Jim Hansen Calls Out Climate Impacts Of Biden’s “Inflation Reduction Act” Deal
“Wishful Thinking” – this approach is not working and will not work.”
“This is a climate suicide pact,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s self-defeating to handcuff renewable energy development to massive new oil and gas extraction. The new leasing required in this bill will fan the flames of the climate disasters torching our country, and it’s a slap in the face to the communities fighting to protect themselves from filthy fossil fuels.” ~~~ Center For Biological Diversity
Historical Intro Note:
I took the photo above at a November 2009 NYC protest, see: Jim Hansen Takes on NRDC and Bank of America.
In a remarkable continuity, back in 2009, Hansen was criticizing NRDC for their lame climate advocacy.
Since then, NRDC has maintained basically that posture – check out this quote from Inside Climate News on Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act oil and gas subsidy policies:
“It will provide an important incentive to curb methane emissions and to comply with EPA’s forthcoming rules,” David Doniger, NRDC
So now Oil-Gas corporate subsidies are good. We must pay polluters not to pollute. Regulatory mandates are too big a hit on corporate bottom line profits and must be paid for with public money. Wow.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions From Biden Inflation Reduction Act Are Inflated
By now, I’m sure you’ve all read or heard about the significant climate policy victories embedded in the Biden “Inflation Reduction Act” and how it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions – the models estimate – by up to 44%.
I’m not technically competent to critique the models that generated these estimates of emissions reductions, but I have basic quantitative skills and experience in how laws get implemented. Without going into detail, based on a cursory review, I can say that key assumptions of those models are absurd. To name just 4:
1) the carbon capture and sequestration technology is not feasible;
2) the huge rate of increase in renewable power capacity installation is unrealistic; (read the below caveats):
3) there is no guarantee that renewable power capacity displaces carbon sources of power, especially given technical integration of renewables and gas fired power.
See this excellent piece that explains all that:
I’ve call it “magical thinking”.
There likely will be growth in GHG emissions given projected economic growth, projected huge increases in energy demand (especially from electrification), continued promotion of leasing and development of fossil reserves, and investment and expansion of fossil and other GHG generating infrastructure in the bill (and the prior infrastructure bill).
Bernie Sanders Blasts “Huge Giveaways” To Fossil Fuel Industry In Manchin Deal
[Senator Sanders] raised concerns about the “billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies” that the oil and gas industry will receive under the measure
“In total, this bill will offer the fossil fuel industry up to 700 million acres of public lands and waters… to oil and gas drilling over the next decade.
“Under this legislation, up to 60 million acres of public waters must be offered up for sale each and every year to the oil and gas industry before the federal government could approve any new offshore wind development.”
Sanders also expressed alarm about the newly released side deal between Manchin and the Democratic leadership that would pave the way for approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline—a major fracked gas project that runs through West Virginia—and limit environmental reviews of new energy infrastructure.
It’s even worse than Sanders blasted. He didn’t mention huge subsidies to carbon capture, nuclear power, agriculture, “biofuels”, “sustainable aviation fuel”, logging, mining, pipelines, and electric power lines, among others.
4) I think “forest management” logging policies deeply undermine, if not wipe out, the assumed forest carbon sequestration assumptions. Logging is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition to inherent limitations of modeling, I’m also highly skeptical of the ability of modelers to understand laws and policy and how they are implemented in the real world.
Keep in mind that this cheerleading comes from the same “independent experts”, beltway environmental group sources, and media outlets who all claimed that the Obama EPA Clean Power Plan was “bold” and “transformative” and would deeply reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Fact check: the Obama EPA plan was blocked by the Supreme Court and private market forces reduced emissions deeper and faster. Here’s Justice Kagan in her dissent:
Right after the Obama administration issued the Clean Power Plan, the Court stayed its implementation. … The ensuing years, though, proved the Plan’s moderation. Market forces alone caused the power industry to meet the Plan’s nationwide emissions target.
Here are the embarrassing numbers, from the Supreme Court’s decision:
EPA explained that, while the Clean Power Plan “was projected to reduce CO2 emissions from the electric power sector by 2030 to a level approximately 32 percent below the level in 2005,” “[p]reliminary data indicates that CO2 emissions from the electric power sector in 2019 were 34 percent below the level in 2005.”).
You’re being fed the same line of cheerleading bullshit again on the Biden deal.
No need to take my word for it – I’m biased anyway, having called Biden a “climate fraud” – so here’s Jim Hansen’s take:
Let us remind you of the big picture, so as to put yesterday’s big news in perspective. The big news was not that there seems to be a political deal in Washington for actions that will reduce U.S. CO2 emissions significantly, making our emissions closer to those of Europeans, who emit less than half as much CO2 per capita as Americans. Such reduction is useful and overdue. It is consistent with the long-standing “wishful thinking” approach to climate policy – ask each nation to try to reduce their emissions and hope that the global results will add up to a solution. And then ignore the blatant scientific data showing that this approach is not working and will not work.
Oh, BTW – Recall that Biden State Dept. made much of US/China Joint Statement Addressing the Climate Crisis (April 2021) and the restoration of cooperation with China on climate policy back in November 2021. That got good press and praise by climate activists.
But Pelosi’s Taiwan stunt triggered retaliation from China, including ending cooperation with the US on climate .
(and, on the global front, there’s also the fact that Germany and Europe are re-firing coal plants and increasing use of oil to replace gas shortfalls prompted by US sanctions on Russia, while China, Russia, India, Iran, and South American oil producing countries form a new block and expand fossil production.)
Another “Heckofajob” Joe!
[End Note: When considering priorities suggested by the billions of dollars in the bill, keep in mind that this is a 10 year plan, so divide by 10: e.g. the $370 billion for renewable energy is just $37 billion/year. Compare that to the $800+ billion or so spent on the military, per year.