Things I Learned, Feb 24-March 1
Carbon pricing, Sustainable farming, EV Charging, Friendly Solar
Biden Reverts to Obama-Era Carbon Prices
As an interim measure as studies continue, the government will use $51 as the Social Cost of Carbon (for 1 ton of emissions).
“The Biden approach, which pegs the social cost of carbon at $51 a ton for 2021 after adjusting future costs at a 3% discount rate, replaces a Trump-era method that was as low as $1.”
The importance of the SCC: Any budget estimate put together by any federal agency will use this amount in the costs (say for building roads or drilling for oil) but also use that amount in the benefits (say for preserving forests or investing in renewable energy). A govt project with $52 of benefits but for every ton of carbon emissions would still net out $1 positive.
This matters a lot with a giant relief/stimulus bill upcoming, with a lot of infrastructure built in.
Oil Trade Group Poised to Endorse Carbon Pricing: Also WSJ
The largest oil lobbying group in the US is planning to support some form of carbon pricing. Is this because they’re greenwashing publicly while fighting privately? Is it because the writing is on the wall under Biden, so they want to show good faith? Unclear. Not all members agree with this decision but it seems like most oil cos are accepting it and want to claim that they can be “part of the solution” for carbon emissions. (Seems like natural gas could, oil…not really).
This December article in Bloomberg could be relevant. Carbon capture can make money for oil giants, and scientists say we need it. Is the industry willing to invest enough?
“If you’re going to ask somebody to actually do carbon capture, oil companies have all the experience,” says David Use, a former Chevron Corp. engineer who purchased some of the gases from LaBarge for use at the Rangely oil field, about 200 miles south, in Colorado. “They’ve got the pocketbooks and the credentials to do the big projects.”
“And therein lies the paradox. As Exxon and its peers look into a carbon-constrained future, CCS seems to offer a golden opportunity. Oil companies could develop a tool considered crucial by no less than the scientists with the United Nations-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But in the absence of strong government support or regulation, the oil industry might not have the will to invest enough.”
Watershed Climate is a company spun out of Stripe (a fast-growing financial tech company that has invested in carbon sequestration technology).
“Companies use Watershed's software to measure their carbon footprint comprehensively, plan and execute on steps to reduce emissions, and share results with investor-grade reporting.”
Bloomberg did a feature on them last week - "Watershed’s chief executive officer, said that “old-world” companies often have climate programs that are “bolted on to the business rather than being core to the operation — so we’re going to do exactly what we were going to do anyway and buy offsets.” But the market is going through “an inflection moment,” he said. “You’ve got this generation of fast-growing companies that are coming to climate for the first time as a corporate imperative and want to do something very ambitious on it.”
There are 3 levels of emissions:
Scope 1: Direct from company’s activities
Scope 2: Direct from the energy the company buys/uses
Scope 3: Worldwide carbon footprint, through supply chain, travel, etc.
Watershed’s tool has three goals: Let companies measure their impact, make plans to reduce it, and make reports on progress.
What I think is happening here: There’s a nascent industry preparing for a world in which there are much higher carbon taxes, or other emissions regulations. The writing is on the wall, and even though the market is small today, the early adopters will be in a position to drive the entire market. They will also develop a symbiotic relationship with buyers - both of whom advocate for more and more regulation and eventually become more powerful than the opponents of carbon taxes.
Savanna Institute promotes sustainable farming in the Midwest.
Interesting case studies on agroforestry (alley cropping, forest farming, silvopasture) and other farming techniques that supposedly save farmers/landholders money.
“agroforestry could sequester 2.2 gigatons of carbon per year- more than any other agriculture land management approach out there.”
This is important because we can’t just get rid of farms, but they’re pretty bad for sequestering carbon (They take a bunch in during growing season, then release it at end of growing season).
What’s missing in the EV Revolution? Enough Places to Plug In. (WSJ article)
Focuses heavily on people making cross-country road trips (Which seems like more of a challenge/hobby than something reasonable to do). But good insights on quality/reliability of EV charging stations. Interesting.
Note that Teslas can charge anywhere, but other EVs cannot use Tesla stations. (Tesla made patents available to all, but others did not want to commit to Tesla’s terms).
There are efforts by automakers to scale up EV charging stations nationwide. Potential for grant money going into it.
The state of Minnesota has a program to support development of solar arrays that support native species, including flowers, birds, bees/commercial beekeeping.
It’s an interesting opportunity to make solar a little less horrible on the land. Seems promising, but might just be a gimmick.