{"id":14249,"date":"2019-02-15T17:06:16","date_gmt":"2019-02-15T17:06:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/rsoftsolution.com\/blog\/how-to-decarbonize-america-and-the-world.html"},"modified":"2019-02-15T17:06:16","modified_gmt":"2019-02-15T17:06:16","slug":"how-to-decarbonize-america-and-the-world","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rbsitsoftwaresolution.in\/blog\/how-to-decarbonize-america-and-the-world.html","title":{"rendered":"How to decarbonize America \u2014 and the world"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Green New<\/span> Deal has burst onto the American stage<\/a>, spurring more conversation about \u2013 and aspiration for \u2013 ambitious climate policy than at any point in at least a decade.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m glad to see it. Suddenly, climate is on the agenda, and ambitions for climate policy are higher than perhaps at any point in US history. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Green New Deal is a <\/span>resolution<\/span><\/a> right now. It\u2019s a statement of intent. It hasn\u2019t yet progressed to the point of detailed policy proposals or legislation, which means now is the time to help craft its details.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The Green New Deal is long on vision, short on details, and a potential windfall for startups<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

For the last decade I\u2019ve <\/span>written about<\/span><\/a> and <\/span>publicly spoken about<\/span><\/a> innovation in clean technology and ways to address climate change. I\u2019ve helped to lead a climate-fighting <\/span>citizen ballot initiative<\/span><\/a> in my home state of Washington, invested in clean energy startups, and advised on climate and clean energy policies of other nations. <\/span><\/p>\n

In that time, my views on what sort of climate policies have the most impact and have the greatest chances of winning over voters have changed. Policies that I thought were foolish a decade ago have revealed themselves to have been farsighted and effective. Policies I thought were powerful and elegant have, on closer inspection, revealed themselves to be far less effective than I believed. And the history of climate and energy legislation and attitudes in the US has demonstrated a path to getting new and more ambitious policies passed. <\/span><\/p>\n

What I\u2019ve learned over time is that good climate policy has 3 key traits:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. It has a large, meaningful impact on carbon emissions and climate change.<\/span><\/li>\n
  2. It specifically tackles the problems that <\/span>aren\u2019t <\/span><\/i>already being tackled by the market.<\/span><\/li>\n
  3. It actually gets passed into law. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    All of that is compatible with a Green New Deal. Here\u2019s what it could look like.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Impact: Climate Change Isn\u2019t Local. Good Policy Isn\u2019t, Either.<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The conventional wisdom on climate policy is straightforward. Every nation uses its policies to reduce its own emissions. This conventional wisdom is wrong. Carbon dioxide doesn\u2019t honor national boundaries. Climate change is global. And the best climate <\/span>policies <\/span><\/i>have a global impact as well.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The US, overwhelmingly, is <\/span>the country most responsible for climate change<\/span><\/a>. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases we\u2019ve emitted over the past decades are largely still in the atmosphere, still warming the planet. The world\u2019s <\/span>present and future <\/span><\/i>emissions, though, are increasingly elsewhere. The US now accounts for just 15% of the world\u2019s annual greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. \u00a0And because the developing world is rising in energy consumption far faster than the US, American emissions will be an ever-smaller share each year.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      That means that, despite the fact that the US is the largest overall contributor to climate change thus far, the US could <\/span>completely eliminate<\/span><\/i> its carbon emissions and <\/span>barely affect the future course of climate<\/span><\/i>. <\/span><\/p>\n

      This means we need a different strategy. It\u2019s not enough to eliminate the US\u2019s carbon emissions alone. Our goal has to be to drive down the whole world\u2019s emissions.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Most Effective Climate Policy in the World<\/b><\/p>\n

      How can the US drive down the emissions of other countries? We can do it by making clean technologies irresistible to the entire world. And there we can take a lesson from the most effective climate policy of all time \u2013 Germany\u2019s early subsidies of solar and wind.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Solar panels and electricity-producing wind farms have been around for decades. Yet, for most of that time, they\u2019ve been a far more expensive way to produce electricity than burning coal or natural gas. Germany changed that. Starting in 2010, Germany\u2019s <\/span>Energiewende <\/span><\/i>legislation heavily subsidized solar and wind. That, in turn, drove utilities and home owners and corporations to purchase solar and wind. And that, in turn, made the technology cheaper. As prices fell, other nations \u2013 first European nations, then the US, and then China \u2013 jumped into the fray, enacting more ambitious policies that further brought down the price of solar and wind (and now batteries and electric cars). <\/span><\/p>\n

      Why did subsidies bring down the price of technology? Because industry scale leads to industry learning and innovation, and that, in turn, leads to lower cost ways to manufacture, deploy, and manage new technologies. We\u2019ve seen this for a century. Almost all technologies improve via Wright\u2019s Law, often referred to as the <\/span>learning curve <\/span><\/i>or the <\/span>experience curve<\/span><\/i><\/a>. \u00a0In the late 1930s, Theodore Paul Wright, an aeronautical engineer, observed that every doubling of production of US aircraft brought down prices by 13%. \u00a0Since then, a similar effect has been found in nearly every technology area, going back to the Ford Model T.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      Electricity from solar power, meanwhile, <\/span>drops in cost by 25-30% for every doubling in scale<\/span><\/a>. Battery costs drop around 20-30% per doubling of scale. Wind power costs drop by 15-20% for every doubling. \u00a0Scale leads to learning, and learning leads to lower costs. <\/span><\/p>\n

      Germany began subsidizing solar and wind when they were extremely small scale industries, and their costs were quite high. Those subsidies drove German utilities, businesses, and home owners to purchase clean energy. That created a market. That, in turn, led solar and wind manufacturers to leap into the market, competing ruthlessly against one another to bring down their prices faster, offering the best product at the best price to customers. <\/span><\/p>\n

      By scaling the clean energy industries, Germany <\/span>lowered the price of solar and wind for everyone, worldwide, forever. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

