by Sam Kean
Renewable electricity costs also fell dramatically between 2008 and 2015: the cost of electricity fell 41 percent for wind, 54 percent for rooftop solar photovoltaic (PV) installations, and 64 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent of Texas’s electricity production in 2015, and at certain points in 2015, that number was greater than 40 percent, while wind provided 32 percent of Iowa’s total electricity generation in 2015, up from 8 percent in 2008 (a higher fraction than in any other state).(15, 20)
Global Momentum
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 percent 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 percent.(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.
Conclusion
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
1. T. F. Stocker et al., in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2013), pp. 33–115.
2. Council of Economic Advisers, in “Economic report of the President” (Council of Economic Advisers, White House, Washington, DC, 2017), pp. 423–484; http://bit.ly/2ibrgt9.
3. International Energy Agency, “World energy outlook 2016” (International Energy Agency, Paris, 2016).
4. W. Nordhaus, The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming World (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 2013).
5. W. Nordhaus, DICE-2016R model (Yale Univ., New Haven, CT, 2016); http://bit.ly/2iJ9OQn.
6. 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.
7. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Climate Change: The Fiscal Risks Facing the Federal Government (OMB, Washington, DC, 2016); http://bit.ly/2ibxJo1.
8. M. Burke, S. M. Hsiang, E. Miguel, Nature 527, 235 (2015). doi:10.1038/nature15725 Medline.
9. M. Dell, B. F. Jones, B. A. Olken, Am. Econ. J. Macroecon. 4, 66 (2012). doi:10.1257/mac.4.3.66.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles—Phase 2: Final rule” (EPA and DOT, Washington, DC. 2016), table 5-40, pp. 5-5–5-42.
11. DOE, Appliance and Equipment Standards Program (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE, 2016); http://bit.ly/2iEHwebsite.
12. The White House, “Fact Sheet: White House announces commitments to the American Business Act on Climate Pledge” (White House, Washington, DC, 2015); http://
bit.ly/2iBxWHouse.
13. BW Research Partnership, U.S. Energy and Employment Report (DOE, Washington, DC, 2017).
14. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “United States—Progress report on fossil fuel subsidies” (Treasury, Washington, DC, 2014); www.treasury.gov.
15. U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Monthly Energy Review, November 2016” (EIA, Washington, DC, 2015); http://bit.ly/2iQjPbD.
16. DOE, Revolution . . . Now: The Future Arrives for Five Clean Energy Technologies—2016 Update (DOE, Washington, DC, 2016); http://bit.ly/2hTv1WG.
17. A. McCrone, Ed., Clean Energy Investment: By the Numbers—End of Year 2015 (Bloomberg, New York, 2015); http://bloom.bg/2jaz4zG.
18. U. Hölzle, “We’re set to reach 100% renewable energy—and it’s just the beginning” (Google, 2016); http://bit.ly/2hTEbSR.
19. Walmart, Walmart’s Approach to Renewable Energy (Walmart, 2014); http://bit.ly/2j5A_PDF.
20. R. Fares, “Texas sets all-time wind energy record” [blog]. Sci. Am., 14 January 2016; http://bit.ly/2iBj9Jq.
21. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Marrakech Action Proclamation for Our Climate and Sustainable Development (UNFCCC, 2016); http://bit.ly/2iQnUNFCCC.
22. A. A. Fawcett et al., Science 350, 1168 (2015). doi:10.1126/science.aad5761 Medline.
23. The White House, United States Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization (White House, Washington, DC, 2016); http://bit.ly/2hRSWhiteHouse.
Acknowledgments
B. Deese, J. Holdren, S. Murray, and D. Hornung contributed to the researching, drafting, and editing of this article.
DAVID ROBERTS
Wealthier People Produce More Carbon Pollution—Even the “Green” Ones
from Vox
One of the perennial debates in environmentalism, which has transferred over to the climate change discussion, is what role personal choices play in the grand scheme of things. Can consumer decisions play a substantial role in reducing emissions? Are people who are concerned about global warming obliged to reduce their own carbon footprint? Is emitting carbon a personal sin (so to speak) as well as a social one?
I have always been a skeptic about the role of personal choices in the climate fight, and a recent study has helped crystallize why. To put it in a nutshell: one’s environmental impact is primarily determined by structural features of one’s life circumstances, especially socioeconomic status.
Or to put it more bluntly: rich people emit more carbon, even when they recycle and buy canvas tote bags full of organic veggies.
Good Reasons to Reduce Your Footprint
Before I say anything negative about lifestyle decisions (and get a bunch of angry emails), an important caveat: this story focuses only on climate change and carbon emissions.
There are many, many good reasons to live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle. Fresh organic produce is healthy. Reducing/reusing/recycling waste shrinks landfills. Walking and riding bikes makes you happier and more engaged with your community. (Indeed, every second spent locomoting in some fashion other than a personal vehicle is a blessing to your physical and mental health.) Preferring experiences to things is more fulfilling.
