Bill Gates Has A Master Plan for Battling Climate Change

The co-founder of Microsoft became obsessed with developing clean tech through his philanthropic work. With a new book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster,’ and a cadre of billionaire partners, he now has an action plan for ending the world’s carbon dependency.

By Christina Binkley, Wall Street Journal Magazine, Feb. 15, 2021

Note from Partnership for Responsible Growth: These technologies become feasible when a growing price on carbon makes them competitive.

A day before the inauguration, as Lady Gaga rehearsed “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Washington, D.C., wildfires burned in Sonoma, Santa Cruz and Ventura counties in California, shocking climatologists who had never witnessed the state’s fire season extend into January. NASA had just announced that 2020 tied with 2016 for the warmest year on record. As the Covid-19 pandemic drove city dwellers to search for places that felt surer, safer—Vermont, Kansas, Idaho—the FBI began arresting Americans who had rioted in the U.S. Capitol. Online sales of “prepper” gear (gas masks, food preservation kits) were brisk.

Bill Gates was at his lakeside compound in Seattle, gearing up for his next effort to save the planet from mass extinction. For 20 years, Gates has been studying the twin global afflictions of disease and poverty. These efforts led him to consider climate change and its vexing impact on civilization. This month, Knopf will publish his latest book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. Remarkably, given the state of the world, it is an optimistic, can-do sort of book, chock-full of solutions for a problem President Jimmy Carter began warning about in 1977.

Last month’s inauguration of President Joe Biden had a big influence on Gates’s outlook. An earlier draft of the book included measures for a second Donald Trump term. In November, after the election, he edited these parts out, including provisions for how U.S. state and foreign governments could account for an absence of federal support. Another Trump win, Gates says, would have left us “holding our breath for four years and trying not to turn blue.”

“I hope Joe Biden stays healthy,” he had told me during our first virtual interview in December, while seated in a glass-walled conference room at Gates Ventures known as the fishbowl, where he has been taking meetings and relying on the Microsoft Teams platform during the pandemic.

Seattle’s Lake Washington glints over his shoulder, where far below a distant motorboat leaves a wake as Gates slips into his preferred posture, slouched with an ankle across a knee in an ergonomic conference-room chair. Gates, who is 65, has already confronted intractable problems, from trying to eradicate polio to epic rivalries with Steve Jobs and Google. The co-founder of Microsoft also sounded the alarm early about the need to prepare for a global pandemic. Climate change is yet another challenge Gates has served onto his own plate.

Although he has confidence in our collective ability to avoid the earth’s descent into a landscape of scorched rainforests and liquefying glaciers, his prescription is daunting: The planet must reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, currently about 51 billion tons per year, to zero by 2050. Nothing less, he says, will prevent a catastrophe, and he is calling for a full-scale technological revolution to make it happen.

“This is, you know, a harder problem than even ending the pandemic or getting rid of malaria,” Gates says. But the good thing, he adds, is that we have “all these idealistic people who are really pushing the cause forward, so 10 years from now they can see concrete metrics of the right progress, which is not just the low-hanging fruit.”

The crux of his argument is that, as helpful as innovations like electric cars, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries and plant-based burgers are to the effort, they don’t go far enough. There isn’t enough land on earth to plant enough trees to offset our carbon dependency. “The key point in my book is that a serious climate plan—which we don’t have yet—involves counting in your head all the different sources of emissions,” Gates says. This reckoning has to go beyond agriculture and electricity to encompass all carbon-spewing processes (transportation; concrete and steel production) so that we can develop green alternatives. So, for example, Gates believes we must invent green steel.

During an interview from the fishbowl a few days after the Capitol riot on January 6—a day he spent glued to the television even as the congressional vote counting continued well into the night—Gates says we are already on the cusp of a revolution. Climate change, he notes, went nearly unmentioned in the 2016 presidential debates. By the 2020 primaries, after Greta Thunberg had chastised Boomers for fiddling as frog and bee populations collapsed, Democrats were fighting over who would spend the most to fix the problem. “We got innovation on the climate agenda,” Gates says. The next United Nations Climate Change Conference is coming this November in Scotland. “In Glasgow, we’ll do even better.”

Gates gave a TED Talk about climate change in 2010. It hasn’t received as much attention as his pandemic-warning talk, but it marks the point when he grasped that greenhouse gases were hampering the philanthropic goals of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In the early naughts, he was traveling frequently to sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia to study child mortality, HIV and other problems. Traveling in Lagos, Nigeria, one night, he recounts in his book, he wondered at the city’s relative darkness and many unlit homes. Gates recognized a form of impoverishment that he hadn’t considered—energy poverty.

Globally, per-capita income rises with national energy use, meaning that cheap energy is critical to reducing poverty. “It’s hard to be productive if you don’t have lights to read by,” Gates writes in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster. He cites the influence of Canadian scientist Vaclav Smil, who helped him understand how energy shapes civilizations. Gates has written that he looks forward to Smil’s books, which are dense with statistics, with the same gleeful anticipation fans have for a new Star Wars movie.

By 2006, the year An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s groundbreaking documentary about global warming, came out, Gates had invested in energy development. So-called clean tech had become trendy, with more than $25 billion pouring into solar power, battery companies and other new technologies from 2006 to 2011. Gates went all in, even investing in nuclear energy, which, unlike solar and wind, provides a constant, not intermittent, power source.

