This article could alternatively be titled “progressivism is not a serious ideology”. It’s actually too easy on the environmental left - we all know that if utility scale solar was being planned in an even mildly pretty natural area, there would be a progressive uprising against the evil for-profit power company trying to ruin our beautiful natural lands (this is already happening with basically every newly planned mine for metals important to electrification).
Matt Yglesias is a microcosm of Democratic dysfunction. A healthy political party would not need a Harvard educated urbanist who attended black tie formals during college and has solar panels on his roof to keep its elites and functionaries in touch with normie voters. Matt does have some influence with white house and hill staffers and his ideas are quite good. The absurd part is that, without his solar panels and sincere interest in urbanism, Democratic staffers would pay Matt no more heed than Ross Douthat. The populist voices of a functional party would be more populist.
What is the negative externality that EPA is trying to prevent by requiring prior approval for drilling a hole in the ground? Why is a Class IV well a Thing? I can see fracking -- methane leaks into the atmosphere across state lines. Any hole can disturb ground water, but except in RI or DC or close to a state line, that seems unlikely to cross state lines. So why national regulation at all? Why is state regulation the exception rather than the rule?
This looks like the CDC error of regulation (by recommendation) at the national level rather than giving local regulators and individuals the information to let each place find the most cost effective ways of preventing spread in each specific place and circumstance.
One important point about both DAC and hydrolysis is that they are electricity demand that is entirely OK with being turned off when electricity supply is inadequate.
This means that if you have lots of variable-supply renewables (solar and wind, basically), then you can switch the DAC and hydrolysis off on a still cloudy day.
This means that you still have security of supply with a much higher percentage of solar and wind in the electricity generation mix.
Induction range to be delivered next week! (replaces electric range, not gas)
So back in public health grad school in ~2005/6 or so, I was in an environmental health epidemiology course (read environment as "things humans contact," not "nature") where the respiratory effects of combustion fueled household cooking was presented. Much was made of the disease burden caused by cooking over open (often sooty) flame in developing parts of the world (MY help me with my terminology here...), but I recall enough data being presented about the harms of typical natural gas stoves, particularly for children and adults with respiratory diseases, that it really stuck with me in a way that has prevented me from ever wanting to own one since....like avoiding secondhand smoke. I can't pull the data and numbers from my head, but it's just one of those things that you learn that was compelling enough to stick with you and functionally change your outlook on a common thing moving forward.
Edit for FYI: neither in favor of bans nor thinking stove emissions are a particularly meaningful contributor to the overall climate.
Great post Matt. But you ignored what may be the most promising way to sequester carbon, letting woody plants capture the carbon, harvesting that biomass, and then turning some of it to charcoal via pyrolysis. Charcoal can be added to soils with beneficial results and is likely to retain its carbon for centuries. Unlike other carbon sequestration approaches, this method actually produces some energy. A question is whether this approach could scale to the size needed. Some analyses suggest it could. See Lenton, T., 2010, The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration, Carbon Management 1, 145–160 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4155/cmt.10.12 and Lehmann, Johannes, 2007, A Handful of Carbon, Nature, 447, 143-144. https://www.nature.com/articles/447143a
I’m convinced the capture tech will eventually convert to solid, safe stable forms. Burying so much gas is expensive (and may result in leakage with earthquakes etc).
I love the idea of creating calcium carbonate factories at geothermal hotspots. Or another safe and durably sequestered form of carbon. It can be just piled up, need not be buried deep underground.
Less appreciated than the fossil fuel cycle, concrete production from limestone deposits (calcium carbonate from coral and shellfish) releases some 8% of global carbon emissions, which is estimated to be more than from air travel.
And agree wholeheartedly on the gas stove thing. Beyond the politics of it, which I agree with, this is a freedom and performance issue too. As a foodie and restauranteur, gas is a more functional stovetop cooking fuel than electric. I would not want to try to have our chef and cooks cook use only electric - they’d murder me. People will want choice aka freedom and an open flame offers many cooking advantages. So before we go banning any sort of gas anything, we should probably make sure there are viable alternatives on the market. Or the backlash will indeed be swift and justified
One quick comment- I believe there are two operating EPA permitted Class VI injection wells at the Archer Daniels Midland plant in Decatur, Illinois. So very few, but not quite zero.