Please, go forth and be green. You will be a better person for it.
All I’m talking about here is climate change—what it will take to slow and reverse the rise in global temperature.
Global warming is not only of a different scale than past environmental problems; it is of a different kind. It is not about any one pollutant or set of products. It is deeply and ineradicably systemic, woven into almost everything human beings do here on Earth.
That makes it difficult to connect to, difficult to explain, and extremely difficult to solve. Very big things have to change over very long timescales, and human beings are not generally accustomed to thinking about such things.
That sense of overwhelming scale is part of what motivates the effort to connect climate change to individual behaviors. It gives us something we can wrap our heads around, something that is recognizably within our power.
But the scales of global emissions and personal choices are badly mismatched.
Ecological Footprint Is Mostly Determined by Wealth
The study was published in the June 2017 edition of the journal Environment and Behavior with a title that gives you some idea of what to expect: “Good Intents, but Low Impacts.”
Spoiler: “Our results show that individuals with high pro-environmental self-identity intend to behave in an ecologically responsible way, but they typically emphasize actions that have relatively small ecological benefits.”
The paper, by researchers Stephanie Moser and Silke Kleinhückelkotten (Swiss and German respectively), begins with a review of some past research, which has taken two basic forms.
One line of research, “intent-oriented,” has converged on a consensus that what drives environmental behaviors is not any particular set of beliefs about the world, but identity. People who self-identify as “green” do green things. (I suppose this should be no surprise.) That self-identification has been shown to be a better predictor of pro-environment/energy-saving behaviors than other factors like socioeconomic status.
“Impact-oriented” research, however, tells a different story. Study after study finds that the primary determinant of a person’s actual ecological footprint is income. After that is geography (rural versus urban), various socioeconomic indicators (age, education level, etc.), and household size. Self-identification as “green” is toward the bottom of the list, with mostly marginal effects.
Green Intentions Are Swamped by Wealth
Moser and Kleinhückelkotten set out to test these results by examining detailed data gathered by a survey of about 1,000 representative Germans, done in 2016 for the German Environment Agency.
They found a stark confirmation of previous research. First, “environmental self-identity was the strongest and only significant predictor of pro-environmental behavior.”
And second, “environmental self-identity did not predict overall energy use or carbon footprint.” In fact, energy use and carbon footprints were slightly higher among self-identified greenies. D’oh!
It’s not that the pro-environmental behaviors chosen by wealthy, eco-conscious people don’t reduce energy use and carbon footprints. They do. Just . . . not very much. And what effect they have is swamped by the much larger effects of wealth, age, and status.
The variables that most predict carbon footprint are “per capita living space, energy used for household appliances, meat consumption, car use, and vacation travel.” And wealthy people—even those who self-identify as green—consume more and do more of all those things.
Basically, research shows that the cynical view is roughly correct: Environmental identity will lead to some relatively low-impact (high-signaling) pro-environmental behaviors, but it rarely drives serious reductions in the biggest sources of lifestyle emissions. Environmental self-identification rises with income, but so do emissions.
(A 2012 study and a 2013 study, both based on a survey in Hungary, found roughly the same thing.)
It’s Hard to Stray Far from One’s Tribe
None of this should come as a surprise. People’s lives are heavily path-dependent—we live among people of roughly our socioeconomic status and do roughly what they do, eat what they eat, get around the way they get around.
Consider what the average upper-middle-class American would actually have to do to make a substantial dent in her carbon footprint. Above all, she would have to drastically cut back on travel—virtually never fly and heavily favor walking and biking. She would have to give up meat and live in a small apartment in a dense, transit-served urban area.
Very few people, including those who think of themselves as environmentally conscious, are willing to make lifestyle changes that drastic. Beyond the practicalities, there is a social cost to diverging so sharply from your family and peer groups. It’s not easy.
/> With wealth comes opportunities for consumption. That’s why the global wealthy are responsible for such a grossly disproportionate percentage of “lifestyle consumption emissions.”
And here’s the thing: These are the emissions connected to your personal choices. But just by living in America (or any wealthy, developed country) and enjoying its shared resources and infrastructure, you are responsible for a certain baseline level of its shared emissions as well.
Even if every American could get their lifestyle emissions down somewhere close to that baseline, it still wouldn’t be nearly enough to solve climate change. To reduce Americans’ per capita baseline to sustainable levels will require decarbonizing power, transportation, and industry, goals over which most individuals have limited control.
And even fairly radical lifestyle changes are meaningless at the level of global emissions unless they are multiplied by many millions. To imagine lifestyle choices making a substantial dent in global warming is to imagine a goodly portion of the world’s rich people voluntarily living a lifestyle that is relatively ascetic even by U.S. middle-class standards.