Clean-tech venture markets crashed in 2011. Fracking had cut the cost of natural gas, depressing demand for green alternatives. One heavily hyped solar-panel startup, Solyndra, illustrates the complexity of funding energy innovation. Solyndra’s thin-film solar cells, a promising technology subsidized with $535 million in federal loan guarantees, proved too expensive to compete with government-subsidized imports from China. The company went bankrupt in 2011, leaving taxpayers ultimately on the hook for the loan.

An analysis by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that venture investors lost more than half of their money on Cleantech 1.0. Gates is unfazed by such losses. He says he has personally invested $2 billion in climate change innovation so far and expects to invest another $2 billion over the next five years. “I’m only going to lose money on this stuff,” he says, shrugging. “But that’s not in short supply.”

Gates’s current thinking about climate innovation galvanized in June 2015. While attending meetings in London, he was probed by an editor at the Financial Times about the lack of pioneering research into clean-energy solutions. The exchange bugged him. During a meeting the next afternoon in a suite at the Four Seasons Hotel on Park Lane, he began pacing and mumbling, according to two people who were with him at the time, Larry Cohen, head of Gates’s private office, Gates Ventures, and Jonah Goldman, who runs Gates’s policy and advocacy, including climate efforts. “It’s just not enough of a focus, and the wrong people are organizing this,” Gates muttered.

As his group left the hotel and climbed into a black Mercedes van to head to another meeting, Gates and his team concocted a plan to vastly increase the amount of public and private money going toward energy innovation. By the time he emerged on the other side of London, Gates had decided to create a venture capital fund and to organize government leaders to invest billions of dollars in climate technology. “We could call it Breakthrough Energy,” Gates later posited.

“That was not what we expected when we landed in London,” says Goldman.

The speed of what followed reflects the magnitude of Gates’s reach. He pitched then–French president François Hollande the next day in Paris at the Élysée Palace. In September, he crashed a United Nations meeting between Hollande and India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, to pitch the leader of one of the world’s biggest carbon producers. Modi, enthusiastic about the idea, proposed his own name for the coalition, Mission Innovation, which Gates accepted.

In Seattle, Gates’s team began to structure the $1 billion venture fund. When Gates laid out the plan to Rodi Guidero, managing director for strategic investments at Gates Ventures (who now oversees Breakthrough Energy Ventures), Guidero blurted, “That’s a terrible f—ing idea.” He argued the fund would lose money and embarrass Gates.

“Why do you think I care about that?” Gates replied.

(In retelling the story, Guidero now says, “I can’t believe I said a thing like that to Bill Gates.” Gates says he doesn’t remember the exchange.)

Gates’s team established unusual criteria for the fund. Any venture must feasibly eliminate a minimum of 500 million tons of greenhouse gases annually, with an investment horizon of at least 20 years, rather than the standard 10. That meant older participants might not live to see a payout.

“In another 20 years, you’re not going to be wondering if you got a return,” says Larry Cohen. “You’re wondering if there’s going to be a planet left for your great-grandchildren.”

Breakthrough Energy Ventures spurned institutional investors. “It’s easier to make these decisions when you don’t have to justify your lower investment returns to your boss,” says John Arnold, a Houston-based billionaire and former energy trader who invested in the fund and joined as co-chair.

In the fall of 2015, Gates emailed a global cadre of billionaires who could afford to lose tens of millions investing in Breakthrough Energy Ventures. They included Jack Ma, Jeff Bezos, Vinod Khosla and Prince al-Waleed bin Talal.

It turned out to be an appealing club to join, and a model of global billionaire diversity (although female members are scarce). Other investors include Michael Bloomberg, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son, South African mining businessman Patrice Motsepe, Mukesh Ambani (India’s wealthiest person), Richard Branson, Bridgewater hedge-fund founder Ray Dalio and Beijing real-estate developers Zhang Xin and Pan Shiyi.

John Doerr, the legendary venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins who made early bets on Netscape, Amazon and Google, says the $50 million he put into the venture was his biggest-ever personal investment at the time. “The idea that we would gather entrepreneurs and business leaders from around the globe...I found exciting,” Doerr says. “I think it’s one of the most remarkable pieces of fundraising I’ve ever witnessed.”

Doerr is a believer. He says the climate crisis is the next big investment opportunity. “This is the mother of all markets,” he says.

“It was stunning to me how easy it was to raise the money,” Gates says.

In November 2015, just five months after the London van ride, Gates stood sandwiched between U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the only private citizen onstage at the launch event for Mission Innovation at the Paris climate summit.

Gates looked sheepish in group photos, having been stranded for about an hour in an awkward situation for an introvert. “Our press conference was delayed because [Modi] and Obama were talking one-on-one,” Gates recalls. “And so I’m standing there with all these other leaders of all these other countries waiting for Obama and Modi to come.”

At last Gates arrived at center stage, wearing a dark suit and a too-short blue tie, to announce his initiative: Twenty-eight billionaires had opted in, and 20 countries had committed to double clean-energy R&D spending in an effort to curb climate change.

Last year’s global average temperature was 1.84 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the baseline 1951 to 1980 mean, according to NASA. Melting permafrost has spit out human cadavers and a woolly mammoth that had been locked in the frozen earth for more than 40,000 years. Residents of Tuvalu, an island nation in the South Pacific, are jockeying for space as their archipelago is swallowed by rising seas.

