LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Clean energy developers had planned a 75-turbine wind farm in mid-Michigan’s Montcalm County before local voters shot down the idea in 2022 and recalled seven local officials who had supported it.

About 150 miles (240 kilometers) southeast, Clara Ostrander in Monroe County found herself at the center of a similar conflict as rising medical costs forced her and her husband to consider selling land her family has owned for 150 years.

Leasing a parcel to an incoming solar farm could save the property, but neighboring residents complained so vehemently that Ostrander said the township changed its zoning to block the project.

“There are people in this township I will never, ever speak to again,” she said.

Local restrictions in Michigan derailed more than two dozen utility-scale renewable energy projects as of last May, according to a study by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Nationwide, and at least 228 restrictions in 35 states have been imposed to stop green energy projects.

The conflicts have hindered many states’ aggressive timelines for transitioning to cleaner energy production, with the ultimate goal of eliminating carbon pollution within the next two decades.

Michigan and more than a dozen other states are seeking to upend the decision-making process by grabbing the power to supersede local restrictions and allow state authorities to approve or disapprove locations for utility-scale projects.

The shift has sparked a political backlash that may escalate as more states seek to simplify getting green energy projects approved and built.

“We can’t allow projects of statewide importance that are critical to our state energy security to be vetoed on purely local concerns,” said Dan Scripps, chair of Michigan’s Public Service Commission.

Scripps and two other commission members now have the power to site large-scale renewable energy projects in the state under legislation passed by Michigan lawmakers and signed by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in November.

Michigan joined Connecticut, New York, Oregon and Minnesota in requiring utility providers to transition to 100% carbon-free electricity generation by 2040. A sixth state, Rhode Island, is shooting for 100% renewable energy by 2033. The goals are consistent with the Biden administration’s target of carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035 and a net-zero emissions economy by 2050. Other states have long-standing goals lower than 100%.

But many local officials say giving states the power to site large-scale energy projects clashes with cherished U.S. political principles. Local officials, they say, are the public servants closest to and most directly accountable to voters. They argue that’s especially important when it comes to land use and what gets built near homes.

In Kansas, Osage County’s moratorium on commercial solar and wind projects came in 2022 after multiple hearings. County Commissioner Jay Bailey said the decision reflected most residents’ concerns. Even after all the hearings and discussions, he said he just didn’t feel he had enough information about the effects of large turbines or solar farms.

“Here’s the difference,” he said. “If you allow them, you can’t go back and change it, but if you don’t allow them, you can always change it.”

In other places, such as the Flint Hills of Kansas — home to most of the nation’s remaining tall grass prairie — moratoriums on energy projects stem from environmental concerns.

But even with the restrictions in place in parts of Kansas, renewable energy has boomed there. Wind farms now provide 47% of the state’s electricity, up from 7% in 2010. The gains came as the clean energy lobby worked steadily to counter opposition from the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature.

Elise Caplan, vice president for regulatory affairs at the nonprofit American Council on Renewable Energy, said local rules restricting green energy facilities are “not really based on science.” Projects can benefit local environments by retiring generating plants powered by fossil fuels, she said.

Michigan has pursued its clean-energy goals by rapidly developing facilities where there’s ample farmland. It’s a choice that can divide rural communities, as it did in the Monroe County case in which Ostrander sought to lease property for a solar farm.

Michigan’s new siting law could revive the project.

“No one’s forcing this on us,” Ostrander said. “This was something we decided and felt it would be good for us to build to keep our property in the family.”

Michigan is unusual in that its more than 1,200 townships have the power to enact and enforce zoning ordinances. Twenty of the state’s 83 counties have passed ordinances blocking or delaying wind or solar developments.

Scripps, the chair of Michigan’s Public Service Commission that can now override those restrictions, has said an additional 209,000 acres (84,579 hectares) will be needed for projects to hit the state’s 60% renewable energy goal by 2035. It’s a massive increase from the 17,000 acres (6,880 hectares) currently being used.

Developers will still need to go through local communities to approve projects, Scripps said. But if the project is denied, and meets the state’s criteria to proceed, the three-person commission can overrule the local decision and approve solar projects with a capacity of 50 megawatts or greater and wind projects with a capacity of 100 megawatts.

A 2023 law in Illinois limits local authorities’ power and bans moratoriums on clean-energy projects. In addition to Michigan, the Columbia University study reported that state boards or agencies in California, Connecticut, New York and Rhode Island control decisions about siting projects. Local rules also can be bypassed by the state in Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Florida and South Dakota.

Local government groups in Michigan have overwhelmingly opposed the new law giving the state power to site projects, saying it creates a “one-size-fits-all” process. Citizens for Local Choice, a group with four state lawmakers, announced in early January that it will try put the issue before Michigan voters in November, which would require collecting nearly 357,000 signatures by May 29.

Green energy advocates are frustrated by what they often see driving local opposition to projects: A fear of change, widely circulating misinformation about wind turbines and solar panels and a desire by suburbanites who move to rural areas to preserve views.

Josh Svaty, who assists renewable energy companies seeking county-level approval and lobbies for them at the Kansas Statehouse, decries how opponents can make local officials’ lives “absolutely miserable.” Yet, he said, he still believes in local decision making.

“County governments — city governments, the same way — they are designed to be accessible to their citizens,” Svaty said. “So you can go to that planning and zoning meeting and if you want to say your view, you can do that.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post States with big climate goals strip local power to block green projects appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

To help ameliorate some of the economywide impacts of inflation, the Newsom administration instead should take the broader approach outlined by Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins : Use the state’s budget surplus to provide Californians with an across-the-board rebate for relief from all rising costs, not just gas.

California has some of the highest gas prices in the country, and working-class citizens across the state are dealing with the effects of record-breaking inflation. As our economy recovers from the pandemic, California still has the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation. It’s not controversial to say that many Californians are struggling, and the government should step in to help.

However, singling out a fossil fuel to frame a tax rebate is unnecessary and in contradiction to California’s — and the governor’s — climate goals.

Oil and gas companies are experiencing record profits because of the surges in gas prices and are, of course, passing those profits on to their executives. California’s government should focus on taking on greedy polluters, not subsidizing them.

Moreover, a gas rebate will not address the crucial issue of our dependence on fossil fuels. If Newsom is serious about helping all Californians, he needs to take major steps to transition California’s transportation system toward zero-emission technologies.

Earlier this year, Newsom detailed a new transportation budget proposal, including grants for free transit and substantial investments in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure. The proposal has some great elements in it, but Newsom should push even more aggressive legislation to ensure California can break its dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible.

Outside of the Legislature, the governor can double down on electric vehicles. He should pressure the California Air Resources Board to pass the Advanced Clean Cars II rule that ramps up zero-emission vehicle sales as quickly as possible before reaching 100% by 2035.

The governor also should push the air board to adopt a strong Advanced Clean Fleets rule that requires 100% of the sales of heavy-duty trucks to be ZEVs by 2036. Finally, Newsom should encourage the air board to use its existing authority to force the retirement of fossil-fueled trucks as soon as the law allows.

As the governor looks at ways to provide relief to Californians, he must be careful that he does not deepen the state’s reliance on polluting fuels. The historic budget surplus and the air board’s wide docket of proposed transportation-related regulations provide Newsom with a unique opportunity to make real, progressive changes to our infrastructure while advancing the state’s climate goals. Let’s not waste this moment on a few Exxon Mobil gift cards.

Brandon Dawson | Contributed

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Newsom’s gas rebate would stymie state’s climate goals appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

BERLIN (AP) — Before Russia’s war in Ukraine, Europe’s most pressing energy policy goal was reducing carbon emissions that cause climate change.

Now, officials are fixated on rapidly reducing the continent’s reliance on Russian oil and natural gas — and that means friction between security and climate goals, at least in the short term.

To wean itself from Russian energy supplies as quickly as possible, Europe will need to burn more coal and build more pipelines and terminals to import fossil fuels from elsewhere.

This dramatic shift comes amid soaring fuel costs for motorists, homeowners and businesses, and as political leaders reassess the geopolitical risks from being so energy-dependent on Russia.

In 2021, the European Union imported roughly 40% of its gas and 25% of its oil from Russia — an economic relationship that officials had thought would prevent hostilities, but is instead financing them.

While some are calling for an immediate boycott of all Russian oil and gas, the EU plans to reduce Russian gas imports by two-thirds by the end of this year, and to eliminate them altogether before 2030.

This “will not be easy,” said Paolo Gentiloni, the EU’s top economic official. But, he added, “it can be done.”

In the near-term, ending energy ties with Russia puts the focus on securing alternative sources of fossil fuels. But longer term, the geopolitical and price pressures stoked by Russia’s war in Ukraine may actually accelerate Europe’s transition away from oil, gas and coal.

Experts say the war has served as a reminder that renewable energy isn’t just good for the climate, but also for national security. That could help speed up the development of wind and solar power, as well as provide a boost to conservation and energy-efficiency initiatives.

The EU has pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55% compared with 1990 levels by 2030, and to get to net zero emissions by 2050. Analysts and officials say those goals, enshrined in EU climate legislation, can still be met.

