This is for people who worry that the Democrats in the USA will never come to agreement on their climate policies. It’s tough work for them, because they have to get agreement of 50 senators, even one abstention and they will lose the vote.
IMHO this is also a strength- the bill is getting intense scrutiny. Everyone’s concerns need to be listened to. Joe Manchin seems genuine and he represents centrist politicians in the USA - a bill is more likely to work if he is behind it too.
But we are getting stories claiming that COP26 will fail if this bill doesn’t include strong climate change action - that’s just not true. The other countries would continue with strong climate action even if the USA was still under Trump and not in the Paris agreement.
The top priority right now is China - and they are very committed to the agreement already with the largest renewables industry in the world (which they needed to set up first before they could even figure out a way to reach zero emissions).. This is my main graphic:
China is top priority for 2020s
How much each country or region would add to global warming if they continued at current emissions to the end of the century.
All except India aim for zero emissions already. EU and USA for 2050, China for 2060
Together these four = 58% of total emissions
And as I’ll touch on at the end of this post - the Paris agreement has been an astounding success - judged by the amount of action stimulated by it. We are not quite on track for 1.5°C but they never expected we’d get on track in one go - that’s why we have the extra meetings every 5 years to ratchet up the pledges as we gain experience, next is COP27 in 2025. But we do have 2°C with optimistic targets - and if COP26 goes especially well the pledges may take us below 2°C for the first time.
See also my previous post:
BIDEN AND MANCHIN WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND A WAY FORWARD
Biden’s manifesto was to achieve net zero emissions by 2050:
The Biden Plan will:
- Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050.
That is what he was elected to do (amongst many other things).
. Plan for Climate Change and Environmental Justice | Joe Biden
They all know it is important to pass it, and one way or another they will.
“There’s a collective sense that we need to have a sense of urgency, not simply a debate about policy but really focusing on getting agreement,” he added.
Asked on Tuesday about recent skirmishing between Sanders and Manchin, Schumer said: “What I’ve told our caucus is everyone is going to be disappointed in certain things but everyone’s going to be glad about certain things.”
. Manchin, Sanders to seek deal on Biden agenda
This is for cameras
Video: Just two buds heading home after meeting in the Capitol: pic.twitter.com/M4ZYIxdcdP
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) October 18, 2021
The video shows Bernie Sanders and Joe Manchin both smiling and they say they are talking.
BUT COP26 DOESN’T DEPEND ON THE USA - CHINA COMMITTED TO ZERO EMISSIONS IN 2060 DURING TRUMP AND IN A COMBINED ANNOUNCEMENT WITH THE EU
COP26 doesn't depend on the USA. China has already committed to zero emissions by 2060 and the EU to zero emissions by 2050, also UK, South Korea, Japan, New Zealand etc. Those are all serious targets. Even Brazil is discussing zero emissions for 2050.When Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement everybody else stayed in and they rapidly increased their ambition. Whatever the USA does the rest of the world will continue to work towards zero emissions.
The Chinese pledge to zero by 2060 was originally hinted at in a joint announcement with the EU in September 2020 when Trump was still president.
Back then, in September 2020, nobody knew Biden would be elected or that the USA would rejoin the Paris agreement. But China already indicated it was considering zero emissions by 2060.
. Remarks by President Charles Michel after the EU-China leaders' meeting via video conference
But they will get together something reasonably significant, I'm sure of it, it just matters too much for them. The US still has a fair bit of significant climate action in the bipartisan bill and the rest of the action in the Reconciliation bill + they will replace it with other measures.
CHINA AS TOP EMITTER MATTERS MOST - CAN ADD A THIRD OF A DEGREE JUST BY ITSELF
And - right now it's China matters most. If you look at the top emitters, top is China which currently has increasing CO2 emissions.
USA and EU are next with falling emissions, EU has the larger population. just short of 450 million compared to just short of 330 million but its emissions are falling fast
Then there's India with rising emissions and those are the top four, together account for just short of 59% of emissions.
China is top priority for 2020s
How much each country or region would add to global warming if they continued at current emissions to the end of the century.
All except India aim for zero emissions already. EU and USA for 2050, China for 2060
Together these four = 58% of total emissions
Calculation - at 222 gigatons for a tenth of a degree:
China: . 0.1*10.17*79/222 = 0.36 C
USA: 0.1*5.28*79/222 = 0.19°C
EU-29: 0.1*3.29*79/222 = 0.12°C
India: 0.1*2.62*79/222 = 0.09°C
Same as a %
see:
. Annual share of global CO₂ emissions
China's pledge to go to zero emissions by 2060 is a big turn around in that picture, a far harder pledge than for the USA to pledge 0 by 2050. China by doing that knocks a quarter of a degree, from 2.25 C to 2 C with optimistic targets.
Part of that is a spillover effect - the reduced costs of solar panels in China have already reduced costs around the world and this new pledge would have a similar spillover effect.
Peak at a little over half USA's emissions per person
Energy use continues to rise fast but emissions fall
Rapid transition to renewables
Significantly boost's China's GDP and reduce warming by 0.25 C
India is expected to give a more ambitious pledge but it's not yet aiming even for falling emissions, expected to increase emissions by 2030 though part of the increase in energy use through renewables, so increasing emissions much less than if it was all coal..
. India
So if you fast forward this to 2030, with current commitments so far, then China is expected to be falling but only by 15% or so by then - most of China's fall is after 2030.
India has risen a bit further. And then EU should have halved by then. USA hopefully halves too.
But if you suppose Biden only gets weakened policies in place then - maybe the USA falls say 25% instead of 50%. It doesn't make much difference. By 2030 it would be China highest, next might be India or the USA depending on how ambitious either of their pledges are - then at the bottom by then, the EU.
It really matters a lot what the USA does in the 2030s or 2040s. Roughly speaking two decades of USA emissions at current levels = one decade of China at current levels.
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS, USING CARBON BUDGET ESTIMATE THAT 1000 GIGATONS OF CO2 = 0.45°C
First we need the carbon budget - this is from the latest report in 2021:
D.1.1 Each 1000 GtCO2 of cumulative CO2 emissions is assessed to likely cause a 0.27°C to 0.63°C increase in global surface temperature with a best estimate of 0.45°C
SPM-36 - Summary for policy makers from Sixth Assessment Report
That’s 222 gigatons for a tenth of a degree (1000 * 0.1/0.45)
Emissions in the USA are falling at present and are sure to continue falling no matter what as renewables already undercut fossil fuels and most new powerstations are renewables.
. Almost All New US Power Plants Built in 2021 Will Be Carbon-Free
If the USA averaged, say, 4 gigatons a year for the next 30 years that would be 120 gigatons,
120 gigatons is about 0.45*120/1000 or 0.054°C
Renewables are growing fast in the USA, shown in black in this graph, even without incentives:
See:
. Renewables became the second-most prevalent U.S. electricity source in 2020
So, it’s an implausble scenario.
But suppse the USA, currently at 5.28 gigatons a year in 2019 fell gradually to 2.72 gigatons 55.5 years later in 2074, that would add a tenth of a degree to the temperature in 2074
IF USA REACHES ZERO EMISSIONS IN 2060 INSTEAD OF 2050 - THAT ADDS 0.012°C
Suppose the USA reaches zero emissions by 2060 like China instead of 2050, that would be 41 years reduction from 5.28 to 0 (figure shown is for 2019), so, average for 41 years of 5.28/2, so, temperature rise . 0.1*(41*5.28/2)/222 or 0.049 C
Suppose instead it manages it by 2050 again supposing straight line linear slope then it's . 0.1*(31*5.28/2)/222 or 0.037 C. So the difference would be about 0.012 C.
IF THE USA AVERAGES 4 GIGATONS A YEAR THROUGH TO THE END OF THE CENTURY - ADDS A SEVENTH OF A DEGREE
Suppose it averages 4 gigatons to the end of the century then it adds 0.1*4*79/222 = 0.14 C. or about a seventh of a degree.
So hopefully that puts it in perspective. The USA does matter especially if it keeps high all the way through to the end of the century, that could add as much as a seventh of a degree, but this is exceedingly unlikely.
So long as it reaches zero emissions later this century then it's not going to add much.
ALL IN IT TOGETHER - INEVITABLE THAT SOME OVER AND SOME UNDERACHIEVE
The main thing is we are in it together, all the countries have to do the best. If an individual country, even one as big as the USA in emissions - if an individual country over or under achieves it's not a big thing in the grander scheme of things. A few countries are bound to over achieve and a few others to under achieve. But overall that's the main thing, if they are all aiming for 1.5 C as their end goal then we can get somewhere i the viciinity of 1.5 C as a result of us collectively acting together.
CHINA HOWEVER COULD HAVE MADE 1.5°C IMPOSSIBLE JUST BY ITSELF - IF NOT BEHIND THE PARIS AGREEMENT - BUT CHINA IS IN IT AND HAS VERY GOOD REASONS TO BE IN THE AGREEMENT
But China has enough emissions so it could have singlehandedly undermined it.
If China just keeps steady emissions as they are now to the end of the century that's . 0.1*10.17*79/222 = 0.36 C or over a third of a degree.
If China hadn't done any emissions reduction, never built its renewables industry, we'd have rising emissions from China.
If China hadn’t done anything in 2015 but just continued with its existing policies (which had some renewables), China alone could have added an extra 250 gigatons by 2100 over the numbers for its NDC according to one analysis. Note the NDC graph here is different from the one from Carbon Brief
So, that's why it is so important China is on board with the targets and it is. That's not being altruistic, well there could be an element of altruism of course, but it would be sensible to do that just from wise self interest.
China is one of the hardest hit countries. If China had kept out of the Paris agreement and just burnt coal on to the end of the century to power its industrial revolution it would have added probably half a degree or more to the global temperatures by 2100 - but if it did so it would have significant problems of sea level rise, flooding, droughts, etc etc and it knows that.
NOT EXPECTED TO BE ON TRACK FOR 1.5 C SO SOON
We do NOT have to be on track for 1.5 C already in COP26 - that was never the idea. Of course if we are, great, but it’s not necessary that in 2021, we already have the commitments to see our way all the way to zero emissions globally by 2050.
Indeed, every half degree saved is a significant improvement in the amount of climate change this century - and we have already saved pehraps a couple of half degrees or more from the projections for 2100 with the action so far since 2015 in just six years. We already can target 2 C with optimistic targets (including China and the USA) and below 2 C is already coming in reach.
WHAT MANCHIN IS ADVOCATING - MORE CARBON CAPTURE AND UTILIZATION OR STORAGE - IF IT CAN BE ECONOMIC
I've checked several sources. Looks as if they will still have incentives for companies that produce clean energy but remove the penalties for high emissions. So they are looking to see what else they can have in its place. They have also considered carbon capture and storage and it is possible this is an element, in a bill that penalizes emitters - but Joe Manchin's concerns is that CCS is really expensive.
Even though Manchin is a longtime proponent of carbon capture, he recently cast doubt on its potential. "I'd love to have carbon capture, but we don't have the technology because we really haven't gotten to that point. And it's so darn expensive that it makes it almost impossible,"
What he says is true if you want to use it for coal. It is not that expensive for gas, indeed in the UK we are building the world's first gas fired power station with CCS.
Joe Manchin is keen on action on climate change - but wants it to be done in a way that also supports his state of West Virginia which is a coal producing state.
So he wants coal with CCS or Carbon Capture and Utilization CCU. But then he is concerned that even that is too expensive. Which it is - they are a bit like horses pulling carriages in the early 20th century - short of some really major technological development. Coal for steel yes - but coal for power - it's just hard to see it fit in with a zero emissions future.
Solar power is already undercutting fossil fuels and coal's days seem to be close to over for power stations (short of some very major technological change).
More a case of looking at retraining to new jobs e.g. solar power. But that's not his approach, not so far anyway.
He also is concerned about increasing debt, and he wants to make sure the government doesn't pay companies for things they are going to do anyway - i.e. pointless free money.
He seems genuine about all this.
