The Changing Politics of Climate Action In The United States
has been a lot of work over the past couple of years to craft a transportation and infrastructure package, and that's what I would look for. In the early days of the new Congress is well working with the Biden administration on the cleanest and greenest transportation infrastructure package. We have seen it. I think it folks would go back to the bill that passed the House of Representatives last summer. The moving forward act. There is a lot
Uh, there is a lot of policy in there that we will look to two crafted the modern transportation. Infrastructure bill. We know we need to do this expand clean energy in America to help us with economic recovery to create good paying jobs to help make our communities back home. More resilient. Clean energy holds so much promise. Or, uh, family sustaining jobs. We know we have to build the macro grid. The modern grid in America Lot we're rich with renewable resource
is like solar and wind. But a lot of them are in the Midwest in the central part of the country. We've got to expand that so will be focused on The modern grid. Also in transportation. It is a critical competitiveness issue for the United States of America that we continue to lead the world in our In automobiles but also trucks, transit rail maritime air. There is a lot of innovation that has to occur, and we think that if we continue to innovate here in America, we will be able to share those innovations across world but it will help workers and it will help companies here too. We also know we
have a lot of work to do. Conservation farmers air ready to tackle the climate crisis of we've also set a goal of conserving at least 30% of all of the natural lands and ocean areas by 2030. Lot of this work is bipartisan in our thank you for highlighting our report that My committee issued last summer. It contains a lot of bipartisan bills, and that's what we're going to focus on building bipartisan support for these clean energy solutions and help rebuild the economy. Flynn. Thank you for that overview, and we're going to dig into all
that a little more get a little more detail. But representative McKinley, I'd like you to bring you in on something. You're Castor mentioned about exporting technologies abroad and looking internationally on the role that the U. S can play and I want to go there because we
are speaking of the Global Energy Forum. So later this year, nations will meet in Glasgow for cop 26. We know that President elect Joe Biden has pledged to reenter the Paris agreement. So what would you like to see? Come from those talks. And how would
you like the U. S to position itself in terms of energy and climate abroad? Thank you for that question and taken Kathy Castor. It's always good to see you. We've had a good working relationship on energy and commerce over the last number of years, So it's always a in honor to be on the same panel with hers in her role. But and I want to thank the Atlantic Council for for conducting this holding this summit and this discussion so we can do it now it's a the global involvement. Thank you for that, because what we have to do. I think that's where
the imperative for us and as Republicans in Congress, and I think the Democrats, too, if they want to be responsible is a look at the global aspects of this Carbon capture. If we want to take care of the emissions, we have to go carbon capture and what we're not seen is around the world. Other nations really adopting that program. Look at look at the remark that John Kerry said. I've got his quote,
he said. If the United States or even all of the developed nations cut their CEO is here to admissions, the zero It would not offset emissions coming from the rest of the world. We had a panel discussion and in energy and commerce just a few months ago, and we asked them if America deep carbonized totally zero But we still have wildfires on the West Coast droughts in the wind, West and hurricanes and the panel said yes because the rest of the world is where the problem is. Gina McCarthy has said the same thing when she testified before us that America actions were not hit. Make
a difference. Needed to address climate change, So it's not America. It's the rest of the world and M I T put out their own report and my ticket said that, regardless of anything in the United States does to decrease its emissions.
Until China and India reduced their missions. The result was still be climate catastrophe. So this meeting in Glasgow or all the media from Montreal, from Kyoto on and on and on the Paris Are all important that we energize. We get the rest of the world to buy in to their responsibility and climate change and the first Paris accord Frankly, we just political theater. If you look at the language,
the big contributors to this were India and China. Yet administration the Obama administration let them off the hook and said that I was they put the quote goes. Actually the language is an Article four. Section Four of the agreement says Developing Nation Party should continue should Continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy emission reductions. That's not shall that's not must. And you're not in yours already seen here in China is already announcing And then in the financial times that they're going to increase their dependency on fossil fuels particularly cold so We've got to get them engaged, and I and so I'm going to challenge Kathy and the rest of the committee. What we always have to do is
make sure that we have a unified global approach towards this problem. Because without it, we can de carbonized. All we've done is just upset, transform our economy, air needed and in the United States, and it will benefit and we're still gonna have wildfires on the West Coast, droughts in the Midwest and hurricanes on the East. Forecaster Jim Initial response to that. I largely agree with Congressman McKinley. We have a lot of work
to do internationally. Fortunately tomorrow, President Biden after he's sworn in one of the first things he will do it say that America will turn return to its leadership role in the world on rejoined the Paris climate Agreement. We cannot expect other countries to meet their nationally determined commitments and targets.
