The Bar For Climate Ambition Is Set By Science, Not Congressional Politics
Originally published by Union of Concerned Scientists, The Equation.
By Julie McNamara, senior energy analyst with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists
In April 2021, President Biden committed the United States to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, in line with science-informed targets, in line with the collective hunt to keep global warming below 2 degrees C, in line with the fight, the fight, the global fight to beat back the worst of climate impacts we could see.
Ever since, the scramble has been on for our nation to advance the charge.
Because while President Biden’s commitment to robust climate action is critical to setting the forward course, words alone will not guarantee progress. Wish as we might, we will not whoopsie-pie our way into the Great Decarbonized Place.
We need actual action.
We need actual policy, actual progress, actual change, commensurate with the level of action these climate targets require. And they will require a lot, as new modeling makes clear:
Credit: Rhodium Group, Pathways to Paris (October 2021)
Precisely because the present emissions gap is so great, we cannot solely lean on the incredible progress enabled by leading states, localities, businesses, and individuals. To truly bend the curve, we need federal action, too.
And that is what makes the repeated and escalating broadsides to the climate integrity of the Build Back Better Act — foremost among them attacks on the Clean Electricity Performance Program (CEPP) — so infuriating.
Because no matter what words are spun, what justifications are launched, we will still need to make up the gap. So for every measure of weakening Congress allows, for every degree of ambition our lawmakers abandon, it will simply make the hard task harder, placing a heavier burden on all the other efforts we need to make.
The Build Back Better Act as a chance for change
There was never going to be one legislative package to resolve the path to 2030 and beyond — not least because action will be required across all facets of government, not just Congress. But the Build Back Better Act (also referred to as the budget reconciliation package) was set up to advance climate action — along with so much else — at a level of ambition not previously seen, finally showing Congress going beyond its long-favored realm of tinkering at the edges to enact climate policies that would actually drive path-shifting, curve-bending change.
This is the type of ambition we’ve been waiting for; this is the type of ambition we need.
And this is the type of ambition that fossil fuel interests cannot abide.
So here we are now, staring down significant and multifaceted attacks to the very heart of that ambition, primarily through threats to the CEPP — which would spur the power sector to swiftly transition to clean sources — but also from additional threats to broader programmatic budgets and ambitions.
While compromise is par for the course, legislators cannot capitulate when it comes to including policies that enable major change. So for every cut, for every slash, they must answer: If not this, then what? Because we need major change.
Meeting 2030 targets hinges on power sector transition
To get climate action on track, emissions reductions will need to be drawn from all parts of the economy, all the way from cars on the road to buildings and homes. The Build Back Better Act includes multiple major policies to advance these efforts.
But for the race to 2030 targets, foremost among all the rest is achieving swift, deep reductions from the nation’s electric power sector. This is the foundation upon which so much else of our climate progress will be built, because the end goal for much of what runs on fossil fuels in our economy today is for it to run on electricity tomorrow — and that electricity must be clean.
We need policy interventions to support that.
Because while the nation’s power sector has been undergoing a significant transition away from heavily polluting coal, progress has been uneven and far too much of what has come online to fill the gaps has been still-polluting gas. The country is still hovering at 60 percent fossil fuels in its electricity mix, and coal generation is projected to increase, not decrease, this year.
To address this, policies can do two things: boost the good, and limit the bad.
We need both. We need both because while the former is vital to clean energy deployment, it studiously avoids antagonizing the fossil fuel-fired status quo, and history makes clear that fossil fuel interests will not voluntarily undertake this mission on their own.
This is the reason that the threat of the CEPP falling out of the Build Back Better Act is so significant. It’s not that there aren’t multiple additional policies that will help to spur clean electricity deployment in the bill—there are, and they are incredible, from updated and broadened tax incentives to support for transitioning fossil fuel assets — it’s that the CEPP includes targets, and the CEPP includes sticks.
Without the CEPP, renewables would still be cheap, but they might not be evenly — or sufficiently — deployed, and too many utilities are at risk of sticking too tightly to coal and gas. And that could lead to a non-trivial erosion of the emissions reduction potential of the legislation, as estimated by multiple recent analyses.
So if the CEPP falls out, what comes next?
Within the Build Back Better Act, Congress can approximate the same power sector intent from other types of programs that similarly support both sides of this transition, i.e., toward renewables and away from polluting fossil fuels. It can also look elsewhere to achieve deeper cuts in other sectors.
But it would be a heavy lift. And all the more so if other major initiatives in the Build Back Better Act fall out, from critical environmental justice initiatives to the robust clean energy tax incentives to the methane fee, which the fossil fuel industry is doing everything in its power to unwind.
And otherwise? It’s on to other actors, and a heavier burden for each.
If not this, then what?
No matter what happens with the Build Back Better Act, to reach the 2030 climate targets set by President Biden, the country will need to bring every lever to bear, from states, localities, and businesses to the federal government, Congress and the administration both, and the country will need to look to every economic sector for gains, and the country will need to sustain these efforts throughout the years to come. Any less in one area means more required by the rest.
Recent modeling by Rhodium Group supports this finding, making clear that a forward path exists even if the CEPP falls out. But it would require even more progress by leading states, and rapid action by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies across multiple sectors, from standards limiting new, unmitigated gas-fired power plants to near-term coverage of refineries and other major emitters.
Much as fossil fuel interests might wish it, undermining one major tool for climate action doesn’t make the problem go away — it just forces taking other, often more difficult, ways.
We do not have time for craven capitulation to inaction. It’s time to make the leap.
Featured image courtesy of NASA. When launched, the TROPICS satellites will work together to provide near-hourly microwave observations of a storm’s precipitation, temperature, and humidity. The mission is expected to help scientists understand the factors driving tropical cyclone intensification and to improve forecasting models. Credits: NASA
Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.
Electric bikes are booming in popularity across the US, and cities are starting to take notice. From famous programs like those in Denver to smaller initiatives around the country, local governments are rolling out rebate and incentive programs to make e-bikes more affordable, especially for lower-income residents. The goal? Get more people out of cars and onto two wheels.
E-bike incentives vary widely by city and state, but the overall trend is clear: public officials increasingly see e-bikes as a low-cost, low-emission transportation solution that checks a lot of boxes. E-bikes are cheaper than cars, don’t require gas, and are far more accessible than public transit in many neighborhoods. And with the ability to flatten hills and shrink long commutes, they’re attracting a much broader audience than traditional bikes.
Programs like Denver’s wildly popular e-bike rebate initiative have shown how effective these incentives can be. The city offers over $1,00 off an e-bike purchase depending on income level, and the demand has been enormous. Rhode Island recently launched its own statewide rebate program offering up to $750, and cities like Ann Arbor, Oakland, Providence, and dozens of others are following suit with their own variations. A Bend, Oregon program will offer free e-bikes to locals. Washington D.C. is piloting a rebate targeted at delivery workers, and even some utility companies, like Vermont’s Green Mountain Power, have gotten in on the action.
These programs especially benefit lower-income residents, who may rely on expensive or unreliable transportation options to get to work, school, or the grocery store. By offering higher rebates to income-qualified applicants, many programs aim to level the playing field and make car-free living more realistic.
Of course, not every program has gone smoothly. California’s statewide e-bike incentive, much hyped before its launch, faced repeated delays and technical issues that left many applicants frustrated. While the program finally began distributing vouchers this year, the rollout highlights the challenges of scaling these efforts statewide without sufficient infrastructure or planning.
Still, the momentum is undeniable. As cities grapple with climate goals, traffic congestion, and rising transportation costs, e-bike rebates are a relatively cheap way to make a big impact. The biggest challenge now may be keeping up with demand.
Electrek’s Take:
This is one of those rare win-win policies: cleaner air, less traffic, more mobility for people who need it most – and it’s all powered by a single horsepower and some political will. Let’s hope even more cities plug into this trend.
