The Cost of Climate Change

Much to the delight of Republicans, the Democrats’ Build Back Better agenda appears to be foundering. The $1.7 trillion bill was to include $555 billion to combat climate change. This framework would set the United States on course to meet its climate targets, achieving a 50-52% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. Although there were efforts to pay for the majority of the bill’s costs through various means, dissenters cite high cost as their primary reason for their opposition.

A half-trillion dollars to fight climate change? It sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? Compared with the entire annual U.S. budget of $6.8 trillion, it is. But BBB was to be spread over ten years, so it averages out to closer to $55 billion annually. And remember, most of that would be paid for, so relatively little would be added to the annual deficit. Even so, it’s all still a pretty good chunk of change.

When we regard such costs, however, we need to also consider the price of the alternative: to do nothing. What will climate change cost the U.S. and the global economy if all the warnings and concerns are ignored? These costs include more frequent and expensive weather disasters such as droughts, wildfires. Floods, hurricanes, and off-season tornadoes. Add to this the cost of increased disease, migration, and famine, and decreased crop yields. Most of these things are happening already, but the continuing disruption and impact to our economy are only at their earliest stages.

What would it add up to? According to an analysis by global insurance company Swiss Re, if countries succeed at holding average global temperature increases to less than two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels as set by the 2015 Paris accord, the planet’s economic losses by 2050 would be no more than 5 percent smaller than would otherwise be the case. In today’s dollars, 5% of the current  U.S. GDP of $22 trillion is about $1.1 trillion.

What if we are not able to hold the average global temperature to less than two degrees? Most countries are well behind their Paris emissions targets, so this is a real possibility. Current projections are for the actual increase to be more like 2.6 degrees by 2050. Swiss Re considered this (and an even worse) scenario as well. The impact to the United States (and the world) would be closer to 7 percent of GDP, or $1.54 trillion. Comparing this figure and the 2-degree one, we can estimate that a half-trillion-dollar investment now could save us that much every single year by mid-century.

Like any long-term investment, the best time to begin was years ago. Stating that the United States has been substantially under-invested in climate action for decades, Rutgers University’s Robert Kopp says, “The longer we wait, the more damages we'll have to deal with, and the more costly it will be to lower our emissions in a way that avoids future damages.” Also like any long-term investment, it’s still better to begin late (like now) than never.

The current and future cost of climate change is more than just a monetary hit to the economy. Now we get to the most tragic aspect of a climate disaster. The cost of human lives and livelihoods lost and disrupted will be incalculable. It’s the same for the loss of global biodiversity; we’re creating a planet that none of us will recognize in our near future.

What will it take to mitigate the worst aspects of the coming climate disaster? The will to do what is right. And for that, we can start with investing in our planet’s future through Build Back Better.

Nuclear Power Needs to be Part of the Solution

For over 35 years, scientists have been telling us that our greenhouse gas emissions would cause climate change and that would lead to a climate crisis. Welcome to where we’re at now: the very start of a climate catastrophe that will only get worse. Had we listened and taken heed then, our present difficulties would be greatly reduced, and it would be much easier to further mitigate the problem. Perhaps we should listen to these scientists when they tell us that we now have to take even more drastic action to prevent complete disaster in years to come.

The fact is, we have to get to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary concern. Of course, it isn’t going to happen overnight, but zero needs to be the goal. We can get a great deal of the way with renewables. Wind and solar energy sources are clean and proven and must be further pursued. But these alone won’t get us all the way to zero. Fission-based nuclear energy (our current technology) has improved significantly; it’s now much safer, more efficient, and there is far less waste. It has the potential to take us the rest of the way.

In a Washington Post article, Jonah Goldberg argues that nuclear power must be part of any fight to take climate change seriously. Although Mr. Goldberg is wrong to criticize climate activists and politicians and their “periodic climate confabs that this is our ‘last chance’ to act or to save the planet” (they’re trying to save the world for our grandchildren, so cut them some slack), he is right to say that nuclear power needs to be a major part of the solution.

