conditioning” will seem quaintly optimistic in the future, and “consume less of everything” will not be a choice because there will be less of everything to consume, probably a lot less.

    This post begins with “The 2019 U.N. annual emissions gap report states that, if all the countries that made commitments to the Paris agreement …” and goes on to laud the greenness budget number Biden tossed out while bemoaning his remarkably thin veneer of “greenness”. The Biden plan — if it can be called a plan — gives carbon capture a large role. Carbon capture is a darling of the Fossil Fuel Cartels. It’s a ploy much like “recycling”. There are no viable carbon capture schemes in the works. Plant more trees? I like trees but how much CO2 can they really suck out of the atmosphere in the time frame that we are adding CO2? I trust schemes for planting more trees for carbon capture as much as I trust the schemes for “renewable” biofuels exposed in “Planet of the Humans”.

    I am growing weary of the concern about meeting this or that CO2 budget goal. There is no CO2 budget to fuss over. We have already added too much CO2 into the atmosphere. There is no neat Market based solution for an “optimal” reduction in fossil fuel use, no way to increase production every year while caring for the environment. We must reduce our CO2 as much as possible as much as possible as quickly as possible and we need to squeeze the possible way beyond turning down or thermostats or hanging on to that three-year old flat screen. Resource depletion and Climate Chaos threaten our very existence — at least the existence of a great many of us — if we continue the breakneck race toward the all too near brick wall of collapse. Economics — the Market — created and worsened the problems.

  7. Bazarov

    One problem that’s bothered me about the “plant trees!” plan:

    We already have a significant amount of warming baked in. So, let’s say we plant all these trees. Then, in the next few decades, the climate radically shifts with warming. Wouldn’t those trees–once suited to the climate–begin to die as the climate becomes less suitable and they get inundated with pests and plant diseases?

    Wouldn’t they, in many parts of the world, begin to die, decay, and burn, thus releasing the carbon they ought to be storing for us?

    I have trouble understanding how tree planting can be a significant part of climate mitigation, unless the trees that are planted are some ultra-robust variety or unless the plan is to cut them down before they can die/burn and bury them waaaaay underground.

  8. HotFlash

    Radical conservation? In a country that won’t even mask up? Investment in infrastructure, in a country that won’t even fund Medicare4All? Fuel conservation in a country that is changing out ordinary sedans for SUV’s that guzzle even more gas, and where coal-rolling is a sport? Reduce the use of hydrocarbons by cutting back on the military, in the US of A????

    How does anyone think this could possibly happen?

    To survive, we need to stop using electricity. Just stop. Stop driving *any* vehicle. Just stop. Stop flying planes, stop dropping bombs, stop all the wars. Just stop. Any work that can be done by hand, should be done by hand, if it needs to be done at all. Farming, snow shovelling, sawing, leaf raking (don’t get me started on leaf blowing!). I do not see any of this happening in my lifetime, do you?

    People, we are fried.

    1. Synoia

      Back to the 18th Century, with 10 times the then population? I believe you are correct in your estimates, but execution will be the difficulty. You need a Government with a heavy hand, and no exceptions. But, I see many exception$ for the well connected, and cannot conceive how the Government can execute such a program.

      I foresee regression to a feudal, or pre-feudal, state, and the death of 60% to 95% of humans on the planet.

      The survivors will be those hunter gatherer groups who currently do not live a “civilized” lifestyle.

      1. fajensen

        I’d rather not be considering why someone loves the creation of cesspools, but, I have heard that people pay good money for that kind of thing in Amsterdam.

        1. Code Name D

          While I wouldn’t call NC a “cesspool of environmental doomers”, I still agree with Ian that all the fatalism has become extremely tiresome and seems to do more to shut conversation down, rather than sorting through the confusion.

          For example, the hostility to the Green New Deal. It’s CONSTANTLY brought up that GND will not solve the problem. But according to its authors, it never pretends to. Its real intent is to break the corporate/neo-liberal death it has over policy discussions. It does this by taking the most obvious and best-founded solutions, namely expanding renewables, banning fracking, and other policy’s and contrasts them against Democratic incrementalism. Its designed to expose the sort of Limber’s “soft-denial” for what it is, placating the profits of the carbon industry. You simply can not oppose GND and claim to be serious on climate change because its DESIGNED to expose the charlatans.

          But it never claimed to solve climate change. Indeed, it’s absurd to think climate change is something that can be tackled by one bill. This is a problem that we will have to contend with for centuries, assuming humanity is able to even live that long. And it’s inevitable that early solutions will have to be revisited. But by passing GND, it becomes possible to seriously debate and act on more serious initiatives to climate change.

          A similar problem exists with the apparent turning on renewable energy. Renewable energy is a shame, now? Really? Climate activists are THAT poorly educated on the science of climate change? I have said this before, and I will likely have to say it many times to come. Renewable energy is your ONLY alternative fossil fuels! There isn’t even a hypothetical third options! Other than death. To even ask “will renewables work” completely misses the nature of the problem. The real question is “how do we live within the means of renewable energy systems.”

          Consider Yves’s original statement. “[Green New Deal] envisions a lot of new infrastructure building….which means front-loaded activity that required an even higher level of use of our current carbon-intenvise infrastructure.” So exactly where to you expect we get the energy needed to build and deploy a renewable system is going to come from? Of course, any new infrastructure will have to be build using the existing one as a foundation. And a new energy renewable system will be carbon-front loaded by necessity. Just as an oil-based system was built using a coal-based system, and coal-based systems were build using wood-based systems. This is a logical necessity.

          And I say this again as it bears repeating. The purpose of the Green New Deal is not to “solve” climate change, but to break the industries death-grip over the political system. Until the GND is passed, a serious debate over climate change is impossible.

          1. Jeremy Grimm

            Your comment is interesting. I’m not sure how fatalism shuts down conversation and what confusion is there you believe needs be sorted?

            You seem to confuse skepticism about the Green New Deal(GND) with opposition to the GND. The GND that went to Congress contains too little detail to be taken seriously as more than a publicity stunt. The kind of Federal spending a GND might control — taking Biden at his word as an indicator: $500 billion — would be significant. But how would Federal spending at that scale break the death-grip the [fossil fuel Cartels] hold over the political system? What about other mysterious “Green” Big Money players ready to dip into the trough? I believe some big players were behind the changes in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that require all public electric utilities to facilitate net metering. And did you miss BP’s major shift away from oil and gas and into renewable power? [] I believe Big Oil will find a way to go “green” so they can get a chunk of any GND funding green.

            While I agree that the GND never claimed to solve climate change — I don’t recall any comment on this site assuming that was a claim for the GND. However I do believe at least some of the proponents for the GND have claimed it will create a new economy, greatly alleviate unemployment, and provide for US energy needs greatly reducing CO2 emissions without significant reductions in the amount and cost of energy available. Most of these claims actually revolve around claims made about renewable energy — eg. []. Many of the claims made about renewables appear to me, a little wild and crazy with their energy accounting estimates.

            “The real question is how do we live within the means of renewable energy systems.” That is the right question.

      2. Jeremy Grimm

        I believe you might be calling me an environmental doomer? You might add a few counterarguments to your ad hominem. Even if I wanted to play tit-for-tat I have no way to know how to choose a fitting name to call you in response — no fun.

        Also a suggestion — “cesspool”? … Wouldn’t ‘sinkhole’ better fit your sentiments and less besmirch this forum — the forum where you’ve commented.

Comments are closed.