Of course, funding is the biggest obstacle to keeping programs like these rolling. But with the benefits stacking up, from reduced road damage to improved air quality, hopefully the rewards outweigh the upfront cost.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla will use Samsung for as a supplier for its self-driving computer’s next-gen hardware in a $16.5 billion deal, according to Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
But despite planning two generations ahead, the company still doesn’t have a solution to bring the promised full autonomy to hardware that it’s been promising that capability to since 2016.
Earlier today, Samsung announced a 22.8 trillion won ($16.5 billion) deal that would run through 2033. In that filing, Samsung did not name the customer, only that it is a “large global company”. Later, Bloomberg reported that the customer is Tesla, and Musk confirmed this on twitter. Then in his usual bravado, he stated that the deal is “likely much more than that.”
Musk also stated that the chips will be made in Samsung’s facility in Taylor, Texas. Manufacturing is likely to start in 2026.
Samsung makes the chips for the self-driving computers in Tesla’s current vehicles, but the next generation will be made by TSMC, first in Taiwan and then later in Arizona. Then the next-next generation will be covered by this new Samsung deal.
The new deal is significant due to TSMC’s global dominance of chipmaking. Samsung has had significant unused capacity, so the Tesla deal is a big boost for the company’s chip foundry business.
Tesla has gone through several generations of chips, previous referred to as “HW,” standing for “hardware,” with a number indicating their generation. More recently, Tesla started referring to its chips with “AI” instead of “HW,” in order to incorporate the tech buzzword du jour.
Currently Tesla is on HW4/AI4, and TSMC will make HW5, then Samsung will make HW6 again.
These generations of hardware each get successively more capable, and can handle more data and thus theoretically become better at self-driving tasks.
Current Tesla HW4 vehicles cannot drive themselves, and are only capable of SAE level 2 operation, which requires an attentive driver behind the steering wheel (though Tesla’s solution does work better than most others). Tesla’s ‘Robotaxi’ system is currently operating in Austin without anyone in the driver’s seat, but has a “safety rider” who can take control of the vehicle, blurring the line somewhat on which SAE level it is operating at.
But what about HW3?
There’s a problem with the differentiation between these generations of hardware: ever since 2016, when Tesla was on version 2 of its hardware, it has promised full self-driving capability on all of its vehicles.
This was announced in a blog post on October 19, 2016, which has since been deleted from Tesla’s website but is still available through archive.org.
Tesla stated, at the time, that every single Tesla vehicle produced after that date had the hardware that would allow for full self-driving.
It eventually became apparent that HW2 would not be capable of full self-driving tasks, and Tesla upgraded to HW3, promising all HW2 customers that they would get a free upgrade to HW3 if they bought Tesla’s Full Self-Driving system, which has varied in price over time but once cost $15,000.
However, Tesla still tried to charge owners $1,500 for that hardware upgrade, even though Tesla sold cars claiming that they had all the hardware needed for full self-driving.
One owner had to take Tesla to court to get them to deliver on this promise, and Tesla is still charging $1,000 for this hardware owners already bought. And that’s not the only one, there are a number of other self-driving false advertising cases that have gone to court, arbitration, or reached a settlement.
Now, with the change from HW3 to HW4, we’re seeing indications of a similar run-around.
We’ve already seen differing FSD software versions based on which hardware level vehicles have, with HW3 vehicles getting updates later than HW4 vehicles do. On last week’s Q2 earnings call, Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja said:
What we want to do is get unsupervised done on hardware four first. Once it’s done, then we’ll go back and look at what we need to do with the hardware three cars. Like I said, the focus is first to get unsupervised out and then we’ll go back and see what more work we need to do.
“Unsupervised” is Tesla’s new name for actual full self-driving, which would allow a vehicle to drive without the supervision of someone in the driver’s seat. This as opposed to “supervised FSD,” a phrase Tesla started using after about a decade of promising full self-driving without delivering it.
Here, Taneja said that HW3 cars will eventually get FSD, but Tesla hasn’t really figured out the path to that, and it’s focusing on new cars first, then will go back around to see what needs to happen.
Previously, Musk had stated that Tesla “will have to upgrade people’s hardware 3 computer,” but more recently it has become apparent that Tesla really doesn’t have a plan for that upgrade. And Taneja’s comments suggest that Tesla will still try to wedge FSD onto HW3, despite previously admitting that the system is not capable of it.
