#fossil fuel reduction

[creativemedianews]

Ofgem approves Britain's largest grid investment for 'electricity super highway'

Ofgem approves Britain's largest grid investment for 'electricity super highway' #climatetargets #EasternGreenTwo

[meteorologistaustenlonek]

"An oil executive is leading the UN climate summit. It’s going as well as you’d expect."

“#AlJaber’s comments are absurd and troubling, betraying both an ignorance about the science and a dismissiveness about the need for rapid #decarbonization, which is at the very center of the proceedings over which he is in principle presiding as #COP28 president,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist #MichaelEMann told Vox.

"“The outcome of COP28 must be that all the oil, gas, and coal nations of the world see that now we are truly at the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era for the world economy. And that we are now starting to bend the curve, properly,” Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told CNBC."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Igor Bobic and Chris D'Angelo at HuffPost:

Former President Donald Trump is more than happy to fulfill the oil and gas industry’s wish list if he’s reelected — but he has an asking price. Trump reportedly solicited top oil and gas executives to give $1 billion for his campaign to return to the White House, vowing in return to undo many of President Joe Biden’s green energy policies if he is elected in November.

Trump hosted the country’s top fossil fuel CEOs at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida last month when he “stunned” executives with the ask, according to The Washington Post. The $1 billion sum would ultimately be a “deal” for the fossil fuel industry, Trump reportedly told the executives, because of the money they would save with him in office. An anonymous industry source told the Post that Trump is likely to get some funds. The oil and fossil fuel industry has long made its alliances with the Republican Party, which generally supports and promotes fossil fuels. Ahead of the 2024 election, the industry has been drawing up “ready-to-sign” executive orders for Trump if he wins the presidency, aimed at expanding natural gas exports and increasing offshore oil leases, Politico reported this week.

A second Trump term would mean a sharp departure from Biden’s agenda of clean energy, electric vehicles and historic efforts to fight climate change. The former president has falsely called global warming a “hoax” and has vowed to unravel Biden’s landmark climate programs included in the Inflation Reduction Act. Republicans have spent the entirety of Biden’s term condemning what they describe as the administration’s “war” on energy, even though U.S. oil production and exports of natural gas have never been higher. They accuse Biden of being beholden to “radical environmentalists” — an ironic talking point given Trump and the GOP’s unflinching loyalty to the fossil fuel industry.

[...] Trump appears to be laying the groundwork to quickly implement many of the policy priorities of Project 2025, the sweeping blueprint that right-wing organizations have compiled to guide Trump if he is reelected in November. Certain sections of that pro-Trump memorandum are little more than an oil industry wish list. As HuffPost previously reported, the energy section of the chapter for the Interior Department was authored by Kathleen Sgamma, the president of the Western Energy Alliance, a prominent oil and gas trade association. Trump’s quid pro quo with the industry comes as the world’s coral reefs are in the midst of a global bleaching event — only the fourth such event on record. Hundreds of climate scientists told The Guardian this week that global temperatures are on track to soar well beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, the aspirational goal of the landmark Paris climate accords. For years, scientists have warned about the disastrous consequences of failing to keep temperatures under the 1.5-degree mark, from rising seas and increasingly extreme weather to famines and severe social and economic disruptions. The fossil fuel industry is most responsible for the crisis and has spent decades denying and downplaying the threat, with the help of industry-allied Republicans.

Donald Trump is in the pocket of Big Oil executives, as he told its magnates he wants $1BN to undo President Joe Biden’s clean energy and green initiatives to instead push the pro-fossil fuels and climate change denialist agenda.

[dyanamic]

The world marks a historic moment as the last coal power plant shuts down, signaling the end of an era and a bold step toward a sustainable, clean energy future. 

[touchaheartnews]

Challenges Facing the Rollout of CNG Vehicles: An Investigation

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles have been promoted as a cleaner and more sustainable alternative to traditional gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles. As countries worldwide push for greener transportation solutions to address climate change, reduce air pollution, and decrease dependence on fossil fuels, CNG has emerged as a promising option. However, despite its potential, the widespread…

[calicojack1718]

How Does the Wealth Pump Work to Transfer Billions from the Middle Class to the 10%?

We are systematically transferring billions of dollars a year from the middle class to the wealthy, increasing the wealth gap & impoverishing everyone else. Here are two examples of how the wealth pump is taking your money & Biden is stemming the flow.

SUMMARY: In this post, we use Cliodynamics, which involves studying history through big data analysis, to explain how the wealth pump transfers wealth from the 90% to the top 10%. That’s called the wealth pump, and it signifies hard times ahead. We’ll look at two examples, Vivek Ramaswamy’s pump and dump scheme using an Alzheimer drug and subsidies for the fossil fuels industry. We’ll also look…

[reasonsforhope]

The European Union’s greenhouse gas emissions fell 8.3% in 2023 as a surge in renewable energy installations helped displace coal.

This means the bloc’s emissions have declined 37% since 1990, while its economy has grown 68% over the same period.

The divergence indicates “the continued decoupling of emissions and economic growth,” the European Commission said in an update, adding that the region is on track to reach its target of reducing emissions by at least 55% by 2030.

According to an analysis by the European Environment Agency, based only on existing climate measures and planned actions, the EU will reduce its emissions by 49% by 2030.

Electricity and heating lead the way

Emissions from electricity production and heating under the region’s emissions trading system (ETS) dropped 24% in 2023, compared to the previous year, per the Commission.

Set up in 2005, the ETS is widely viewed as a key driver of the bloc’s decarbonisation. In 2023, it generated revenues of €43.6 billion in 2023 for climate action investments.

However, some sectors are still moving in the wrong direction. For instance, aviation emissions grew 9.5% last year as the sector continued to rebound in the wake of the pandemic.

More to be done

“The EU is leading the way in the clean transition, with another year of strong greenhouse gas emission reductions in 2023,” said Wopke Hoekstra, commissioner for climate action.

“As we head off soon to COP29, we once again demonstrate to our international partners that it is possible to take climate action and invest in growing our economy at the same time,” Hoekstra added. “Sadly, the report also shows that our work must continue, at home and abroad, as we are seeing the harm that climate change is causing our citizens.”

In a separate statement, Leena Ylä-Mononen, executive director of the European Environment Agency, said climate change impacts were “accelerating”, meaning the bloc needed to become more resilient to extreme weather while also slashing emissions.

In the second quarter of 2024, renewables accounted for 52% of all electricity generated in the EU, a 6 percentage point increase in a year. Nuclear generation was up slightly and comprised 24% of the mix, meaning clean sources made up 76% of the region’s total electrical output.

-via The Progress Playbook, November 1, 2024

[hinge]

Hinge presents an anthology of love stories almost never told. Read more on https://no-ordinary-love.co

[mostlysignssomeportents]

An end to the climate emergency is in our grasp

On June 20, I'm keynoting the LOCUS AWARDS in OAKLAND.

The problem with good news in the real world is that it's messy. Neat happy endings are for novels, not the real world, and that goes double for the climate emergency. But even though good climate news is complicated and nuanced, that doesn't mean it shouldn't buoy our spirits and fill our hearts with hope.

The big climate news this past week is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's clarion call about surging CO2 levels – the highest ever – amid a year that is on track to have the largest and most extreme series of weather events in human history:

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/during-year-of-extremes-carbon-dioxide-levels-surge-faster-than-ever

This is genuinely alarming and you – like me – have probably experienced it as a kind of increase in your background radiation of climate anxiety. Perhaps you – like me – even experienced some acute, sit-bolt-upright-in-bed-at-2AM anxiety as a result. That's totally justifiable. This is very real, very bad news.

And yet…

The news isn't all bad, and even this terrible dispatch from the NOAA is best understood in context, which Bill McKibben provides in his latest newsletter post, "What You Want is an S Curve":

https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/what-you-want-is-an-s-curve

Financier and their critics should all be familiar with Stein's Law: "anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop." This is true outside of finance as well. One of the reasons that we're seeing such autophagic panic from the tech companies is that their period of explosive growth is at an end.