How much will it cost to halt this trajectory? Gates employs simple formulas. Removing carbon from the atmosphere, for example, currently costs at least $200 a ton, and he thinks it’s possible to quickly get that down to $100 per ton. To remove 51 billion tons of emissions per year at $100 per ton would require spending $5.1 trillion per year, or 6 percent of the world’s GDP. Which is much cheaper, Gates points out, than shutting down whole sectors of economies, as has happened during the pandemic.

What’s more, there is a precedent for this sort of radical innovation on the part of the government. In 1973, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as DARPA, began a program to network computers called the Internetting project. By 1986, the National Science Foundation had launched the backbone of what would become the Internet, a system capable of carrying large volumes of information across its networks. NASA and the Department of Energy contributed. Europe joined, and eventually so did commercial and private network providers, followed by several generations of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, many of them the same people now putting their Internet-derived riches into climate innovation. Gates suggests the same approach can work for climate change research and development. But, he argues, we no longer have decades to make it happen.

Gates proposed in December that the U.S. create a National Institutes of Energy Innovation, and fund it along the lines of the existing National Institutes of Health, which is the largest biomedical research agency in the world, with an annual budget of more than $40 billion. The NIEI should focus on research fields such as low-carbon fuels, energy storage and renewables, he says.

How to Avoid a Climate Disaster presents ideas with the methodical approach of a college textbook. In addressing how current solutions fall short, Gates puts forward some tree-planting arithmetic on page 129:

“[T]he math suggests you’d need somewhere around 50 acres worth of trees, planted in tropical areas, to absorb the emissions produced by an average American in her lifetime. Multiply that by the population of the United States and you get more than 16 billion acres, or 25 million square miles, roughly half the landmass of the world.” An intervention of this scale would be enough to cover only the United States. (Gates nonetheless buys carbon offsets for his own footprint, paying, he says, $400 per ton—more than 40 times the price of typical offsets.)

Gates is a believer in free markets, and one of the key concepts in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster is based on Keynesian economics. He proposes using a measure that he calls the “green premium” to understand how a zero-carbon technology can replace its carbon-spewing analog. The green premium specifies how much more that new technology costs. For instance, in his book Gates writes that green aviation biofuel is sold at an average cost of $5.35 per gallon. This amounts to a green premium of more than 140 percent over standard jet fuel, at an average of $2.22 per gallon.

Gates wants the world to jump-start zero-carbon technologies, which face far greater hurdles than developing new software. “You bootstrap those markets to get the scale, to get the green premium...down enough so that by 2050...you can say to [India] with a straight face: Buy clean steel,” Gates says.

In practice, this means governments stepping up with tax credits, loan guarantees and other supports. But Gates believes investors must play their role. He recently raised a second $1 billion Breakthrough Energy Ventures fund, largely with the same group as the first round. Investments will be guided by Breakthrough Energy’s in-house team of scientists and entrepreneurs, with two investment heads— Carmichael Roberts, a chemist and entrepreneur, and Eric Toone, also a chemist—deciding where to place bets and then acting as cheerleaders and mentors. “Everybody inside BEV is a company builder,” says Roberts.

Ramya Swaminathan is chief executive of the BEV-backed Malta, a battery company that emerged from X, Alphabet’s “moonshot factory.” After a setback involving another potential investor, she called Roberts. “Carmichael said something I’ve never heard from an investor before,” Swaminathan says. “ ‘Here’s how we failed.’ It seems subtle, the inclusion: we.”

A Breakthrough investment, an electric-car battery company called QuantumScape, already appears promising. Also backed by Volkswagen, it went public last fall. Its stock yo-yoed from $23.50 to more than $130 a share before leveling off around $50 in January.

Gates is particularly fond of TerraPower, a Bellevue, Washington–based developer of safer nuclear energy that Gates co-founded in 2008, with an investment that reports estimated at the time as more than $500 million. Gates, who declined to confirm the size of his initial investment, does not share most of the world’s terror of nuclear technology.

“Nobody’s gone back and done a complete redesign of a nuclear energy plant since those early days of the ’50s,” Gates says. “So the question is, in the digital age, can you build a nuclear reactor whose economics, safety potential and waste output are utterly different than the current generation of nuclear? You really have to start from scratch.”

TerraPower’s approach, designed after Gates paid for supercomputer modeling, stores heat in tanks of molten salt. Without high pressure, the technology will eventually be able to run on spent fuel rods, so that existing stockpiles of nuclear waste are reduced as they are recycled.

“Can nuclear be super safe?” Gates asks. “I say yes.”

After 10 years of developing a prototype, TerraPower was on the verge of building a demonstration plant in China in 2018, when the Trump administration pulled the plug amid rising tensions with the country. Chris Levesque, TerraPower’s chief executive, recalls taking the call from the U.S. Department of Energy in his office, his general counsel at his side. “It was October 11, 2018,” he says, the date fixed in his memory. “It was devastating…. It [was] really almost like the grieving process—first it’s disbelief, then it’s acceptance.”

Levesque faced what venture capitalists call the second valley of death—a low point when startups are likely to fail. While his nuclear-industry colleagues and employees wondered if TerraPower was done for, Gates stepped in. He turned to Capitol Hill. Six weeks after the China deal was rescinded, TerraPower pivoted to a plan to construct a prototype reactor on U.S. soil, with Gates later promising to contribute at least half the cost. The plant was funded by Congress last October and is one of two new nuclear reactors approved, each awarded $80 million in funding. Gates has committed to invest another $500 million in TerraPower, which Levesque expects will start generating energy in seven years. “We’ll push forward,” Gates says. “It takes kind of a long-term thinker.”

