Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumWhatever The Manchin/Murkowski Mess Is, It's Certainly Not A Climate Bill
EDIT
There are certainly some climate-friendly elements in the bill. It would require Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette, a Trump appointee, to establish a pilot program aimed at awarding grants to nonprofits for using energy-efficient materials in buildings like museums and historical centers. It extends current energy-efficiency targets for federal buildings through 2028 and adds in water-efficiency targets through 2030. It would help weatherize renewable energy technologies to help them withstand storms. It authorizes the secretary of energy to create a wind and solar technology program to address near-term, mid-term, and long-term challenges in development through the fiscal budget year 2025. The list goes on.
Leah Stokes, assistant professor of political science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says theres a lot thats laudable about the bill. Its really good that, even though the Republicans are the majority in the Senate, that theres some willingness on the part of Senator Murkowski to do something about climate, she said. The emphasis on energy efficiency is good, she said, if ultimately too narrow. Stokes said shed like to see homes and commercial buildings included in the bills efficiency directives, not just schools, nonprofits, and federal buildings.
The biggest head-scratcher, she said, are the portions of the bill that focus on expanding oil and gas production. For instance, the bill would speed up the approval process for small-scale natural gas exports, even though recent research says the production of natural gas, once seen as a fuel that could bridge the gap between oil and coal and wind and solar, emits massive amounts of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. The bill requires Brouillette to study the possibility of building out new oil and gas facilities in Appalachia. It also includes provisions for research and innovation in carbon capture and storage technology for emissions from power plants and other industrial sources of carbon. Those provisions would, according to the bill, improve the efficiency, effectiveness, costs, and environmental performance of coal and natural gas use.
So, instead of banning fracking and other fossil-fuel related activities, the bill encourages those things while simultaneously boosting carbon capture, an unscalable (for the time being) technology the GOP has started to champion as a key part of its belated response to rising temperatures. I thought that was very odd, Stokes said. I dont know why we need coal and natural gas technology programs at this point in time. She said that a better bill would focus those carbon-removal technologies on capturing historical emissions directly from the atmosphere rather than capturing emissions from new fossil fuel developments. I think that theres a bit of a mismatch there, she said.
EDIT
https://grist.org/politics/dont-call-it-a-climate-bill-senators-unveil-bipartisan-energy-package/
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)So it should ge a big thumbs up from DU.
Mickju
(1,805 posts)This will help nothing. They really have no idea how close we already are to utter catastrophe. It is all happening much sooner than expected.