If, like me and a majority of Americans, you’re already concerned about the climate crisis, the recent intrusion of wildfire smoke into our region may be making that threat all too real.
As our skies continue to turn milky and then sullen and overcast, our air monitors register pollution levels that, in many places, rise into the danger zones.
Those of us who are especially vulnerable are told to stay indoors. Yet even with windows closed, polluted air manages to seep under the sills, bringing with it a measure of particulate matter that can cause damage even in isolated doses.
The prediction is that more of these unnerving scenarios are certain to happen, and that they will occur more frequently.
As of June 20, 2023, the amount of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere has now risen to 421 parts per million, way past the level of 350 ppm considered safe.
And it’s still rising.
The external threat is clear.
But many of us are turning our attention away. Busy with our own lives, we’ve simply given agency over to others, counting on the federal government, for example, to save the planet.
After all, wasn’t a great deal of money recently invested through the [federal] Inflation Reduction Act [IRA]to combat climate change? All that’s really required of us now is to sit back and watch it happen, right?
Don’t be so sure.
It’s true that legislation such as the IRA is already benefiting the economy; new manufacturing construction is growing fast, projected to reach $190 billion by the end of this year.
The IRA, considered “the most ambitious and aggressive climate spending package in U.S. history,” is also providing monies in the form of tax credits, grants and subsidies to help increase our energy efficiency and decarbonize our economy.
There’s much about the IRA that deserves our support, but due to the influence of powerful fossil fuel lobbyists, the plan also includes projects whose benefits are questionable, even counter-productive.
Let’s take a look at so-called “clean hydrogen,” currently being touted by Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm as “an incredibly powerful tool for us to decarbonize our economy and tackle the climate crisis.”
Hydrogen production can be understood using a color scheme.
Ninety percent of the hydrogen being produced today is known as grey hydrogen and is produced using methane, a process whose greenhouse gas emissions make it an unacceptable solution for reducing our carbon footprint.
At the other end of the spectrum is green hydrogen, which is produced using renewables.
A possible future solution for eventually reducing the emissions of hard-to-decarbonize industries like cement and steel production, heavy transport and aviation, green hydrogen is at present too expensive to produce at scale.
So although the generic term “clean hydrogen” is being used today to describe the “silver-bullet” projects under consideration, it’s really blue hydrogen that’s meant.
Blue, like grey, is produced using methane, but with carbon capture technology tacked on for the hypothetical removal of CO2 emissions from the atmosphere and then the storage of that carbon underground.
But how clean is it really?
Because fossil fuels are used both to produce blue hydrogen and to operate its carbon capture technology, its carbon emissions are quite high.
According to Robert Howarth, Cornell [University] professor and co-author of a recent scholarly paper titled How Green is Blue Hydrogen?, “Blue hydrogen has a very, very large greenhouse gas footprint.”
That footprint, Howarth goes on to say, “is worse than if you simply burned natural gas directly for fuel instead. There’s nothing low emissions about it at all.”
Carbon capture technology, in addition to being hugely expensive, has not yet proved effective. The few facilities currently in operation manage to capture only a fraction of the emissions they create.
And as the [natural] gas is processed and transported, there are leaks — as well as intentional releases — of methane all along the supply route, all of which increase the carbon footprint.
It is no surprise, however, to learn that the fossil fuel industry — with the help of legislators like Senator Manchin — is enthusiastically promoting blue hydrogen as the next “magic fuel.”
Devoting our resources to its production means that on top of the [natural] gas used to produce the hydrogen, we’ll need even more for carbon capture.
This will allow the industry to maintain, and even increase, its gas-fields.
It will allow the industry to create a massive nationwide build up of pipelines, with no regulatory structure yet in sight.
And it will allow the industry to create more greenhouse gas emissions, all in the name of “tackling the climate crisis.”
“It’s a direct strategy of the oil and gas industry,” Howarth concludes. “The science doesn’t support it. It’s pure marketing. The goal, let’s be frank, is to keep on selling fossil fuels to the whole world, while pretending it’s going to get better.”
On July 22 of this year, the climate clock will roll over once again, letting us know that we have only five years left in which to limit planetary warming to 1.5 degrees C.
The energy decisions we make now at this critical crossroads will remain in place for decades to come. Instead of subsidizing another pipe-dream, we need to invest in renewable projects that will actually reduce our carbon emissions.
We’re tired of all the smoke and mirrors!
We’re tired of all this smoke!
Blue hydrogen, which will lock in the continued use of fossil fuels for decades — and ensure our failure to meet our most urgent climate goals, deterring the transition to truly clean energy — is clearly not the answer.
Want to take action? Email a copy of Robert Howarth’s article, How Green is Blue Hydrogen?, to your legislators.
Karen Elias, an artist and activist living in Lock Haven, Clinton County. A Climate Reality leader and member of the Better Path Coalition.
Related Articles:
-- NRDC Blog: How Clean Is Pennsylvania’s New Hydrogen Subsidy? It’s Up To The Feds [PaEN]
[Posted: July 6, 2023] PA Environment Digest
No comments :
Post a Comment