Unless we're part of it, and we're walking the walk as well. So we will return to our leadership role. We will work with allies. I think there is an understanding across the globe that we have got. Tonto set new targets that are much more ambitious. They have to come with
some enforcement mechanisms. That's a weakness that Congressman McKinley has identified. We know now that the Earth is warming to such an extent that those Old Pierce. Targets are not are not enough. If we're going to avoid significant exponentially, rising costs and temperatures, emergency relief packages for wildfires, floods hurricanes, We have got to get busy. China recently made an announcement that they intend to get to the net zero by 2060.
That is not good enough. And in their announcement, they did not identify much change it all in the first decade in the next 10 years, that's not acceptable. So it's good that will have a knowledgeable diplomat in former Secretary of State John Kerry. Who will be AH, Joe Biden, President Biden's right. Right arm right hand going out across the globe so that we are ready in glass County. We're working together with our allies and with
other countries, too. To avoid the worst impacts of climate. Yeah, I take that point on the international goals being somewhat far out. But it's interesting covering this as a sort of clean energy business reporter because we have seen targets, set a tone and orient markets to then deploy capital. In different ways. So even though these targets are far out, it's been interesting to see the private sector than mobilize and take advantage of those opportunities. Having I just recently was in India
reporting on their emerging clean tech startup ecosystem, because it's about energy security and producing their own goods for their clean energy future at home, and so to that, and I'd like to ask representative McKinley You talked about carbon capture sequestration. You talked about other types of mitigation. To what extent would you support a Happened. Scaling up of save renewables that includes bio fuels hydropower.
We could include nuclear in addition to carbon capture sequestration really have that 12 punch Or do you really think that carbon captures the only main focus to be had here? I think carbon capture is the main focus. I came out with their own report, saying the same thing that says without carbon capture, our energy and climate goals will become impossible to reach. I don't know how much cleared we need to hear from that. So what we have to do is spend more time or resource is an innovation and dealing with carbon capture. The only one that we know that we have working right now is the Net power facility and look for Texas. It's a 50 megawatt facility down there. It's showing
How we can capture our CEO, too. But we've got to go much further with that. And that means ah lot more ambitious investments and carbon capture 45 to was very instrumental in helping out on that. Well, we've heard from the transit advising transition team. They're only going to support 45 to you until there's a carbon price that's going to run into mortar division. And if we're trying to
go all come together to address this problem. I think we ought to acknowledge the carbon capture is gonna be the key to it and the sequestration through using 45 to his work. 21 that went 21 of the 22 carbon capture demonstration projects are a result of 45 to being put into place. So I'm hoping that we will continue to do that and not allow this. Uh, approach that we're seeing from the Biden administration to roll back all the progress that was made in fossil fuels, keeping in mind that we're really spending $800 million a year and carbon and the research and carbon capture With metal. That's the major facility doing that we've got. We've got a significantly upgrade our investment, But in the last two years we were not able to get the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee to allow us to get up to a higher number.