As a teenage prodigy in the 1970s, Gates wrote computer code to schedule classes for the student body of his Seattle high school (and later admitted that he hacked the system so that he could place himself in all-girls’ classes). After dropping out of Harvard to co-found Microsoft, he conceded in a 2016 interview he could be a nightmarish boss, memorizing employee license plates to keep tabs on who was working late or on weekends and employing a self-made management theory that no one should report to a manager with a lower IQ than their own.

These days, a half-dozen friends and associates describe Gates as a polymath who relentlessly tries to decipher puzzles. To keep him at peak productivity, his senior team at the Gates Foundation and Gates Ventures (he left Microsoft’s board in 2020) hold an annual meeting to determine how best to allocate his time over the coming year, says Cohen, who left Microsoft with Gates in order to establish what is now Gates Ventures.

It isn’t helpful to interrupt Bill Gates. He speaks in circles, wending his way around ideas and unleashing a cascade of details that can be difficult to follow until its conclusion. “I’m not a natural like Steve Jobs, who could really get people riled up,” he says.

When I asked what makes him good at solving complex problems, Gates spoke without hesitation for six minutes and 45 seconds, touching on his approach to eradicating malaria, building strong teams, his understanding of concrete and cement, Americans’ generally more positive outlook about nuclear energy than the Europeans’, and much more. He concluded, “This is fun work.”

He paces, according to colleagues, and his voice gets squeaky when he’s excited, but he often fails to emote when faced with tragedy. “It’s actually hard to convey what it’s like to be there watching a kid who’s dying of malaria. I could get better at that,” he says. In a social setting, small talk is not his thing. Gates is the guy in the corner talking to another brainiac.

“Tony Fauci and I were quite obscure and would go to cocktail parties and nobody would talk to us,” says Gates of the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has taken a star turn during Covid-19. “Now Tony’s like the rock star and Saturday Night Live has women throwing bras at him.”

Gates sees his role in climate change falling squarely on the side of science. “I won’t be the biggest advocacy person. I will be on the innovation piece,” he says. “I do hope to mostly use logic as opposed to lobbying dollars.”

In February, as his book was about to arrive in stores, Gates was preparing to launch two new facets of Breakthrough Energy, the umbrella organization under which BEV sits, including a series of philanthropic fellowships in green industries for post-graduate technologists and business leaders. Another program, Breakthrough Energy Catalyst, will sell real carbon-offsets (not tree-planting credits) to help fund market-ready technologies such as aviation biofuel refineries while enabling high-net-worth individuals, companies and institutions to meet climate pledges. “You can’t buy your way out of your climate impact,” says Jonah Goldman. “You have to buy your way into the solution.”

Melinda Gates, whom Gates married in 1994, is often seen as a humanizing influence on her husband, a scenario neither of them appears to relish. (Through spokespeople she declined to be interviewed for this piece.) The couple has three children, Jennifer, a 24-year-old medical student; Rory, 21, and Phoebe, 18, both college students.

Melinda does offer social guidance, Gates acknowledges. She counseled against making too many references to cow farts, he writes in How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, attempting to limit his mentions of the methane produced by ruminant livestock.

Yet he thinks the popular view of Melinda as his alter ego is shortsighted. “Melinda and I are more alike than people think,” Gates says. “Yes, you can see her empathy more easily than mine—though I cry more easily than she does. Melinda’s very analytical—like top-1-percent analytical, though yes, I’m weirdly even more analytical.”

If the Gates approach works, a handful of billionaires could become vastly richer from taxpayer-backed technologies, which poses a question of equity. “These people are the winners of the system that is producing [these] problems,” says David Callahan, founder and editor of Inside Philanthropy, which tracks trends in charitable giving.

Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington, D.C., think tank, who also worked with Gates’s late father, Bill Gates Sr., would like to see the effort—and the rewards—spread around more. “I would rather have fewer billionaires and more broadly controlled venture funds funded by taxpayers, funded by pools of donors, but not by five or 10 mega-billionaires or centi-billionaires,” Collins says. “That’s where it becomes corrosive—concentrations of power.”

Gates says he understands those concerns, and today’s general societal distrust of billionaires, but this is really no time to quibble.

“I think you should attack billionaires who try and avoid the estate tax or billionaires who try and avoid paying capital gains taxes,” he says. “There’s a lot of things to go after billionaires for, besides their willingness to put money into a fund that’s super high-risk, and in the best case, they won’t get their money back for over a decade. And they’re doing it because they believe in climate.”

Gates is a little worried that people will get sick of hearing from him this year as he flies around trying to save the planet. There’s climate change, there’s the pandemic (not to mention Alzheimer’s research, another of his passion projects). “ ‘Boy, this guy sure is telling us what to do in two different areas. Who does he think he is?’ They’re going to get full of me,” Gates says.

He slouches and ducks his chin as he makes a joke. “I’m just trying to avoid kryptonite as much as I can.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-gates-interview-climate-change-book-11613173337


Experts Tell Biden: Your Climate Goals Require a Carbon Price

The National Academies published a comprehensive list of policies the U.S. can enact to transform the energy system and right historical inequality.

By Eric Roston & Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg News, Feb. 4, 2021

Meeting the climate goals of President Joe Biden will require setting a national cost for carbon pollution and spending heavily on social programs to assist Americans hurt by the clean-energy transition. Those are the findings in a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the latest group to lay out a detailed strategy for making the U.S. economy carbon-neutral by 2050.

The goal to be carbon-neutral by mid-century — which the global scientific community says is the only way to avert the worst effects of climate change — has been widely embraced in the private sector and by nine of the top 10 biggest economies, including the U.S. Yet 30 years is very little time to wind down and replace an energy system that's taken generations to build. Urgent steps and market signals are needed, the report said, such as a mechanism to place a price on carbon emissions.

“The big difference between this and any previous report is the attention paid to the social connections to the equity and diversity, and community worker-protection issues,” said Stephen Pacala, committee chair and a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University. “The report was specifically created to have a full representation of the social dimensions of a transition like this. At least half of our policy recommendations are in that camp.” One of their suggestions is to establish a White House Office of Equitable Energy Transitions to develop criteria to ensure that energy transition funds are equitably shared so that historically marginalized communities can benefit from new jobs and low-cost net-zero energy.

Federal officials are at the receiving end of several firehoses of expertise specifying what, exactly, needs to be done to put the U.S. economy on a climate-safe footing by mid-century. 

There’s a map of what federal agencies should do. There’s a database of job-creating policy ideas. Princeton researchers in December illustrated five decarbonization scenarios for the 2020s that could leave the U.S. well-positioned to meet the world’s science-driven mid-century deadline. There’s “quiet climate policy,” whose clean investments steadily pay off at epic scale. A research team concluded last month that the U.S. “can reach zero emissions without requiring changes to behavior. Cost is about $1 per person per day, not counting climate benefits.” The Decarb America project today reported that its incremental cost estimates “are small relative to the projected size of the U.S. economy, constituting only 0.4-2.2% of GDP,” compared with 5% to 10% for the volatile traditional energy system.

Above all, time is of the essence: An analysis published Wednesday by Energy Innovation Policy & Technology LLC, a nonpartisan energy and environmental policy research firm, concludes that delaying decarbonization from today until 2030 would raise the overall cost of energy capital, operations, and fuel by 72%. The time-crunch forces industries to make more draconian changes more quickly, including more aggressive pushes, for example, into building efficiency and expensive technologies that captures CO₂ directly from air. 

The new National Academies report argues that carbon pricing, the politically unpopular idea of taxing emissions or requiring permits, is an important step to meet the 2050 goal. It is also not enough. The authors, drawn from numerous fields of research and experience, also compiled a list of emissions-reduction policies that include electrifying vehicles and appliances. These technological  accomplishments must be matched with complementary efforts to ensure that the energy transition isn’t too hard on any U.S. communities, particularly historically marginalized and poor areas.

Yet slashing emissions requires more than a technical transition, the report suggests. The report calls for the creation of a National Transition Corporation to manage problems like possible job loss and equitable access to economic opportunities created by infrastructure development. It estimates the cost at $20 billion over 10 years, which would require Congressional approval.

The National Academies emphasized just how critical the next 10 years are for government action. To reach carbon neutrality, industry and the private sector will have to electrify. That's why it's so urgent, the report says, for the government to invest heavily in systems that will allow the rest of society to follow suit.

The report outlines the immense technical challenges to achieving the basic milestones for decarbonizing in a timely manner. For example, Biden says he wants to decarbonize the U.S. electric grid by 2035. The academies suggest that the grid needs to be 75 percent carbon free by 2030. But to achieve that, they note, “would require an average pace of wind and solar installation that each year matches or exceeds the record historical yearly deployment of these technologies.” And that pace would have to accelerate every year from 2025 to 2030. 

 But the biggest challenges may be the policy imperatives that need bipartisan support to implement. There is currently little political appetite on either side of the aisle for a carbon tax starting at $40 per ton as suggested by the report — which is still below data-driven estimates of what every ton of CO₂ costs society. Carbon pricing would likely take an act of Congress, as would the academies’ suggestion that the Department of Energy set manufacturing standards to achieve close to 100 percent all-electric appliances by 2050.

Americans Are Moving To Escape Climate Impacts. Towns Expect More To Come

By Annie Ropeik, National Public Radio/New Hampshire Public Radio, Jan. 22, 2021

The impacts of climate change could prompt millions of Americans to relocate in coming decades, moving inland away from rising seas, or north to escape rising temperatures.

Judith and Doug Saum have moved already, recently leaving their home outside Reno, Nev.

"It was with a view of the Sierra [Nevada Mountains] that was just to die for," Judith says. "We had a lot of friends, musician friends, we'd get together and play music with them often. It wasn't easy to leave all that."

The Saums had long thought about retiring to Colorado or Montana to be near family. But as they started making those plans several years ago, they were also noticing a new problem: Wildfire season was getting worse and longer in their part of the country, fueled by climate change.

"For me, it was unbearable because I was so sensitive to the smoke that I start to swell up," says Judith. "I get sinus infections, and going outside was intolerable."

The Saums settled on northern New England and a house in the rural town of Rumney at the foot of New Hampshire's White Mountains.

Doug Saum says they call themselves climate migrants.

"We had the idea ... not necessarily that we were going to a place that would be forever untouched by climate change, but that we were getting out of a bad climate situation that was only likely to get worse," he says.

For others, climate-related hazards will be just one reason to move. Bess Samuel says her family has wanted to leave Huntsville, Ala., for a less conservative place for a while — and rising temperatures and power bills could seal the deal.