      The International Renewable Energy Agency <\/span>finds that<\/span><\/a>, between 2010 and 2019, the price of solar power, worldwide, has dropped by more than a factor of 5. The price of offshore wind power has dropped by a factor of three. <\/span><\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      In just the past decade, solar power has gone from being uneconomical anywhere on earth without subsidies, to being cheaper than any fossil fuel electricity in the sunniest parts of the world. Building new solar is now cheaper than building new fossil fuel electricity plants in <\/span>India<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Chile<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Mexico<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Spain<\/span><\/a>, and in sunny US states like <\/span>Arizona<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Nevada<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>Colorado<\/span><\/a>, and \u00a0<\/span>Texas<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

      And because, in general, businesses, utilities, and consumers all around the world will deploy the cheapest energy they can, <\/span>solar is now the fastest growing energy source around the world<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Happy? Good. Thank policy makers in Germany, and the US, and China \u2013 all of whom took action to bootstrap markets for solar and wind before they were cost-competitive. <\/span><\/p>\n

      The lesson for US climate policy is clear: The biggest impact we can have is by <\/span>driving down the cost of technologies that reduce carbon emissions<\/span><\/i>, to the point that clean technologies are <\/span>cheapest <\/span><\/i>way to provide the energy, food, and transportation that everyone around the world desires, and then spreading those technologies to the world. That means a mix of early-stage government RD, government incentives to scale deployment in the private sector, and a very healthy dollop of private sector competition.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \"\"<\/p>\n

      1 \u2013 As solar volume has grown, prices have dropped, leading to more growth.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

      Would the Green New Deal drive down the cost of clean technologies in a way that scales to the rest of the world? The current resolution is vague on exactly how the rapid decarbonization in the US would happen. One reason for concern is that the <\/span>now-retracted Green New Deal FAQ<\/span><\/a> released by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez\u00a0specifically dismissed the idea that the private sector \u2013 even with government incentives \u2013 could pull off this decarbonization, and explicitly says that \u201cMerely incentivizing the private sector doesn\u2019t work\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

      I agree in one sense \u2013 basic government RD is a high-value investment, especially when the technologies we need to invent don\u2019t even exist yet. The government has a vital role to play. At the same time, the incredible, unprecedented decline in cost of solar power, wind power, batteries, and electric cars has happened both because of early government RD, and because private sector companies, incentivized by governments, have brought these technologies to market and been forced to compete with one another to provide the best technology at the lowest price. Ignoring this is to ignore what brought us the very best progress we\u2019ve seen in cleaning up the way we produce energy.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The FAQ I reference has been retracted. The Green New Deal hasn\u2019t yet become a detailed roadmap or legislation. As it does, I urge you, Green New Deal legislators and architects: Craft policies that create incentives to build and deploy clean technologies. Then use the market for what it\u2019s good at: fierce competition that delivers ever-better products at ever-lower prices. <\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Tackling the Hardest, Least-Solved Problems<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The Green New Deal resolution is really quite comprehensive. It touches on almost every source of US emissions.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Even so, there\u2019s a tendency for climate and energy wonks \u2013 and legislators \u2013 to focus on electricity and cars when discussing climate policy. <\/span><\/p>\n

        Electricity and cars aren\u2019t our hardest problems. They\u2019re both big chunks of our carbon emissions, yes. And they both need more policy to drive them home. (More on that down below.) They\u2019re also the areas where we\u2019ve made the most progress, with incredible declines in the price of clean electricity and <\/span>electric vehicles<\/span><\/a> that put us at the edge of a tipping point. We aren\u2019t over the hump yet, but the solutions are here \u2013 and if we continue to push them with policy, we can decarbonize electricity and cars.<\/span><\/p>\n

        \"\"Our <\/span>hardest<\/span><\/i> climate problems \u2013 the ones that are both large and lack obvious solutions \u2013 are agriculture (and deforestation \u2013 its major side effect) and industry. <\/span>Together these are 45% of global carbon emissions<\/span><\/a>. And solutions are scarce. <\/span><\/p>\n

        Agriculture and land use account for 24% of all human emissions. That\u2019s nearly as much as electricity, and twice as much all the world\u2019s passenger cars combined. <\/span><\/p>\n

        Industry \u2013 steel, cement, and manufacturing \u2013 account for 21% of human emissions \u2013 one and a half times as much as all the world\u2019s cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes combined. <\/span><\/p>\n

        Add industry, agriculture, and land use together and you have a very sticky, very difficult-to-improve 45% of carbon emissions. <\/span><\/p>\n

        By contrast, electricity and transportation are 39% of global emissions \u2013 nearly as big. The good news is that in electricity and transportation, we have momentum.<\/span><\/p>\n

        We do NOT have momentum in reducing the carbon emissions of industry and agriculture.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Decarbonizing Agriculture and Industry<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n

        <\/p>\n

        The Green New Deal does, happily, mention these sectors. In agriculture, though, it avoids the biggest chunk of the problem: Livestock.<\/span><\/p>\n

        Livestock around the world \u2013 specifically cows, pigs, and other mammals \u2013 consume a tremendous amount of the world\u2019s agriculture output. They drive the bulk of the deforestation around the world (which itself releases carbon into the atmosphere, and reduces forest land that could absorb carbon instead). And cows and pigs belch methane \u2013 a greenhouse gas that\u2019s causes tremendously more warming than CO2 \u2013 about 100 times more in the first year, and 30 times more over the course of a century. Livestock in total <\/span>produce about 15% of the world\u2019s carbon emissions<\/span><\/a>, as much as all transportation on land, air, and sea combined.<\/span><\/p>\n

        And the world\u2019s <\/span>appetite for meat is rapidly growing<\/span><\/a>, with consumption expected to double in the next 40 or so years.<\/span><\/p>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Cows should scare you more than coal.<\/span><\/p>\n

        In industry, meanwhile, steel and cement production both remain incredibly carbon intensive. We\u2019ve learned to recycle steel using electricity, but making new steel from ore still involves the use of a tremendous amount of coal. (Theoretical ways to make steel without coal exist, but <\/span>aren\u2019t expected to be commercially viable for another 20 years<\/span><\/a>.) We\u2019re closer to technologies that could make <\/span>cement without carbon emissions<\/span><\/a>, but those technologies are still young, expensive, and haven\u2019t been deployed to any significant degree. And the rest of industry \u2013 from manufacturing finished goods to making petrochemical products like plastics and lubricants \u2013 remains extremely carbon intensive.<\/span><\/p>\n

        These two sectors \u2013 agriculture and industry \u2013 are on path to be the two largest sources of carbon emissions in the world. And they\u2019re the ones we have the fewest and least developed solutions for. The Green New Deal \u2013 or any serious climate policy \u2013 ought to focus first and foremost on RD to develop methods for clean agriculture and clean construction and manufacturing; and then on incentives to deploy those clean methods, which will initially be extremely expensive, until they hit the scale to compete directly with dirty methods on cost alone.<\/span><\/p>\n

        What would a climate policy for agriculture and industry look like? \u00a0Let\u2019s take a page from energy, where we have a one-two punch: 1) Agencies like the Department of Energy\u2019s Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy, <\/span>ARPA-E<\/span><\/a>, that funds early stage energy science and technology RD; and 2) A breadth of state and national subsidies and incentives that help those technologies reach higher scale and lower costs. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

        This one-two punch first <\/span>invents <\/span><\/i>technology (ARPA-E is modeled after the original ARPA, which created the foundations of the internet, originally called ARPANET), and then <\/span>scales <\/span><\/i>technology to the point that the new clean technology is cheaper than the alternatives.<\/span><\/p>\n

        We can use that one-two punch in agriculture and industry, by creating:<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. An <\/span>ARPA-A in the Department of Agriculture<\/b>, tasked with finding a way to reduce the carbon emissions of agriculture broadly, and especially of livestock and meat. ARPA-A might fund research into:<\/span>\n
            \n
          1. Radically increasing crop yields so farmers have less need to chop down forests to feed their animals. <\/span><\/li>\n
          2. Technologies to eliminate the methane emissions of cows and pigs.<\/span><\/li>\n
          3. Technologies to reduce the emissions of NOx (another incredibly powerful greenhouse gas) that\u2019s produced by animal manure left on fields, and to a lesser extent by excess synthetic fertilizer. <\/span><\/li>\n
          4. Real-time global deforestation monitoring technology, (perhaps in partnership with other agencies) to spot illegal deforestation as soon as it happens, and nip it in the bud. <\/span><\/li>\n
          5. New alternatives to meat \u2013 from plants or stem cells \u2013 that might someday taste and feel as compelling as the real thing.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
          6. Incentives to Deploy Clean Agriculture <\/b>would be paired with the early-stage research of an ARPA-A. \u00a0Just-out-of-the-lab technologies to reduce agricultural greenhouse emissions are likely to start expensive. Early (and steep) subsidies could motivate farmers (or even consumers) to adopt those new technologies and products. Just like German subsidies, by scaling solar, bootstrapped an industry whose fierce competition then brought down prices, early subsidies for clean agriculture and clean foods would do the same. <\/span>
            <\/span>
            <\/span>Such incentives could include:<\/span>\n
              \n
            1. Incentives for farmers who capture carbon in their soils. (By far the cheapest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere.)<\/span><\/li>\n
            2. Subsidizing feed additives or other products that reduce methane emissions or NOx emissions from animals and their manure.<\/span><\/li>\n
            3. Tax breaks for farmers who invest in \u201cprecision agriculture\u201d technologies that reduce the amount of fertilizer or fuel they use on the farm.<\/span><\/li>\n
            4. Incentives for farmers to deploy clean energy on their farms, and to switch farm operations from diesel to electric.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n
            5. An <\/span>ARPA-I for Industry<\/b>, meanwhile, would be chartered with funding early stage RD in carbon-free industry. \u00a0Research areas would include:<\/span>\n
                \n
              1. Carbon-free steel \u2013 technologies that can make steel from iron ore without the use of coal.<\/span><\/li>\n
              2. Carbon-free cement technologies.<\/span><\/li>\n
              3. Alternative building materials that have lower carbon emissions.<\/span><\/li>\n
              4. Carbon-free manufacturing technologies. \u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n
              5. Better carbon-free or low-carbon plastics, lubricants, and other petrochemicals that don\u2019t require oil extraction.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                In several of these areas some options exist today, but a need for more innovation and more fundamental research \u2013 that the federal government is uniquely equipped to fund \u2013 still exists.<\/span>
                <\/span><\/p>\n

                \"\"<\/p>\n

                2-ARPA-I would fund research to decarbonize industry, starting with the largest industrial sources \u2013 steel, cement, and petrochemicals.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                  \n
                1. Incentives to Deploy Carbon-Free Industrial Methods <\/b>would give steel mills, manufacturers, and builders a reason to use these new, carbon-free methods while they\u2019re still young and expensive. \u00a0These incentives would include:<\/span>\n
                    \n
                  1. Tax breaks for new carbon-free industrial equipment, to reduce the cost for manufacturers to adopt these new technologies in their early stages. <\/span><\/li>\n
                  2. Tax breaks or subsidies for the <\/span>buyers <\/span><\/i>of carbon-free steel, cement, or other industrial goods, to bootstrap a market of customers for these new products and grow it to scale. \u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    As with solar and wind in Germany, scaling use of these methods in industry would bring their prices down, with a target of beating the price of existing, carbon-heavy methods.<\/span><\/p>\n

                    All of the above is compatible with Green New Deal language. It\u2019s just a matter of emphasis. We need to double down on these two areas \u2013 agriculture and industry \u2013 that are soon to be the largest sources of global carbon emissions, and the ones we have the least progress in solving.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. Good Policy Must be Passable<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                      Perhaps the most important question about the Green New Deal is this \u2013 what can we actually pass?<\/span><\/p>\n

                      The Green New Deal has already moved the Overton window, by elevating the conversation about climate. At the state level, in progressive states like California and New York, Democrats have solid majorities and could pass large parts of the Green New Deal that are applicable at a state level. As I argued just after Donald Trump\u2019s election, <\/span>the States are where we can most effectively push for climate action<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n

                      What about at the Federal level? Maybe the Green New Deal, by motivating the base, will lead to more electoral victories for Democrats in 2020. \u00a0Or maybe it will hurt in red states like Alabama, where Democrats are defending a Senate seat. It\u2019s far too early to say.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Democrats don\u2019t have any chance of reaching 60 Senate seats in 2020. They do have the option, if they win a majority and the Presidency, of eliminating the legislative filibuster (using the so-called \u201cnuclear option\u201d), in which case a simple majority of the House and Senate could pass as much of the Green New Deal as Democrats could achieve consensus on, without the need for any Republican legislators.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      What if none of the above occurs? What if Democrats don\u2019t get a Senate majority at all? Or do get a majority, but are unwilling to eliminate the legislative filibuster? \u00a0Could <\/span>any <\/span><\/i>parts of the Green New Deal pass with some Republican support?<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Bipartisan Climate Policy is Possible. In Fact, It\u2019s Here Now<\/b><\/p>\n

                      Yes. Recent history shows that, while climate is a highly divisive issue in the US, <\/span>clean energy <\/span><\/i>and <\/span>innovation<\/span><\/i> have massive support on both sides of the aisle.<\/span><\/p>\n

                      Consider the following:<\/span><\/p>\n

                        \n
                      1. In 2015, a Republican Congress reached a bipartisan deal to <\/span>extend the solar and wind tax credits<\/span><\/a> (the ITC and PTC) out through 2022.<\/span><\/li>\n
                      2. In 2017, a Republican Congress, <\/span>under Donald Trump<\/span><\/i>, could have easily repealed or prematurely ended these tax credits. Yet the GOP <\/span>left solar, wind, and electric vehicle tax credits untouched<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/li>\n
                      3. In 2017, a Republican Congress gave clean energy research in the Department of Energy\u2019s ARPA-E <\/span>its largest budget increase since 2009<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                        Wait. Don\u2019t Republicans hate clean energy?<\/span><\/p>\n

                        Nope. Not at all. Americans on both sides of the aisle love solar and wind. \u00a0<\/span>Solar is the most popular energy source in the US<\/span><\/a>, with 76% of Americans saying that their utility should get more energy from solar. Wind is a close second, at 71%. \u00a0The third choice, natural gas, is 24 points behind solar, at 52%. And a meager 30% of Americans want more coal.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        \"\"<\/p>\n

                        It helps that clean energy is literally everywhere in America. Solar and wind have been built out in every state. Wind power, especially, <\/span>is booming in rural districts in red states<\/span><\/a>. Representatives from these districts, and Republican Senators from red states like Iowa and Texas that have deployed a tremendous amount of solar and wind, have every reason to support policies that benefit clean energy.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        \"\"<\/p>\n

                        What\u2019s more, Americans \u2013 on both sides of the aisle \u2013 wildly support research into new technologies that can improve their lives. A whopping <\/span>85% of Americans support funding more research into renewable energy sources<\/span><\/a>. Ready for the real shocker? Solid majorities in <\/span>virtually every county and every congressional district in the US <\/span><\/i>support more funding of research into clean energy. <\/span><\/p>\n

                        Nearly as many Americans \u2013 82% \u2013 support tax breaks for Americans who purchase energy-efficient vehicles or solar panels. And again, the support isn\u2019t limited to blue states or blue districts. <\/span>It\u2019s overwhelmingly national<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        \"\"<\/p>\n

                        So Americans don\u2019t just love innovation and RD spending. They also support incentives to deploy clean technology faster. And, in fact, those two policy levers \u2013 more research funding, and incentives to deploy clean technology \u2013 get both the <\/span>most <\/span><\/i>support in poll after poll, the most <\/span>bipartisan <\/span><\/i>support, and the most <\/span>geographically consistent <\/span><\/i>support. \u00a0If you want a policy proposal that that will work in red or purple states, or that can win over some Republican Senators and Representatives, clean technology research and clean technology deployment incentives are the two most likely to garner support.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        What Bipartisan Policy Would Look Like<\/b><\/p>\n

                        If Democrats do get both the White House a filibuster-proof congressional majority \u2013 one way or another \u2013 <\/span>and<\/span><\/i> get enough internal consensus, they can drive forward whatever GND policy they wish. Right now, that seems unlikely to me.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        In the event that we have a Congress <\/span>without <\/span><\/i>that filibuster-proof majority, or with enough moderate democrats who balk at the entirety of the Green New Deal, there are still extremely effective climate policies that Congress can put in place.<\/span><\/p>\n

                        First, in industry and agriculture, the four policies we mentioned already:<\/span><\/p>\n

                          \n
                        1. ARPA-A <\/b>to fund research into carbon-free agriculture forestry.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        2. Clean Agriculture Incentives <\/b>and subsidies to deploy carbon-free ag rapidly to farmers and drive down its price through scale.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        3. ARPA-I <\/b>to fund research into carbon-free steel, cement, and manufacturing.<\/span><\/li>\n
                        4. Clean Industry Incentives <\/b>and subsidies to deploy carbon-free industrial tech and drive it down in price.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                          Those policies in agriculture and industry have an excellent chance of getting bipartisan support. They follow a pattern of Americans being willing to invest in new science and technology RD. And, because they <\/span>benefit <\/span><\/i>industrial and agricultural states and districts, by giving <\/span>carrots <\/span><\/i>for deploying clean industry and clean agriculture, they\u2019re a benefit to politicians from those \u2013 often red \u2013 states that have the greatest concentration of farms and factories. That\u2019s the exact opposite of a policy that penalized farmers or factories for their carbon emissions. You\u2019d have a hard time getting much bipartisan support for that. Make the policy an incentive that helps farms and industry thrive, and helps them get an edge over their global competitors, and the politics completely change.<\/span><\/p>\n

                          In electricity, transportation, and buildings, there are also policies \u2013 some of them counter-intuitive \u00a0\u2013 that would accelerate us towards a clean future :<\/span><\/p>\n

                            \n
                          1. Continent-Wide Electricity Transmission. \u00a0<\/b>It\u2019s a common perception that renewable energy means less dependence on the grid. The opposite is true, for two reasons. First, at any given time, weather may hurt the output of solar panels or wind farms in any given area. The further away you are from that area, the less likely you are to be in the same weather pattern. Second, the sunniest parts of the US, the windiest parts of the US, and the parts of the US that need the most electricity don\u2019t all coincide. Study after study shows that <\/span>the larger an area we integrate renewables over, the more renewables we can put on the grid<\/span><\/a>, and the lower the cost.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                            \"\"<\/p>\n

                            3- A nation-sized grid increases the amount of energy we can use from solar and wind, and reduces the overall cost. Source \u2013 Nature Climate Change<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                            Long-range transmission is also remarkably efficient and low cost. High-voltage DC transmission lines can send power 2,000 miles with only 10% losses and a small additional cost. That means solar power plants in Texas could be powering New York City\u2026an hour after the sun has gone down in New York. China <\/span>understands this<\/span><\/a>, and is<\/span> building the world\u2019s largest high voltage power grid<\/span><\/a>, moving power from the sunniest and windiest areas in the west <\/span>to the coastal population centers 3,000 km (1,860 miles) east<\/span><\/a>. \u00a0In the US, meanwhile, it\u2019s nearly impossible to build new long-range transmission \u2013 largely because of NIMBY. Congress should make it easier to get the necessary permissions to build transmission, paving the way for a grid with more and cheaper clean energy.<\/span><\/p>\n

                            4- China\u2019s Ultra High Voltage Grid moves clean energy 2,000 miles from the sunny and windy interior to the population centers on the eastern coast. \u00a0The US has nothing similar.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                            \"\"<\/p>\n

                              \n
                            1. Clear the Way for Offshore Wind. <\/b>The most exciting development in wind power is building offshore. Winds blow faster and more consistently <\/span>just a few miles off the coast<\/span><\/a> of the US than they do almost anywhere on land. Not only does that mean offshore wind power is<\/span> likely to be the cheapest wind power<\/span><\/a>, it also means \u2013 because the winds are more steady \u2013 that it causes fewer intermittency problems for grid operators and is <\/span>closer to being a \u201cbaseload\u201d-like power source<\/span><\/a>. Offshore wind sites are also closer to electricity demand in cities along the coast, making it easier to get power where its needed. And while solar power peaks in the sunny months of summer, wind power peaks in winter \u2013 making solar and wind great complements for each other. Offshore wind has plunged in price in Europe, <\/span>reaching grid parity last summer<\/span><\/a>, and is now growing faster there than wind power on land. It\u2019s also still much smaller than on-land wind. That means that is has much farther to fall in price, and that deploying it now can bring the price down faster than with on-land wind. Unfortunately, the US is far behind in building offshore wind. A <\/span>law from the 1920s and a raft of lawsuits<\/span><\/a> have held offshore wind power up. Congress can and should take action to clear the way for offshore wind.
                              <\/span><\/li>\n
                            2. Extend Unify Solar, Wind, and Energy Storage Tax Incentives<\/b>. Congress should make the 30% Investment Tax Credit for solar (the ITC) permanent. Failing that, it should extend it out to at least 2030. Wind, which has long mostly used a different tax credit called the PTC, should be moved to the same 30% tax credit and timing as solar. Energy storage \u2013 batteries and the technologies that come after them \u2013 should get the exact same tax credit, however and wherever that energy storage technology is deployed. While this tax credit may sound modest, solar and wind are now on the very edge of a tipping point. \u00a0<\/span>
                              <\/span>
                              <\/span>Consider, for example, that late last year, a utility in Northern Indiana announced that the cheapest way for it to provide power to its customers was to go from being 65% coal powered today, to just 15% coal powered by 2023, and zero coal by 2028 \u2013 and to <\/span>                              replace that coal with solar, wind, batteries, and flexible storage<\/span><\/a>. \u00a0Let me repeat that: This utility wants to replace 50% of their power generation in just 4 years, and the rest in 5 more. And it wants to do so because solar and wind and batteries are <\/span>cheaper <\/span><\/i>than running their existing coal power plants. That\u2019s a tipping point moment. And the solar and wind deployed in Indiana will lower the cost of future solar and wind deployed elsewhere. If this sort of tipping point can happen in Indiana, a deeply red state that <\/span>Donald Trump won by 19 points<\/span><\/a>, that <\/span>isn\u2019t all that sunny<\/span><\/a>, and that has <\/span>good but not amazing wind<\/span><\/a>, then that tipping point can happen <\/span>anywhere<\/span><\/i>. Our job is to keep the pressure up. <\/span><\/li>\n
                            3. A National Renewable Portfolio Standard<\/b>. 29 US states \u2013 including red states like Texas, Missouri, Iowa, and Ohio \u2013 have <\/span>Renewable Portfolio Standards<\/span><\/a> that mandate that a certain percentage of their electricity must come from carbon-free or renewable sources. That means 21 states <\/span>don\u2019t<\/span><\/i> have such mandates. If electricity were a perfectly competitive market, solar and wind and batteries would win on price and displace coal and gas in all these states. But utilities have a number of ways to resist change, even when it makes economic sense.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              5-29 US States have Renewable Portfolio Standards<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                              \"\"<\/span>The solution is for Congress to mandate a Renewable Portfolio Standard nationally, dragging the laggard states up to the standard of the rest. How high should that mandate be? The Green New Deal goal of 100% carbon free electricity by 2030 is incredibly ambitious. And it pushes us into the unknown. Beyond 70 or 80 or 90% of electricity from renewables, integration becomes increasingly difficult as periods of bad weather nation-wide cause serious problems. The technical challenges there can be overcome \u2013 perhaps through nuclear, or <\/span>next-generation carbon-capturing natural-gas plants<\/span><\/a>, or <\/span>long-term energy storage technologies<\/span><\/a> (which are being funded by ARPA-E). <\/span>
                              <\/span>
                              <\/span>Those challenges are still real enough that even a clean energy optimist like me gets nervous. A goal of 50% of electricity from carbon free sources in every state by 2030, then 80% by 2040, and 100% by 2050 would be in-line with what scientific models say we need to achieve in order to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. And by scaling both clean energy <\/span>and <\/span><\/i>the technology to integrate it to high percentages of the total grid, it would drive those technologies down in price for the rest of the world, and pave the way for cleaner grids everywhere. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                \n
                              1. Permanent, Uncapped, On-the-Spot Electric Vehicle Tax Credit. <\/b>On transportation, we may have reached another tipping point. 2018 may have been the <\/span>peak year for gasoline and diesel car sales<\/span><\/a>, ever. \u00a0Electric Vehicles, while still small in number, are growing at an astounding rate, and account for all growth in the auto industry. In some areas, <\/span>electric vehicles are now cheaper to own than gasoline cars<\/span><\/a> on a per-mile basis. And that will become true in more and more areas as the price of batteries declines. Even so, we need to move faster. On average, a US car gets replaced <\/span>when it\u2019s around 10 years old<\/span><\/a>. That means that, even if electric vehicles were 100% of new sales today, it would take around 20 years for them to replace all gasoline cars. That needs to happen faster. Congress can help. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                First, for individually owned vehicles, Congress should improve the federal electric vehicle tax credit. Today\u2019s $7,500 federal tax credit is capped at 200,000 electric vehicles per manufacturer. That\u2019s an absurdly low number in a country that has 260 million cars on the road. General Motors CEO Mary Barra <\/span>recently called for the cap to be removed<\/span><\/a>. Congress ought to put electric vehicles on the same footing as solar, wind, and batteries: A 30% tax credit \u2013 like the solar ITC \u2013 with no limit on the number of vehicles its applied to would be simple, clear, and consistent. For individuals buying their own vehicles, that tax credit ought to be structured so it can be taken off the purchase price of the vehicle directly, rather than waiting for tax season.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                Second, the same tax credit ought to apply to fleet operators who buy or build electric vehicles to offer rides to consumers. While the pace at which consumers buy new cars is slow, the pace at which they switch <\/span>miles of transport <\/span><\/i>can be far faster, as they switch some of their travel to fleets like Uber, Lyft, and whatever comes after. Those fleets, today, are mostly gasoline engine vehicles of hybrids. As electric vehicles increasingly become the <\/span>cheapest per mile, <\/span><\/i>those app-based transport fleets will go electric. And a typical taxi <\/span>drives 70,000 miles a year<\/span><\/a>, or roughly 4 times <\/span>the 13,500 miles per year of a typical individually-owned car<\/span><\/a>. That means each electric vehicle deployed as a taxi can have the impact of four individually owned vehicles.<\/span>
                                <\/span>
                                <\/span>Finally, Congress ought to accelerate the deployment of autonomous cars on the nation\u2019s roads. Why? Because an autonomous vehicle, by taking out the cost of the driver, can cut the cost per mile by half. Some calculations show that an autonomous electric taxi, by 2025, <\/span>                                could cost 35 cents per mile<\/span><\/a>. That\u2019s 1\/10<\/span>th<\/span> of what a taxi costs, 1\/5<\/span>th<\/span> of what a Lyft or UberX costs today, and <\/span>half the cost of owning and operating your own car<\/span><\/a>. That lower cost would cause even more rapid switching to electric transport fleets, as currently-owned gasoline vehicles increasingly sat unused, or saved for long-distance trips or other scenarios. Some studies find that, even at twice that price, as much as <\/span>40% of miles driven would switch to these electric fleets<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                \"\"<\/p>\n

                                6 \u2013 Autonomous Electric Taxis could be half the cost per mile of owning and operating a gasoline car \u2013 if autonomous vehicles arrive.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                                Getting to those costs absolutely depends on autonomy. Today, however, autonomous driving is regulated by a hodge-podge of different laws at the State level. Congress should step in and act to standardize safety testing, unify laws between states, and accelerate the deployment of safe, cheap, efficient, electric autonomous taxi services. \u00a0Congress <\/span>almost did so in 2018<\/span><\/a>. It\u2019s time to try again.<\/span>
                                <\/span>
                                <\/span>These three actions would both accelerate the deployment of electric vehicles in the US, and drive innovation in a sector where US companies are currently in the lead, and where they could be global leaders in trillion-dollar industries for decades to come. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                  \n
                                1. Incentives for EV Chargers \u2013<\/b> Everywhere<\/b>. Deploying more electric vehicles also means a demand for more charging infrastructure. \u00a0Congress ought to create incentives to deploy electric chargers in the places they make the most sense, and to lower the cost of charging stations by scaling them.<\/span>
                                  <\/span>
                                  <\/span>For individually-owned vehicles, incentives already exist to install a charger at home. \u00a0But drivers who park on the street or who live in apartment buildings without charging don\u2019t have an easy way to use a home charger. Congress ought to create federal incentives to deploy charging stations in multi-unit buildings, in malls, at grocery stores, and so on. Congress should <\/span>especially <\/span><\/i>create incentives for employers to deploy charging stations for their employees at work. \u00a0Charging stations make the most sense in the locations that cars spend the most time in. And after home, the clear #2 for most vehicles is at work. In addition, vehicles driven to work are most likely to be idle during the day \u2013 when solar power is producing. Charing electric vehicles during the day both <\/span>                                  allows the US to put more total solar power to use<\/span><\/a> (effectively storing it in these vehicles) and solves the problem of a lack of charging location for those who don\u2019t have convenient charging at home. <\/span>
                                  <\/span>
                                  <\/span>Similarly, if transportation is going to move more and more to electric (possibly autonomous) taxi fleets, those vehicles will need charging too. Congress ought to create incentives for that charging infrastructure to accelerate its deployment. <\/span>
                                  <\/span>
                                  <\/span>More generally a <\/span>                                  report from the Smart Electric Power Alliance<\/span><\/a> finds that \u00a0as electric vehicles and electric vehicle charging infrastructure spread, there\u2019s an opportunity to use software to manage <\/span>when <\/span><\/i>vehicles charge, to line that charging up with both solar and with the hours of peak wind power output, allowing more renewables to be integrated onto the grid.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                  \"\"<\/p>\n

                                  7 \u2013 Electric vehicles with smart chargers could charge when solar and wind are most abundant on the grid, increasing the amount of renewable energy we can use.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                                    \n
                                  1. Tax Credits for Carbon-Free Heating and Building Efficiency. <\/b>Beyond electricity and transportation, heating buildings accounts for 6% of all carbon emissions around the world, and is growing rapidly. To decarbonize the world\u2019s economy, we need to shift from heating with natural gas (or, in the poorest parts of the world, with coal or wood) to heating with carbon-free energy. While extending tax credits for solar and wind, Congress should keep those credits consistent for passive solar heating and geothermal heating systems, and extend those tax credits to also to include switching to an electric heat pumps, and any energy efficiency improvements made to a building. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                    Wait, but what about?<\/b><\/p>\n

                                    So I didn\u2019t list your favorite technology, policy, or issue? \u00a0Here:<\/span><\/p>\n

                                      \n
                                    1. Nuclear<\/b>. \u00a0In 2018, the US got <\/span>roughly 20% of its electricity from nuclear power<\/span><\/a>, or roughly twice as much as it does from solar and wind combined. That\u2019s carbon-free electricity from already running reactors. Shutting down those reactors prematurely would be a mistake. Germany\u2019s shutdown of their nuclear reactors <\/span>led to Germany missing their goals for carbon reduction<\/span><\/a>. Existing reactors \u2013 so long as they\u2019re safe \u2013 should be kept running as long as possible, while solar and wind scale up. And indeed, there\u2019s still <\/span>quite a bit of debate<\/span><\/a> about whether solar, wind, hydro, and batteries together can power 100% of the US. Some very smart scientists who care deeply about climate are skeptical that renewables can get us all the way there. I\u2019m <\/span>on the more optimistic side of this equation<\/span><\/a>. Even so, let\u2019s not tie one hand behind our back.<\/span>
                                      <\/span>
                                      <\/span>New <\/span><\/i>nuclear, on the other hand, <\/span>                                      is probably dead in the US and Europe<\/span><\/a>. Costs are <\/span>rising over time<\/span><\/a>, and reactors are <\/span>plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays<\/span><\/a>. The US ought to continue funding research into <\/span>next-generation reactors that could be built smaller<\/span><\/a>, more repeatably, and hopefully one day at a lower cost. Even those reactor designs are most likely to be a fallback in case solar, wind, and batteries stop falling in price the way they have. <\/span><\/li>\n
                                    2. Carbon Taxes<\/b>. \u00a0I spent much of 2015 advocating for a revenue-neutral carbon tax in Washington State. I love carbon taxes. And in electricity, they can be quite powerful. As I explain elsewhere, though, outside of the electricity sector, <\/span>carbon taxes are far less effective than believed<\/span><\/a>. They have only a little impact on industry, almost <\/span>no<\/span><\/i> impact on transportation, and usually aren\u2019t applied to agriculture. If a carbon tax magically passed Congress, I\u2019d cheer, and it could be an effective way to fund some of the proposals here. It\u2019s not a silver bullet, though, and it doesn\u2019t address the hardest sectors.<\/span><\/li>\n
                                    3. Carbon Capture<\/b>. People mean a wide variety of things when they say \u201ccarbon capture\u201d. \u00a0If we mean retrofitting coal power plants with equipment to capture their carbon emissions and store it, that\u2019s probably a waste of time. Coal is economically dead, even before adding on the cost of carbon capture. On the other hand, the NetPower design for an <\/span>advanced natural gas plant that has carbon capture built right in<\/span><\/a> could be a great complement to solar and wind, filling in for them during wind droughts in winter. (Though keeping <\/span>any<\/span><\/i> sort of natural gas in use also requires that we address <\/span>the serious \u00a0problem of methane leaks<\/span><\/a> from natural gas wells and infrastructure.) \u00a0<\/span>
                                      <\/span>
                                      <\/span>The most important type of carbon capture, though, is being able to capture carbon directly from the air. I support more RD into <\/span>                                      high-tech ways to scrub carbon from the air<\/span><\/a>. I\u2019m also cheered to see the tax credit Congress created to encourage carbon capture. That said, overwhelmingly the most affordable ways to capture carbon, today, are the ones the Green New Deal talks about: \u00a0returning carbon to the natural environment, by enriching soils and planting trees. Enriching farm soils and planting trees <\/span>cost ten times less than fancier methods of carbon capture<\/span><\/a>, and could capture a billion tons of carbon a year in the US alone. What\u2019s more, the US could make those methods even cheaper by spurring new technology \u2013 like <\/span>tree-planting drones<\/span><\/a>, or <\/span>transparent digital markets for carbon capture<\/span><\/a> \u2013 in a way that increases the adoption of carbon capture into natural ecosystems around the world. \u00a0Ultimately, we may need to draw even <\/span>more <\/span><\/i>carbon out of the air than soils and trees can handle. \u00a0We should do the RD for higher tech methods that can do so, and encourage their deployment, even as we use the cheapest methods of soils and forests first.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                      \"\"<\/p>\n

                                      8 \u2013 The cheapest ways to capture carbon are on the bottom of this chart \u2013 in soils and forests.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

