Climate change has seemed to fade from the news as of late, much to Charley’s chagrin, for good reason so we are told. The conventional narrative is that this is no longer a priority in light of the economic downturn and the desperation so many Americans have for jobs, any jobs, that can help them put food on the table and roofs over their heads. That narrative, now a bipartisan one, states that climate change is something only the elite are concerned about and a way for more government regulation and interference from the natural course of the economy.Union support of the Keystone pipeline and progressives like Gov. Cuomo backing accelerated fracking are just a few areas where the environment ‘has’ to go on the backburner. The irony is we stand to lose many jobs from climate change, and the impact is already being felt in our own backyards.
News items like this one about the ski industry and this one about the fishing industry suggest to me that climate change is already hurting staples of the New England middle class and it is only going to get worse. Climate change effects everything. Shorter falls mean a shorter foliage season hurting the already weak tourist industry in Western MA. The rising temperatures and ocean levels could cause severe damage to homes and entire communities, threatening coastal tourist meccas and leading to even more dangerous building collapses from harsh winters like we had last year. These are just some of the consequences. This issue should be front and center in the upcoming center race. One candidate, Elizabeth Warren, has already taken a clear and progressive position on climate change:
1)Its real
2)Its hurting all of us, especially New England
3)Tacking it head on creates, rather than destroys, jobs right here at home
From her website:
Renewable energy. If we invest now in 21st century energy, we can lower the costs of production for all of our future work. Right now, renewable energy competes with old energies that get lots of special breaks in Washington. Massachusetts can lead the world in using green technology to cut production costs and make our products competitive around the world. Again, we could do this right here, right now—and create jobs here in Massachusetts.
From Sen.Brown we seem to hear multiple choices on this issue, perhaps a cue from his political mentor Mitt Romney:
There were early indicators he was against taking any action, coupled with contradictory notes to constituents.
Our next US Senator must take up this issue and be a drum major for progressive change and policies that will not only secure the health of our environment but the long term health of our economy as well. Multiple choices just don’t cut it on this test.
Discuss
6 Comments . Leave a comment below.there’s good news and bad news. First, some data:
1. Coal emits about twice as much CO2 per kWh of generated electricity than natural gas.
2. Coal is the fuel for about 45% of all kWh manufactured in the continental US. That’s down from closer to 50%, but not by much.
3. Very few new coal fired power plants have been built in the past 7 years or so — lots of natural gas, a big chunk of wind, and tiny smatterings of some other things.
4. There are currently about 318 GW of coal fired capacity, of which a bunch of it runs about 80% of the time [read: as much as possible] and a bunch of older, smaller, less efficient units run more like 40% of the time.
5. The various EPA rules, required by Congress in the 1990 Clean Air Act and signed by President GHWBush, will go into effect mid decade.
So, what does it mean for climate change?
Well , the good news is that it will result in the closure of some coal fired power plants because the cost to add all the environmental upgrades will exceed the value. In some places, they’ll be replaced by nothing because there’s an excess of generation capacity. In other places, new combined cycle natural gas plants will be built. In other places, gas plus energy efficiency plus renewables will fill the gap. How much? Credible estimates range from 20 GW to 60 GW. One victim is the Salem Harbor Plant, rated at 330 MW (0.33 GW).
The bad news: the plants which are closing tend to be smaller, older, and used less frequently. Even if 20% of the coal fired power plant capacity is shut down, the amount of electricity generated from coal won’t be cut by 20%; it will be less than that because the coal plants which are currently used roughly 60% of the time will be used even more often to help make up for the difference.
The result:
(a) less coal fired capacity
(b) less coal generation, though not significantly less. Perhaps coal generation will go from 45% to 40% as a result.
(c) almost no coal fired power plants are scheduled to be built. This is critically important because there are oodles of coal fired power plants built in the 50s and 60s, all spec’d to last 40 years. They can’t run forever, and if we stop building new coal plants than the percent from coal will gradually drift downward due to retirements.
So, on the electricity front — we’re getting there. Slowly but surely. A fun fact: of the 300ish GW of coal fired capacity, New England has… 6 GW. The Southeast: 100 GW. The Mid-Atlantic stretching to Illinois: 100 GW. Rhode Island has 0 GW, as does Vermont, as does California. Connecticut has 0.4 GW. We can transition away from coal, but until we get that stretch from Illinois to Pennsylvania to Louisiana to Georgia away from coal, we won’t have resolved our climate change problems by a long shot.
*Disclaimer: these aren’t facts suitable for testimony. This is off of memory citation free, and may contain errors.
…who has never quite bought the idea that job growth and environmental protection are mutually exclusive anyway? JConway makes a good case that they may even be mutually inclusive, but we always seemed trapped by the notion that our arguments don’t make good soundbites.
that the soundbites have been provided by the GOP.
Stomv, any info on solar panel prices going down?
As you say … From fishing to coastal areas to tourism to agriculture, climate change is Bad. For. Business. In MA and everywhere.
Thank you jconway, and please continue to bring this up at every opportunity.
Despite his refusal to take as stand on global warming or even acknowledge the reality that people are causing climate change, Brown has so far gotten a pass on this issue from the media.
Thanks Charley I will continue to harp on this since in many ways it directly affects our communities. Thanks stomv for your comments, my dad is 61 now and was 2 when the Salem generator opened and thank god he will outlive it. Unfortunately my grandparents did not and living so close to it might have contributed to their health problems. This issue affects our health, quality of life, and our economy and they are all interconnected.
The good news is also our candidate has a clear and consistent record advocating smart changes that will protect existing jobs, create new jobs, and protect our planet. I understand why she is focusing so much on the Jobs front but really hammering this home and maybe finding a way to meet with the small family run ski resort owners and the remaining fisheries would be a great way to connect these issues of global importance to local economic concerns and could be a big win. Its also a great contrast to Brown.
I also think that one of the big appeals of Weld style Republicanism, which Brown claims to be representative of, is its environmental record. Weld, for all his faults, had a great environmental record and its one of the big reasons my parents voted for him twice. Protecting the environment in general and combating climate change specifically are increasingly becoming ’60%’ issues that the majority of people want action on. Brown is on the wrong side of this issue and if he continues to even deny the basic science (which he did not as a State Senator I might add) he is a lot closer to Oklahoma’s James Inhofe than any reasonable Rockefeller Republican in New England and far to the right of where our voters are.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 7:26 PM