"I feel like I have to be realistic — this is as good as it's going to get for a while," Samuel says. "We keep hearing these things ... it's the hottest summer and it's the hottest summer and that trend doesn't seem to be reversing."

Jola Ajibade studies climate migration as an assistant professor at Portland State University in Oregon.

"Impermanence might be the new normal for many of us," she says. "The idea that you have to live in one place forever, I think people have to forget that... And I think people who have been able to do that historically, I think it's a privilege that they should celebrate."

But she says all this moving around can make people resilient. And if the places that will receive these new residents can be resilient and flexible, too, the communities might just benefit from it.

Pandemic influx shows the need to plan

"When we've talked about climate migration, it usually comes up in the context of the jobs that we just can't fill," says Sarah Marchant, the community development director in Nashua, N.H.

Nashua has already seen its Puerto Rican population grow after Hurricane Maria hit the island, and it expects more climate migrants from Boston and other nearby coastal areas.

"I think the city is well-positioned with the infrastructure we already have, and our location that is very desirable," Marchant says. "We are an hour from Boston, a little over an hour from the Seacoast and two hours to the mountains, and so we are connected to everything."

By some measures, Nashua's region could be an ideal climate haven. It's getting warmer, but it doesn't face the existential threats of, say, Florida from hurricanes and flooding or California from wildfires and smoke. Northern New England is also one of the oldest and whitest parts of the country and has struggled with population loss.

But it's hard to predict the scale and timing of climate migration. And an influx of newcomers during the current pandemic is showing just how disruptive unplanned growth can be.

"An increase in traffic, people getting evicted, a lack of hospital beds because there's more people – these are the kinds of things that create tension," says Anna Marandi, a senior climate specialist with the National League of Cities. "When the systems aren't set up properly in advance to hold more people, then the existing population can get resentful."

So Sarah Marchant says Nashua is keeping migration and other climate impacts in mind while tackling existing problems with affordable housing and overstretched infrastructure. The idea is "to ensure that what we are building is sustainable," she says, and to "be smarter about what we do have."

Whether or not the climate migrants come, she says Nashua is making improvements that will benefit everyone.

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/22/956904171/americans-are-moving-to-escape-climate-impacts-towns-expect-more-to-come

Survey Finds Majority of Voters Support Initiatives to Fight Climate Change

A survey carried out after the November election found that 66 percent of respondents said that developing sources of clean energy should be a high or very high priority.

By John Schwartz, The New York Times, Jan. 15, 2021

A majority of registered voters of both parties in the United States support initiatives to fight climate change, including many that are outlined in the climate plans announced by President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., according to a new survey.

The survey, which was conducted after the presidential election, suggests that a majority of Americans in both parties want a government that deals forcefully with climate change instead of denying its urgency — or denying that it exists.

In the survey, published Friday by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication, 53 percent of registered voters said that global warming should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress, and 66 percent said that developing sources of clean energy should be a high or very high priority.

Eight in 10 supported achieving those ends by providing tax breaks to people who buy electric vehicles or solar panels, and by investing in renewable energy research.

“These results show there’s very strong public support for bold, ambitious action on climate change and clean energy,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, who heads the Yale program. That suggests an opening for bipartisan legislation backed by lawmakers’ constituents.

During the campaign, Mr. Biden spoke often about how his proposals would generate jobs, and the survey indicates broad support for that idea, and not just in the jobs that would come with creating renewable energy.

Of those polled, 83 percent said they supported creating a jobs program that would hire unemployed coal workers, shut down old coal mines safely, and restore the natural landscape. The same percentage said they supported a jobs program that would shut down the thousands of abandoned oil and gas wells around the nation, which pollute water and leak methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

Some of the policies that appear in the survey echo Mr. Biden’s campaign points closely, including support among 78 percent of those surveyed for setting stronger vehicle fuel efficiency standards and 67 percent support for installing 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations across the United States by 2030.

The nation is still divided politically, of course, with higher levels of support for some of the initiatives among Democrats than Republicans. The percentage of liberal Democrats who said that global warming should be a high or very high priority stood at 86 percent; among conservative Republicans, the figure was just 12 percent, and among all Republicans, that figure was closer to 23 percent.

While 93 percent of liberal Democrats said they thought developing sources of clean energy should be a high or very high priority for the president and Congress, just 32 percent of conservative Republicans did; among all Republicans, however, the figure was 43 percent — and 58 percent among liberal and moderate Republicans.

An incentive program promoting renewable energy might gain support from conservatives seeking energy independence or economic development, Dr. Leiserowitz, said, even if they may not be as deeply concerned about addressing climate change. “There are many roads to Damascus,” he said.

The Green New Deal, a package of progressive proposals for fighting climate change that has been heavily attacked by conservatives, got the support of 66 percent of those polled, a lower figure than many of the specific proposals discussed in the survey. Mr. Biden has declined to support the Green New Deal specifically, though his campaign called it a “crucial framework” for climate action.

Some of the signature initiatives of the Trump administration proved to be deeply unpopular with the public, especially the effort to promote drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: Only 28 percent of voters favored it. Just 40 percent supported drilling for and mining fossil fuels on public lands, and 47 percent supported expanding U.S. offshore oil and natural gas drilling.