The worry for me is that the carbon captured will be generating permits that allow other companies to continue their emissions leading to maybe a net-zero but maybe something worse. There's a lot of fraud and near-fraud out there. I'm thinking here of companies like Pachama but also of ESG investing that seems to be selling carbon credits to emit carbon *now* for future projects that may *someday* remove carbon. A recent example: The Nature Conservancy found that it was selling meaningless carbon credits to companies like Disney, BlackRock etc. which allowed them to claim they'd lowered their emissions. I feel like this whole area needs to be carefully watched to make sure that the amount of carbon being removed from the atmosphere is greater than the amount being emitted by people purchasing their credits. Otherwise, what's the benefit?
I agree with this article, but Matt is too pessimistic about internal combustion engines. There will be a threshold where most gas stations are not viable, and then it becomes a real pain to refuel your car. There will always be some classic car enthusiasts, but as a practical form of transportation, ICE's days are numbered.
Agree with the overall thrust of this, but for the California ICE example--if they actually ban all new ICE car sales in 2035, what type of gasoline station network will exist in 2050? The vast majority of cars on the road are not 15 years old, and I'd think a lot of the infrastructure to sell gasoline (which I believe is already low margin but made up for on non-gas services) would cease to exist which would create range issues kind of like with EVs but worse since you would not have the option of refueling at your destination. I'd think there'd be a tipping point where ICE's are not a feasible transportation option.
Without changes to the processes around building transmission lines, not sure we ever get to a good grid. Been trying to build the Grain Belt Express since 2006 or 2008, somewhere in there. Year after year, fight after fight, one county and one landowner at a time. And I don't think any ground has been broken.
I was looking forward to Matt’s take on the Class VI well program but was disappointed in the dearth of actual information and inaccuracies in the post. I think it is great to throw some light on this issue but let’s use some good information! Eg EPA regulates these wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, it has long regulated injection wells, that’s why this is the sixth class. EPA genuinely seems to be slow on approving state programs. I can’t tell how slow they are on permits without more digging but as of their October 2022 report to Congress they had issued six permits, not zero, though only two were actually constructed. They had permit applications for nine projects pending, some of which involve more than one permit. That report also describes EPA’s efforts to streamline their processes from those used to process the first applications.
Are they on the right track? Should they be doing more? Is the White House not paying enough attention? I don’t know, but hoped for a more informed take here.
This article could alternatively be titled “progressivism is not a serious ideology”. It’s actually too easy on the environmental left - we all know that if utility scale solar was being planned in an even mildly pretty natural area, there would be a progressive uprising against the evil for-profit power company trying to ruin our beautiful natural lands (this is already happening with basically every newly planned mine for metals important to electrification).
Matt Yglesias is a microcosm of Democratic dysfunction. A healthy political party would not need a Harvard educated urbanist who attended black tie formals during college and has solar panels on his roof to keep its elites and functionaries in touch with normie voters. Matt does have some influence with white house and hill staffers and his ideas are quite good. The absurd part is that, without his solar panels and sincere interest in urbanism, Democratic staffers would pay Matt no more heed than Ross Douthat. The populist voices of a functional party would be more populist.
What is the negative externality that EPA is trying to prevent by requiring prior approval for drilling a hole in the ground? Why is a Class IV well a Thing? I can see fracking -- methane leaks into the atmosphere across state lines. Any hole can disturb ground water, but except in RI or DC or close to a state line, that seems unlikely to cross state lines. So why national regulation at all? Why is state regulation the exception rather than the rule?
This looks like the CDC error of regulation (by recommendation) at the national level rather than giving local regulators and individuals the information to let each place find the most cost effective ways of preventing spread in each specific place and circumstance.
I did my bait-y, hippy punching on the induced demand thread earlier in the week, so I'll just say that this article in entirely correct.
One important point about both DAC and hydrolysis is that they are electricity demand that is entirely OK with being turned off when electricity supply is inadequate.
This means that if you have lots of variable-supply renewables (solar and wind, basically), then you can switch the DAC and hydrolysis off on a still cloudy day.
This means that you still have security of supply with a much higher percentage of solar and wind in the electricity generation mix.
Induction range to be delivered next week! (replaces electric range, not gas)
So back in public health grad school in ~2005/6 or so, I was in an environmental health epidemiology course (read environment as "things humans contact," not "nature") where the respiratory effects of combustion fueled household cooking was presented. Much was made of the disease burden caused by cooking over open (often sooty) flame in developing parts of the world (MY help me with my terminology here...), but I recall enough data being presented about the harms of typical natural gas stoves, particularly for children and adults with respiratory diseases, that it really stuck with me in a way that has prevented me from ever wanting to own one since....like avoiding secondhand smoke. I can't pull the data and numbers from my head, but it's just one of those things that you learn that was compelling enough to stick with you and functionally change your outlook on a common thing moving forward.
Edit for FYI: neither in favor of bans nor thinking stove emissions are a particularly meaningful contributor to the overall climate.
Great post Matt. But you ignored what may be the most promising way to sequester carbon, letting woody plants capture the carbon, harvesting that biomass, and then turning some of it to charcoal via pyrolysis. Charcoal can be added to soils with beneficial results and is likely to retain its carbon for centuries. Unlike other carbon sequestration approaches, this method actually produces some energy. A question is whether this approach could scale to the size needed. Some analyses suggest it could. See Lenton, T., 2010, The potential for land-based biological CO2 removal to lower future atmospheric CO2 concentration, Carbon Management 1, 145–160 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.4155/cmt.10.12 and Lehmann, Johannes, 2007, A Handful of Carbon, Nature, 447, 143-144. https://www.nature.com/articles/447143a
Great piece.
I’m convinced the capture tech will eventually convert to solid, safe stable forms. Burying so much gas is expensive (and may result in leakage with earthquakes etc).
I love the idea of creating calcium carbonate factories at geothermal hotspots. Or another safe and durably sequestered form of carbon. It can be just piled up, need not be buried deep underground.
Less appreciated than the fossil fuel cycle, concrete production from limestone deposits (calcium carbonate from coral and shellfish) releases some 8% of global carbon emissions, which is estimated to be more than from air travel.
And agree wholeheartedly on the gas stove thing. Beyond the politics of it, which I agree with, this is a freedom and performance issue too. As a foodie and restauranteur, gas is a more functional stovetop cooking fuel than electric. I would not want to try to have our chef and cooks cook use only electric - they’d murder me. People will want choice aka freedom and an open flame offers many cooking advantages. So before we go banning any sort of gas anything, we should probably make sure there are viable alternatives on the market. Or the backlash will indeed be swift and justified
One quick comment- I believe there are two operating EPA permitted Class VI injection wells at the Archer Daniels Midland plant in Decatur, Illinois. So very few, but not quite zero.
The worry for me is that the carbon captured will be generating permits that allow other companies to continue their emissions leading to maybe a net-zero but maybe something worse. There's a lot of fraud and near-fraud out there. I'm thinking here of companies like Pachama but also of ESG investing that seems to be selling carbon credits to emit carbon *now* for future projects that may *someday* remove carbon. A recent example: The Nature Conservancy found that it was selling meaningless carbon credits to companies like Disney, BlackRock etc. which allowed them to claim they'd lowered their emissions. I feel like this whole area needs to be carefully watched to make sure that the amount of carbon being removed from the atmosphere is greater than the amount being emitted by people purchasing their credits. Otherwise, what's the benefit?
I agree with this article, but Matt is too pessimistic about internal combustion engines. There will be a threshold where most gas stations are not viable, and then it becomes a real pain to refuel your car. There will always be some classic car enthusiasts, but as a practical form of transportation, ICE's days are numbered.
The promised piece! Ever since the Wapo article (*checks notes*) a whole eight days ago, we've been waiting to learn more about these.
“…emissions associated with activities like grilling…”
Why are you grilling on anything other than sustainable hardwood charcoal?
Agree with the overall thrust of this, but for the California ICE example--if they actually ban all new ICE car sales in 2035, what type of gasoline station network will exist in 2050? The vast majority of cars on the road are not 15 years old, and I'd think a lot of the infrastructure to sell gasoline (which I believe is already low margin but made up for on non-gas services) would cease to exist which would create range issues kind of like with EVs but worse since you would not have the option of refueling at your destination. I'd think there'd be a tipping point where ICE's are not a feasible transportation option.
Without changes to the processes around building transmission lines, not sure we ever get to a good grid. Been trying to build the Grain Belt Express since 2006 or 2008, somewhere in there. Year after year, fight after fight, one county and one landowner at a time. And I don't think any ground has been broken.
I was looking forward to Matt’s take on the Class VI well program but was disappointed in the dearth of actual information and inaccuracies in the post. I think it is great to throw some light on this issue but let’s use some good information! Eg EPA regulates these wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, it has long regulated injection wells, that’s why this is the sixth class. EPA genuinely seems to be slow on approving state programs. I can’t tell how slow they are on permits without more digging but as of their October 2022 report to Congress they had issued six permits, not zero, though only two were actually constructed. They had permit applications for nine projects pending, some of which involve more than one permit. That report also describes EPA’s efforts to streamline their processes from those used to process the first applications.
Are they on the right track? Should they be doing more? Is the White House not paying enough attention? I don’t know, but hoped for a more informed take here.