For years, they told themselves that they were experiencing double-digit annual growth because they were "creating value" and "innovating" but the majority of their growth was just a side-effect of the growth of the internet itself. When hundreds of millions of people get online every year, the dominant online services will, on average, gain hundreds of millions of new users.

But when you run out of people who don't have internet access, your growth is going to slow. How can it not? Indeed, at that point, the only ways to grow are to either poach users from your rivals (through the very expensive tactics of massive advertising and sales-support investments, on top of discounts and freebies as switching enticements), or to squeeze your own users for more.

That's why the number of laptops sold in America slowed down. It's why the number of cellphones sold in America slowed down. It's why the number of "smart home" gizmos slowed down.

Even the steepest hockey-stick-shaped exponential growth curve eventually levels off and becomes an S-curve, because anything that can't go on forever will eventually stop.

One way or another, the world's carbon emissions will eventually level off. Even if we drive ourselves to (or over) the brink of extinction and set up the conditions for wildfires that release all the carbon stored in all the Earth's plants, the amount of carbon we pump into the atmosphere has to level off.

Rendering the Earth incapable of sustaining human civilization (or life) is the ultimate carbon reduction method – but it's not my first choice.

That's where McKibben's latest newsletter comes in. He cites a new report from the Rocky Mountain Institute, which shows a major reversal in our energy sources, a shift that will see our energy primarily provided by renewables, with minimal dependence on fossil fuels:

https://rmi.org/insight/the-cleantech-revolution/

The RMI team says that in this year or next, we'll have hit peak demand for fossil fuels (a fact that is consistent with NOAA's finding that we're emitting more CO2 than ever). The reason for this is that so much renewable energy is about to come online, and it is so goddamned cheap, that we are about to undergo a huge shift in our energy consumption patterns.

This past decade saw a 12-fold increase in solar capacity, a 180-fold increase in battery storage, and a 100-fold increase in EV sales. China is leading the world in a cleantech transition, with the EU in close second. Cleantech is surging in places where energy demand is also still growing, like India and Vietnam. Fossil fuel use has already peaked in Thailand, South Africa and every country in Latin America.

We're on the verge of solar constituting an absolute majority of all the world's energy generation. This year, batteries will overtake pumped hydro for energy storage. Every cleantech metric is growing the way that fossil fuels did in previous centuries: investment, patents, energy density, wind turbine rotor size. The price of solar is on track to halve (again) in the next decade.

In short, cleantech growth looks like the growth of other technologies that were once rarities and then became ubiquitous overnight: TV, cellphones, etc. That growth isn't merely being driven by the urgency of the climate emergency: it's primarily a factor of how fucking great cleantech is:

https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/the_incredible_inefficiency_of_fossils.pdf

Fossil fuels suck. It's not just that they wreck the planet, or that their extraction is both politically and environmentally disastrous. They just aren't a good way to make energy. About a third of fossil fuel energy is wasted in production and transportation. A third! Another third is wasted turning fossil fuels into energy. Two thirds! The net energy efficiency of fossil fuels is about 37%.

Compare that with cleantech. EVs convert electricity to movement with 80-90% efficiency. Heat pumps are 300% efficient (the main fuel for your heat pump is the heat in the atmosphere, not the electricity it draws).

Cleantech is just getting started – it's still in the hockey-stick phase. That means those efficiency numbers are only going up. Rivian just figured out how to remove 1.6 miles of copper wire from each vehicle. That's just one rev – there's doubtless lots of room for more redesigns that will further dematerialize EVs:

https://insideevs.com/news/722265/rivian-r1s-r1t-wiring/

As McKibben points out, there's been a lot of justifiable concern that electrification will eventually use up all our available copper, but copper demand has remained flat even as electrification has soared – and this is why. We keep figuring out new ways to electrify with fewer materials:

https://www.chemanalyst.com/NewsAndDeals/NewsDetails/copper-wire-price-remains-stable-amidst-surplus-supply-and-expanding-mining-25416#:~:text=Global%20Copper%20wire%20Price%20Remains%20Stable%20Amidst%20Surplus%20Supply%20and%20Expanding%20Mining%20Activities

This is exactly what happened with previous iterations of tech. The material, energy and labor budgets of cars, buildings, furniture, etc all fell precipitously every time there was a new technique for manufacturing them. Renewables are at the start of that process. There's going to be a lot of this dematerialization in cleantech. Calculating the bill of materials for a planetary energy transition isn't a matter of multiplying the materials in current tech by the amount of new systems we'll need – as we create those new systems, we will constantly whittle down their materials.