As for the Paris climate agreement, which Mr. Trump abandoned with great fanfare, 75 percent of American voters said they wanted the nation back in. And while Mr. Trump heralded his aggressive efforts to relax energy efficiency standards for home appliances like dishwashers and light bulbs, 83 percent of the voters in the survey said they supported more energy-efficient appliances.

The fact that interest in climate issues is so strong, considering the proliferation of crises that include the coronavirus pandemic and its attendant economic woes, and the months of unrest over racism, is impressive, Dr. Leiserowitz said. In part it might be attributed to increased media coverage and events like the very active wildfire and hurricane seasons last year.

“For most people, until recently, climate change has been an abstract issue,” he said.

The survey of 1,036 registered voters was conducted between Dec. 3 and Dec. 16 and has a margin of error of three percentage points.

Dr. Leiserowitz said that the support for government action to get the nation moving toward a clean-energy future, even among conservative Republicans, showed a shift in American political thinking.

“We are in a fundamentally different political climate today than when we lived in the 1980s and ’90s,” he said.

This survey suggests that Americans accept the idea that “the free market alone is not going to solve people’s problems,” he said. “It takes a strong government to fix these problems.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/climate/climate-change-survey.html?searchResultPosition=2

Cambridge, MA is first place in US to have climate warning labels at gas pumps

Cambridge, the home of Harvard and MIT, passed a city ordinance in January requiring the signs at gas station fuel pumps

By Louise Boyle, The Independent, Dec. 31, 2020

Health and environmental warning labels on the dangers of fossil fuels will be required for the first time in the US at gas pumps in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The bold yellow stickers are intended to make clear the connection to customers between filling up their vehicles and the climate crisis.

The cigarette packet-style label reads: “Warning - Burning Gasoline, Diesel and Ethanol has major consequences on human health and on the environment including contributing to climate change.”

Cambridge, the home of Harvard and MIT, passed a city ordinance in January requiring the signs at gas stations.

A spokesman for the city told The Independent: “The City of Cambridge is working hard with our community to fight climate change. Since burning fossil fuels to power our automobiles is a big part of the cause, we know that we have to convert to less polluting transportation and replace gasoline and diesel with renewable energy. 

"The gas pump stickers will remind drivers to think about climate change and hopefully consider non-polluting options.”

An example of the label was tweeted by environmental campaigners Beyond The Pump who said that Cambridge will roll out the stickers by the end of the year.

Although the signs are in a hard-to-miss shade of yellow, they do not include anything similar to the striking images attached to cigarette packets. Environmental campaigners have put forward ideas of climate labels including burning forests and other catastrophes caused by global heating.

An estimated 43 per cent of emissions in Massachusetts come from transportation. Personal vehicles cause a large portion of those emissions, Cambridge officials said. 

At the beginning of 2020 Governor Charlie Baker said that Massachusetts would go beyond the 80 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 that is required by law, and set a goal of net-zero emissions.

Transportation accounts for 28 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The emissions come primarily from burning fossil fuel for cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes.

James Brooks, founder of Think Beyond the Pump, wrote in an op-ed earlier this month that warning labels are “intentionally disruptive”.

“The goal is to create a social norm around gassing up and put public pressure on consumers to find ways to reduce emissions. Of course, there is some guilt involved; drivers get the message, and they know everyone else gets it, too. That forces drivers to recognize they’re part of the problem. It creates a sense of accountability,” he wrote.

An attempt for similar labels in Berkeley, California, was unsuccessful, while Sweden made climate warning labels mandatory on gas pumps in May.

The British Medical Journal earlier this year advocated for the policy  but noted its potential downfalls.

“
In North Vancouver, Canada, pictorial designs denoting biodiversity loss were ‘co-opted’ by the Canadian fuel industry and incorporated into a national ‘Smart fuelling’ initiative, with any threats to health omitted,” a report noted.

In August, Extinction Rebellion activists stuck tens of thousands of labels on petrol pumps across the UK to highlight the threat of the climate crisis.

Some of the more than 20,000 stickers printed out by the group include references to the Covid-19 coronavirus, stating air pollution may “increase your risk”, while others play on the government’s maligned mid-lockdown slogan “Stay alert, control the virus, save lives” - replacing the phrase with a call to “control pollution”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/gas-warning-climate-change-cambridge-b1779687.html

Climate Change Legislation Included in Coronavirus Relief Deal

The legislation calls for cutting the use of powerful planet-warming chemicals common in air-conditioners and refrigerators.

By Coral Davenport, The New York Times, Dec. 21, 2020

WASHINGTON — In the waning days of the 116th Congress, lawmakers have authorized $35 billion in spending on wind, solar and other clean power sources while curtailing the use of a potent planet-warming chemical used in air-conditioners and refrigerators.

Both measures, backed by some of the Senate’s most powerful Republicans, were attached to the huge government spending and coronavirus relief package that is expected to head to President Trump’s desk early this week, effectively creating the first significant climate change law since at least 2009.

They amount to a rare party rebuke to Mr. Trump on the issue of global warming, after he spent the past four years mocking and systematically rolling back every major climate change rule. The comity may also signal that while President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. is unlikely to secure his full climate plan, he may be able to make some progress in curbing global warming.

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, called the effort “the single biggest victory in the fight against climate change to pass this body in a decade.”

Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming and a leading opponent of most climate change policies, also celebrated: “This agreement protects both American consumers and American businesses,” he said. “We can have clean air without damaging our economy.”