It took a while to find a decent article. Most are using the NY Times as a source. The New York Times claimed Joe Manchin wanted to weaken the measures to just an incentive to transition from coal to gas.
But IMHO, the NY times one is not plausible because it doesn't mention that Joe Manchin supports Carbon Capture and Storage. Also it’s implausible that a senator for a coal producing state would want the main policy to be to transition from coal to gas.
This is the article in the NY Times which I find very implausible and doesn’t seem well researched to not even mention Joe Manchin’s long term interest in carbon capture and storage.
. Key to Biden’s Climate Agenda Likely to Be Cut Because of Manchin Opposition
The CNN one seems most accurate since it discussed his ideas of CCS.
CNN is not always reliable but on this topic it seems to be doing the reporting that makes most sense, is most consisent with Joe Manchin's own memo. However it may not be 100% accurate.
. Democrats' cornerstone climate policy will likely be cut from sweeping economic package
This is Joe Manchin's own memo about CCUS (Carbon Capture Utilization or Storage)
In practice the renewables would undermine coal + CCS as they already are lower cost than coal without CCS and it adds to the cost - but gas + CCS is more competitive at least for now - and is a reasonable element of a clean grid - the UK is planning to use that - it is easily added to gas powered stations.
Methane power plants are a good complement to a renewable grid because they can ramp up and down fast - provide "peaking power". This is an example, world's first to be built in Scotland, gas power with CCS. He wants powerstaions like this to be part of the US grid if I understand right which is understandable since he comes from a fossil fuel state.
. Peterhead Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) Project, Scotland
Though coal with CCUS is not likely to play a big role in the future still it's politically more acceptable for him to have it as a possibility in the law.
The people familiar with the discussions said lawmakers and the White House could raise the program’s carbon emissions factor, a figure that determines which power plants would qualify as clean energy. Increasing that figure from the level of 0.1 metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent per megawatt-hour that was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee could enable natural gas and coal-fired power plants outfitted with carbon capture equipment to qualify for payments, which could help win over Manchin.
This is by Politico and is from just the day before the NY Times articl
. To woo Manchin, Dems could OK climate funds for coal and gas plants
WHAT ARE JOE MANCHIN’S MOTIVES? SEEMS TO BE JUST HIS OWN VIEWS ON THE TOPIC AND CONFIDENCE IN A STRONG MANDATE FROM HIS ELECTORATE
He seems to be just a centrist Democrat. He is from West Virginia and is his own brand, with local loyalty to him, so he is to some exent independent of the rest of the Democrat party.
He would need to be cautious for electoral reasons - but he isn’t trying to push as far in the liberal direction as he can. He is just sticking with the same political position.
So, why is Manchin the only senator really using that leverage and thereby impeding the goals of many in his party? It’s pretty simple, actually. He’s the only one who can use that leverage and who wants to. He can because no Democratic senator is less beholden to the party than the senior senator from West Virginia. He wants to because he seems to have different goals and political values than many others in the party.
However he is doing it, though, Manchin’s winning a very red state gives him incredible power. He is a lifelong Democrat and seems committed to the party. But he doesn’t really owe Biden, his fellow Senate Democrats or the formal Democratic Party much of anything — his political brand is really separate from theirs.
Mike Plante, a West Virginia-based Democratic strategist, told me, “Joe always feels there is room for compromise.”
The evidence is considerable that the overwhelming majority of Republicans on Capitol Hill aren’t going to support any major policy initiatives backed by a Democratic president. So Manchin’s view of his GOP colleagues seems somewhat untethered from reality. But his optimism about the potential for bipartisanship makes sense from his perspective. After all, Manchin is friendly with a lot of Republicans on Capitol Hill, most notably Collins. He and a bipartisan group of lawmakers were key figures in passing a COVID-19 relief bill in December. (That was, of course, when Trump was still in office.)
“Joe Manchin was always a center to center-right Democrat,” said Plante. Plante managed the 1996 gubernatorial campaign of Charlotte Pritt, who defeated Manchin in the Democratic primary that year. Back then, Manchin’s more business-aligned moderate politics were to the right of the state, which was dominated by Democrats aligned with labor unions.
As the current Democratic Party moves left, Manchin has to be more cautious for electoral reasons. But there is little evidence that he is trying to push that boundary — to be as liberal as West Virginia will allow. In contrast, Biden seems to be trying to move as far left as electorally possible on a number of issues.
. Why Joe Manchin Is So Willing And Able To Block His Party’s Goals
THE WORLD IS DOING A LOT ALREADY
he Paris agreement is totally voluntary - they tried non voluntary methods before but they didn’t work. This one did work. China has created the largest renewables industry in the world. It built the then largest solar power plant in the world.
. World’s largest solar plant goes online in China
It’s now 2.2 GW
This year India built an even larger solar power plant. Bhadla Solar Park. 2.245 GW
Zoom in:
. Bhadla Solar Park · GW9J+25J, Bhadlachuhron Ki, Rajasthan 342301, India
Then this is the third largest, also in India.
It covers an area of 55 square kilometers
. Top 10 Largest Solar Power Generator of the world
In 2020 the top five were:
1. Tengger Desert Solar Park, China – 1,547MW
2. Sweihan Photovoltaic Independent Power Project, UAE – 1,177MW
3. Yanchi Ningxia Solar Park, China – 1,000MW
4. Datong Solar Power Top Runner Base, China – 1,070MW
5. Kurnool Ultra Mega Solar Park, India – 1,000MW
. The biggest solar power plants in the world (2020)
In 2021 then they are much bigger. Top five are
1. Bhadla Solar Park. 2245 MW
2. Huanghe Hydropower Hainan Solar Park, 2.2GW- China
3. Pavagada Solar Park. 2050 MW. India
4. Benban Solar Park. 1,650 MW. Egypt
The largest in 2020 is now the fifth largest.
5. Tengger Desert Solar Park. 1,500MW. China
. Top 10 Largest Solar Power Generator of the world (2021)
FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND
UK is pioneering floating offshore wind, rapidly falling in cost, and has target of 1 GW by 2030. Expected to be competitive subsidy free by then - works in water deeper than 60 meters opening up large new areas for wind power, and you get steadier winds too.
. Floating wind farm records UK's top results for potential output again
Video (3:46): Floating wind: a fix for the future energy mix | Equinor
CHINA 100 G2 WIND FARM EXPANDING TO 400 GW
China has just announced it’s building a new 100 GW windfarm - more than all the installed renewables in India which is the same population as China approx
- eventually it’s going to expand to 400 GW.
. China’s New Renewable Project Rivals All Wind and Solar in India
19 of their provinces are already aiming to add at least 10 GW and one of them is building a 10 GW wind farm and planning to go on and build three more after that. So you are talking about a pretty sure bet of 200 GW really - their current installed capacit is 281.5GW of wind generation capacity and 253.4GW of solar, they aim to reach 1,200GW by 2030.
. China targets sandy, rocky reaches in solar and wind power push
CHINA NEW BIODIVERSITY FUND
Also from that same article, they are going to establish a new biodiversity fund with an initial investment of $232 million
. China’s New Renewable Project Rivals All Wind and Solar in India
China are really strong on reversing biodiversity loss and greening deserts. See this - these are real photos, not photoshop.
There are many things like that happening in the world:
EXAMPLE OF SCOTLAND GDP ROSE NEARLY 20% WHILE EMISSIONS FELL 29%
I am writing this from Scotland where close to 100% of the electricity is produced from renewables. All that in just a few years. This shows how GDP increases as emissions fall in the UK
I cover this example in
Then three of the top four emitters have already pledged to zero emissions by 2050 (or 2060 for China). In total we are now headed for 2 C with optimistic targets.
See:
There’s lots more. Take for instance SUVs. We now have hybrids with a mileage of over 100 mpg and all electric SUVs too, just did a post about them towards the end of this article:
We also have our first carbon capture and storage at source for cement in Bevick in Norway and for steel in Abu Dhabi.
This is very important because to reach zero emissions we need zero emissions cement and steel, or close to it. See my:
Most people have no idea how much is going on. They are not paper promises -this is happening in the real world.
See also my
Comments