What's more, global instability drives cleantech uptake. The Russian invasion of Ukraine caused a surge in European renewables. The story that energy prices are rising due to renewables (or carbon taxes) is a total lie. Fossil fuels are getting much more expensive, thanks to both war and rampant, illegal price-fixing:

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/an-oil-price-fixing-conspiracy-caused

If not for renewables, the incredible energy shocks of the recent years would be far more severe.

The renewables story is very good and it should bring you some comfort. But as McKibben points out, it's still not enough – yet. The examples of rapid tech uptake had big business on their side. America's living rooms filled with TV because America's largest businesses pulled out all the stops to convince everyone to buy a TV. By contrast, today's largest businesses – banks, oil companies and car companies – are working around the clock to stop cleantech adoption.

We're on track to double our use of renewables before the decade is over. But to hold to the (already recklessly high) targets from the Paris Accord, we need to triple our renewables usage. As McKibben says, the difference between doubling and tripling our renewables by 2030 is the difference between "survivable trouble" and something much scarier.

The US is experiencing a welcome surge in utility scale solar, but residential solar is stalling out as governments withdraw subsidies or even begin policies that actively restrict rooftop solar:

https://twitter.com/curious_founder/status/1798049929082097842?s=51

McKibben says the difference between where we are now and bringing back the push for home solar generation is the difference between "fast" and "faster" – that is the difference between tripling renewables by 2030 (survivable) and doubling (eek).

Capitalism stans who argue that we can survive the climate emergency with market tools will point to the good news on renewable and say that the market is the only way to transition to renewables. It's true that market forces are partly responsible for this fast transition. But the market is also the barrier to a faster (and thus survivable) transition. The oil companies, the banks who are so invested in fossil fuels, the petrostates who distort the world's politics – they're why we're not much farther along.

The climate emergency was never going to be neatly solved. We weren't going to get a neat novelistic climax that saw our problems sorted out in a single fell swoop. We're going to be fighting all the way to net zero, and after that, we'll still have decades of climate debt to pay down: fires, floods, habitat loss, zoonotic plagues, refugee crises.

But we should take our wins. Even if we're far from where we need to be on renewables, we're much farther along on renewables than we had any business hoping for, just a few years ago. The momentum is on our side. It's up to us to use that momentum and grow it. We're riding the hockey-stick, they're on that long, flat, static top of the S-curve. Their curve is leveling off and will start falling, ours will grow like crazy for the rest of our lives.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/12/s-curve/#anything-that-cant-go-on-forever-eventually-stops

[phoenixyfriend]

I think that one of the things I find most frustrating about the tariffs conversation (and I find a lot of it frustrating) is... well, okay, it's two things, which are related:

ONE: MAGA are stealing leftist talking points

TWO: That's not how protectionist tariffs work. (This is probably the more important one.)

So.

ONE: The rhetoric of 'temporary hardship to reach eventual greater collective stability' is something that the left generally says with a little more sincerity, oftentimes with things like taxes for public infrastructure or welfare.

It also generally means that everyone experiences a touch of hardship, but the wealth is reinvested into the economy to boost the collective good; the sincerity is low with centrists, but higher with the far left.

The hardship is also more likely to not be moving money to the wealthy, something that is very much happening here. There are some massive shortfalls in tax income these past few years, some of which have been going on for decades, like the subsidization of the fossil fuel industry or unusually high investment in the military, but a big one recently has been the 2017 tax cuts that Trump introduced for the wealthy in his first term. They are, from articles I've seen, responsible for trillions in lost revenue per year sine their introduction, and while they expire in 2025, Trump and this Republican Congress have made it clear that they intend to extend those tax cuts as long as they can. The tariffs are to cover that gap in the budget, meaning that everyone is paying more in taxes, on goods that are disproportionately consumed by the lower and middle classes, in order to cover the tax breaks that billionaires got.