The rapid pursuit of energy independence from Russia will likely require “a slight increase” in carbon emissions, said George Zachmann, an energy expert at the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. But “in the long term, the effect will be that we will see more investment in renewables and energy efficiency in Europe,” Zachmann said.

Plans that wouldn’t have been contemplated just a few months ago are now being actively discussed, such as running coal plants in Germany beyond 2030, which had previously been seen as an end date.

Germany’s vice chancellor and energy minister, Robert Habeck, said there should be “no taboos.”

The Czech government has made the same calculation about extending the life of coal power plants.

“We will need it until we find alternative sources,” Czech energy security commissioner Václav Bartuška, told the news site Seznam Zprávy. “Until that time, even the greenest government will not phase out coal.”

One of Europe’s top priorities is to buy more liquefied natural gas that can come by ship. On Friday, American and European officials announced a plan under which the U.S. and other nations will increase liquefied gas exports to Europe this year, though U.S. officials were unable to say exactly which countries will provide the extra energy this year.

Germany, which lacks import terminals to turn LNG back into gas when it comes off the ship, is pushing ahead with two multibillion-euro projects on its North Sea coast.

The war also has revived Spain’s interest in extending a gas pipeline across the Pyrenees to France. The 450 million-euro ($500 million) project had been abandoned in 2019 after France showed little interest and a European feasibility study deemed it unprofitable and unnecessary. If built, it would allow gas imported in Spain and Portugal as LNG to reach other parts of Europe.

In Britain, which is no longer part of the EU, Prime Minister Boris Johnson says it’s “time to take back control of our energy supplies.”

Britain will phase out the small amount of oil it imports from Russia this year. More significantly, Johnson has signaled plans to approve new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, to the dismay of environmentalists, who say that is incompatible with Britain’s climate targets.

Some within the governing Conservative Party and the wider political right want the British government to retreat on its commitment to reach net zero by 2050, a pledge made less than six months ago at a global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland. Conservative Party co-chairman Oliver Dowden said last week that “British people want to see a bit of conservative pragmatism, not net zero dogma.”

Yet the shock waves from the war cut both ways.

Sharply higher gas and electricity prices, and the desire to be less dependent on Russia, are increasing pressure to expand the development of home-grown renewables and to propel conservation.

The International Energy Agency recently released a 10-point plan for Europe to reduce its dependence on Russian gas by a third within a year. Simply lowering building thermostats by an average of one degree Celsius during the home-heating season would save 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, or roughly 6% of what Europe imports from Russia.

At the German rooftop solar panel company Zolar, chief executive Alex Melzer said there has been a surge of inquiries from potential customers since the war began.

“With the Ukraine crisis, we’ve really seen that people are wondering whether Germany is going to stop buying oil and gas from Russia and what’s going to happen to our electricity and energy system,” he told The Associated Press.

Melzer said customers are less interested in saving the planet than in saving money, despite the upfront investment of 20,000 euros ($22,000). But it amounts to the same thing: a reduction in fossil fuel use and thereby emissions.

“Goal achieved, super,” he said.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post War shakes Europe path to energy independence, climate goals appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

There is truly nothing like experiencing a desert oasis. My favorite such place in California is the Amargosa River, which flows intermittently for 185 miles from Nevada into eastern California.

On my last visit to the Amargosa in the Mojave Desert, I sat on the riverbank in awe of its healthy, thriving wetlands in the middle of this arid landscape. Once you spend time in one of California’s three deserts, you realize how diverse they are. From rugged watercourses to rolling dunes and towering peaks – our deserts contain some of our state’s most unique natural treasures.

I’m grateful to Assemblymember James Ramos, a Democrat from Rancho Cucamonga, who represents portions of Southern California’s Inland Empire, for championing the new Desert Conservation Program within the state’s Wildlife Conservation Board. Signed into law in September, this is a first-ever program aimed at providing state funding opportunities to help protect California’s deserts.

While the creation of the program is a critical first step, it now requires funding. Our state leaders should ensure full funding for this program so that we can provide much-needed investments in the communities, wildlife and landscapes of the California Desert region.

The state should fully fund the California Desert Conservation Program because it will help fulfill Gov. Gavin Newsom’s October 2020 executive order, which calls on the state to safeguard 30% of our lands and waters by 2030. This 30×30 effort is driven by scientific research suggesting that protecting public lands and other natural areas is one of the most effective strategies to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss. 30×30 also urges agencies to conserve lands to increase access to the outdoors for underserved communities.

