Jim Arwood, Communications Director, Arizona Solar Center, Inc. (from our Twitter feed)
“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” --Winston Churchill
The fabricated internet-based news story that solar energy is more damaging to the environment than power generated from fossil fuels is getting traction on social media, and the misinformation campaign it represents is our story of the year.
Web-based disinformation peddling is a growing problem that serves to reinforce people’s erroneous beliefs. And more and more fake news sites are being set up to actively exploit the segment of the population that are misinformed.
The idea that solar energy is more environmentally harmful than fossil fuel is not only false, but its propaganda message is meant to slow a transition to a cleaner future.
The bottom line is that the facts do not support the claim that solar energy contributes more to climate change than fossil fuels.
According to the 2011 report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation, the International Panel on Climate Change calculated the life-cycle global warming emissions associated with renewable energy—including manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance, and dismantling and decommissioning—as minimal .
It is a narrative that is repeated by other research and data that has been collected and reported in peer studies over the past decade.
The Union of Concerned Scientists compared the carbon dioxide emissions equivalent per kilowatt-hour for coal and renewable energy resources.
It should be no surprise that coal is the most polluting electricity generating resource and renewables the least. Coal emits more than 20 times as much carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour compared to the life-cycle carbon emissions for solar PV. The comparison between coal and wind is even greater. Coal emits nearly 80 times as much carbon dioxide for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated .
Forget for a moment the damage of fossil fuels to the environment: generating electricity from renewable energy rather than fossil fuels offers significant public health benefits too. From reduced premature mortality to lost workdays associated with breathing illnesses, the economic impact of fossil fuels on overall healthcare costs has been estimated at between $361.7 and $886.5 billion .
In addition, a study by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory explored the feasibility and environmental impacts associated with generating 80 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable sources by 2050 and found that global warming emissions from electricity production could be reduced by more than 80 percent .
There is also a strong economic argument to be made for a clean energy future. In 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists conducted an analysis of the economic benefits of a 25 percent renewable energy standard by 2025; it found that such a policy would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels, resulting in a benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025 .
The environmental and economic benefits of solar are great. So why are we allowing a truly great narrative to be hijacked by misinformation that is intended to undermine the very foundation upon which the renewable energy industry was built? The misinformation, while easily refuted, still inflicts damage. For every person that will see and read a correction, ten won’t. The lie that Winston Churchill spoke of will have considerably more impact on perception of an issue than the facts that are marshalled to refute the original lie.
Question: The Fake News term has been appropriated to label anything that someone disagrees with. How can this trend be reversed?
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2011. IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.
- Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2009.
- Machol, Rizk. 2013. Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts. Environment International 52 75–80.
- National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). 2012. Renewable Electricity Futures Study. Volume 1, pg. 210.
- Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Assessing the Multiple Benefits of Clean Energy: A Resource for States. Chapter 5.
Science 09 Jan 2017:
The release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to human activity is increasing global average surface air temperatures, disrupting weather patterns, and acidifying the ocean (1). Left unchecked, the continued growth of GHG emissions could cause global average temperatures to increase by another 4°C or more by 2100 and by 1.5 to 2 times as much in many midcontinent and far northern locations (1). Although our understanding of the impacts of climate change is increasingly and disturbingly clear, there is still debate about the proper course for U.S. policy—a debate that is very much on display during the current presidential transition. But putting near-term politics aside, the mounting economic and scientific evidence leave me confident that trends toward a clean-energy economy that have emerged during my presidency will continue and that the economic opportunity for our country to harness that trend will only grow. This Policy Forum will focus on the four reasons I believe the trend toward clean energy is irreversible.
ECONOMIES GROW, EMISSIONS FALL
The United States is showing that GHG mitigation need not conflict with economic growth. Rather, it can boost efficiency, productivity, and innovation.
Since 2008, the United States has experienced the first sustained period of rapid GHG emissions reductions and simultaneous economic growth on record. Specifically, CO2 emissions from the energy sector fell by 9.5% from 2008 to 2015, while the economy grew by more than 10%. In this same period, the amount of energy consumed per dollar of real gross domestic product (GDP) fell by almost 11%, the amount of CO2 emitted per unit of energy consumed declined by 8%, and CO2 emitted per dollar of GDP declined by 18% (2).