Impossible fuel research because of their goal. We're gonna live in eight. Anyway, They're saying we're eliminated anyway. So why are we spending money doing research into it? So it's it's going to make a very interesting discussion the next couple years how we deal with that. Yeah, And I would like to bring in your legislation. Uh, shortly, T o get a little more nuanced. Let me ask you one more broader question,
Representative McKinley. My understanding is The actual weight of carbon that you would need to capture because you know you'd have to physically capture these particles That would be incredibly massive to actually fully address our carbon problems. So Would you support also accelerating other types of low carbon technologies at the same time, just to put a finer point on this? Absolutely, and that is in our legislation that I'm working on with perpetrator out Democrat out of Oregon is it's not just all about possible fuels, but it's also advancing nuclear. It's advancing wind and solar some aspects of it, So it's our legislation called Innovate first. Regulate later. I think it is is a complete 180 degree turn from what it was like going to the Obama administration. When they put regulation is in
effect, it couldn't be met, and therefore you had companies and Groups all across America struggling shut down their operations. We want to innovate first and addressing those problems, So I think now that I understand your question a little bit better. Yes, that's what this legislation is trying to do for 10 years very deep dive into ways of reducing carbon And it may be biological. It may It may be doing some other things that are non traditional in that approach, like such as using vital plankton advancing vital plankton. I don't know whenever I mention
that I know most people they are your eyes glaze over because they don't understand that vital plankton produces but 50% of the CIA to absorbs the seat 50% of the C E 02 in the atmosphere and produces oxygen. Yet is one that we've ignored over the years. It's going to require some investments of research into it, but I want to see is looking and fight of plankton. I like the tree approach. Al Gore's idea of When he published his book about the deforestation of the tropical rainforest. We've got address those things as well. There's so many other aspects of what we can get into to reduce our CEO, too. Emissions in the atmosphere.
So just for context. We're talking here about bipartisan legislation introduced I represented McKinley that would invest in energy innovation program for carbon capture sequestration utilization, advanced nuclear renewables and storage, followed by a clean energy standard that we get the power sector to reduce emissions. 80% by 2050 and sorry Charmcaster took a little detour there that would love to bring in your views on how that aligns with what you're working on in your vision for the future. Well, The linchpin is di carbon izing the power sector and I think there there may be some common ground building here with represented McKinley's proposed legislation. Um, aiming for a clean energy standard in our climate crisis action plan. We recommend that we establish a
Clean energy standard for the power sector. And do so as quickly as possible. The scientists tell us we must reduce Sio two emissions to net zero, no later than 2050, but we do not have time to waste we've seen just over the past decade how temperatures have risen. They cost the catastrophes it's driving.
So the more that we front end load a lot of these research development investments that more. We press ahead to the clean energy transition, the better we're gonna be in in outer years and hopefully the those investments in our Indy will help accelerate. The time type of innovations we need in our climate crisis action plan we We do say that carbon capture is one tool in the toolbox, but we do not recommend deploying it unless there is a clear climate benefit. There are lot of sectors in the economy like a certain industrial processes, steal fertilizer where we don't have the answer yet on how to de carbonized those areas So we need to invest there in our indeed, unfortunately In the year and package passed by Congress. There were some bipartisan investments and agreements, including a lot of the energy efficiency legislation that representative McKinley has worked on. So energy efficiency as a swell has to be a big part of this equation.
You mentioned a clean energy standard, and I'm super interested in that because we hear a lot about the drive to clean up the power grid and electrify everything. President elect Joe Biden soon to be President Joe Biden has a goal of de Carmine's the Power Sector by 2035. There's obviously different views on what the timeline should be and what the rules should be on that, But I guess to each of you chair Castor first. What is the likelihood of passing a clean energy standard, which, as I understand, it would require 60 votes in the Senate.
Well, we have some work to do. I think we have some work to do, and it will depend on what is included in a clean energy standard. In the past. We've had some debate about nuclear power and whether people think that that's going to be a solution in our In our report issued last year, we said yes, Nuclear power has to be a part of the equation and so represented McKinley and I agree that investments in advanced nuclear Will be very important coming back to carbon capture. If you can proceed if you can demonstrate that there is a clear climate benefit to a fuel source that you're not just using carbon capture two x To extend and expand your carbon footprint. I don't think that would
be appropriate on again. We just don't have time to waste these these years of setting targets for 2050 2040 year, just not going to get us to where we need to be. We need to press ahead with the technological evolution in this country and kind of win this global race for competitiveness so that we can And expand jobs and provide everyone a stronger foundation for economic recovery and then share those technologies with the rest of the world that would benefit our workers and our companies in America.
Representative McKinley. What is your outlook again? I'm passing on getting it through all of Congress. A clean energy standard as as you've structured it or anything else. What's your read on your
colleagues on your side of the aisle? Let me go back to that remark about 2035 Make that transition. So this we're, uh, Net zero emissions by 2035 0 I want I'm going to try to spend time educating people and getting the public more aware of what the cost is gonna be. Look at the transitional cause. We've seen several reports. Look,
it's just in Alaska Loon 70% of the revenue to run Alaska comes from fossil fuels. Wyoming is 52% of the revenue to run Why the state of Wyoming comes from fossil fuels and in North Dakota is 45%. So for us to make this transition by 2035 Those state those, respectively. Then there are others obviously impacted with it as well. How are they going to make the adjustment?
To their operating their state where they have it in, uh, there've been pulls taken about what? How much more money is to consumer willing to pay? When we go to renewable fuels and interesting that Yale I think that's a fairly well known school. I suppose I'm a producer graduate, but I accept some things that Yale says, uh and you'll put out a report that said 50% when they did pulling 50% of people didn't want to pay anything at Maura on their utility bills and the other, 50% said something less than $200 a year. If the Wood Mackenzie report that came out last year said is in all unlikely and begin to 2035.
With the transition to zero. It's going to cost household almost $2000.10 times as much as the consumers willing to pay, So the question is gonna be As we approach this, How do we get the consumer willing to recognize the impact or that it could effect? It could have other health that it may or may not upset there the economy We've got a lot of education to do if this thing's gonna go, so as that we speak right now, 2035. I don't think it's realistic. Even Secretary Moonies. Said just recently. That we're not ready battery stories we if we're going to do to renew it was that's what we saw over two eyes. Reno wasn't very supportive of when it's over Hydra, unlike But if we're going to switch to that we've got to have battery storage.
And he says it's not. It's not feasible. Now. It won't be in the air in a short term, so I don't know where we're gonna find out how we're going to address Battery storage and the supply chain. This affected with the supply with battery storage because we already know that the main source for batteries live them comes from South America. And is your scientists and you're in the crowd here will know we're gonna They get one ton of lithium out of the ground. Requires 500,000 gallons of water to be wasted. Water that could otherwise be used for agricultural purposes in south and South American, Chile and Argentina, But they're diverting that from it, so we've got a real problem with lithium cobalt comes from the Congo.
Which is under dictatorship. Is that what we want? So we've got some problems on supply chain and how we're going to get the amount of material that we're gonna need to have. At. One example said that we're gonna have what 99 gig 900. 900 gigawatts.
Powers your battery stories we're gonna have to have if we convert to that 900 gigawatts, a battery storage. Julia, Currently America or the world. Only here's 5.5 get a watch available total. So go from 5.5 to 900 gigawatts by 2035. It's not realistic. And I think it's gonna put a lot of people out of work. So if Mildred Smiths in the world, she's my neighbor and your neighbor when Mildred Schmit is willing when she's willing to rare, she's gonna pay maybe as much as $2000 to be unreliable, renewable energy.
But her neighbor is going to be out of work. I'm not sure she were. She's gonna come down on this. All right. Well, I I hear a lot of that. I think no one would disagree that the challenge in front of us is enormous and the scale would have to be something we have not seen before. I guess the one thing I would add, is there's research out of Princeton that came out recently.
Really analyzing how to get to net zero by 2050 So not Power sector by 2030 35. But extending that timeline and they did acknowledge a huge mobilization would be necessary. But the cost is actually marginal. If you take out what we already spend for energy, and you shift it to other lower carbon solutions, you alluded to there to the just transition, and I want to get to that in a moment, but chair castor any initial thoughts to the some of the points that were just brought up there.
Yes, well, the good news is right now. Clean energy is a whole lot cheaper than fossil fuels, especially energy efficiency, which we have nowhere near maximized in America. But solar power wind power. The production costs there are are much lower and plus, it's healthier. So you save on public health costs. But here's why At your next door neighbor or the average person on the street doesn't buy it anymore that this transition is going to cost them money because We're paying enormous cost because of climate, the climate crisis extreme heat. People are paying more on their electric bills. Because
we have additional flooding and storm surges. They're having to lay out more of their property taxes and stormwater fees at home to strengthen their water and wastewater systems. And I come from Florida. And we're we've been battered by the storms that come with greater frequency and greater intensity. And then
they come to the Congress states come to the Congress and ask for billions and billions of dollars in outlays to address Catastrophes look at the wildfires in the West flooding in the Midwest. So people understand right now that the cost of inaction much much higher than the costs of investing in clean energy. And I think I'm gonna jump in on that. Let me let me fall back up again with that she's right.
But at the same time, that's what we started off on this discussion. Julia, It's a global issue what we do, and if we can't ignore John Kerry's remarks, we can't ignore M I t s room ARTS We can't ignore Gina McCarthy is remarks until the rest of the world. Starts reproducing their missions were still, they said in committee. Even if we do all of this, If the rest of the world continues to admit, like they are now you're still gonna have wildfires on the West grounds in the middle in the Midwest and hurricanes on east So all these things have flooded. We're still gonna have them until the rest of the world joins with us.
And loosen your emissions. But I see no intention right now. Other than just some signing honest agreements that without penalties, remember the Paris Court had? Nope. Hillary's of you violated the agreement. That's why I'm encouraged with John Kerry said. We're gonna have to When we redo the pennant Paris accord. We're gonna have to make
it tighter because we can't allow China who emits Uh what they they burned almost there. Approaching now five billion billion tons of coal annually. China, India now is going over of a million tons of China. Of cold, So the rest of the world has to capture But this otherwise we're still going to pay the price board in America. So I'm hoping we can get
our committee all energized on the same plane that we've got to find a way to get the rest of the world, reducing their CEO, two emissions. Chair, Castor. How would you do that? What do you think, are the tools of the U. S could employ to get more countries to align with this this vision in action.
Well, we have to walk the walk ourselves. I mean, Ever since the industrial revolution. It's been the United States of America that has benefited because due to the use of fossil fuels. We've been the world leader in that and other countries. Look at us and say OK, you have a greater responsibility because of your development over time, and I think folks understand that.
Unless we lead in the world Unless we make these investments and and weed in the technological changes in the cars, we drive the trucks of the way we produce energy. The rest the world typically they're not going to lead in those technological advancements. It's always been the United States of America, the world leader in manufacturing and in science that has led the way and I talked to a new generation of young people who are ready to take on that challenge. Experts in science in public health in clean energy They are all committed to doing this and they know they know that we can and now Fortunately, we have Joe Biden, who's come in with a very clean, very clear plan on what to do it. Folks haven't read it. I suggest you do but create a million jobs.
And the automobile sector through electric vehicles, improving our supply chain chains in manufacturing. That will go a long way to a lot of for a lot of working people across the Midwest, especially who have seen other industries stagnate over time. That would come along with a lot of investment in training in communities that need need to be partnering with our labor unions and with community colleges in training and again. This is something I hear about. Here from a younger generation. They want to be involved. They are inspired. We bind plan also says
aims to create a million jobs by retooling our bit. Our businesses. Our buildings are homes. We can weather eyes, our homes. We saw this successfully happened after we passed the recovery Act in 2000 and nine. We also think that just in reclaiming
Whole minds and in other parts of the country working on conservation initiatives, we can help lift local and rural economies and make sure that no one is left behind. And that's why it's exciting this day before The inauguration, the potential we have, especially with America returning to its leadership role in the world. Congressman McKinley. There's two pieces to this. I want to break it out. First is on the international scale. Do you agree that the
United States should be investing in the next generation of clean energy technologies to compete? And serve these other growing and emerging economies around the world. And so it's worth investing in making that here at home. Absolutely, And that's a what the main content of what are like Just elation does is developed that so the weekend export that technology and other nations we, but we got to drive the price now, now back with Congressman Castor said about leadership, agreed, Gina McCarthy said the same thing. About leadership. We have to be leadership. Well, leadership in the last 10 years, 15 years we've already reduced our C two emissions by 18%. We've already been leading on showing that but at the same time, India is increase increase their CEO two emissions by 250% and China by 290%. So
they're not following our lead. That idea is naive to think that if we if we if we do it, they'll follow. They're not. Uh, so there's a landline goes out, Joy says. A man thinks he's the leader and has no followers is just a merely a man taking a walk.