Despite its geographic size and importance, the California Desert region has not received dedicated state funding in the past. This is a huge, missed opportunity given the region spans one-quarter of the state and is critical to our efforts to fight climate change.

In fact, California desert lands store nearly 10% of the state’s total carbon emissions. Undisturbed vegetation throughout the desert sequesters large amounts of carbon and stores it in roots and soils, which helps reduce carbon in our atmosphere. By fully funding the California Desert Conservation Program, the state can preserve the desert’s incredible abilities to fight climate change and ensure the region can thrive into the future. Investing in the California Desert Conservation Program will also help reach 30×30 because more resources would improve access to nature. The California Desert region’s stunning parks and public lands draw visitors from around the world. One-half of the state’s population lives within an hour’s drive of the California Desert region, but too many communities don’t have the resources to travel to and experience the wonders of this area. Furthermore, communities of color may not feel welcome or safe exploring the desert because staff and other visitors have historically been overwhelmingly white. Our leaders should dedicate additional funding for trail creation, bilingual signage and educational and outreach programs to help bring more diverse users to the desert.

Finally, funding the California Desert Conservation Program will help achieve 30×30’s conservation goals by protecting the largest still-intact ecosystem in the lower 48 states. The California Desert region is incredibly bio-diverse. In the Mojave Desert, there are approximately 210 species of plants that are found nowhere else on Earth. There are many iconic plants and animals that would benefit from increased conservation investments, including Joshua trees, threatened desert tortoises and Mohave ground squirrels, desert bighorn sheep and golden eagles.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ramos, for leading the way to create the California Desert Conservation Program. I urge state leaders to meaningfully invest in this program to help achieve our 30×30 goals. Setting this ambitious and smart framework demonstrates that our state continues to be a leader in fighting climate change and ensuring access to nature for all. Fully funding the California Desert Conservation Program can help us get there.

Pamela Flick | Guest Commentary

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Funding desert conservation will help achieve climate goals appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

NEW ORLEANS (AP) — The U.S. Interior Department on Wednesday will auction vast oil and gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico estimated to hold up to 1.1 billion barrels of crude, the first such sale under President Joe Biden and a harbinger of the challenges he faces to reach climate goals that depend on deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions.

The livestreamed sale invited energy companies to bid on drilling leases across some 136,000 square miles (352,000 square kilometers) — about twice the area of Florida.

It will take years to develop the leases before companies start pumping crude. That means they could keep producing long past 2030, when scientists say the world needs to be well on the way to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The auction comes after a federal judge in a lawsuit brought by Republican states rejected a suspension of fossil fuel sales that Biden imposed when he first took office.

The Democrat campaigned on promises to curb fossil fuels from public lands and waters, which including coal account for about a quarter of U.S. carbon emissions, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Yet even as he’s tried to cajole other world leaders into strengthening international efforts against global warming, Wednesday’s sale illustrates Biden’s difficulties gaining ground on climate issues at home.

The administration last week proposed another round of oil and gas lease sales in 2022, in Montana, Wyoming, Colorado and other western states. Interior Department officials proceeded despite concluding that burning the fuels could lead to billions of dollars in potential future climate damages.

“We had Trump’s unconstrained approach to oil and gas on federal lands and Biden’s early attempt to pause drilling. Now it looks like the Biden administration is trying to find a new policy,” said researcher Robert Johnston with Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.

“They’re being very cautious about undermining their fragile momentum” on climate issues, he added.

The energy bureau said in pre-sale documents released Tuesday that it received bids on 307 tracts totaling nearly 2,700 square miles (6,950 square kilometers). That’s the largest total for a single sale since Gulf-wide bidding resumed in 2017. Those seven sales have generated almost $1 billion in total revenue.

Environmental reviews of the Gulf of Mexico sale conducted under former President Donald Trump and affirmed under Biden reached an unlikely conclusion: Extracting and burning the fuel would result in fewer greenhouse gases than leaving it in the ground.

Similar claims in two other cases, in Alaska, were rejected by federal courts after challenges from environmentalists. Climate scientist Peter Erickson — whose work was cited by judges in one of the cases — said the Interior Department’s analysis had a glaring omission: They left out greenhouse gas increases in foreign countries that would result from having more Gulf oil on the market.

“The math is extremely simple on this kind of stuff,” said Erickson, a senior scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute, a nonprofit research group. “If new leases expand the global oil supply, that has a proportional effect on emissions from burning oil. Therefore, giving out these leases in the Gulf of Mexico would be increasing global emissions.”

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management in recent months changed its emissions modeling methods, citing Erickson’s work. But officials said it was too late to use the new approach for Wednesday’s lease sale, which they said had been through “a rigorous process with specific timelines.”