Very much stealing from the poor to give to the rich! That's what the tariffs are about!

e.g. yes you're paying a few extra dollars in taxes this year, but it's being invested in developing a free and reduced school lunch program; while you won't see any immediate benefits, and you'll be a little strapped for cash for month or two if you're living paycheck to paycheck, but you'll see a huge load off your mind come September. Could also be a few extra dollars for an infrastructure project, which takes ten years to build... but once it's built, your commute is cut in half because of the new bridge, or the electricity is subsidized by some new wind farms, or the landfill has been assessed and built over to be a safe, clean park. This second example about infrastructure is Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which fed money into infrastructure work and other major projects across the country; in many cases, state Senators, congresspeople, and governors who had voted or campaigned against the IRA would then take credit for the benefits their constituents saw.

TWO: You can't use protectionist tariffs to revive local industry without investing in it. High tariffs can minimize damage to the economy if the industry hasn't already left.

If the factories are still around, and the employees are still there and knowledgeable, and the resources haven't been left to diminish on their own, then you protect them with tariffs in the immediate aftermath of a shift in the status quo. You prevent the 'theft of business' with the tariffs, and since it all just seems to be business as usual domestically, it's a blip in the radar for consumers. A bit more complicated if the domestic market has also been exporting the product, as markets abroad will shift to the cheaper product you are protecting against, but you now have a bit more time to innovate a reason to keep market share.

If the industry has been allowed to diminish, or never really existed in the first place (we can't grow coffee or bananas or avocado or mangos at an industry scale, we do not have the weather for it), then a sudden implementation of protectionist tariffs will pass costs along to the consumer until the industry is up and running again.

You know how you fix that? Subsidize the industry you're trying to revive.

In 1910, there were 144,607 people employed in clothing factories in the US (1910 census, employment). This doesn't include people working in shoe factories (181,010), tanneries (33,553), dressmakers and seamstresses (449,342; presumably separated from the first statistic by not being in a factory), dyers (14,050), sewers and sewing machine operatives (291,209), shoemakers and cobblers not in factories (69,570), and the hundreds of thousands of people in the textiles alone (I'm not doing the math, but it's over a million). So we're looking at several million people in the garment industry in the US, in 1910.

In 2020, the combined category of Textile, Apparel, and Furnishing employment contained a total of 16,510 people.

You cannot bring an industry like that back to the US without heavily, heavily subsidizing it to

A. Keep the costs down to where the public can still buy clothing without making it so the people suddenly in this industry are paid pennies on the hour.

B. Train this new generation of people in an industry that barely exists anymore.

C. Build the infrastructure to support the industry, from cotton gins to sewing factories.

You can't bring back an industry that was in the millions in 1910 when there are less than 20,000 people doing it now, in a population that has more than tripled (92mill in 1910, 331mill in 2020).

I just. You have to feed those tariffs into rebuilding the industry. You can't feed them into tax breaks for the wealthy if your stated goal is to rebuild industry. I know that feeding money to his rich friends is the goal for Trump, but I'm so incredibly frustrated that people don't seem to get the basic functions of protectionist tariff application.

Almost forgot to advertize myself since this was just me venting about current events, inspired by a LegalEagle video, but:

Prompt me on ko-fi! I’m trying to move out of my parents’ house.

[hope-for-the-planet]

From the article:

The [green hydrogen] facility has become an example of how oil-rich states like Texas — which leads the nation in annual wind power production and is behind only California in annual solar power production — are buying into the renewable energy boom. Much of this investment was spurred by former President Joe Biden’s administration and his legislative goals, such as the roughly $500 billion that Congress set aside through its approval of the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act in 2022.   This eagerness to invest in renewable energy has come at a time when climate change has driven average global temperatures to roughly 1.1 degrees Celsius (and steadily climbing) above pre-industrial levels. To stave off the worst of the ongoing climate crisis’s effects, domestically and abroad, renewable sources like green hydrogen bear promise, scientists say. And that promise is already being fulfilled in nations like China, Saudi Arabia, and Sweden, all of whom are global leaders in green hydrogen production facilities that are in final planning or financing phases, according to a hydrogen projects data tracker published by the International Energy Agency last year.  Meanwhile, in the U.S., some 67 green hydrogen projects are planned through at least 2029, according to an energy transition paper published by the workforce solutions company Airswift.  The alternative fuel has always had promise, says Dr. Alan Lloyd, a renewable energy researcher at the University of Texas. It’s not a future pipe dream, he adds. But rather, now, “it’s happening.”

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from Common Dreams:

Climate defenders and farmers sued the Trump administration in federal court on Monday over "the U.S. Department of Agriculture's unlawful purge of climate-related policies, guides, datasets, and resources from its websites."

The complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York by Earthjustice and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on behalf of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY).

The case focuses on just one part of Republican President Donald Trump's sweeping effort to purge the federal government and its resources of anyone or anything that doesn't align with his far-right agenda, including information about the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency.

"USDA's irrational climate change purge doesn't just hurt farmers, researchers, and advocates. It also violates federal law several times over," Earthjustice associate attorney Jeffrey Stein said in a statement. "USDA should be working to protect our food system from droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather, not denying the public access to critical resources."

Specifically, the groups accused the department of violating the Administrative Procedure Act, Freedom of Information Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act. As the complaint details, on January 30, "USDA Director of Digital Communications Peter Rhee sent an email ordering USDA staff to 'identify and archive or unpublish any landing pages focused on climate change' by 'no later than close of business' on Friday, January 31."

"Within hours, and without any public notice or explanation, USDA purged its websites of vital resources about climate-smart agriculture, forest conservation, climate change adaptation, and investment in clean energy projects in rural America, among many other subjects," the document states. "In doing so, it disabled access to numerous datasets, interactive tools, and essential information about USDA programs and policies."

EWG Midwest director Anne Schechinger explained that "by wiping critical climate resources from the USDA's website, the Trump administration has deliberately stripped farmers and ranchers of the vital tools they need to confront the escalating extreme weather threats like droughts and floods."

[hinge]

Hinge presents an anthology of love stories almost never told. Read more on https://no-ordinary-love.co

[femboycatofmystery]

Hey folks let me anti-doomscroll you for a quick second:

Batteries and Solar have been getting cheap very quickly for a long time now and not only is it not stopping, but even at the rates it's at the economics of energy are shifting rapidly. The costs of decarbonizing all forms of electric power are now more down to infrastructure and planning than bulk cost. Compare and contrast to the turn of the century when Solar was so prohibitively expensive that saying we'd meet any meaningful fraction of our needs with photovoltaics would have gotten you laughed out of the room.

Meanwhile, although there are lots of complicated moving parts and a surprising amount of gross politics attached, gas cars are now less good in most ways than electric. Again, at the turn of the century this would have sounded laughable.

Many industries have specific needs that prevent direct conversion to electric, but hydrocarbon fuels are not intrinsically fossil fuels and can be made as a storage medium for solar. Hydrocarbon fuels made in this way are intrinsically carbon neutral. The technology is relatively young, but from a basic math perspective looks very doable.

Inflation actually has more to do with the above than it does with whatever it is the federal reserve does, and pulling down a supply of energy from the sky that requires less infrastructure to get (which is true because that's why it's cheaper now) directly helps.

The current "business as usual" scenarios with global warming are lower than they used to be, because the solar transition is just sort of happening because of economics without a lot of government help. All of the above lower the amount of friction and pushback we face when trying to get the government to do something.

By the way, the Inflation Reduction Act, passed by Joe Biden a couple years back, is explicitly designed to accelerate these trends.

As disastrous as the current projections for global warming are, it's important to keep two things in perspective: first, that they are exactly that, disasters, not the end-of-the-world kind but more sort of the hurricanes and floods kind, and second, while they certainly will get worse before they get better, they can and will get better. What we do now from a policy perspective has an outsize impact on how much flooding, droughts, and other weather-related costs we will face in the decades to come, but "human civilization ends" is not actually particularly likely. It is much more realistic to say "we could have a huge number of climate-related disasters or a moderately increased number, and every little bit of policy work helps move the needle".

We can and we will solve global warming, the question is not if but when, and how many lives can we save or improve by acting as soon as possible. Imagining this as an almost-certain death sentence for the future of humanity and nature is not merely unrealistic, but wildly counterproductive. It is paralyzing and enervating when what will do the most good is planning, policy, and communication.

Remember, despair is not a tool for positive change. Hope is the real language of revolution.

[saywhat-politics]

Politics

Republicans propose gutting Biden climate bill for Trump tax cuts

By Seiji Yamashita, Tracy J. Wholf

May 15, 2025 / 12:31 AM EDT / CBS News

House Republicans Wednesday moved forward with a tax bill to cut billions of dollars in climate-related funding, reduce regulations and prematurely phase out clean energy tax credits as part of President Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill." 

The heart of the Republican budget legislation targets key climate and energy provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cuts would impact businesses and consumers, affecting renewable energy, manufacturing, energy efficiency and electric vehicles. Concurrently, House Republicans proposed streamlining permitting for fossil fuels, rescinding Clean Air Act pollution funding and allocating $2 billion to the strategic petroleum reserve. 

The Inflation Reduction Act has led to $321 billion worth of climate investment being completed, with $522 billion worth of investments still in process, according to a report from the Clean Investment Monitor. Congress was tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in spending cuts to fund Mr. Trump's tax cuts.

House Republicans are hoping to have a floor vote next week prior to Memorial Day, after which the bill will go to the Senate. 

[zvaigzdelasas]

Hydrogen-powered trucks are expected to reach life-cycle cost parity with their fossil-fuel-burning peers in China by 2027 even without the aid of subsidies, a milestone which the world’s biggest producer and consumer of the zero-emission energy source, seeks to achieve eight years ahead of Europe.

This will push forward the country’s ambition to dominate the market for hydrogen fuel cells in the transport sector as Beijing’s enabling environment starts paying off, an industry executive said.[...]

“China has developed a world-leading industry in commercial vehicle applications for hydrogen fuel cell technology, with enterprises ranging from upstream raw materials to downstream products over the past decade,” said Robin Lin, chairman and president of Refire Group, a Chinese supplier of hydrogen fuel cell technologies.[...]

China has stepped up its game this year with the central and local authorities releasing a variety of hydrogen-related policies and incentives, following the release of its first national-level guidelines for the hydrogen energy industry in 2023.

Nearly a third of its end-2023 fleet of 18,000 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were sold last year alone, according to data from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, indicating the gathering pace. In a further sign of accelerating offtake, China targets to have at least 50,000 units on the road by 2025, according to its national plan.

According to Lin, China has seen significant reduction in the manufacturing cost of hydrogen fuel cell systems, which account for roughly half the cost of a hydrogen vehicle. The cost has dived from over 30,000 yuan per kilowatt in 2015 to less than 4,000 yuan per kilowatt now.[...]

“In transport, heavy-duty trucks could be the first to achieve successful commercialisation of hydrogen fuel cell technology,” he said.[...]

In China, high-purity hydrogen generated as a by-product from industrial processes, such as Shanxi province, is around 25 to 40 yuan per kilogram at local hydrogen refuelling stations, while high-purity hydrogen in other regions, such as Shanghai, is around 50 to 70 yuan per kilogram at local hydrogen refuelling stations, according to Refire.