And I think that's exactly what's happening here. We've been trying to leave, but no one's been following. So I think it's imperative for us to invest significantly in carbon reductions in the technology to be able to do that. That may mean developing better and hydrogen. It means exploring Maurine the album cycle that we can do it something like that.
Certainly efficiencies can do. But we've got to find a way to develop our batteries in a very short period of time, so that we're not relying on other nations this supply chain did we learn anything from this last pandemic? About what? When we were relying other nations for supplying material. We've got to find a way to get that material here in the United States, bringing American jobs. Yes. Um, yeah, Take your points there and I would have the one interesting and unfortunate caveat that the local air pollution issues in China and India, just based on my own direct reporting are really driving a change in tone there because they actually have no option as their populations cope with these horrible small conditions. So it's been interesting to see the dialogue start to shift, Although I agree there's still much more To do, um, so we talked about creating jobs, and the domestic piece of this is the just transition. How we make sure that
communities who are currently in fossil fuels can drive and succeed and also communities that have been left behind and struggle with our own domestic air. Pollution issues and water pollution issues are brought along here too. So first chair Castor. What is your proposal to serve communities like Congressman McKinley's? And it's our communities in other parts of the country who have been left behind and face the worst effects of climate and pollution issues today.
I think we have to recognize and have a great deal of respect for the energy workers of of the past 100 years in America, the coal miners folks have worked in the oil and gas fields. You know, a lot of America's economic success was driven by their hard work and sweat. But now we we have a lot of work to do as clean energy and energy efficiency and other new technologies. Take hold. We have to make sure that no one is left behind and I have on the climate Crisis Committee. I have another West Virginian who serves another in a GOP member from from Southwest Virginia. And when I talked with
them about what they'd like to see in the future of their communities, they they wanted what everyone else wants. They want good schools. They want good jobs for their family. So we I've talked with a lot with them a lot about what are those jobs of the future? They talked to me about, you know, not having Washington D c decide what their future is. But having the feds provide some reports support be better partner. They see a lot of Potential jobs for reclaiming old minds and turning these into areas where they could attract eco tourism that will work in some areas. We're going to need a lot of rural America to help us a zwelithini
building the macro grid we have to train new workers on DPA possibly retrained former workers Tol help us with that very expansive construction initiative, where we cite these power lines connecting Mobile sources to population centers. We hope that this can be combined also with expanding rural broadband, there is a massive deficit of Technological tools of their available to rural areas across America because they do not have WiFi. They don't have broadband and we see building the macro grip. Maybe could go hand in hand with expanding broadband, and that will be critical. Helping our farmers. Farmers want to be part of the clean energy economy. They're ready to improve soil health to
rotate their club crops work with Work with their colleges and universities and use the best science. But I've heard from directly from farmers that they won't be able to do that unless they have WiFi and they have broadband and can be attuned to, uh, you know the differences in weather and climate, overtime and fertilizer applications. So those air those are a few things. I think they're they're enormous
opportunities, And I think now is the time especially Turning the page on that horrendous insurrection at the Capitol. I'm hopeful that Joe Biden is going to speak to everyone's hearts and minds and say it's time for us to be united. It's on Lee through being united and working together. We're gonna be able to tackle
these enormous challenges ahead. So I'm I'm hopeful. You're recognizing. We have 20 minutes or so left. Do you want to bring in some questions, and I'd like to introduce another policy that comes up a lot in climate discussions, and that's a price on carbon. I'm going to start domestically and then we'll bring in a question that refers to it abroad. But Background being. The Democrats will control budget reconciliation
so they cannot create new policy through this, But can you know I just spending policies so one thing that may fit into that framework is a price on carbon as my understand it, either Deny clean energy standard could not be passed to the budget reconciliation, but something like a carbon price potentially could So that was not part of Joe Biden's platform. Really a price on carbon, But it is something that historically has bipartisan support. And we've talked about that being important here so first to represent McKinley and then chair Castor Emerson McKinley. Excuse me represented McKinley. Would you support a price on carbon? And then you can ask the same question to you.