Advocates for climate change policy said passage of the climate measures — especially the limits on refrigerants — could signal to the rest of the world that the United States is ready to rejoin the global effort to slow the warming of the planet. The coolant phase-down would be one of the most significant federal policies ever taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group, a research and consulting firm.

By 2035, the law would help avoid the equivalent of 949 million tons of carbon dioxide, the group estimated, which is similar in scope to the extra expected emissions from Mr. Trump’s climate policy rollbacks on vehicle pollution and methane from oil and gas operations.

Mr. Biden has pledged to enact the most ambitious climate change agenda by a president. On his Inauguration Day he is expected to formally rejoin the Paris agreement, the 2015 pact under which nearly every country agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Trump formally withdrew the United States from the agreement in November. Mr. Biden has also pledged to host a global climate summit in Washington within the first 100 days of his administration.

The bill to cut planet-warming refrigerants “is the most important thing, along with rejoining Paris, that they can show in the first 100 days,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute of Governance and Sustainable Development, a research organization. “This is one of the first exhibits of success.”

The new legislation would require the nation’s chemical manufacturers to phase down the production and use of coolants called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. They are a small percentage of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, compared with carbon dioxide from the fossil fuels that power vehicles, electric plants and factories, but they have 1,000 times the heat-trapping potency of carbon dioxide.

In a 2016 accord signed in Kigali, Rwanda, in the last days of the Obama administration, 197 nations agreed to phase out HFCs in favor of alternatives that are less dangerous to the climate. The Kigali agreement was an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the landmark 1987 treaty designed to close the hole in the ozone layer.

Once the Kigali amendment is implemented by all nations, scientists say it would stave off an increase of atmospheric temperatures of nearly one degree Fahrenheit. That would be a major step toward averting an atmospheric temperature increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the point at which many experts think the world will be locked into a future of rising sea levels, severe droughts and flooding, widespread food and water shortages, and more powerful hurricanes. But the Trump administration never ratified the Kigali pact, and instead has proposed to roll back federal regulations curbing the use of HFCs in the United States.

Now, Mr. Trump is about to sign a bill that will require the United States to follow the terms of the Kigali agreement, which requires companies to phase down production and consumption of HFCs to about 15 percent of 2012 levels by 2036. The phase-down will be administered by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The chief U.S. negotiators of the Kigali amendment were John Kerry, the former secretary of state, and Gina McCarthy, the former E.P.A. administrator, both of whom have been appointed to be Mr. Biden’s top White House climate advisers.

Even in a Biden administration, it is not certain whether the United States will ratify the Kigali pact, because to do so would require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. But the new law would put the United States in compliance, regardless.

“This provides the green light for Kigali to go into action,” said Frank V. Maisano, a principal at the law firm Bracewell, which represents chemical companies.

American chemical companies have actually been among the strongest supporters of the Kigali pact and the HFC bill, because most already manufacture the more climate-friendly HFC replacements and a phaseout would put them at a competitive advantage over manufacturers of the older technology.

Stephen Yurek, the chief executive of the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, an industry group, was in Kigali four years ago to push for the deal. He has spent the past two years lobbying lawmakers on Capitol Hill to enact it into law.

“U.S. companies are already the leaders with the technology that has been developed to replace the less environmentally-friendly refrigerants,” he said. “This bill is a victory for the manufacturers of all these products — not just the refrigerants; the equipment and component manufacturers,” he said.

Mr. Yurek said his industry has also worried that at least eight states have passed laws of their own requiring HFC reductions and creating a patchwork of rules, “which makes it harder for manufacturers.”

The push by industry brought along Senate Republicans, at least 16 of whom signed on as sponsors to the legislation, which was jointly written by Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana. Mr. Kennedy’s state is home to hundreds of chemical manufacturing facilities; he framed the bill as a job creator for those companies.

“To create thousands of jobs, save billions of dollars and safeguard the environment, we must invest in alternatives to HFCs,” he said.

Environmental groups have chosen to read big things into that Republican support, though it may not materialize around bills roundly opposed by other industries, especially oil and gas companies.

“Voters want action on climate, and even some Republicans want action on climate, and the Republicans leading on this HFC deal are starting to understand that,” said Matthew Davis, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters.

In addition to the HFC bill, the larger package included a bipartisan renewable energy bill, co-sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, the chairwoman and ranking Democrat of the Senate Energy Committee.

The bill would not appropriate any new government spending, but it would authorize $35 billion in existing government funding to be spent on clean energy programs over the next five years, including $1 billion for energy storage technology that could serve as batteries for wind and solar power, $1.5 billion for demonstration projects for new solar technology, $2.1 billion for advanced nuclear energy technology and $450 million for technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The bill would also direct federal agencies to update the government programs that oversee renewable energy spending.

“Some of these will be the first updates to these programs since the iPhone was first in use,” said Josh Freed, an energy policy analyst with Third Way, a center-left research organization. “It’s critically important because energy systems looked a lot different 10 years ago. There were almost no EVs on the road, very little solar panels on roofs, Tesla didn’t exist.”

For all the celebratory language, climate change will likely remain a partisan land mine. Mr. Yurek, the lobbyist for the coolant industry, said that he was hesitant to even use the word “climate” when talking about the bill, for fear that Mr. Trump would veto any legislation that is seen as boosting Mr. Biden’s agenda.

“We didn't want to give him any excuse to not sign it,” Mr. Yurek said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/21/climate/climate-change-stimulus.html?searchResultPosition=1