Nuclear power is safe, cheap, and carbon-free. It doesn’t cause any pollution in the usual sense. But like any source of energy, it’s not without problems. One is that no one wants them in their backyards, and partly as a result, they’re expensive and time-consuming to build. Another is that the source materials and fuel must be mined, and that’s a dirty, polluting business. Finally, there’s the problem of what to do with the waste.

Thanks to new technology, the waste from nuclear power is greatly reduced. But there’s still some; where do you put it? Mr. Goldberg is critical of President Obama for shutting the “perfectly safe” Yucca Mountain waste repository. That safety is debatable, but the current situation - nuclear waste is stored at more than 100 sites around the country – isn’t better. Other alternatives, such as recycling and other forms of storage, must be considered more seriously.

Regardless, there just aren’t any other solutions to climate change that will currently work for us. Think of it this way: nuclear power: it’s not just for Homer Simpson anymore.

Yes, it IS an existential threat

In the August 12 Post Featured Guest Column, Washington Post writer George F. Will argues that “With a closer look, certainty about the ‘existential’ climate threat melts away.” Mr. Will bases his article almost entirely on the opinions of physicist Steven E. Koonin. Interestingly, Marc A. Thiessen (also of the Washington Post) wrote a nearly identical article that relied heavily on Mr. Koonin inon May 17. Both Mr. Will and Mr. Thiessen have also written articles supporting climate science denial in the past. Koonin is the latest darling of climate science deniers, appearing on Fox News and other right-wing news outlets with scholarly-sounding arguments to support their point of view.

Koonin’s assertions, like those of other science deniers, have been widely debunked. It would be nice if Mr. Will and Mr. Thiessen had taken notice. Unfortunately, confirmation bias exists even for those articulate enough to write for the Washington Post. It would be even nicer if they were correct - that there is nothing to worry about with regards to climate change. Unfortunately, they are not.

No, humans are not "almost" totally to blame

 

“Are humans almost totally to blame for global warming?” This is the question posed by our local newspaper, the Post. The real answer is no, humans are not "almost" totally to blame, they are totally to blame, without qualification.

There is no debate. There's no question. Science has told us about this for forty years, and (confronted with reality) we're only now beginning to believe it. Too bad for humanity and the planet that it's taken so long. The debate needs to be about what we do about it.

Unfortunately, this is only the beginning. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report makes it clear that the consequences of our folly are and will continue to be dire. All we can do to mitigate the problem is to take action now to drastically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, with the ultimate goal of getting them down to net zero.

Some say that this isn't possible, or that we can't afford it. These folks were wrong before (about whether it's happening and whether humans are the cause), and they're wrong now. It is possible, and although it will cost us, we can afford it. We can't afford not to.

What is the planet worth?

Confirmation bias versus the truth

You are entitled to your own set of facts, but not your own opinions... Or was that the other way around?

It’s difficult to tell what the real (versus alternative) facts are these days, given the amount of misinformation and disinformation available through social media. You often have to dig deeper to get to the truth. You may not want to do further research, however, if you are easily presented with misinformation that supports your views.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to seek, favor, and interpret information in a way that confirms or supports a person’s personal beliefs. It’s a tendency that comes naturally to us. Education and training in critical thinking skills can help us resist the inclination.

Science relies much on education and training in critical thinking skills. It also relies on peer review and publication as guardrails to support, as much as possible, its quest to get closer to the truth. If science says something like climate change, and humanity’s role in it, is a fact, then you can bet that there is evidence to support it. If new peer-reviewed information comes along to dispute what was previously accepted, then our understanding may need to be altered. In regards to the science of climate change, this has not happened. Although our understanding is continuously being refined, no evidence has been brought to light to dispute that it’s occurring and that human activity is responsible. In fact, the opposite is the case.

When someone comes along to disagree with the science, the questions we should ask are: what credibility do they have, what evidence do they present, and have they published a peer-reviewed scientific paper or article on the subject? There is no shortage of people, some appearing to be quite rational, who wish to “debate” the facts of climate change. Such disinformation is often given credence from certain media outlets. But there is no debate about such facts any more than there is one about whether the earth is flat.

We may not want to believe that climate change is happening, or that we humans are responsible, so we may still wish to favor information to support this view. But such confirmation bias doesn’t help us understand the facts. Or to get closer to the truth.

How much land?

How much land would be needed to generate 50% of our energy needs from renewables such as solar and wind? An April 21, 2021 article by David Merrill in Bloomberg News provides some useful information. I learned that in order to fulfill President Biden's vision of an emission-free grid by 2035, the U.S. needs to increase its carbon-free capacity by at least 150%. Expanding solar and wind by 10% annually until 2030 would require the amount of land equal to the state of South Dakota. By 2050, when Biden wants the entire economy to be carbon-free, the U.S. would need up to four additional South Dakotas to develop enough clean power to run all the electric vehicles, factories, and more. 

Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? It's not quite so bad, though, because some solar can be installed on rooftops, and some wind farms can be built offshore. Also, nuclear and hydroelectric power can be added to the mix.

According to Forbes, renewables are already less expensive than fossil fuels. And dirty fossil fuels continue to enjoy some of the subsidies that they've received for the past 100 years. While it's true that renewable energy is only part of what needs to be a global solution, we have to get to zero emissions. Our future depends on it.

Another LTE - The Spherical Earth Hoax

Note - this is in response to the Brunswick Post's reader poll question.

Those “scientists” are at it again. They told us that the “pandemic” was bad and that we should be vaccinated. We all know what a hoax that was. And the whole climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is another big one. But the biggest hoax of all is that the earth is round.

Any thinking person with a reasonable amount of common sense knows that it is flat. Yet the supposedly learned men and women have been saying for years that us flat-earthers are ones who are wrong. Here’s the thing: we true believers can’t even get any traction on the news. So many times, we’ve tried to arrange debates with scientists about the true nature of the earth’s flatness. We’ve tried to start by saying, “You say the earth is spherical, and we say it’s flat. Let’s debate.” But they don’t even seem to want to bother with us.

Okay, let me get a little more serious now. This was in response to today’s Post Reader Poll, ‘Do you believe that climate change is real and caused by carbon buildup?’ Why are we even debating such a thing? We no longer debate whether the earth is round, whether a virus caused the pandemic, or whether electricity exists because those things, like climate change, are scientifically proven.

The debate ought not to be whether it’s happening. That’s a given. It needs to be about what we should do about it. 

James Baker’s column got it mostly right. It’s a global problem, and the United States can’t solve it alone. But we can and should provide leadership to the rest of the world in order to resolve it. And of course, Republicans must get on board and engage on the issue. By establishing markets and incentives, our climate leadership can also be a boon to our economy.

Fallback Position

 Okay, so maybe the climate is changing. Yes, it’s incredibly hot in some places at some times, but certainly not all. Yes, I suppose I have to admit that sea levels are rising, but what’s the big deal if you live away from the coast? Yes, firestorms and tropical storms are becoming more severe, but for a good part of the country, they’re of no consequence.

Now, even though I’m finally forced to admit that global warming is happening, I still have a fallback position! Want to hear it? The climate is always changing! This is just a blip that’s probably caused by the earth coming closer to the sun or something like that. Even the “experts” can’t seem to tie a specific weather event to human caused climate change.

These “scientists” claim that this climate change stuff is caused by the carbon monoxide and methane that we’re putting into the atmosphere and the resulting greenhouse effect. Even if that’s true, and even if these things are contributing to the warming (now I’m coming to my second fallback position), the climate scientists cannot tell us how much. They can’t give an exact percentage! They say, it’s as if you place a pot of water on the stove and turn on the burner, causing it to boil. How much of the boiling is caused by the fire beneath the pot?

Well, I’m not convinced. Now excuse me while I work on my third fallback position.

Ohio House Bill 175: ephemeral streams

 

According to a June 2 article in the Columbus Dispatch, House Bill 175, introduced by Rep. Brett Hudson Hillyer (R-Uhrichsville), would seek to remove environmental protections from ephemeral streams. These are streams that only flow after rain or snow melt. This follows a Trump Administration change that strips the federal law from protecting ephemeral streams as part of the U.S. EPA’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Ohio’s EPA protections would have still held protection in place. Until, that is, HB 175. After several hearings, the law could be headed to a committee vote in early June.

Several environmental groups, including Sierra Club Ohio, oppose HB 175. "They don't flow all year round, but they still have a bank, a bed and a channel. They still convey water and nutrients. ... They're really important for organisms, and they're extremely important for water quality,” said Mažeika Sullivan, professor of Ohio State University's School of Environment and Natural Resources.

We should urge Ohioans to contact their representatives to voice their concerns.

Getting to Zero

Picture a bathtub filled with water so much that it’s beginning to overflow. The problem is that water is still being added to the tub, even though it’s already full. If we reduce the inflow, it will slow the amount that’s spilling onto the floor, but it won’t stop it. The only solution is to shut the water supply off completely. Bill Gates uses this apt analogy for greenhouse gas emissions (the water) and our atmosphere (the tub) in his book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need.’ It’s a simple illustration to show why we need to get to zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Carbon remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so we may as well consider it semi-permanent. Reducing the emissions is good, but our goal (and our plan) must be to eliminate them completely.

It’s best to suspend any opinion you may have of Mr. Gates himself, now that details of his personal life in relation to his marriage and divorce are coming to light. Yes, it’s possible that his carefully crafted image of a smart but nerdy nice guy may be out of sync with reality. But what he and others tell us about climate change is important information. And it’s spot-on in terms of the scope of the problem and how to address it. But to avoid concerns about the person versus the message, we will consider other sources as well. One is a United Nations Report called, ‘The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it.’ Another is a report by the International Energy Agency called, ‘Net Zero by 2050.’ There are plenty of others.

Why is getting to zero so important? In simple, straightforward terms, the earth is now 1.1°C warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution. The results - rising seas, stronger storms, higher temperatures, and extreme droughts and fires - are already evident. We are not on track to meet agreed targets in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which stipulated keeping global temperature increase well below 2 °C or at 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Even at those levels, the results will be nearly catastrophic. The effects of temperature increases beyond this will be even worse. We must, therefore, redouble our efforts.

But why zero? Doesn’t it help to simply reduce the emissions? Yes, it does help, and there has been progress in some areas. The use of renewable energy, burning natural gas in place of coal, substituting alternative fuels, employing better fuel efficiency in transportation and buildings, and using nuclear energy are just some of the ways that we can reduce emissions. But each item comes with its own set of problems and concerns, and none of them, by themselves, will get us all the way to zero. And remember the bathtub analogy? Lower emissions may buy us time, but zero must be our final goal.

Intermediate goals are fine, but only to an extent. As an example, if we replace all of our coal-burning power plants with natural gas ones, our CO2 emissions would be cut by a significant percentage. However, with natural gas use increasing globally by 2.6 percent a year and with increased emissions from it outpacing decreased emissions from coal globally, we need to reevaluate the role of natural gas as a bridge fuel. Where it replaces coal for electricity generation, it’s reducing emissions and improving air quality. But it still produces some carbon pollution, and therefore slows, but does not solve, the climate crisis. Since it’s now providing new energy and new emissions in some cases, and preventing zero-emission solutions from being deployed in others (new gas-fired power plants last for decades), it is hindering climate solutions. A better goal would be to simply replace all fossil-fuel burning facilities with clean (renewable or nuclear) ones. It would take time, and an intermediate part of the goal could be achieved when say, half the plants are replaced.

