Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Podcast

A New Grand Theory of Why Decarbonization Is So Hard

Rob and Jesse talk with Jessica Green, author of the forthcoming book, Existential Politics.

Flooding.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Why has it been so hard for the world to make progress on climate change over the past 30 years? Maybe it’s because we’ve been thinking about the problem wrong. Academics and economists have often framed climate change as a free-rider or collective action problem, one in which countries must agree not to emit greenhouse gases and abuse the public commons. But maybe the better way to understand climate action is as a fight that generates winners and losers, defined primarily by who owns what.

On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with Jessica Green, a political science professor at the University of Toronto. She calls for “radical pragmatism” in climate action and an “asset revaluation”-focused view of the climate problem. Green is the author of the forthcoming book Existential Politics: Why Global Climate Institutions Are Failing and How to Fix Them. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap’s executive editor.

Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.

Here is an excerpt from our conversation:

Jesse Jenkins: So what are some of the strategies that you think policy makers can take if they adopt this sort of asset theory mindset?

Jessica Green: So there’s kind of two pieces to this. One is to recognize the many flaws in the status quo approach, which sidesteps all of these questions of asset revaluation. So I spend a lot of time explaining why managing tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or [greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere is not a helpful approach.

There is a huge swath of the policy space — and I know this may upset some of your listeners that are dedicated to things like greening the supply chain and voluntary net zero commitments and public-private partnerships and improving the robustness of carbon offsets. And you know, I document extensively in the book why these things do not work. And so even though many of us think, Oh, well, we’re past that, this is everywhere in climate policy. Anywhere you see net zero — anywhere you see the word ‘net,’ you have some kind of offset, whether it’s a carbon offset, CCS. This is really everywhere in climate policy.

So I think that’s step one. And then step two is to really address both pieces of the equation of fossil and green asset owners. One is you have to build green asset owners, which is the thing you guys talk about so much in your podcast. How do we do industrial policy and create carrots to incentivize particularly these decarbonizable industries to flip?

But the other piece, which is the one that nobody wants to talk about, is how do we constrain the material and political power of the fossil fuel industry or fossil asset owners? And that is the big one. And so I try, in my own pragmatist way, to talk about the international institutions that are available to us to think about constraining them both in trade, but also in tax and investment law. And I think those are ways that we can think more productively about how to lessen this power asymmetry between fossil and green asset owners.

Also mentioned in this episode:

Asset Revaluation and the Existential Politics of Climate Change, by Jessica Green, Jeff Colgan, and Thomas Hale

Tax Policy Is Climate Policy by Jessica Green

Why Carbon Pricing Falls Short, by Jesse Jenkins

Jesse’s 2014 article on asset specificity and climate change

Jesse’s downshift; Rob’s downshift.

Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Donald Trump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

President Trump has had it in for electric vehicle charging since day one. His January 20 executive order “Unleashing American Energy” singled out the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program by name, directing the Department of Transportation to pause and review the funding as part of his mission to “eliminate” the so-called “electric vehicle mandate.”

With the review now complete, the agency has concluded that canceling NEVI is not an option. In an ironic twist, the Federal Highway Administration issued new guidance for the program on Monday that not only preserves it, but also purports to “streamline applications,” “slash red tape,” and “ensure charging stations are actually built.”

Keep reading...Show less
Blue
Electric Vehicles

AM Briefing: The Energy Department’s Advanced Nuclear Dream

On Sierra Club drama, OBBB’s price hike, and deep-sea mining blowback

Energy Department Backs 11 Advanced Nuclear Projects
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Tropical Erin is expected to gain strength and make landfall in the Caribbean as the first major hurricane of the season, lashing islands with winds of up to 80 miles per hour and 7 inches of rain • More than 152 fires have broken out across Greece in the past 24 hours alone as Europe battles a heatwave • Typhoon Podul is expected to make landfall over southeastern Taiwan on Wednesday morning, lashing the island with winds of up to 96 miles per hour.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Energy Department selects 11 nuclear projects for pilot program

The Department of Energy selected 11 nuclear projects from 10 reactor startups on Tuesday for a pilot program “with the goal to construct, operate, and achieve criticality of at least three test reactors” by next July 4. The Trump administration then plans to fast-track the successful technologies for commercial licensing. The effort is part of the United States’ attempt at catching up with China, which last year connected its first high-temperature gas-cooled reactor to the grid. The technologies in the program vary among the reactors selected for the program, with some reactors based on Generation IV designs using coolants other than water and others pitching smaller but otherwise traditional light water reactors. None of the selected models will produce more than 300 megawatts of power. The U.S. hopes these smaller machines can be mass produced to bring down the cost of nuclear construction and deploy atomic energy in more applications, including on remote military bases, and even, as NASA announced last week, the moon.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Podcast

Shift Key Summer School: How Do Power Markets Work?

Jesse gives Rob a lesson in marginal generation, inframarginal rent, and electricity supply curves.

Power lines.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Most electricity used in America today is sold on a wholesale power market. These markets are one of the most important institutions structuring the modern U.S. energy economy, but they’re also not very well understood, even in climate nerd circles. And after all: How would you even run a market for something that’s used at the second it’s created — and moves at the speed of light?

On this week’s episode of Shift Key Summer School, Rob and Jesse talk about how electricity finds a price and how modern power markets work. Why run a power market in the first place? Who makes the most money in power markets? How do you encourage new power plants to get built? And what do power markets mean for renewables?

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow