Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on March 17, 2022 by curryja |
by Judith Curry
I have a new article published in the latest issue of International Affairs Forum.
The topic of this issue is Climate Change and Energy. Mine is one of twenty papers. A range of topics are covered. My article is the least alarmed among them. You may recognize several of the authors, which include Don Wuebbles and Bill McKibben.
Here is the text of my article:
A ‘Plan B’ for addressing climate change and the energy transition
Climate change is increasingly being referred to as a crisis, emergency, existential threat and most recently as ‘code red.’ Climate change has become a grand narrative in which manmade global warming is regarded as the dominant cause of societal problems. Everything that goes wrong reinforces the conviction that that there is only one thing we can do prevent societal problems – stop burning fossil fuels. This grand narrative leads us to think that if we urgently stop burning fossil fuels, then these other problems would also be solved. This sense of urgency narrows the viewpoints and policy options that we are willing to consider in dealing not only with our energy and transportation systems, but also regarding complex issues such as public health, water resources, weather disasters and national security.
So, exactly what is wrong with this grand narrative of climate change? In a nutshell, we’ve vastly oversimplified both the problem of climate change and its solutions. The complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity of the existing knowledge about climate change is being kept away from the policy and public debates. The dangers of manmade climate change have been confounded with natural weather and climate variability. The solutions that have been proposed for rapidly eliminating fossil fuels are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale.
How did we come to the point where we’re alleged to have a future crisis on our hands, but the primary solution of rapid global emissions reductions is deemed to be all but impossible? The source of this conundrum is that we have mischaracterized climate change as a tame problem, with a simple solution. Climate change is better characterized as a wicked mess. A wicked problem is complex with dimensions that are difficult to define and changing with time. A mess is characterized by resistance to change and contradictory and suboptimal solutions that create additional problems. Treating a wicked mess as if it is a tame problem can result in a situation where the cure is not only ineffective, but worse than the alleged disease.
Specifically with regards to climate science, there is some good news. Recent analyses from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the International Energy Agency (IEA) indicate that the extreme tail risks from global warming, associated with very high emissions and high climate sensitivity, have shrunk and are now regarded as unlikely if not implausible.
Further, the IPCC’s climate projections neglect plausible scenarios of natural climate variability, which are acknowledged to dominate regional climate variability on interannual to multidecadal time scales. Apart from the relative importance of natural climate variability, emissions reductions will do little to improve the climate of the 21st century – if you believe the climate models, most of the impacts of emissions reductions will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond.
How urgent is the need for an energy transition?
Under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the world is attempting to reach Netzero in carbon emissions by 2050. I refer to this as Plan A. Using the precautionary principle, Plan A is based on the premise that rapidly reducing CO2 emissions is critical for preventing future dangerous warming of the climate.
In spite of the numerous UN treaties and agreements to reduce emissions over the past two decades, the atmospheric CO2 concentration relentlessly continues to increase. By 2050, global emissions will be dominated by whatever China and India have done, or have failed to do. The IEA Roadmap to Netzero finds that there is a possible but very narrow pathway to Netzero by 2050, provided that there is a huge leap in energy innovation and major efforts to build new infrastructure. Others find reaching Netzero by 2050 to be a social and technological impossibility.
Terms such as ‘climate crisis’ and ‘code red for humanity’ are used by politicians and policy makers to emphasize the urgency of action to stop burning fossil fuels. Note that the IPCC itself does not use the words ‘crisis’, ‘catastrophe’, or even ‘dangerous’; rather it uses the term ‘reasons for concern.’ Apart from the scientific uncertainties, the weakest part of the UN’s argument about manmade global warming is that it is dangerous. The highest profile link to danger relies on linking warming to worsening extreme weather events, which is a tenuous link at best.
Any evaluation of dangerous climate change must confront the Goldilocks principle. Exactly which climate state is too hot versus too cold? Some answer this question by stating that the climate we are adapted to is ‘just right’. However, the IPCC uses a preindustrial baseline, in the late 1700’s. Why anyone thinks that this is an ideal climate is not obvious. This was during the Little Ice Age, the coldest period of the millennia. In the U.S., the states with by far the largest population growth are Florida and Texas, which are warm, southern states. Property along the coast – with its vulnerability to sea level rise and hurricanes – is skyrocketing in value. Personal preference and market value do not yet regard global warming as dangerous. While politicians in developed countries argue that we need to address climate change for the sake developing countries, addressing climate change ranks much lower in these countries than developing access to grid electricity.
The planet has been warming for more than a century. So far, the world has done a decent job at adapting to this change. The yields for many crops have doubled or even quadruped since 1960. Over the past century, the number of deaths per million people from weather and climate catastrophes have dropped by 97%. Losses from global weather disasters as a percent of GDP have declined over the past 30 years.
In addressing the challenges of climate change and the energy transition, we need to remind ourselves that addressing climate change isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change is not the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human well-being in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can.
All other things being equal, everyone would prefer clean over dirty energy. However, all other things are not equal. We need secure, reliable, and economic energy systems for all countries in the world. This includes Africa, which is currently lacking grid electricity in many countries. We need a 21st century infrastructure for our electricity and transportation systems, to support continued and growing prosperity. The urgency of rushing to implement 20th century renewable technologies risks wasting resources on an inadequate energy infrastructure, increasing our vulnerability to weather and climate extremes and harming our environment in new ways.
How the climate of the 21st century will play out is a topic of deep uncertainty. Once natural climate variability is accounted for, it may turn out to be relatively benign. Or we may be faced with unanticipated surprises. We need to increase our resiliency to whatever the future climate presents us with. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we sacrifice economic prosperity and overall societal resilience on the altar of urgently transitioning to 20th century renewable energy technologies. Alarmism about climate change misleads us and panic makes us less likely to tackle climate change smartly.
Towards a ‘Plan B’
Even without the mandate associated with global warming and other environmental issues, we would expect a natural transition away from fossil fuels over the course of the 21st century, as they become more expensive to extract and continue to contribute to geopolitical instability.
The problem is with the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels, driven by fears about global warming. By rapidly transitioning to this so-called clean energy economy driven by renewables, we’re taking a big step backwards in human development and prosperity. Nations are coming to grips with their growing over dependence on wind and solar energy. Concerns about not meeting electricity needs this winter are resulting in a near term reliance on coal in Europe and Asia. And we ignore the environmental impacts of mining and toxic waste from solar panels and batteries, and the destruction of raptors by wind turbines and habitats by large-scale solar farms.
Opponents of Plan A reject the urgency of reducing emissions. They state that we stand to make the overall situation worse with the simplistic solution of urgently replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar, which will have a barely noticeable impact on the climate of the 21st century.
Opponents of Plan A argue that its best to focus on keeping economies strong and making sure that everyone has access to energy. And finally, the argument is made that there are other more pressing problems than climate change that need to be addressed with the available resources.
Does all this mean we should do nothing in the near term about climate change? No. But given the problems with Plan A, we clearly need a Plan B that broadens the climate policy envelope. By considering climate change as a wicked mess, climate change can be reframed as a predicament for actively reimagining human life. Such a narrative can expand our imaginative capacity and animate political action while managing social losses.
We should work to minimize our impact on the planet, which isn’t simple for a planet with 8 billion inhabitants. We should work to minimize air and water pollution. From time immemorial, humans have adapted to climate change. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
Here’s a framework for how we can get to a Plan B. A more pragmatic approach to dealing with climate change drops the timelines and emissions targets, in favor of accelerating energy innovation. Whether or not we manage to drastically curtail our carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades, we need to reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate events.
To thrive in the 21st century, the world will need much more energy. Of course we prefer our energy to be clean, as well as cheap. To get there, we need new technologies. The most promising right now is small modular nuclear reactors. But there are also exciting advances in geothermal, hydrogen and others. And the technology landscape will look different ten years from now.
Developing countries don’t just want to survive, they want to thrive. We need much more electricity, not less. Going on an energy diet like we did in the 1970’s is off the table. We need more electricity to support innovation and thrivability in the 21st century. Consumption and growth will continue to increase throughout the 21st century. We need to accept this premise, and then figure out how we can manage this growth while protecting our environment.
In addressing the climate change problem, we need to remind ourselves that climate isn’t an end in itself, and that climate change isn’t the only problem that the world is facing. The objective should be to improve human wellbeing in the 21st century, while protecting the environment as much as we can. Climate-informed decision making that focuses on food, energy, water and ecosystems will support human wellbeing in the coming decades.
So what does a Plan B actually look like? Rather than top-down solutions mandated by the UN, Plan B focuses on local solutions that secure the common interest, thus avoiding political gridlock. In addition to reimagining 21st century electricity and transportation systems, progress can be made on a number of fronts related to land use, forest management, agriculture, water resource management, waste management, among many others. Human wellbeing will be improved as a result of these efforts, whether or not climate change turns out to be a huge problem and whether or not we manage to drastically reduce our emissions. Individual countries and states can serve as laboratories for solutions to their local environmental problems and climate-related risks.
Conclusions
It is an enormous challenge to minimize the environmental impact on the planet of 8 billion people. I have no question that human ingenuity is up to the task of better providing for the needs and wants of Earth’s human inhabitants, while supporting habitats and species diversity. But this issue is the major challenge for the next millennium. It is a complex challenge that extends well beyond understanding the Earth system and developing new technologies – it also includes governance and social values.
To make progress on this, we need to disabuse ourselves of the hubris that we can control the Earth’s climate and prevent extreme weather events. The urgency of transitioning from fossil fuels to wind and solar energy under the auspices of the UN agreements has sucked all the oxygen from the room. There’s no space left for imagining what our 21st century infrastructure could look like, with new technologies and greater resilience to extreme weather events, or even to deal with traditional environmental problems.
Humans do have the ability to solve future crises of this kind. However, they also have the capacity to make things much worse by oversimplifying complex environmental issues and politicizing the science, which can lead to maladaptation and poor policy choices. In 50 years time, we may be looking back on the UN climate policies, and this so-called green economy, as using chemotherapy to try to cure a head cold, all the while ignoring more serious diseases. In other words, the climate crisis narrative gets in the way of real solutions to our societal and environmental problems.
Climate change is just one of many potential threats facing our world today, a point made clear by the Covid-19 pandemic. Why should climate change be prioritized over other threats? There’s a wide range of threats that we could face in the 21st century: solar electromagnetic storms that would take out all space-based electronics including GPS and electricity transmission lines; future pandemics; global financial collapse; a mega volcanic eruption; a cascade of mistakes that triggers a thermonuclear, biochemical or cyber war; the rise of terrorism.
We can expect to be surprised by threats that we haven’t even imagined yet. Vast sums spent on attempting to prevent climate change come from the same funds that effectively hold our insurance against all threats; hence, this focus on climate change could overall increase our vulnerability to other threats. The best insurance against any and all of these threats is to try to understand them, while increasing the overall resilience of our societies. Prosperity is the best the indicator of resilience. Resilient societies that learn from previous threats are best prepared to be anti-fragile and respond to whatever threats the future holds.
Its a very sane and well balanced piece. I am afraid however that it doesn’t acknowledge the main difficulty.
This is correct. But the problem is the climate alarmist tendency is not in the slightest interested in human well being. Its a genuinely revolutionary movement working within the constraints of liberal democracy, but seeking in the end to overthrow it. Climate and Net Zero are nothing more than means to that end.
I don’t actually think the climate movement is even interested in the centerpiece of the theory, global emissions.
This may seem crazy and conspiratorial, but you can see this if you examine the policies advocated, which are a mixture of the irrelevant, the impossible and the ineffective. Its the essence of the movement that it does not adopt any structured and scientific approach to either human well being or the reduction of global emissions. If it were a priority for it to reduce global emissions it would lay out who is emitting and seek to get a program adopted which will result in their reduction.
What it in fact does is convene conferences which result in an agreement that the largest fastest growing emitters will continue to grow their emissions as much as they want, while the West bankrupts itself by taking actions to reduce local emissions on a scale which will make no impression on the level of the global emissions which are supposed to be the problem.
Sometimes people think the movement is indulging in the politics of gesture. It advocates ‘because climate’ policies which, on its own theories, can have no effect on climate.
This is a mistake. Its not the politics of gesture. Its the politics of internal subversion of liberal democracy in pursuit of a revolutionary agenda. We see this in the repeated claims that its a choice between climate catastrophe and democracy, and that it may be necessary and essential to suspend democracy in order to get the required climate measures through. Measures, note again, none of which will materially effect either global emissions or the global climate, and which will do a lot of damage to human well being and wildlife habitats.
Most of the things Judith advocates in the piece are sensible, balanced, and would be effective in improving human well being. And they would also safeguard the environment. But what dooms Plan B is that the climatarian movement is not interested in any of these things. The approach is a non-starter. Its not interested in human well being or the environment either locally or globally. In fact, despite the rhetoric about global catastrophe, its usually not much interested in any policies outside its own borders.
If you are interested and concerned about where this is all going, stop worrying about the scientific claims. Judith is of course right to say that climate catastrophism is unfounded, but its not the main issue, though its what figures most prominently in the media.
Focus instead on policies advocated. There are a couple of very clear examples, the GND in the US and the Net Zero proposals in the UK. Get into the detail, get into what their implementation would actually require and mean for social and political life in these countries. Not to mention their international position. Then you can see what is going on. The objective is revolutionary local change, by taking actions ‘because climate’ that will have no material effect on global emissions or the global climate.
That is because, despite the rhetoric, the aim of the movement is not global. Its to produce revolutionary social change in the local country.
Track the pea under the thimble. Its the advocated policy. That is the thing to focus on. What it means, and what it achieves in terms of global emissions. This is the only way you will see what this is really about.
“Net Zero” is similar to “To Serve Humans”.
No one stops to think what it is that will actually end up being zero.
The longer you sit at the beach the greater the chance of seeing the biggest wave ever.
Does the observation of the biggest wave mean that ocean waves are changing? That we face an existential threat?
Or does it mean the longer we watch something, the greater the chance we will see something unusual.
Climate science has not considered this. What is changing is not climate. The change is the length of our observations.
We have really only been studying climàte for a relatively short period of time. Every added year of observations increases the odds of seeing an event from 1 in N year to 1 in N + 1 year. When N is small the increase in probability is large.
The Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP): a fast track approach for eliminating fossil fuels from America’s economy
How far could Joe Biden go in quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels using his own authorities as President — authorities already granted to him under current law? This essay uses the conceptual framework of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP) as a vehicle for examining this question.
————————————————-
March 19th, 2022 Update: The energy policy impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are incorporated into the plan.
————————————————-
President Biden’s policy concerning energy and climate change is to achieve a 50% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. In addition, America’s power generation sector is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2035. America must be fully net zero by 2050.
Biden’s plan is to quickly replace fossil fuel energy with wind and solar energy backed by grid-scale energy storage and by a greatly expanded power transmission network.
With reference to climate change, as the President’s argument goes, America’s leadership in quickly reducing our own carbon emissions is essential for convincing other nations, especially China and India, to quickly reduce theirs.
With reference to American energy security, Brian Deese, Biden’s chief economic advisor, said this on March 8th, 2022 concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and America’s long term energy security: “The only viable path to energy independence for the American economy is to reduce the energy intensity of our economy overall; and ultimately, to get us in a position to where we are no longer reliant on fossil fuels.”
Brian Deese’s recent statement is an acknowledgement of the fact that President Biden’s policy goal of quickly reducing America’s consumption of energy is central to achieving both his climate objectives and his national security objectives.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy, wind and solar, is claimed to be the best solution, technically and economically. At the time of this writing, funding for renewable energy and for the Green New Deal is stalled in the Congress. Progressive members of Congress have called upon President Biden to declare a climate emergency and to use the full power of his office in quickly reducing America’s production and consumption of fossil fuels.
However, even if the Green New Deal were to be fully funded, it is impossible to install enough wind turbines, enough solar panels, enough energy storage facilities, and enough new transmission lines nearly as quickly as President Biden and progressive members of Congress say it must be done.
President Biden’s policy goals for climate action and for securing American energy independence cannot be met without imposing stringent and far-reaching energy conservation measures on America’s economy.
* Objectives of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan *
These are the primary objectives of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP):
Any fast-track approach for quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels must achieve these additional objectives:
1 — Motivate all energy consumers to quickly reduce their energy consumption.
2 — Be highly effective in quickly reducing America’s greenhouse gas emissions.
3 — Be highly effective in quickly reducing America’s consumption of fossil fuels.
4 — Be conceptually and operationally simple to implement, relatively speaking.
5 — Be in alignment with past regulatory practice and past legal precedent.
6 — Be constitutionally and legally defensible in the courts.
7 — Be formulated and written in a way which discourages lawsuits.
8 — Incentivize the participation of the fifty state governments in controlling carbon emissions.
9 — Incentivize the participation of private sector fossil energy corporations in reducing fossil fuel production.
* The Methods and Means of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan *
These are the methods and means through which the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan can be implemented without additional legislation from the Congress:
A – Establish a unified energy policy framework for carbon emission reductions and for fossil energy conservation measures which is highly resistant to legal challenges in the courts.
B – Integrate the President’s environmental protection authorities with his national security authorities under the umbrella of an Energy & Climate Crisis Response Plan (ECCRP).
C – Reprioritize those policy goals addressing quick reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions and in our fossil fuel energy consumption, placing them above all other environmental, social, and economic policy goals.
D – Incentivize energy conservation through imposing higher prices for all forms of energy and through imposing direct rationing of fossil fuel energy.
E – Redirect capital investments away from fossil fuels and towards wind and solar energy technologies backed by grid scale energy storage technology.
F – Consolidate all currently existing greenhouse gas reduction plans and agreements into the ECCRP and place these plans and agreements under direct federal control.
G – Identify yearly reductions in America’s carbon emissions as the primary metric for measuring progress in fighting climate change.
H – Identify yearly reductions in America’s consumption of fossil fuels as the primary metric for measuring progress in achieving American energy security and independence.
I – Expand and extend federal regulation of all greenhouse gases by classifying carbon emissions as criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
J – Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
K – Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
L – Establish a carbon fuel rationing program which directly constrains the production and distribution of all fossil fuels.
M – Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
N – Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
O – Indemnify and insulate carbon energy corporations against climate change lawsuits brought in the courts.
P – Ban the export of coal, liquefied natural gas, and crude oil to nations outside the North American continent after December 31st, 2029.
Q – Identify those lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, which are to be reserved by the federal government for wind, solar, energy storage, and power transmission development.
R – Bypass or remove any and all regulatory review and planning obstacles to the siting and construction of new wind and solar energy facilities.
S – Establish a hard-target schedule for closing the greater portion of America’s legacy fossil fuel energy production and support infrastructure.
T – Continuously monitor and assess America’s progress in achieving President Biden’s climate change and energy security policy goals.
* The Eight Program Elements of the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan *
These are the eight major program elements of the SSCECP:
Element I: Establish the legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions (1941-2022. Status ‘Complete’)
Element II: Declare a Carbon Pollution Crisis, a Climate Change National Security Crisis, and an Energy Independence National Security Crisis. (2022)
Element III: Expand and extend federal regulation and control of all carbon emissions (2022)
Element IV: Establish an expanded carbon emission regulation program managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
Element V: Establish a carbon fuel rationing program managed by the Department of Energy (2022)
Element VI: Establish a process for expedited energy project siting, permitting, and approval. (2022)
Element VII: Publish and implement a National Energy Infrastructure Transition Plan (2022)
Element VIII: Perform ongoing monitoring & control activities (2023 through 2050)
These are the lower-level implementation details of the SSCECP, organized by major program element:
SSCECP Element I: Establish the legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions (1941-2022. Status ‘Complete’)
I-a: Impose government-mandated energy rationing in response to a declared national emergency, World War II. (1941-1945)
I-b: Pass legislation establishing the regulation of harmful atmospheric pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (1970)
I-c: Establish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and further define and implement the process for controlling and reducing pollutants. (1970-2021)
I-d: File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007)
I-e: Publish a Clean Air Act Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009)
I-f: Successfully defend the Clean Air Act Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012)
I-g: Invoke a recent precedent, the War on Terror, for taking strong government action in response to an existential and long-lasting national security threat. (2001-2022)
I-h: Invoke a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020-2022)
I-i: Invoke a recent precedent, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for taking strong government action to quickly reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels. (2022)
SSCECP Element II: Declare a Carbon Pollution Crisis, a Climate Change National Security Crisis, and an Energy Independence National Security Crisis. (2022)
II-a: Issue an Executive Order declaring a Carbon Pollution Crisis under the President’s Clean Air Act (CAA) authorities.
II-b: Issue an Executive Order declaring a Climate Change National Security Crisis under the President’s national security authorities.
II-c: Issue an Executive Order declaring an Energy Independence National Security Crisis under the President’s national security authorities.
II-d: Issue an Executive Order placing all current regional, state, intra-state, and local GHG reduction plans and agreements under direct federal authority and control.
II-e: Issue an Executive Order banning the export of coal, liquefied natural gas, and crude oil to nations outside the North American continent after December 31st, 2029.
II-f: Publish an Energy & Climate Crisis Response Plan (ECCRP) which establishes a defined strategic mix among three major policy directions covering: a) zero-carbon energy production; b) energy conservation technology; and c) mandated energy conservation measures.
II-g: Establish a comprehensive list of carbon emission reduction targets plus a detailed strategy and plan for reducing each category of carbon emissions.
II-h: Establish a comprehensive list of fossil fuel reduction targets plus a detailed strategy and plan for reducing each category of fossil fuel consumption.
II-i: Establish a formal process for coordinating and reconciling America’s carbon emission reduction goals with its environmental justice, climate justice, and social justice goals.
II-j: Assign a Climate Crisis Joint Interagency Task Force (CCJITF) comprised of all cabinet level departments, plus the National Security Agency, to manage the actions taken under the Energy & Climate Crisis Response Plan.
II-k: Create a joint interagency control board to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
II-l: Place this control board under the direct supervision of the President and his national security staff.
II-m: Defend the President’s energy & climate crisis actions as needed in response to lawsuits filed in the courts.
SSCECP Element III: Expand and extend federal regulation and control of all carbon emissions (2022)
III-a: Issue an Executive Order further defining the character and scope of the Carbon Pollution Crisis.
III-b: Issue an Executive Order further defining the character and scope of the Climate Change National Security Crisis.
III-c: Issue an Executive Order further defining the character and scope of the Energy Independence National Security Crisis.
III-d: Issue an Executive Order further defining the scope and objectives of the Energy & Climate Crisis Response Plan (ECCRP).
III-e: Issue an Executive Order integrating all current regional, state, intra-state, and local GHG reduction plans and agreements into the ECCRP.
III-f: Issue an Executive Order establishing an expanded carbon emission regulation program to be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
III-g: Issue an Executive Order establishing a carbon fuel rationing program to be managed by the Department of Energy.
III-h: Issue an Executive Order establishing an ongoing program for continuous monitoring and control of carbon emission reduction activities.
III-i: Issue an Executive Order establishing an ongoing program for continuous monitoring and control of fossil energy rationing activities.
III-j: Issue an Executive Order suspending the application of anti-trust regulations in the energy marketplace.
III-k: Issue an Executive Order allowing for the suspension of portions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in order to expedite environmental reviews of new-build wind and solar facilities.
III-l: Issue an Executive Order granting authority to the President to reverse the final decisions of federal, state, and local permitting agencies if those decisions are deemed to be ‘not in the national interest’ as that stipulation is defined within the Energy & Climate Crisis Response Plan.
III-m: Issue an Executive Order granting authority to the President to assert federal eminent domain over all lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, identified as being necessary for the siting of new-build energy facilities.
III-n: Defend the President’s expansion of federal authority as needed in response to lawsuits filed in the courts.
SSCECP Element IV: Establish an expanded carbon emission regulation program managed by the Environmental Protection Agency (2022)
IV-a: Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
IV-b: Classify carbon emissions as ‘criteria pollutants’ under the Clean Air Act.
IV-c: Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
IV-d: Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
IV-e: Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
IV-f: Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.
IV-g: Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
IV-h: Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
IV-i: Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
IV-j: Establish the legal basis for sharing the revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines among the federal and state governments.
IV-k: Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.
SSCECP Element V: Establish a carbon fuel rationing program managed by the Department of Energy (2022)
V-a: Research and publish a system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing managed by the Department of Energy.
V-b: Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
V-c: Establish cooperative agreements with the state governments to enforce the federal government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
V-d: Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
V-e: Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
V-f: Indemnify and insulate the carbon fuels industry from climate change lawsuits in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
V-g: Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.
SSCECP Element VI: Establish a process for expedited energy project siting, permitting, and approval. (2022)
VI-a: Research and publish a system and process for expedited governmental review and permitting for the siting and construction of new-build wind, solar, energy storage, and power transmission facilities.
VI-b: Establish cooperative agreements with federal and state agencies for expedited reviews and approvals of energy infrastructure projects.
VI-c: Establish a register of new-build wind, solar, energy storage, and power transmission projects eligible for an expedited permitting review and approval process.
VI-d: For those projects listed on the expedited review register, establish a process and a procedure to be followed if the President reverses the final decisions of federal, state, and local permitting agencies, if those decisions are deemed ‘not in the national interest’.
VI-e: Establish a register of lands, waters, and properties, both publicly owned and privately owned, which may become the targets of federal reservation actions for the siting of new-build energy infrastructure.
VI-f: For those lands, waters, and properties listed in the reservation action register, establish a process and a procedure to be followed if the President asserts federal eminent domain over those lands, waters, and properties.
VI-g: Defend the government’s expedited siting, permitting, and environmental review processes in the courts.
