Search Climate Insights Directory

California is working toward supplying 33 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2020 and considering a 50 percent target by 2030. To maintain grid reliability without relying on carbon-emitting natural gas plants for ancillary services, the state must address 'overgeneration'—where renewable supply exceeds demand—which currently leads to the curtailment of clean energy. The document proposes several grid integration solutions: targeting energy efficiency during evening hours, diversifying the renewable fleet (wind, solar, bioenergy, and geothermal), increasing coordination between regional grid operators, deploying energy storage (pumped hydro, compressed air, and batteries), and using demand response technologies to shift electricity consumption to peak renewable output periods.

The report links the expansion of the palm oil industry in Southeast Asia to the use of fire for land preparation, which frequently results in uncontrollable landscape fires. These fires, particularly those on drained peatlands, release hazardous particulate matter that causes an estimated 110,000 deaths annually in the region. The document highlights the exacerbating role of climate-driven droughts and the significant economic losses in tourism and industry, while calling for a global shift toward deforestation-free and peat-free palm oil production.

The document details the calculations used to estimate the CO2-equivalent emissions resulting from natural gas leakage in the United States. Based on 2012 production data and a leakage range of 1% to 9%, the analysis converts methane volume to mass and then to CO2 equivalents, using a potency factor of 34. These results are then compared to the annual emissions of typical 600-megawatt coal power plants to illustrate the climate risk.

The document contrasts ConocoPhillips' claims of uncertainty regarding climate change's effects on public health with findings from the IPCC and the U.S. National Climate Assessment. It further highlights contradictions between the company's public acknowledgments of human-induced warming and its support for climate-denying trade groups and opposition to U.S. climate legislation.

The document asserts that the fuel economy of U.S. tractor-trailers has remained stagnant since the 1970s, averaging around 6 miles per gallon. It argues that implementing stronger standards could improve the efficiency of new trucks by 40 percent by 2025, raising average fuel economy from 6.3 mpg to 10.7 mpg. Such improvements would reduce petroleum consumption by over 570,000 barrels of oil per day and prevent over 110 million metric tons of global warming emissions annually. Economically, the report claims these standards would save truck owners $30,000 in fuel costs per vehicle annually and could reduce freight rates by nearly 10 percent, potentially providing households with $135 in annual savings.

The report examines the environmental and economic impacts of heavy-duty truck fuel efficiency in the U.S., arguing that standards increasing efficiency by 40% by 2025 would save billions in costs and reduce millions of metric tons of emissions.

The document contrasts ExxonMobil's 2005 claims that the cause of global warming remained 'in dispute' with scientific reports from 2000 and 2001 that attributed warming to human activities. It further notes ExxonMobil's 2009 opposition to the EPA's endangerment finding, citing uncertainty and potential economic harm.

The document outlines the economic and environmental advantages of electric vehicles (EVs) in Oregon, noting that they offer lower fuel and maintenance costs compared to gasoline vehicles. It highlights that EVs in Oregon produce fewer global warming emissions than any gasoline-powered vehicle and that these emissions will further decrease as the state increases its use of renewable energy. The text advocates for policies to reduce up-front costs and expand charging infrastructure to overcome barriers to adoption.

The report examines the transition of the U.S. power sector from coal to natural gas, noting that while this shift provides immediate benefits, it introduces risks such as price volatility, methane leakage, and potential 'stranded assets'. Using the National Energy Modeling System, the analysis compares a 'Business as Usual' scenario with a 'Carbon Standard plus Renewables and Efficiency Policies' scenario. The findings suggest that the latter would reduce power plant carbon emissions by 70 percent below 2005 levels by 2040, lower consumer energy bills, and provide significant net societal benefits, reaching nearly $170 billion by 2040.

The report examines the transition of the U.S. power sector from coal to natural gas, highlighting that while this shift provides immediate reductions in some pollutants, it creates long-term risks including price volatility, methane leakage, and stranded assets. Through modeling three scenarios—Business as Usual, a Carbon Standard, and a Carbon Standard plus Renewables and Efficiency Policies—the authors find that a diversified energy mix is the most economically and environmentally sound approach. The 'Carbon Standard plus Renewables and Efficiency Policies' scenario is projected to reduce power plant carbon emissions by 70% below 2005 levels by 2040 and generate net societal benefits of nearly $170 billion by that year. The report recommends strengthening the EPA's Clean Power Plan, implementing federal renewable electricity and energy efficiency standards, and increasing regulations on fugitive methane emissions.