The importance of this trend cannot be understated. This “decoupling” of energy sector emissions and economic growth should put to rest the argument that combatting climate change requires accepting lower growth or a lower standard of living. In fact, although this decoupling is most pronounced in the United States, evidence that economies can grow while emissions do not is emerging around the world. The International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) preliminary estimate of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2015 reveals that emissions stayed flat compared with the year before, whereas the global economy grew (3). The IEA noted that “There have been only four periods in the past 40 years in which CO2 emission levels were flat or fell compared with the previous year, with three of those—the early 1980s, 1992, and 2009—being associated with global economic weakness. By contrast, the recent halt in emissions growth comes in a period of economic growth.”
At the same time, evidence is mounting that any economic strategy that ignores carbon pollution will impose tremendous costs to the global economy and will result in fewer jobs and less economic growth over the long term. Estimates of the economic damages from warming of 4°C over preindustrial levels range from 1% to 5% of global GDP each year by 2100 (4). One of the most frequently cited economic models pins the estimate of annual damages from warming of 4°C at ~4% of global GDP (4–6), which could lead to lost U.S. federal revenue of roughly $340 billion to $690 billion annually (7).
Moreover, these estimates do not include the possibility of GHG increases triggering catastrophic events, such as the accelerated shrinkage of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, drastic changes in ocean currents, or sizable releases of GHGs from previously frozen soils and sediments that rapidly accelerate warming. In addition, these estimates factor in economic damages but do not address the critical question of whether the underlying rate of economic growth (rather than just the level of GDP) is affected by climate change, so these studies could substantially understate the potential damage of climate change on the global macroeconomy (8, 9).
As a result, it is becoming increasingly clear that, regardless of the inherent uncertainties in predicting future climate and weather patterns, the investments needed to reduce emissions—and to increase resilience and preparedness for the changes in climate that can no longer be avoided—will be modest in comparison with the benefits from avoided climate-change damages. This means, in the coming years, states, localities, and businesses will need to continue making these critical investments, in addition to taking common-sense steps to disclose climate risk to taxpayers, homeowners, shareholders, and customers. Global insurance and reinsurance businesses are already taking such steps as their analytical models reveal growing climate risk.
PRIVATE-SECTOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Beyond the macroeconomic case, businesses are coming to the conclusion that reducing emissions is not just good for the environment—it can also boost bottom lines, cut costs for consumers, and deliver returns for shareholders.
Perhaps the most compelling example is energy efficiency. Government has played a role in encouraging this kind of investment and innovation: My Administration has put in place (i) fuel economy standards that are net beneficial and are projected to cut more than 8 billion tons of carbon pollution over the lifetime of new vehicles sold between 2012 and 2029 (10) and (ii) 44 appliance standards and new building codes that are projected to cut 2.4 billion tons of carbon pollution and save $550 billion for consumers by 2030 (11).
But ultimately, these investments are being made by firms that decide to cut their energy waste in order to save money and invest in other areas of their businesses. For example, Alcoa has set a goal of reducing its GHG intensity 30% by 2020 from its 2005 baseline, and General Motors is working to reduce its energy intensity from facilities by 20% from its 2011 baseline over the same timeframe (12). Investments like these are contributing to what we are seeing take place across the economy: Total energy consumption in 2015 was 2.5% lower than it was in 2008, whereas the economy was 10% larger (2).
This kind of corporate decision-making can save money, but it also has the potential to create jobs that pay well. A U.S. Department of Energy report released this week found that ~2.2 million Americans are currently employed in the design, installation, and manufacture of energy-efficiency products and services. This compares with the roughly 1.1 million Americans who are employed in the production of fossil fuels and their use for electric power generation (13). Policies that continue to encourage businesses to save money by cutting energy waste could pay a major employment dividend and are based on stronger economic logic than continuing the nearly $5 billion per year in federal fossil-fuel subsidies, a market distortion that should be corrected on its own or in the context of corporate tax reform (14).
MARKET FORCES IN THE POWER SECTOR
The American electric-power sector—the largest source of GHG emissions in our economy—is being transformed, in large part, because of market dynamics. In 2008, natural gas made up ~21% of U.S. electricity generation. Today, it makes up ~33%, an increase due almost entirely to the shift from higher-emitting coal to lower-emitting natural gas, brought about primarily by the increased availability of low-cost gas due to new production techniques (2, 15). Because the cost of new electricity generation using natural gas is projected to remain low relative to coal, it is unlikely that utilities will change course and choose to build coal-fired power plants, which would be more expensive than natural gas plants, regardless of any near-term changes in federal policy. Although methane emissions from natural gas production are a serious concern, firms have an economic incentive over the long term to put in place waste-reducing measures consistent with standards my Administration has put in place, and states will continue making important progress toward addressing this issue, irrespective of near-term federal policy.
Renewable electricity costs also fell dramatically between 2008 and 2015: the cost of electricity fell 41% for wind, 54% for rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, and 64% for utility-scale PV (16). According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2015 was a record year for clean-energy investment, with those energy sources attracting twice as much global capital as fossil fuels (17).
Public policy—ranging from Recovery Act investments to recent tax credit extensions—has played a crucial role, but technology advances and market forces will continue to drive renewable deployment. The levelized cost of electricity from new renewables like wind and solar in some parts of the United States is already lower than that for new coal generation, without counting subsidies for renewables (2).
That is why American businesses are making the move toward renewable energy sources. Google, for example, announced last month that, in 2017, it plans to power 100% of its operations using renewable energy—in large part through large-scale, long-term contracts to buy renewable energy directly (18). Walmart, the nation’s largest retailer, has set a goal of getting 100% of its energy from renewables in the coming years (19). And economy-wide, solar and wind firms now employ more than 360,000 Americans, compared with around 160,000 Americans who work in coal electric generation and support (13).
Beyond market forces, state-level policy will continue to drive clean-energy momentum. States representing 40% of the U.S. population are continuing to move ahead with clean-energy plans, and even outside of those states, clean energy is expanding. For example, wind power alone made up 12% of Texas’s electricity production in 2015 and, at certain points in 2015, that number was >40%, and wind provided 32% of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2015, up from 8% in 2008 (a higher fraction than in any other state) (15, 20).
Outside the United States, countries and their businesses are moving forward, seeking to reap benefits for their countries by being at the front of the clean-energy race. This has not always been the case. A short time ago, many believed that only a small number of advanced economies should be responsible for reducing GHG emissions and contributing to the fight against climate change. But nations agreed in Paris that all countries should put forward increasingly ambitious climate policies and be subject to consistent transparency and accountability requirements. This was a fundamental shift in the diplomatic landscape, which has already yielded substantial dividends. The Paris Agreement entered into force in less than a year, and, at the follow-up meeting this fall in Marrakesh, countries agreed that, with more than 110 countries representing more than 75% of global emissions having already joined the Paris Agreement, climate action “momentum is irreversible” (21).
Although substantive action over decades will be required to realize the vision of Paris, analysis of countries’ individual contributions suggests that meeting medium-term respective targets and increasing their ambition in the years ahead—coupled with scaled-up investment in clean-energy technologies—could increase the international community’s probability of limiting warming to 2°C by as much as 50% (22).
Were the United States to step away from Paris, it would lose its seat at the table to hold other countries to their commitments, demand transparency, and encourage ambition. This does not mean the next Administration needs to follow identical domestic policies to my Administration’s. There are multiple paths and mechanisms by which this country can achieve—efficiently and economically—the targets we embraced in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement itself is based on a nationally determined structure whereby each country sets and updates its own commitments. Regardless of U.S. domestic policies, it would undermine our economic interests to walk away from the opportunity to hold countries representing two-thirds of global emissions—including China, India, Mexico, European Union members, and others—accountable.
This should not be a partisan issue. It is good business and good economics to lead a technological revolution and define market trends. And it is smart planning to set long-term emission-reduction targets and give American companies, entrepreneurs, and investors certainty so they can invest and manufacture the emission-reducing technologies that we can use domestically and export to the rest of the world. That is why hundreds of major companies—including energy-related companies from ExxonMobil and Shell, to DuPont and Rio Tinto, to Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Calpine, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company—have supported the Paris process, and leading investors have committed $1 billion in patient, private capital to support clean-energy breakthroughs that could make even greater climate ambition possible.
We have long known, on the basis of a massive scientific record, that the urgency of acting to mitigate climate change is real and cannot be ignored. In recent years, we have also seen that the economic case for action—and against inaction—is just as clear, the business case for clean energy is growing, and the trend toward a cleaner power sector can be sustained regardless of near-term federal policies.
Despite the policy uncertainty that we face, I remain convinced that no country is better suited to confront the climate challenge and reap the economic benefits of a low-carbon future than the United States and that continued participation in the Paris process will yield great benefit for the American people, as well as the international community. Prudent U.S. policy over the next several decades would prioritize, among other actions, decarbonizing the U.S. energy system, storing carbon and reducing emissions within U.S. lands, and reducing non-CO2 emissions (23).
Of course, one of the great advantages of our system of government is that each president is able to chart his or her own policy course. And President-elect Donald Trump will have the opportunity to do so. The latest science and economics provide a helpful guide for what the future may bring, in many cases independent of near-term policy choices, when it comes to combatting climate change and transitioning to a clean-energy economy.
References and Notes
- ↵The result for 4°C of warming cited here from DICE-2016R (in which this degree of warming is reached between 2095 and 2100 without further mitigation) is consistent with that reported from the DICE-2013R model in (5), Fig. 22, p. 140.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: B. Deese, J. Holdren, S. Murray, and D. Hornung contributed to the researching, drafting, and editing of this article.
Nick Brown, AZ I See It 3:58 p.m. MT Jan. 11, 2017
My Turn: We shift costs all the time, and that's not always a bad thing. Utilities just need to be sure we're shifting costs wisely.
The opposition to cost shift, a meme of anti-solar utilities, has bothered me for a long time. To begin with, the notion that a cost shift is off-limits for utilities is contradictory to the universally accepted practice of utility rate-making.
If we didn’t think that appropriate "cost shifts" — charging some customers more or less than other — is a good thing because of social, environmental or economic benefits derived, we’d simply have a single rate for everybody. Instead, we have a ratebook of varying prices for different classes of customers, times of use and types of service.
A great example of cost shift is SRP’s E-57 rate, which charges customers about half the standard residential rate for private security lighting.
We do this because we know that site security everywhere benefits us all. It’s a social good, and we’re willing to pay to assure that private property owners adopt it widely.
The E-36 rate charges stores, restaurants and small fabrication shops about half the price of most residential customers. This helps small businesses financially, and it's worth it to SRP customers because we all depend on their economic viability. Industrial customers pay lower rates, justified because they provide jobs, benefit regional commerce, and support local education and charities.
Cost shift can be bad, but not inherently
Other cost shifts are embedded in cheap fossil energy.
Cardio diseases, respiratory diseases and cancers are caused or worsened by air pollution from coal plants. But the costs of these problems ($3.7 billion a year from coal-fired electricity alone, according to the National Research Council) aren’t included in the utility’s price to ratepayers.
They’re cost shifted to people living near generating stations, hospitals that don’t recover the full costs of treating people with these diseases, and life and health insurance companies. Arizonans pay the cost in shorter, sicker lives; hospitals and insurance companies shift costs to other patients and policyholders.
We’re also not paying for environmental degradation caused by climate change. Widespread fossil energy use contributes to loss of species, desertification, more frequent extreme weather, sea level rise and other environmental problems.
We’re causing these problems and leaving the cost of fixing them almost entirely to the future. This is an immense, unjust cost shift from today’s electricity customers (that’s all of us) to our children and grandchildren.
Any discount or incentive that we give one customer is a cost shift to another customer. But cost shift isn’t an inherently bad thing. It can be a positive, deliberate, strategic action. We give discounts to seniors and veterans, and most people think they’re justifiable.
We also incentivize customers for investing in innovation, engaging in civic-minded behavior, and for taking risks. We do this when usual cost recovery mechanisms don’t get us to our social and organizational goals.
Encourage rooftop solar with smart cost shifts
The Arizona Corporation Commission recently decided on a new framework for defining solar rooftop energy prices, but the actual market value of rooftop solar will be determined in upcoming rate cases.
We’ll continue to ask corporation commissioners to internalize solar’s benefits related to public health, the environment and climate into electricity rates.
Rooftop owners undertake capital expenditures that utilities would otherwise have to make to buy new generating capacity. They reduce utilities’ costs of transmission, distribution and environmental compliance. They generate nearly pollution-free energy, enhance local energy independence and support local economies. They reduce near-term costs of climate adaptation, long-term costs of climate remediation and future costs of climate disruption.
So when rate cases come around next spring, let’s demand that corporation commissioners incentivize homeowners to become solar rooftop owners by approving smart, justifiable cost shifts.
(Photo: Courtesy of Michael McNamara/SRP)
Arizona Republic original article 1-11-2017