The existence of future HW5 and even HW6 chips also suggest that current systems are not capable of full self-driving. If HW4 is FSD-capable, then why would Tesla need two more generations of chip in the next two years in order to do the tasks that it promised all of its cars could do a full decade prior?
So, much more than having no solution for HW3 cars (or even HW2 cars, some of which have gotten free upgrades, but others who have been charged $1,000 to upgrade to a computer they already paid for), does this mean that Tesla is going to kick the can further down the road, and eventually have no solution for HW4 and HW5 either?
And, when will we know about these solutions? Tesla has sold millions of vehicles with the promise of self-driving which will seemingly need an upgrade at some point. And many of those vehicles are old enough, at this point, to be retired, despite spending up to $15,000 on a piece of software that has never been delivered to them.
An HW6/AI6 computer will surely have all sorts of new whizbang capabilities, but we were promised those capabilities years ago, and they’re still not delivered yet.
The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Mark Kay’s iconic Pink Cadillac awards are driving into the future for 2025. The company’s first-ever electric Pink Cadillac OPTIQ made its debut during the Mary Kay annual Seminar in Charlotte this weekend, symbolizing a “recharged vision” for the future of the popular brand.
Pioneers in monetizing friendships female empowerment and entrepreneurship, the Pink Cadillac is considered one the most coveted symbols of achievement for Mary Kay sales reps, signifying not just great sales (GM Authority reported that it took ~$102,000 in annual sales to qualify back in 2001), but also leadership, a history of mentoring others, and a sustained reputation of excellence among their peers.
The women you see behind the wheel of the Pink Cadillac are the real deal, in other words, and the big Caddy really does mean something to people in the know.
The iconic pink Cadillac was born in 1968 when Mary Kay Ash purchased a Cadillac Coupe De Ville from a Dallas dealership and promptly had it painted to match the pale pink Mary Kay lip and eye palette. General Motors later named the color Mary Kay Pink Pearl, and the shade is exclusive to Mary Kay.
MARY KAY
Now, the Pink Cadillac is going to stand for environmental sustainability, too, enabling Mary Kay’s top performers to set yet another positive example for anyone aspiring to their success.
“For decades, the Mary Kay pink Cadillac has symbolized accomplishment, aspiration, and the power of recognition,” said Ryan Rogers, Chief Executive Officer of Mary Kay. “With the introduction of the all-electric OPTIQ, we’re honoring that iconic legacy while driving into a transformative future—one grounded in our commitment to sustainability and dedication to inspiring and celebrating the achievements of our independent sales force for generations to come.”
Mary Kay announced its new Pink Cadillac with this video, below.
Same Legacy, New Energy
“The legacy continues with the new, all-electric (and still very pink) Cadillac Otiq [sic],” reads the official Mary Kay copy on YouTube. “The Optiq remains instantly recognizable with the pink pearl exterior, while modernizing with sleek, cutting-edge features. In addition, this vehicle showcases our commitment and dedication to sustainability by reducing our carbon footprint while continuing to inspire.”
Speaking of inspiration, I can’t hardly hear the words “Pink Cadillac” without thinking of the song. But, since “Bruce Springsteen” has become something of a trigger word for the MAGA snowflakes in the audience, I’ll post a different, but similarly great song about rose-tinted GM flagships from Dope Lemon. You can let me know what you think of it in the comments.
As ever, the Cadillac is not a “gift,” per se – but typically takes the form of a two year lease paid for by Mary Kay. No word yet on what the exact shape and form the OPTIQ deal will take.
Electrek’s Take
Whatever you might think of MLMs or businesses like Amway, Avon, or Mary Kay, they play a big part in the social dramas of hundreds (if not thousands) of neighborhoods and online communities. The people at the top are influential, and the people “below” them genuinely try to emulate them and follow their lead.
Thanks to Mary Kay, that might soon mean a decision to buy an electric vehicle – and that result would be a win for everyone.
SOURCE | IMAGES: Mary Kay.
If you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike