Advanced BioFuels USA

by Amanda Little (Bloomberg Opinion) As President Joe Biden’s Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry will play perhaps the most critical role internationally in managing a planetary crisis.  … AL:  Yet progressive climate activists have said that “climate delay-al” is the new climate denial and that 2050 is too far off — we need to get to net zero by 2030.

JK:  They want it done quickly. We all do. We need a 2030 goal, a 2035 and a 2040 goal. We need impatience and we also need realism. As of today, we have no way of providing power for certain essential services when making such a rapid transition. But scientists are telling us that if we do net zero by 2050 — or hopefully 2040, 2045 — if we push for that, we’re going to see Moore’s law come into play — a sudden, exponential rapidity with which change is coming at you.

AL:  There will be some amount of pain. Certain industries will suffer, some lifestyles will change as we shift away from fossil fuels. What will that pain look like and how can you ease it?

JK: If we do it properly, I don’t believe there has to be pain. I don’t accept that. I think this could be a very smooth, normal economic transition and we can ease any negativity for people by making sure that we’re there to help them transition. Larry Fink of BlackRock was right when he said [to private sector leaders] we can’t just be corporate entities in a nation that cares about shareholders. We have to shift our focus to stakeholders.

…

JK:  Obviously I’ve been a longtime advocate of putting a price on carbon. That’s what Lindsey Graham and I were trying to do in the Senate in 2009 and 2010. I credit the activists who have pushed to say any pricing would have to be progressive so it doesn’t dump the costs on low-income workers and families. I also credit the voices from the private sector who are elevating climate as a priority in boardrooms, in general.

…

We have to think about the unmeasured costs of inaction. In a way, we have a negative price on carbon today because the actual price of carbon is never really paid for in the purchase of the product, it’s paid for downstream. We’ve never done a fair accounting of what the real costs are, but it’s safe to say we’ve gotten to the point where it’s cheaper to invest in preventing or minimizing damage than cleaning it up.

…

Regenerative agriculture is an enormously big opportunity — to farm differently, tilling the land in a way that consumes carbon dioxide and is actually more productive than conventional agriculture.

AL:  It can be more productive long-term, but there are near-term costs to shifting from conventional to regenerative agriculture, which is why only a small fraction of American farmers are actually doing it.

JK:  We need government incentives, maybe in the form of tax credits. But the private sector also needs to begin making these practices profitable and demonstrating the productivity advantages. All food needs to be climate-smart. Keep in mind, though, that agriculture is about 10% of total GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions versus 27% for transportation, 27% for power production. Big difference.  READ MORE