Do you think we could see rallying around this? No, I would not support it because it's avoiding the issue of how we do carbon capture. We've got to put the money into the research and to do this. Look, look, anyone that advocates wind and solar there on the right track. They have to realize that there are part sections of this country that are not not available to be able to have wind and solar facilities. We can't replace them the coal mining in McDowell County, West Virginia, with women solar for it, If it had been feasible, they would have done it long before now. So what we're doing is relegating them to be a I guess. Just Castoffs, uh, collateral damage and in this, so
I rather rather than putting another tax on also fuels the carbon emissions. Why don't we investing in getting finding the ways to captured Because I already have seen, uh understand, Castor deviates some from the fossil fuel the energy sector and talk about transportation and infrastructure. All all those air good. We're gonna have to deal that.
If we're gonna deviate from that, and one of the first things we have to look towards is the steel industry. That in the steel industry China produced is almost a billion tons follow that a billion tons of steel. And for every ton of steel Every ton of steel made new You emit almost almost just short of two times at two tons of carbon emissions, So China is going to be a meeting. Uh, two billion more tons of you do is they continue to make steel? So I'm ready for this next argument when we get to it, but we are. I think today we were trying to stay focused on 2035. How we're going
to address it. I'm going to continue to say I don't think that the price on carbon is unaffected. People's what they pay. The consumer and at the consumer is going toe a bulk over pain. Anything
more than the 11 report. Er came out, said Maybe they'll go is to $16. If they go to $16 that's still $200 a year. But if the cost is 2000,
and we're gonna have a rebellion on her hands by Washington, forcing something back on the hands of people and and people gonna lose your job, So I think we've got a real problem and how we're gonna dress it. I hope we do it through innovation. Rub some castor Last year, when when the climate crisis committee in the Congress developed it's over 500 Page roadmap action plan that covered every sector of the economy and made recommendations on resilience and adaptation as well. It was based upon very broad outreach to Scientists to engineers to stakeholders, farmers activists and we took all of those of We took hundreds of requests for information on recommendations on what policies we should enact to meet our climate goals. And, after
hearing from from experts and stakeholders across that ran the gamut we we said, Well, a car a price on carbon eyes one tool in the toolbox, but it is not a silver bullet. Esso. We recommend that the Congress has a bit more work to do when it comes to Do any price on carbon Is it going to be a carbon tax? Like many businesses of advocate for, or would it be going back to a cap and trade system? We say Well, You have to look around the United States of America. There are some trading cap in trade initiatives that have begun in the mid Atlantic and then California with Canada. Is it smart for the US to come in and upset
those right now? They're so we have more more work to do. But it has not been the focus of conversations to date. I think moving forward of There were really going to be looking for bipartisan solutions here in in the near term to move us as quickly as we need to get a zoo quickly as we need to go. A specific question from Meghan Shipment is with the members support a carbon border adjustment tax of the tool to sway other countries toward low carbon initiatives. We've talked
about the international space here. So a Uh, carbon border adjustment tax represented McKinley. Is that it all aligned with your reviews. I'm not familiar with the term. I thought all along that we want abusing trade, a say as a vehicle. Uh, you get the other nations to abide by it. But you have to understand. I had an opportunity to meet with Prime Minister Modi in India.
