Home | About | Donate

'Nowhere Near What We Need It to Be': In Face of Climate Calamity, 100+ Groups Say Democrats' Proposal Woefully Insufficient

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/09/23/nowhere-near-what-we-need-it-be-face-climate-calamity-100-groups-say-democrats

“The groups cite the measure’s reliance on “ineffective gimmicks” like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)”

The irony of claiming the Green New Deal supports science because it referenced the 2018 IPCC Emissions Report, yet the IPCC literally includes the use of the technology in its projections through 2050:

“In modelled 1.5°C pathways with limited or no overshoot, the use of CCS would allow the electricity generation share of gas to be approximately 8% (3–11% interquartile range) of global electricity in 2050, while the use of coal shows a steep reduction in all pathways and would be reduced to close to 0% (0–2% interquartile range) of electricity (high confidence)

~https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/

“We need to fully invest in an ambitious and bold, just transition to 100 percent clean and renewable energy,"

I’m sorry Ms Mebane, but I don’t think you truly appreciate the scale of development that would require or the fact that literally ZERO scientific studies support your timeframe for completion. That’s not zero Fox News supports - that’s zero published studies even those that advocate for 100% Renewable.

If your bar is 100% renewable or nothing I encourage you to realize that none of the following institutions support this plan:

  • US Department of Energy
  • US National Labs
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • European Union
  • European Commission for Energy
  • International Energy Agency

The idea that science believes 100% renewable is the correct position is EXTREMELY contested with hundreds to thousands published scientific studies not supporting that position.

“Impacts of Variable Renewable Energy on Bulk Power System Assets, Pricing, and Costs”
~http://eta-publications.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/lbnl_anl_impacts_of_variable_renewable_energy_final_0.pdf

“Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power in the United States”
~https://cloudfront.escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt96315051/qt96315051.pdf

“The market value of variable renewables: The effect of solar wind power variability on their relative price”
~https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988313000285

“Getting to Zero Carbon Emissions in the Electric Power Sector”
~https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30562-2

“Western Wind and Solar Integration Study Phase 3 – Frequency Response and Transient Stability”
~https://www.nrel.gov/grid/wwsis.html

“Assessment of utility energy storage options for increased renewable energy penetration”
~https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032112002316

“NREL Electricity Futures Report Vol. 1: “Exploration of High-Penetration Renewable Electricity Futures”
~https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/52409-1.pdf

“Buffering volatility: A study on the limits of Germany’s energy revolution”
~https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292117300995

“The merit-order effect: A detailed analysis of the price effect of renewable electricity generation on spot market prices in Germany”
~https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421508001717

“Meta-analysis of high penetration renewable energy scenarios” ~https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113006291

“A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?”
~https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.324

“Renewables and decarbonization: Studies of California, Wisconsin and Germany”
~https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040619016300136

“DEEP DECARBONIZATION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR INSIGHTS FROM RECENT LITERATURE”
~https://www.innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/EIRP-Deep-Decarb-Lit-Review-Jenkins-Thernstrom-March-2017.pdf

I’d like to know what Ms Mebane’s responses are to the data and statements posed in the above studies before we go all out and support her ultimatums…

all praise the corporate business plan as it will bring the Armageddon wished for by so many “good” Christians

seriously–the proposed incremental solutions to a catastrophic problem means our planet will die in a few short decades
the absence of a plan to address the catastrophic problem means our planet will die in a few short decades
see the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans??
if the Dems really want to win this thing(something that appears questionable) a radical plan that produces MILLIONS of jobs and saves our planet seems like an excellent choice
that they do not pursue this and other measures to bring much needed relief is testament to their capture by the very corporations causing the damage
so vote the current fascist out and get ready for the next to be inaugurated (fascism is the rule by a government in the control of capitalist corporations who’s paradigm is the exploitation of any resource -regardless of the consequences of that exploitation–for the money)