Cutting carbon emissions to net of zero by 2050, a goal of the Biden administration, is feasible, according to a new study by the National Academies of Sciences, but also has significant payoffs for the nation.
“Because of dramatic decreases in the costs of renewable electricity and batteries, the U.S. can now — during the 2020s — make strides toward achieving a net-zero emitting energy system at a cost lower than investing in reduced air pollution alone,” said Princeton’s Stephen Pacala, chairman of the committee that wrote the report. “Because the energy system impacts so many aspects of society, a transition to net-zero will have profound implications well beyond climate and energy — and it is paramount that we maintain a strong social contract to ensure this transition benefits all communities.”
According to a press release from the NAS, achieving net zero carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. “would not only help address climate change but also build a more competitive economic, in crease high-quality jobs, and help address social injustice in the energy system.” The report says, “Net-zero policy is about more than non-emitting energy technologies, because the manner in which the U.S. economy produces and consumes energy impacts a host of other issues that people care deeply about. The committee recognizes that the energy transition provides an opportunity to build a more competitive U.S. economy, to increase the availability of high-quality jobs, to build an energy system without the social injustices that permeate the current system, and to allow those individuals and businesses that are marginalized today to share equitably in future benefits.”
A 30-year-long program to reduce CO2 emissions to zero, said the study by the NAS Committee on Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Social Dimensions, requires “a fair distribution of both costs and benefits. Maintaining public support through a three-decade transition to net zero simply cannot be achieved with the development and maintenance of a strong social contract.”
The academy study outlines the first 10 years of this policy marathon, focusing on a “no-regrets” strategy “that would be robust to uncertainty about the system’s final technological mix, and hedging actions that can keep open as many viable paths to net zero as possible.” The initial targets of such a policy, says the report, are the electricity sector, particularly promotion of electric vehicles, and home heating. Following those initiatives, policy should next look at aviation, shipping, steel production, cement, and chemicals manufacturing. These second-order targets, the committee says, “will need further innovation to achieve cost-effective decarbonization.”
For the first decade of the long-term policy, says the NAS, there are eight “technological and socioeconomic” programmatic and policy recommendations.
- Doubling the share of electricity generated by “non-carbon-emitting sources” to at least 75%.
- Reach 50% of new vehicle sales “across all classes” with zero-emissions vehicles. replacing 20% of fossil fuel furnaces [Ed.—that means primarily natural gas and home heating oil] with electric heat pumps, and policies that require that “new construction is all electric except in the coldest climates.”
- Reduce total energy use in new building by 50%, and lower energy use in existing buildings to “achieve a 30% reduction by 2030.”
- Increase electric transmission capacity by “approximately 40%,” build out an electric vehicle charging structure, and “initiate a national CO2 capture, transport, and isposal network.
- Triple the U.S. Department of Energy’s funding for clean energy RD&D.
- Establish a federal “green bank” to provide financing for zero-and-low carbon technologies.
- Increase funds for low-income household weatherization, electrification, and broadband program and increase electrification “of tribal lands.”
- A series of programs to educate and assist workers and communities harmed by the transition, including an independent “National Transition Corporation” for “displaced workers and affected communities.”
Is this entire agenda practical and achievable? There is a distinct “pie-in-the-sky” aspect to the NAS recommendations. The politics of implementing them in full will be extremely difficult. Many incumbent industries are likely to push back with heavy lobbying campaigns, and many political interests, including a significant number of Democrats from states most severely affected, such as Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin from West Virginia, are likely to raise heart-felt objections.
–Kennedy Maize