The document details the methodology for 'The Natural Gas Gamble' report, utilizing a modified National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) to compare three primary policy scenarios: Business as Usual, a Carbon Standard, and a Carbon Standard combined with renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. It outlines specific adjustments made to U.S. Department of Energy assumptions regarding capital costs and capacity factors for various energy technologies, including wind, solar, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage. Additionally, it describes sensitivity analyses based on high and low natural gas price projections and explains the calculations used to determine the social costs of carbon and the health benefits of reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

The report evaluates the NRC's 2014 safety oversight, noting a decline in the number and severity of 'near misses' but criticizing the agency for withholding safety documents, retaliating against whistleblowers, and applying inconsistent oversight standards across different regions.

The Union of Concerned Scientists challenges Peabody Energy's 2014 claim that the benefits of CO2 outweigh its costs by 'orders of magnitude,' asserting instead that the social costs of carbon pollution—such as drought, heat waves, and coastal flooding—far exceed any benefits. The document details Peabody Energy's repeated efforts to challenge the EPA's endangerment finding and the IPCC's findings, as well as its affiliations with industry groups like ALEC and ACCCE to promote climate disinformation.

The document presents evidence for global warming, citing a 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase in global average temperature since 1880 and a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280ppm in 1880 to 399ppm in 2014. It identifies fossil fuels as the primary cause and references the National Climate Assessment and IPCC for projections on sea level rise and future temperature increases under scenarios of continued CO2 emissions.

The document advocates for the revitalization of publicly funded classical breeding programs in the U.S., asserting that this low-cost technology is more effective than genetic engineering for developing seeds adapted to sustainable, organic, and regional farming systems. It highlights a severe decline in public breeding resources, noting that the shift toward corporate-led seed development threatens food security by reducing genetic diversity. The author recommends that the USDA's National Institute for Food and Agriculture prioritize long-term funding for cultivars suited to agroecological systems to improve crop resilience, nutrient efficiency, and productivity.

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) use electricity stored in battery packs to power motors, producing no tailpipe emissions and offering lower fueling costs than internal combustion engines. While their total pollution depends on the electricity source, they remain cleaner than gasoline cars even on coal-heavy grids. BEVs feature energy-saving technologies like regenerative braking and typically offer ranges between 70 and 265 miles.

The document defines electric vehicles (EVs) as cars or trucks powered by electric motors using batteries or fuel cells, distinguishing them from conventional hybrids. It categorizes EVs into battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, noting that EVs generally produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than fossil-fuel vehicles. The guide highlights that battery-electric cars offer the lowest emissions and simplest maintenance, while plug-in hybrids provide a bridge for those with longer trips, and fuel cell vehicles offer fast refueling but suffer from limited infrastructure, particularly in the US.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen gas and oxygen to generate electricity for an electric motor, emitting only water and heat. They offer refueling times and driving ranges (200-300 miles) similar to conventional gasoline vehicles, making them suitable for long-distance travel or users without home charging. While hydrogen production can cause pollution, these vehicles can reduce emissions by over 30% compared to gasoline cars, even when using natural gas as a source.

A drivetrain delivers power from a vehicle's engine or motor to its wheels, influencing fuel consumption, mechanical efficiency, and cost. Hybrid vehicles employ three primary drivetrain types: series, where only the electric motor powers the wheels; parallel, where the engine and motor work in tandem; and series/parallel, which combines both methods to optimize efficiency across different speeds. While series/parallel systems offer the best fuel performance, they are more expensive due to the need for larger batteries, generators, and advanced computing.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) combine internal combustion engines with electric motors and rechargeable batteries, allowing for extended all-electric driving and reduced global warming pollution. They operate in all-electric and hybrid modes, utilizing features like regenerative braking and idle-off to increase fuel efficiency. Unlike battery electric vehicles, PHEVs retain a combustion engine for when the battery is depleted, and unlike conventional hybrids, they can be recharged via an external power outlet.