Such an important point made on this pod: work like @gruberte.bsky.social's on the mid-transition is the natural consequence of actually taking the energy transition seriously...something far too few people in the energy world do www.volts.wtf/p/the-fate-o...
We often leap from “every tenth of a degree matters” (basically true) to “all incremental climate progress matters equally” (not true).
We’re no longer pursuing the major economic shifts needed to sustain emissions reductions over decades.
heatmap.news/ideas/trump-...
Join us on Friday (tomorrow!) for our next Resilient Energy Economies brownbag discussion with Brandon Dennison about economic development in coal country us02web.zoom.us/meeting/regi...
The Biden-era climate strategy involved trying to make households, communities, and the U.S. economy less vulnerable to a decline of fossil fuels (with limited success). That strategy has been abandoned. heatmap.news/ideas/trump-...
I have lots of opinions, but here's a published one with @noahqkaufman.bsky.social. Energy modelling, when done properly, can be scientific, but isn't "a science". At best, it's an iterative learning tool that should be used combined with real world experiments. www.researchgate.net/publication/...
Ah yes, fair enough. Just semantics. Of course emissions is what matters to climate. But emissions intensity tends to be a use decarb measure, because it doesn’t fall due to recessions/pandemics/etc
The first is just an observation. The carbon intensity of economies tend to decline over time regardless of the policy environment.
And, the key takeaways from their deep decarbonization policy lecture. Thoughts?
What is up with this fascinating initiative she is leading and how can we all get involved 😬
www.resilientenergyeconomies.org/about
Dumb question: if the Trump admin isn't going to regulate GHGs regardless of the endangerment finding, and the real risk is that supreme court rules in a way that hamstrings future presidents that want to regulate GHGs, why would climate groups want to litigate this decision?
I’m impressed you can keep more than one brain around at all
It’s the switching between different categories of SCCs without acknowledging that switching that I thought would especially bug you.
I meant the suggestion that the USG estimates could help with "pricing carbon accurately"
Good point. I assume you found the passage I highlighted problematic too, yes?
Red alert @paulkelleher.net
thanks for reading the thread! Here's the report: energypolicy.columbia.edu/wp-content/u...
One more point, from the department of whining nerds: Data on gov't spending and local economic outcomes isn't good enough to do rigorous program evaluations. And it's getting worse with staffing challenges at agencies. We can't determine what works if we don't have good data.
Prioritize political durability when possible. These efforts are often primarily about local economic development/resiliency, and similar programs from the bipartisan infrastructure law have experienced less disruption than programs from the IRA.
The strategy should ideally encompass a broader set of communities confronting acute economic pressures from the transition away from fossil fuels, while recognizing that the appropriate solutions will differ substantially between regions (coal vs O&G, for example).
Tailer strategies to the specific challenges and opportunities within individual communities, rather than trying to cobble together a strategy within laws focused on other national priorities (pandemic recovery, infrastructure, innovation, clean energy).
What might we do differently next time around? From the department of easy-for-me-to-say, we could do better in the following ways:
The Upshot? Many communities will benefit, especially from pandemic-era programs that are well underway.
But we don't find much evidence (yet) that suggests the strategy to boost economic resilience across these regions was working, and there's no coherent strategy going forward.
Also, Trump-era reversals. OBBBA rescinded programs, federal agencies have canceled funding for largescale projects in CCS/H2/etc., and proposed budget cuts threaten others.
This table shows efforts designed to help these communities get grants and implement them effectively.
A third reason is weak targeting. Big efforts like the energy communities bonus tax credits and Energy Infrastructure Reinvestment Loan Program were designed to targeted fossil fuel communities, but it's not how they were implemented.
Second, implementation has been slow. Many key programs, like the advanced energy manufacturing tax credits, took years for agencies to translate statutory text into detailed implementation procedures and initial awards, so in many cases the funds still haven’t been obligated.
What happened? Probably a combination of things.
First, despite large headline numbers, these programs are tiny compared to other categories of federal spending.
2. Limited delivery to date. Biden touted investments to fossil fuel-reliant communities, and some previous studies backed those claims.
In contrast, our analysis of federal spending found little evidence of effectively targeting funds to counties with fossil fuel infrastructure.
1. Unprecedented funding. The fed government is uniquely positioned to support local efforts to build resilience before/when major industries leave.
Programs of the early 2020s (see table) authorized support for fossil fuel–reliant regions at a scale that dwarfs prior efforts.
We’ve got a new report out assessing Biden-era federal efforts to boost economic resilience in fossil fuel-reliant parts of the country.
The findings are a mixed bag 🧵
www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/wp-content/u...
I've been privileged over the years to write a sequence energy modelling methodology papers with (now Professor 🥳) Steve Pye of UCL, along with a rotating cast of amazing people. The latest dropped today in Nature Energy ➡️ rdcu.be/e2tt6