                                      What About Climate Justice<\/b>? <\/span><\/p>\n

                                      The Green New Deal advances a plan to fight climate change and to ensure that we do so through a just transition. Here, I think a few principles clearly apply.<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        \n
                                      1. First, <\/span>the cost of the transition shouldn\u2019t be paid by those with the lowest income<\/b> or who\u2019ve contributed the least to the problem. In the long term, transitioning to a clean economy will make energy, transportation, and the rest of the goods we consume <\/span>cheaper. <\/span><\/i>If, in the short run, (when we\u2019re using subsidies to scale out new technologies to drive their costs down) there\u2019s any temporary increase in the cost of life\u2019s necessities, that shouldn\u2019t be passed on to low-income Americans. If costs for basic necessities go up, that needs to be offset by policies that buffer lower-income Americans against those changes.<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      2. Second, <\/span>if we need new taxes to pay for these programs, those taxes should be highly progressive<\/b>. If those taxes are on income, they should come in at the higher tax brackets. This also has to inform our view of a carbon tax. Carbon taxes are, on their own, highly regressive. Lower-income Americans spend a larger fraction of their paycheck on electricity, heating, transportation, and other carbon-intensive goods than wealthier Americans do. Rural Americans, who also tend to be <\/span>lower income<\/span><\/a> and who have the <\/span>highest rates of poverty in America<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>spend even more of their paycheck on transportation<\/span><\/a>. So raising the price of energy, transportation, and other goods hits low-income Americans and rural Americans the hardest. If we use a carbon tax, we can offset it by sending a flat dividend check to every woman, man, and child in America. In Washington State, in our 2016 ballot initiative, we used another approach, using carbon tax revenue to boost the federal Earned Income Tax Credit \u2013 a tax credit that goes to low-income working families, and which is the closest thing to a basic income we have now.<\/span><\/li>\n
                                      3. Third<\/span>, we need to help Americans in the most vulnerable communities with climate resistance and climate adaptation<\/b>. Whether those are communities that are vulnerable to climate-related flooding, crop losses from extreme weather, heat and drought, or to wildfires that will get worse as temperatures rise, society ought to invest in boosting the resilience of these communities, and, if necessary, in helping individuals and communities relocate to areas that are less vulnerable to climate. <\/span><\/li>\n
                                      4. Fourth, <\/span>massive investment in new clean energy, industry, transportation, and agriculture will pour trillions into the US economy<\/b>. What\u2019s more, it has the potential to turn the US into an exporter of new clean technology. Together, they\u2019ll create the opportunity for potentially millions of new jobs. That opportunity ought to be open to all \u2013 to workers in dirty industries like coal who have their jobs displaced, to lower income Americans who have fewer opportunities today, and to immigrants willing to come to America and work. Job training programs, and programs to bridge the gap between the end of an old career and the start of a new one \u2013 are a win\/win for America. They help us produce the labor pool to transition to this clean economy, and they provide a means for millions of Americans to uplift themselves with new, highly in-demand skills. <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                                        All of that is fully in alignment with the Green New Deal resolution. \u00a0The GND goes further, though, making the case for universal healthcare, universal higher education, universal housing, a job guarantee for all people in the United States, strengthening unions, reducing discrimination in the workplace, respect for Native American rights and sovereignty, and stopping the transfer of jobs overseas. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Many of those policies are ones I support, or at least where I support the motivations behind them. Yet I am not at all certain those policies should be coupled with climate action. Coupling a long list of liberal priorities with climate action would seem to make it <\/span>harder <\/span><\/i>to get the bipartisan support we\u2019ll probably need to enact these climate policies. \u00a0That said, the Green New Deal resolution is a high level map, not a specific bill. The original New Deal wasn\u2019t one piece of legislation \u2013 it was made up of <\/span>more than 30 separate bills<\/span><\/a>. Democrats should approach the Green New Deal the same way. They ought to embrace the idea that the overall effort may take multiple years and multiple Congresses to enact, and that it\u2019s perfectly acceptable to support some parts of the Green New Deal and not others. They ought to embrace alliances and assistance \u2013 including bipartisan alliances \u2013 to pass parts of the Green New Deal where they can. <\/span><\/p>\n

                                        \"\"<\/p>\n

                                        (Photo by Ira L. Black\/Corbis via Getty Images)<\/p>\n

                                        Climate Action is the Ultimate Climate Justice<\/b>
                                        <\/span>Even more importantly, though, acting on climate change <\/span>itself <\/span><\/i>creates a more just world. Climate change is a slow, insidious, and massive threat to human well-being. It\u2019s also profoundly unjust. Americans may only emit 15% of carbon emissions <\/span>today, <\/span><\/i>but all the CO2 we\u2019ve emitted in the past will linger in the atmosphere for roughly a century from when it was released. Add up all the carbon the US has emitted over time, and <\/span>                                        the US remains the largest cumulative emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet<\/span><\/a>. We Americans are more responsible for climate change than any other nation, even those with many times our population.<\/span>
                                        <\/span>
                                        <\/span>Meanwhile, two billion people live in countries that have emitted the least carbon dioxide over history \u2013 the poorest countries on planet earth \u2013 which are also the countries where people <\/span>                                        are likely to suffer the most from climate change<\/span><\/a>. Climate change itself is a deep inequity. The most just thing we can do is to address climate change as rapidly as possible, and to produce and spread the tools that also boost climate resilience around the developing world. Indeed, most of the <\/span>benefits <\/span><\/i>of fighting climate change don\u2019t go to Americans at all. Americans <\/span>do <\/span><\/i>benefit. But the largest benefits of fighting climate change go to the billions around the world who have the fewest resources and who live in the nations with the greatest vulnerability.<\/span>
                                        <\/span>Lower income Americans also stand to suffer more from climate change than do wealthier Americans. A lower-income American in Detroit isn\u2019t as vulnerable as a subsistence farmer in Botswana \u2013 not by a long shot. At the same time, it\u2019s hard to deny that Katrina, for example, hit the poor of New Orleans harder than it did the rich. Wealthier Americans can relocate more easily, can pay energy bills more easily, can rebuild from climate disasters more easily. And here again, the most just thing we can do is to act on climate, as rapidly as possible.<\/span>
                                        <\/span>
                                        <\/span>Should we find ways to use the fight against climate change to also address the long history of inequality and injustice, and the differences in wealth and income that exist in the US? If so, should we stop there? Climate change is global. Carbon emissions and the harm they cause know no national borders. The harm of American (and European, and more recently Chinese) carbon emissions will fall most heavily on the poor of the developing world. Should climate policy aim to decarbonize the world as rapidly as possible? Or should it aim to decarbonize <\/span>and<\/span><\/i> address other global ills? <\/span>
                                        <\/span>
                                        <\/span>For me, the answer is clear. Climate change itself is so unjust, so lopsided in who has benefited from burning fossil fuels and who will suffer the most from that combustion, that addressing climate change is, itself, to help undo an injustice \u2013 one that threatens <\/span>billions<\/span><\/i> of people around the world.<\/span>
                                        <\/span>
                                        <\/span>Let\u2019s tackle all the world\u2019s other problems too. As we do so, let\u2019s keep in mind that addressing climate change, even if we don\u2019t succeed at everything else, is a major, vital, and <\/span>necessary <\/span><\/i>step towards a more just world. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

                                        Article source: https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2019\/02\/15\/how-to-decarbonize-america-and-the-world\/<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                                        The Green New Deal has burst onto the American stage, spurring more conversation about \u2013 and aspiration for \u2013 ambitious climate policy than at any point in at least a <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[17],"tags":[23],"class_list":["post-14249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-networking-and-communication","tag-network-and-communication"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t