CHANGING CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY

US climate policy froze in place in 2008. To move forward, we have to go back

To the basic policy design elements…fairness and effectiveness.
The policies needed to control, manage, and reduce global CO2 emissions do not exist.
Yet…Stay tuned.

BERNIE’S PLAN WILL NOT DO IT

Bernie Sanders’ plan ‘Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet’ is now out. (https://live-
berniesanders-com.pantheonsite.io/issues/climate-change/) The Plan is optimistic: it lists a set of
actions to reform the energy sectors (electric and transportation in particular), produce jobs, claims
it can hit the International CO2 emissions target for the US to stabilize climate, and is sensitive to
how the poor will be affected by ‘business as usual’. The Plan also suffers from overly optimistic
promises, incorrect numbers, conflicting policies for transportation in particular, misleading analysis,
and deadly bureaucratic prose…’ Our government needs to… commit to prioritizing the transition to
an economy…’ and so on.

Bernies’ Plan is a mash up of policies from Obama to 350.org. It will not move the US off the stalemate
that has blocked any and all progress since 2008 on climate policy. In 2008 both parties supported a
‘cap and trade’ policy to control CO2 emissions. After Obama’s election, the environmental wing of
the party switched from ‘cap and trade’ to a ‘cap and auction’ that would have put a steep price on
the 5.8 billion metric tons of CO2 emitted each year. Estimates of the cost of the ‘auction’ were
roughly $1.6 trillion over a decade. Republicans opposed the auction, calling it a tax which basically it
was. Republicans opposed the auction, arguing that climate was not a problem or not a real problem
that needed a $1.6 trillion fix –Climate Deniers were born. The environmental wing of the Democrats
basically stayed their course as best they could. That split – Deniers vs Enviros – froze progress.

Climate deniers versus the elite environmental planners have yielded a stable block. These blocks are
not that unusual in Washington at least partially because these blocks provide politicians with a
comfortable excuse – no one has to do any real work because of ‘the other guys’. Repackaging
proposals even good proposals from the elite planners will not end the stalemate. One decade after
2008, the lines between Republicans and Democrats are so sharply drawn that is hard to be
optimistic that progress can be made. Bernie’s Plan repackages proposals that have been offered at
various times in the Obama administration.

The Plan is heavy with government actions and for example lists reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by
2050 but does not grapple with how policies to reshape the electric and transportation sectors would

1
work. The electric sector generated about 40% of emissions and transportation roughly 30%. Each of
these sectors is composed of thousands of firms that are CO2 emitters and would have to make those
changes. Bernie or any other President could not reshape the electric and transportation sectors by
fiat. Nevertheless the Plan states: “Our government needs to…transition to an economy powered by
more than 80 percent clean energy sources by 2050. That starts with simple, commonsense steps:
instead of subsidizing massive fossil fuel corporations, we can create millions of jobs for working
families by investing in clean energy. “ Exactly how that really massive investment would be made
remains a hope more than a plan. The Plan anticipates providing incentives to move private actors to
shift to renewable electricity generation to almost total reliance on solar, wind, geothermal and
storage…but convincing details are never provided.

ELECTRICITY

Here are a few details about the elements of Bernie’s Plan starting with the electric sector. The Plan
proposes three renewable electric technologies to combat climate: solar, wind, and geothermal. The
Plan does not consider biomass – wood and agricultural waste products – as a fuel to produce
electricity. What’s strange about this is that Burlington, Vermont where Bernie was Mayor, is the
home of the McNeil Generating station. McNeil is one of the largest wood fired power generators in
the US (60 MW) that under the management of John Irving and the Burlington municipal electric
company has run successfully for more than 20 years producing zero CO2 electricity from wood. A
Lazard analysis of the cost of new electric generation calculates that Biomass will cost between $.055
and $.114/kWh. Geothermal generation will cost between $.077 and $.117/kWh. So why is biomass
excluded? No explanation. (Bernie? Bill McKibben?)

The Plan claims: The answer is clear and affordable. The solutions are within our reach – we just
need average Americans to come together to make it happen.’ The Plan argues that renewables are
already moving rapidly in the direction the Plan would accelerate: ‘‘Solar panels cost 80 percent less
than they did in 2008 and they’re popping up on rooftops everywhere. In fact, nearly a full quarter
(25%) of the world’s electricity today comes from clean, sustainable resources like the sun and wind.’
The total is actually less than 5%. According to the IEA stats: PV, Wind, Geothermal=4.9%; Biomass
+Waste = 2.2%; Hydro = 16.0%. Hydro here would be primarily large central stations like the series
of plants on James Bay in northern Quebec…plants that have been strongly opposed by
environmentalists. And solar panels are not the only cost in generating electricity. Here again are the
Lazard cost estimates for PV (note: these are costs with zero subsidies): Residential - $.187 -
$.319/kWh; Commercial - $.085 - $. 194/kWh; Community - $.076 - $.15/kWh; Grid Scale - $.043 -
$.046/kWh; Grid Scale with Storage - $.082/kWh.

2
TRANSPORTATION

The Plan tackles transportation first by calling for a switch to electric transport: ‘Create clean,
domestic energy alternatives to power our cars and trucks. The transportation sector accounts for
about 26 percent of carbon pollution emissions. We must move our transportation sector beyond oil
by running our cars and trucks on electricity generated by solar and wind power.’ Two issues here.
First, the Energy Information Administration reports that in the most recent year passenger cars
travelled 3 trillion miles. An electric car is expected to average 3 miles/kWh which means that the 3
trillion passenger miles would require 1 trillion kWh’s. Significantly, total US electricity production is
4 trillion kWh’s. Electric cars would require increasing our annual production by 25%. Second, you
cannot claim the renewable kWh’s for electric cars. The electrons from PV and Wind merge with the
other 4 trillion so to be fair the Plan would have to add and address how this extra 25% generation
could be managed.

Curiously, the Plan also moves away from an all-electric transportation plan: ‘We should emphasize
new, clean technologies like cellulosic ethanol and algae-based fuels. Advanced biofuels have
enormous potential to deliver dramatic reductions in carbon pollution and strengthen rural
economies, all while keeping our energy dollars here at home instead of sending them overseas to oil
oligarchs in Russia and the Middle East.’ Now biomass as a fuel source is OK. Again, no explanation is
offered to explain for this difference. (Bill McKibben?)

MINOR POINTS

Besides the major transformations, the Plan checks off other points of accepted wisdom from the
environmentalists: PRICE CARBON: ‘Put a price on carbon. Bernie agrees with leading economists on
both ends of the political spectrum: a tax on carbon is one of the most straightforward and cost-
effective strategies for quickly fighting climate change.’ LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND: ‘Scientists warn
us if we continue burning fossil fuels, we will experience cataclysmic change, in terms of more
disease, more hunger, more drought, more famine, rising sea levels, more floods, more ocean
acidification, more extreme weather disturbances and more human suffering. That means we must
leave the vast majority of global reserves of coal, natural gas and oil in the ground.’ MINOR POINTS:
‘Stop dirty pipeline projects like the Keystone XL… Stop exports of liquefied natural gas and crude
oil… Stand with Vermont and other states to ban fracking for natural gas.’

DESIGN ISSUES UNRESOLVVED

3
Confession: I am a technology optimist in the climate wars. CO2 emissions can be reduced,
recaptured, and eliminated from our global energy system. The technologies needed to do this aren’t
here now but they can be discovered in schools, tested in labs, piloted in R&D facilities and if all goes
well commercialized in businesses…large and small, public and private businesses. But challenges
remain.

Policies, which we have not yet designed or shown to be effective, should not be linked to threats of
planetary extinction. Bernie’s Plan ignores this: Threats, ‘do what I say or the planet will be
destroyed’, don’t solve the basic design problem. If anything threats make the problem harder since
competing policies often end up arguing about which poses the greatest chance for planetary
salvation, ignoring the very challenge of designing policies that will be effective.

The challenge is to design climate policies that will control, manage, and reduce CO2 emissions. We
must create fair and effective policies and we’re not there yet. Bernie’s heart is in the right Church.
But his Plan is not even in the right pew.