The problem becomes more complicated when we consider all of the sources of emissions. When asked the primary cause of climate change, most informed Americans will answer, carbon dioxide emissions produced by automobiles and by burning fossil fuels for the production of electricity. Indeed, transportation and power generation are two major areas of concern. But others are just as important. Agriculture, especially beef production (where the methane is also a greenhouse gas of concern), manufacturing, and production of building materials, particularly cement, contribute emissions as well. Any comprehensive plan for getting to zero must take all sources into account.

Yes, getting to zero will be difficult. But if we work together, it won’t be impossible. And it must be done. We have no choice.

We can get a great deal of the way to zero emissions with current technology. But to get all the way, we will need some technological breakthroughs. For example, renewable energy, like wind and solar energy sources is great and should be pursued. But wind and solar alone won’t get us to zero. Improved battery technology (for storage when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing) will help, but that also won’t get us all the way. Fission-based nuclear energy has improved significantly; it’s now much safer, more efficient, and there is far less waste. A real breakthrough would come if fusion nuclear energy becomes feasible. Yet there are those other areas as well. Meat alternative technology is emerging and may soon be more viable. Technology improvements in cement production, air transportation, and shipping appear to be further down the road.

How can we achieve the technological breakthroughs we need? Governments can encourage this kind of innovation by rewarding research and development efforts. Governments can also promote the use of zero emission technology once it is developed to make it more competitive.

Some countries, local communities like cities and states, and many companies have goals to get to net zero emissions. For some, the target date is 2050, and for others, it’s as early as 2030. Enacting such goals is a positive development, and they should be encouraged and rewarded. But if China as well as third-world and other developing nations continue to produce cement and build coal-fired power plants, emissions will increase instead of being reduced. First-world nations have no right to stifle economic development in the third world, and China’s growth won’t stop just because some may want it to. We need a complete and comprehensive plan to encompass all of humanity.

The thing is, we have one. It’s called the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. This accord, though far from perfect, represents mankind’s best hope of getting to the level of zero emissions. Although climate change action needs to be further increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked new markets and low-carbon solutions. More and more countries, regions, cities, and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive. If we are ever going to get to zero, this will have been the way.

The Latest Climate Science Denial

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t and Why it Matters is the title of a new book by physicist Steven Koonin, a former under-secretary for science in the Obama Administration. Therein, Koonin argues that the impact of human influence on the climate is too small and uncertain to merit any costly action to reduce fossil fuel use. We humans, he says, will be able to adapt to any warming that does occur.

Marc A. Thiessen of The Washington Post writes about Koonin and his book in a May 17 article, An Obama scientist debunks the climate doom-mongers. Thiessen interviewed Koonin, who dug through U.N. and U.S. government reports to present some ‘inconvenient truths.’ He says the facts do not support the ‘doom mongering’ of climate alarmists.

Koonin was hired into his position by Obama’s first secretary of energy, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu precisely because he was willing to challenge conventional wisdom. Since leaving the administration, Koonin has gone on to argue that the impact of human influence on the climate is too uncertain, and probably too small, to merit costly action to reduce fossil fuel use. Humanity, he says, will adapt to any warming that occurs.

For context, it should be pointed out that Mr. Thiessen, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has written articles supporting climate science denial in the past. Mr. Koonin has now appeared on Fox News and its ilk to provide some scholarly sounding arguments to support their point of view. Some of those scholarly sounding arguments are:

“The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years.” Yes, they have. It’s true that if you cherry-pick data from 2014 government reports as Mr. Koonin has done, you may be able to twist the truth around enough to make a statement such as this. But the EPA Climate Indicators Report states that “Some parts of the United States have experienced more warming than others. The North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures increase the most, while some parts of the Southeast have experienced little change.” And data for the U.S. is not as important for the understanding of the impact of climate change as that for the entire planet. Here, the EPA states that “Worldwide, 2016 was the warmest year on record, 2020 was the second-warmest, and 2011–2020 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began.”

“Instead of droughts, the past fifty years have been slightly wetter than average” in the United States. This may be true in some parts of the U.S., but not others. The drought in California and other western states is fairly unprecedented. Historic western wildfires have many causes, but the underlying origin is climate change. Climate change does not apply itself evenly across the globe; there will always be areas that experience more or less heat, and more or less precipitation. But those dryer and hotter areas will be more extreme than ever.

The planet is warming, Koonin tells Thiessen, partly due to natural phenomena and partly due to growing human influences. Koonin says that scientists can’t untangle the two. But, Koonin argues, the terrifying predictions of increasingly violent weather and coastal cities drowned beneath rising seas are overblown. Yet the Union of Concerned Scientists stated in 2009 (and updated in 2021) that global warming is caused mainly by human activity. Despite Koonin’s assertions, scientists working on climate change compare the climate patterns they observe with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's systems. By comparing the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can positively identify "human fingerprints” and attribute a proportion of observed warming to human activities. Regarding increasingly violent weather and rising seas, they’re happening, and they’re happening big. The UCC says, “While some types of events are more readily attributable to global warming than others, attribution science is becoming increasingly robust. Several authoritative scientific institutions and government agencies have confirmed both the rigor and the validity of attributing individual extreme events to human-caused climate change.” Sea level rise is well documented and is also directly attributable to human-caused climate change.

Koonin also argues that predictions of climate-induced economic devastation are delusional as well. Since this is an economic argument instead of a scientific one, Mr. Koonin is out of his realm. Even if the U.S. experiences less economic impact from climate change than expected, it will still be severe. Moreover, the effect will be uneven, with some developing countries – those that can ill-afford it – will absorb most of the economic impact. Ultimately, some will be able to adapt, and others will not. Regardless, it’s not a good thing for the U.S. to survive in an increasingly desperate world.

Koonin believes that it will be impossible to stop the climate from changing. “If we stop emitting CO2 today, it would still be there in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,” he tells Thiessen. “If we manage to reduce emissions a little bit, it’ll just accumulate at a slower rate but it’ll still go up.” Here, he is correct. But we have to try. How can we not?

We need to not just slow our climate-changing emissions, we have to halt them completely; we need to get to zero emissions. Although it will be complicated and difficult, this must be our goal. We will need to set the stage for possible innovative breakthroughs, and we need to work to use the technologies currently available to bring our net impact on the climate to zero. If we do so, we will not only save our planet, we will save our economy and position the U.S. to maintain its economic, technological, and moral leadership.

Reduce, Reuse, (and what was the other thing?)

This is a letter to the editor of the Brunswick Post regarding a Guest Column article about recycling in the City of Strongsville. Most is also applicable to Brunswick and other areas.

Thanks to Erin Lally for the informative Local Guest Column in Wednesday’s Post, ‘Let’s talk trash – and recycling!’ I live in Brunswick, where we also have curbside recycling (although there are a few differences from Strongsville). It’s good to be reminded about the importance and the protocol of recycling occasionally, and Erin Lally’s article did the trick.

In our part of Ohio, critics often gleefully point out two news items related to recycling. One is a report that the City of Cleveland is simply dumping recycling items in a landfill. This has been happening for at least two years, and the city still has not rectified the situation. Although this is a continuing problem for Cleveland, it doesn’t appear to be occurring in Strongsville, Brunswick, or other areas.

A second news item regarding recycling is the problem with plastic. Over a year ago, China drastically reduced the amount of plastic that it imports for recycling. This abrupt change is causing mountains of plastic trash to build up for U.S. recycling agencies. Our country and others are scrambling to find alternative approaches to the problem. There is no shortage of ideas, but scalability and economics are major concerns. It’s also the case that not all types of plastic can be effectively recycled. It appears that there is no fast and easy solution to the problem. I would also add that this plastic problem does not apply to paper, glass, metal, and other recycling.

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t recycle; we should. It’s far better for the environment to at least try to reuse material waste that would otherwise be placed in landfills. Please keep in mind Erin Lally’s and others’ mantra, “reduce, reuse, recycle,” and the priority should be in that order.

Clearing Snow off Solar Panels

 

When our solar panels were installed last summer, I didn’t think a whole lot about what would happen to them in the winter. I suppose I thought that snow would just slide right off, and we wouldn’t need to worry about them. Not quite. Now that the winter of 2020-2021 is raging, I would like to share a little of what I’ve learned.

Snow doesn’t always ‘slide right off.’ It does indeed slide off easier than it does from the asphalt shingles on the rest of the roof. And when there’s just a thin layer, it melts faster on the panels than it does on the rest of the roof. But if the snow is heavy, or if it turns to ice, it can last for a while on the panels. Is it worth the trouble to try to clear them off?

I gave this a little thought and also did a bit of research. On a bright winter day, the panels may produce power that’s worth a couple of dollars; perhaps three at most. Of course, it all depends on the panels’ angle, length of daylight hours, amount of cloudiness, etc. It also depends on how many panels you have. Then you need to multiply those three bucks by the number of days that the panels will retain their heavy snow covering. I decided to try to clear them off and purchased a “Snow Broom with 15 Ft Stainless Steel Heavy Duty Connecting Pole” from Amazon.

Although the foam head is light, and the stainless steel handle sections are light, when fully extended, the whole thing becomes awkward and difficult to use. I learned that I needed to still stand on a step ladder with the entire extended length to reach the highest panels. The ladder is mostly to provide the best leverage. I also learned that I need to clear the lower areas first, then work my way higher. As good as it all works, the work is very difficult. I become exhausted after just a few minutes.

I will say that it feels good to have the panels cleared off. But the work is so hard, I still wonder whether it’s worth it.

President Biden's Environmental Policies, So Far

President Biden has unleashed a flurry of executive orders related to the environment in general and climate change in particular. The most prominent of these is the United States’ commitment to rejoin the Paris Climate Accord. Many of the initiatives were to reverse Trump’s policies, some of which, in turn, were to undo Obama-era rules. Why all the back and forth? What does it mean to most Americans?

An executive order is a method of issuing federal directives in the United States to manage operations of the federal government. This includes the determination of how legislation is to be enforced, and other actions relating to emergencies and other policy. Although they are constitutionally legal unless reversed by the judicial branch, executive orders can be revoked by future presidents or acts of congress. Laws passed by congress are held to a higher standard according to the constitution and are more difficult to reverse.

According to Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, “President Biden has called climate change the No. 1 issue facing humanity. He understands all too well that meeting this test requires nothing less than a full-scale mobilization of American government, business, and society.” The executive order to recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement (which will enable the U.S. to hold polluters like China and India accountable) is only the first step. Biden’s other orders stop construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline expansion (which would have encouraged yet more Canadian oil sands extraction) and halt new oil and gas leases on federal lands and waters. They would not (and could not) stop other fossil fuel drilling.

With the understanding that the climate crisis is an overriding concern, Biden’s policies are the best way to address it at this point. Legislation to affirm these initiatives as well as to position the United States to regain our lost leadership in economic development, especially relating to renewable energy, must follow. Loss of jobs in fossil fuel production will be small compared with the substantial gains afforded by the innovation and creativity of a future-facing economy based on clean energy. Naturally, the question is, how can we move forward on something this important.

First, we need to recognize that although the climate may be mankind’s greatest challenge, it’s not the most immediate one. The Biden Administration must get the Coronavirus Pandemic under control. It’s gratifying to know that they’ve begun to take steps and to ‘own’ the problem. Although some environmental progress isn’t dependent on whether or not the pandemic is under control (and we can do two things at once), the problem is mostly one of perception.

Second, we will need to convince members of the Republican party to support such legislation. This is the heavy-lift part. The planet itself is lending urgency. Last year was the hottest year on record, the years from 2010 through 2019 make up the hottest decade ever. The irreversible effects of climate change have wreaked havoc across the globe, from devastating wildfires in Australia and California to rising sea levels, stronger storms, and widespread droughts.

Still not convinced? BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell Oil, the United States Chamber of Commerce, and the American Petroleum Institute all issued statements of support for President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris Accord. So did the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute. It seems that they welcome the regulation and the environmental stability that comes with good economic policy. Republicans should too.

The Environmental Impact of Renewable Energy

 

The generation of electrical power accounts for over 40 percent of the earth’s greenhouse gas emissions. It also creates a significant percentage of water and other air pollution. Therefore, the conversion to clean, renewable methods of power generation ought to be of utmost importance. In fact, due to revolutionary technical innovation and related economic factors, the changeover is happening now at an astounding speed. Coincidentally or not, this is also happening at a time when cities and countries around the world are pledging to move to net-zero emissions - to become 100% carbon-free within a few decades. As the United States rejoins to the Paris Climate Accord, we will likely see a more coordinated approach to clean energy commitments.

Is the effort worthwhile? In the vein of “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” we need to inquire about any possible ‘negative’ impact to the environment posed by renewable energy. Is it possible that we are only trading one type of pollution with another? There most certainly are at least some costs that need to be considered. What are they, how do they compare with the costs of using fossil fuels, and can they be mitigated?

Environmental Cost of Renewable Energy

Renewables include hydropower, geothermal, biomass, tidal power, as well as wind and solar power. Although hydroelectric energy makes up a huge percentage of the total renewable sources, the vast majority of the growth is from wind and solar sources. Since those two represent the future of energy production, we will concentrate on them.

Wind turbines pose a threat to birds and bats. There is some concern about some parts of the turbines – notably the blades – that are not recyclable once they have completed their life-cycle. In some cases, the large blades are taking up space in landfills.

Solar power can result in habitat loss as well as the use of some hazardous materials. Large solar arrays can displace native plant and animal habitats and use large amounts of water. Disposal of solar panels can be another source of pollution. Solar panels often contain cadmium, lead, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel.

Renewable Environmental Cost vs Fossil Fuel Environmental Cost

An article in ‘The Conversation’ evaluates whether green energy has hidden health and environmental costs. There are references to studies showing that although no energy source is without adverse environmental side effects, fossil fuels place the heaviest burden on the environment; most renewable power projects have lower pollution-related impacts on ecosystems and human health. Other studies have been published showing similar results. The conclusions are unmistakable.

Considering the overall environmental impact of wind and solar sources (even the waste) versus that of burning fossil fuels or nuclear power, the score isn’t even close. Yes, there is indeed environmental consequence from renewables; the costs are noted here and elsewhere. But wind and solar produce nearly zero greenhouse gases, and their overall environmental footprint is significantly lower than the burning of fossil fuels.

Nuclear power generation also generates no carbon dioxide but is not truly renewable. Furthermore, it causes pollution in terms of spent fuel, which, even after 60 years of use, is still not being properly and safely stored or disposed of.

Wind and solar win the environmental competition by a landslide.

How to Mitigate Renewable Environmental Pollution

Even though we’ve seen that renewable energy sources are clean relative to nuclear and the burning of fossil fuels, we’ve also acknowledged that they’re not without environmental consequence. Now that the impact has been identified, what can we do to reduce or eliminate it?

For wind power, siting is everything. To prevent as much loss as possible, wind farms should be kept away from major bird and bat migratory routes. This is being done with increasing success. Wind turbines should be constructed with the prospect of recycling in mind, and this too is in the works.

Photovoltaic and other solar energy components also need to be constructed and disposed of more sustainably. One solution is to include a fee on solar panel purchases to ensure that the cost of safely removing, recycling, or storing solar panel waste is incorporated into the price of solar panels. In addition, the federal or state government should enforce existing laws regarding the decommissioning of solar panels so that they do not end up in landfills. Finally, solar and all e-waste should be monitored at a global level. Strict regulation is key.

The entire life-cycle of any energy source should be considered when weighing economic and environmental factors. We need to be vigilant to ensure that we’re not creating new and additional ways to harm the environment. The good news is that renewables cause far less harm than alternatives and that they’re still improving.