Shall we leave a restored planet, or one perilously hot by our
likely death late this century?
We need California to recalibrate high climate ambition
and seek net-zero CO₂ emissions as soon as possible while
keeping in line with the Kigali Amendment. We need the majority of
California’s, the US's, and the World’s power to be
from renewables, carbon-free energy storage, and have a carbon
intensity of 0. The UNFCCC/IPCC, IEA, Energy Innovation, and Ember
show we need to hit 100% clean energy by 2035 to keep 1.5ºC
possible.
(https://unfccc.int/news/updated-ndc-synthesis-report-worrying-trends-confirmed,
https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050,
https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/new-generation/,
https://energyinnovation.org/publication/85-percent-clean-electricity-by-2030-in-california/)
Is it not the realm of policy to incentivize the
best-desired outcome? While these report a good start: 100% clean
electric grid by 2035, we should go further and track faster to
net-zero to save off the worst exacerbated effects of climate
change such as drought, wildfire, wind erosion, local pollution,
sea-level change, ocean acidification, and reduced fisheries, not
to mention heat domes and ever-increasing new record-breaking
mega-storms.
Not only should we achieve this faster, but we
should export clean energy and deploy any additional infrastructure
and capacity to neighboring states, countries, and the developing
world. All this increased capacity and deployment will, like
Germany did for solar, push renewables further down the cost curve
enabling more deployment.
How can this be done?
Create policies to incentivize a dramatically lower cost
for renewables and grid storage, and keep the Solar PV deployments
YoY above 35% till 2030. The ideal is to have a 100% fossil
fuel-free grid, transportation, and industry to reach net-zero
emissions by 2031 (or sooner). Upgrade energy infrastructure
connections to allow the export of clean energy to neighboring
states and Mexico. Do everything in Rewiring America’s plan
to incentivize durable goods replacement to lower the electricity
burden and reduce the direct use of fossil fuels: heat pumps,
induction, LEDs, EVs, and electrified mass transit. Add more
policies that incentivize nature-based solutions and regenerative
agriculture. Stop methane leaks. Stop all new permitting of the new
expansion of fossil fuels. Phase out all fossil fuel subsidies in
the next couple of years. Stop and remove fossil fuel from
California state-run investments such as Calpers.
Incentivize
the clean/electric version or carbon mineralization technology for
any business that operates in California.
Analyze and create
ratching agreements to progressively increase overall emissions
reductions and incentivizes a 100% clean grid by
2030.
Given the current political climate for the US
and abroad, which in 2020 granted the fossil fuel industry over
5.9T USD in subsidies, per the IMF:
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Getting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004,
and estimated for 2022 the oil and gas industry is projected to
have profits exceeding 1.75 T USD, there ought to be funds that can
be moved from fossil subsidies and allow for more renewable
deployments and increase overall capacity. (See The additional
income expected for the oil and gas industry in 2022 would be
enough to fund nearly a decade of investment in low emissions fuels
and CCUS under the NZE Scenario, Gas Market Report, p107, Q2-2022,
IEA)
And why go faster than 100% fully electric by 2035 and faster
than net-zero by 2050?
Post COP26, the world is on track for 2ºC, with the
negotiated ambition to reach 1.8ºC by 2100.
To enable
keeping 1.5ºC a plausible forecast for 2100, the next ten
years are critical that we do everything necessary to reach zero
emissions globally. To avoid tipping points, the carbon budget: the
amount of emission left to burn is radically curtailed, so we reach
net-zero by 2031.
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1309191507191054336. To have
the possibility to do better than 1.5ºC and reach a
temperature similar to the 1900s (.2ºC about 300ppm) or even
1750 (0ºC and about 280 ppm), seeking the fastest path to zero
emissions in the next ten years is paramount. Since 1750 over 2.5
trillion tonnes of human-caused CO₂ have accumulated and
spread between the atmosphere, oceans, and land. (Global Carbon
Budget 2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022) This
anthropogenic debt will continue to hold temperatures above
pre-industrial until the CO₂ is mineralized or stored. Given
the quantity that should be removed and scaled fossil-free carbon
removal infrastructure doesn't exist, the best and most prudent
path is to sharply limit emissions with clean energy while
preferencing renewables, then use DAC and mineralization or
otherwise store the CO₂ and go net negative. There is simply
too much existing CO₂ pushing up beyond 420ppm to use
negative emissions and continue to expand fossil or even delay
reductions. Additionally, global temperature appears to have an
impulse before responding to a drop in emissions. Given a
hypothetical removal beyond reaching net-zero in 2025, the
temperature didn't have a corresponding drop until 2029.
https://bit.ly/CDRMExppnt
We ought to do everything to safeguard our future and not
just hold the status quo.
Please refer to this comment as a guide in drafting new
scoping plans to radically curtail emissions in this critical
decade.
Sincerely,
Shannon A. Fiume
|