“The environmental analysis for Lease Sale 257 was already complete and as such does not contain the newer approach to considering the impacts of foreign consumption of oil and gas,” the agency said in a statement provided to The Associated Press.

Administration officials declined AP’s interview requests. For upcoming sales, spokesperson Melissa Schwartz said Interior is conducting a more comprehensive emission review than any prior administration, as it appeals the court order that forced their resumption.

Erik Milito, president of the National Ocean Industries Association said he was uncertain that using the new approach would have changed the government’s conclusions, since drilling for oil in other parts of the world is less efficient and hauling imports also adds to carbon costs. He described the Gulf as the “backbone of U.S. oil production” and said companies consider it a strong investment.

The continued use of the old analysis rankles drilling opponents who say Biden isn’t following through on his climate pledges.

“We’re talking about transitioning away from a fossil fuel economy and they are selling a giant carbon bomb of a lease sale,” said attorney Drew Caputo with Earthjustice, which has a lawsuit challenging the Gulf lease sale pending in federal court. “That creates a property right to develop those leases. It’s a lot harder to keep the carbon in the ground if you sell the lease.”

Some Democrats also objected to the sale. The chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva, said Biden promised to lead on climate issues but continues running a fossil fuel program with a long history of mismanagement.

“The administration needs to do better,” Grijalva said in a statement Tuesday.

The Gulf of Mexico accounts for about 15% of total U.S. crude production and 5% of its natural gas.

Industry analysts had predicted some heightened interest in Wednesday’s sale since oil prices rose sharply over the past year. It’s also a chance for companies to secure drilling rights before the administration or Congress can increase drilling fees and royalty rates or adopt new restrictions on environmental permits, said analyst Justin Rostant with industry consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

An outright ban on new leases and drilling seems unlikely after the federal court shot down Biden’s temporary suspension, he added.

“Different companies have different approaches and different strategies,” Rostant said. “Some could think this might be the year to go big.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Coming off climate talks, US to hold huge crude sale in Gulf appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The amount of baked-in global warming, from carbon pollution already in the air, is enough to blow past international agreed upon goals to limit climate change, a new study finds.

But it’s not game over because, while that amount of warming may be inevitable, it can be delayed for centuries if the world quickly stops emitting extra greenhouse gases from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, the study’s authors say.

For decades, scientists have talked about so-called “committed warming” or the increase in future temperature based on past carbon dioxide emissions that stay in the atmosphere for well over a century. It’s like the distance a speeding car travels after the brakes are applied.

But Monday’s study in the journal Nature Climate Change calculates that a bit differently and now figures the carbon pollution already put in the air will push global temperatures to about 2.3 degrees Celsius (4.1 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since pre-industrial times.

Previous estimates, including those accepted by international science panels, were about a degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) less than that amount of committed warming.

International climate agreements set goals of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, with the more ambitious goal of limiting it to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) added in Paris in 2015. The world has already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit).

“You’ve got some … global warming inertia that’s going to cause the climate system to keep warming, and that’s essentially what we’re calculating,” said study co-author Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. “Think about the climate system like the Titanic. It’s hard to turn the ship when you see the icebergs.”

Dessler and colleagues at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab and Nanjing University in China calculated committed warming to take into account that the world has warmed at different rates in different places and that places that haven’t warmed as fast are destined to catch up.

Places such as the Southern Ocean, surrounding Antarctica are a bit cooler, and that difference creates low-lying clouds that reflect more sun away from earth, keeping these places cooler. But this situation can’t keep going indefinitely because physics dictates that cooler locations will warm up more and when they do, the clouds will dwindle and more heating will occur, Dessler said.

Previous studies were based on the cooler spots staying that way, but Dessler and colleagues say that’s not likely.

Outside experts said the work is based on compelling reasoning, but want more research to show that it’s true. Breakthrough Institute climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said the new work fits better with climate models than observational data.

Just because the world is bound to get more warming than international goals, that doesn’t mean all is lost in the fight against global warming, said Dessler, who cautioned against what he called “climate doomers.”

If the world gets to net zero carbon emissions soon, 2 degrees of global warming could be delayed enough so that it won’t happen for centuries, giving society time to adapt or even come up with technological fixes, he said.

“If we don’t, we’re going to blow through (climate goals) in a few decades,” Dessler said. “It’s really the rate of warming that makes climate change so terrible. If we got a few degrees over 100,000 years, that would not be that big a deal. We can deal with that. But a few degrees over 100 years is really bad.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Study: Warming already baked in will blow past climate goals appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.