13 May 24

[probablyasocialecologist]

The degrowthers are right: There needs to be a lot less physical stuff produced, especially in the way of fossil fuels, and, for anyone with the least sense of justice, this means rich countries consuming less and poor countries consuming more. Such an apparent threat of rich-country austerity meanwhile contains, in truth, the promise of abundance: fewer but more durable goods, less work and more leisure. (Already in the 1990s, the French-Austrian ecosocialist André Gorz wanted to “build the civilization of liberated time” in place of that of wage labor.) The fact that any such global rebalancing of consumption patterns can’t plausibly take place so long as the rich countries of the Global North dictate world history is one more reason that degrowth remains a dead letter under capitalism. It is not, however, the working classes of the Global North that must drastically curtail their lifestyles: The world’s richest 1 percent are responsible for as much carbon emissions as the poorest two-thirds of the global population. Much of the work of degrowth would be accomplished by the dispossession and destruction of the class represented by this sole percentile. As for the idolaters of growth, their god has not only failed but, Cronus-like, has started devouring its children as if these were so many chicken wings. “Growth” fantasizes one kind of fake substance, and “degrowth” another; real intelligence demands attention to how the ingredients of this world are different, not the same. Even so, the advocates of degrowth (a more attractive English word might be Samuel Beckett’s “lessness”) can boast of a sounder moral and political intuition than can the usual apologists for growth: Less stuff, more life! Such an argument may be obviated soon enough, either way, by the specter not of degrowth communism, but of prolonged capitalist contraction. Voters and politicians whistling past the graveyard being prepared for our children may have neglected to consult a recent article in Nature which holds that “the world economy is committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years independent of future emissions choices” (emphasis mine). Important factors in this bleak outlook include the declining agricultural yields and the massive and unpredictable damage to infrastructure attendant on climate collapse. In other words, even if carbon emissions are somehow reduced through the magic of the market, climate change can be expected to cause about $38 trillion in damages annually by the mid-century, enough to render overall economic growth infeasible. The choice facing the 21st century, then, is likely not between degrowth and growth. It is more likely between a form of capitalist contraction in which prosperity endures for a few but evaporates for the rest of us, and some kind of socialist or communist degrowth in which the well-being of everyone in general prevails over the wealth of anyone in particular. The precise politics of egalitarian degrowth are no more clear to me than they are to Saitō. But universal crisis will license strategies that theory alone could never discover.

26 August 2024

[hinge]

Hinge presents an anthology of love stories almost never told. Read more on https://no-ordinary-love.co

[wachinyeya]

Virginia’s Great Dismal Swamp, once a thriving wetland, is now being revived as an essential carbon sink to help combat climate change. Peatlands, like those in the swamp, cover only 3 percent of the Earth’s surface but store twice as much carbon as all the world’s forests combined - which cover 30 percent of global land area. By restoring these unique ecosystems, researchers and conservationists aim to reverse centuries of damage caused by human activity and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Peat is a spongy layer of partially decomposed plant material found in waterlogged, acidic environments like the Great Dismal Swamp. This natural carbon storage system has been severely degraded over time.

Since 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and conservation groups like The Nature Conservancy have been rewetting parts of the swamp to protect and rebuild its peat layers. This involves constructing dams and plugging drainage ditches to retain water, which slows peat decay and allows new organic material to accumulate.

Restoration efforts have already rehydrated 60,000 acres of the swamp. Over the next few years, The Nature Conservancy plans to restore an additional 33,000 acres and protect 10,500 acres in Virginia and North Carolina. These projects are funded by over $200 million from the Inflation Reduction Act.

The impact of Virginia’s peatlands will be environmentally significant: restoring them could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of removing up to 1.4 million cars from the road each year.

The secondary benefit is that wetlands like these are home to a diverse range of species, many of which are adapted to the unique, waterlogged environment. Restoring their habitat will enable both plants and wildlife to thrive once more.

Mike Waddington, a peat researcher at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, says: “When we think about storing carbon in ecosystems, it’s almost always about planting trees. There’s often tremendous pressure to plant trees in drained peatlands," he said, "but that’s the wrong choice given the carbon-storing ability of an intact bog." Adding: “In a way it’s the low-hanging fruit.”

The world's largest peatlands are in the central Congo Basin, covering 16.7 million hectares - more than five times the size of Belgium. Researchers reveal that these peatlands store between 26 and 32 billion tonnes of carbon - roughly the equivalent to three years’ worth of global fossil fuel emissions.