SSCECP Element VII: Publish and implement a National Energy Infrastructure Transition Plan (2022)
VII-a: Research and publish a National Energy Infrastructure Transition Plan (NEITP) for the siting and construction of new-build wind, solar, energy storage, and power transmission facilities.
VII-b: Publish and implement a hard-target schedule for deployment of new-build wind and solar facilities, new-build grid-scale energy storage facilities, and new-build energy transmission capacity.
VII-c: Publish and implement a technology resource implementation plan which specifically identifies those energy technologies to be prioritized for near term investment, development, production, and deployment.
VII-d: Publish and implement a US Treasury policy plan for redirecting energy market financial investments as needed to support the federal government’s GHG and fossil fuel reduction goals.
VII-e: Publish and implement an Energy Infrastructure Land Use Plan (EILUP) which identifies those lands, waters, and properties, either publicly owned or privately owned, which are to be reserved by the federal government for wind, solar, energy storage, and power transmission development.
VII-f: Publish and implement an Energy Facility Closure Plan (EFCP) which specifically identifies which fossil energy facilities and their supporting infrastructures are to be permanently retired, including a specific target date for each facility and each infrastructure component.
VII-g: Defend the government’s national energy infrastructure transition plan in the courts.
SSCECP Element VIII: Perform ongoing monitoring & control activities (2023 through 2050)
VIII-a: Issue a further series of Executive Orders, as needed, to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework, America’s carbon fuel rationing program, the federal government’s expedited energy facility permitting process, and the government’s energy infrastructure transition plan.
VIII-b: Identify yearly reductions in America’s carbon emissions as the primary metric for measuring progress in fighting climate change.
VIII-c: Identify yearly reductions in America’s consumption of fossil fuels as the primary metric for measuring progress in achieving American energy security and independence.
VIII-d: Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulation framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
VIII-e: Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions and its fossil fuel consumption.
VIII-f: Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions and its fossil fuel consumption.
III-g: Monitor the effectiveness of carbon fuel rationing programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions and its fossil fuel consumption.
VIII-h: Monitor the progress of the National Energy Infrastructure Transition Plan in closing legacy fossil fuel energy facilities.
VIII-i: Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions and its consumption of fossil fuels lags.
VIII-j: Adjust the carbon fuel rationing targets upward if progress in reducing America’s dependence on fossil fuel lags.
VIII-k: Continue to defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations and the government-mandated energy rationing programs in the courts.
VIII-l: Continue to indemnify and insulate carbon energy corporations against climate change lawsuits brought in the courts.
VIII-m: Continue to assess the need for enforcing the government’s GHG reduction and fossil fuel rationing programs beyond the year 2050.
* GENERAL REMARKS *
The plan described above, the SSCECP, is a highly coercive approach for quickly reducing both our greenhouse gas emissions and our consumption of fossil fuels. It is also legal and constitutional under current law, both our national security law and our environmental protection law.
Moreover, the SSCECP is the ultimate expression of how a close alliance among government agencies and private corporations can be employed in promoting their mutual social, environmental, and profit making objectives.
The SSCECP can be implemented unilaterally by the Executive Branch using its existing environmental protection and national security authorities. Not another word of new legislation is needed from Congress either to enable the plan legally or to fund its operation.
Nor does the plan require a separate line of funding in the federal government’s budget. The planning activities and regulation roll-out activities are easily accomplished within the existing spending authorities of the US-EPA, the US-DOE, the US-DOT, the USDT and the US-DHS.
A plan like the SSCECP will generate many lawsuits. But if the plan is applied with equal force against all major sources of America’s carbon emissions, and with equal impact upon all affected economic sectors and demographic groups, those lawsuits will go nowhere. It is specifically designed to survive any lawsuits brought against it.
Even if the House of Representatives and the Senate were both in Republican hands in 2023 and passed legislation forbidding the adoption of a plan like the SSCECP, a Presidential veto can kill that legislation with the stroke of a pen.
And so the big question remains. How far will President Biden go in acting upon his stated convictions? Will he, or won’t he, do all that is in his power as our Chief Executive to reduce America’s carbon emissions and our consumption of fossil fuels just as far and as fast as he himself says is necessary?
————————————————————————————————
Disclosure: I’ve spent thirty-five years in nuclear construction and operations. Because the bulk of my occupational radiation exposure has come from beta-gamma sources, my internet handle is Beta Blocker.