Uh and he told me that he's got a billion 200 million people living in India. And his emissions are hard. They don't capture the socks and knocks gas is they don't have cooling towers to reduce their emissions into the aquatic life. So, he said, Even with that, As cheaply as we're making electricity now, he said. 300 million people in India don't have electricity.
He said. So if we were to adopt your plans, uh so what The strategy is now to do carbon emissions, he said. We might wind up going to 600 million people without electricity. So we got to develop something that is affordable for him to implement, though, that he does not go to 600 million people in India without power without electricity. So whether it's trade, whether it's technology, whatever that is. I don't I don't know the border aspect of it. But I do understand
how trade could be used as a tool. I just want to jump in the legacy finished this Syriza's on India. What I did find interesting is just in the middle of pandemic. They announced that 29 coal plants will be replaced by renewables. They had their Syria's of three record low solar prices in India.
So that was just interesting to see. I think they're kind of building the airplane as they go here and understanding that their strategy May need to shift But you're castor comments from you on the carbon border adjustment If you're familiar, Yes, it's interesting that it hasn't been part of the dialogue by policymakers here in the U. S, probably because we would be caught up in and it may be a new impediment upon Ah, lot of our goods goods in the way we produce them here in America, So we we do have to be mindful. Of that. But for those big emitters that carry such a huge responsibility right now in China and India, I think this will be something that we will look at it and I bet based upon what my colleague Rep. McKinley has has said today about the role of Internet international players, he's probably pointed, be quite supportive of it moving forward.
And so getting a little nuanced here transmission that is a big issue we hear about infrastructure is constantly being a Democrat and Republican priority. It's hard to get these bills through at the end of the day, and transmission in particular, which facilitates the expansion of clean energy solutions is hard to pass it, so it's hard to get approved, even at local levels. Through red tape because of red tape in and local concerns. So is that someone is a priority for either of you building out the transmission and smart grid. And how would you go about doing it
so we can actually see some movement chair castor than term representing McKinley. You're right, Julia. This is a critical piece, and fortunately now coming into the executive branch, we're gonna have some very knowledgeable expert folks who are gonna help us create this path because this is the key to creating millions of jobs in America on making sure that we're working together with labor unions and scientists and especially Those communities that really need a better economic base. This is going to be an enormous opportunity for them. But there are impediments to how you plan for these large transmission lines. How they're paid for and how they're cited
in our climate crisis Action plan. We recommend doing a lot of work on the front end. So you're not You're not. You don't end up with a tangle with legal issues at the end, but sighting early some corridors that makes sense, environmentally and economically working with state and local folks to make sure we don't that everyone agrees on it. And I think it folks understand that These investments in front will save us a lot of money down the road that they're going to be quite interested in doing it. But it is that is you've hit upon it. It's going to be
quite challenging, but it again it provides a enormous opportunity. At McKinley. That's and I would agree with that. I think she's on top that the sighting is gonna be the issue. We're seeing environmentalist fighting pipelines all across America. And once and then the issue we remember back in the seventies and eighties. The big idea was high tension lines
power lines. They didn't want their backyard because they thought that cause cancer So I think you're going to see more and more environmental activists get engaged in that, But I want to go back to like the one your comment a little bit about India. Yes, Yes, They're transitioning away from a fuel source and any other the use now called lignite. Big night only produces a yes about 3 to 4000 beats used in its production of her heat rates, So they have to use a lot of coal different provide electricity. So what they've done is they
Have increased their by From a mine and in Australia. The Carmichael mind is in a don t mind there so that they get cold from Australia to replace the lignite with by two minutes. Oh, that we have anywhere from 12 to 13,000 beat to you. So it will be using less coal on that, But they're still gonna be using coal, so they're they're still focused on Using cold. They just wanted their existing lignite. Power plants cannot burn by two minutes. Cole. It's too hot for that for the pipes to be able to handle in the boiler system, so rather than they've just retired those in our building nuclear power, coal fired power plants using the two missed calls from Carmichael Mind.
Another thing that point another question from our audience. Just as I try to run through these in our final minutes here, eyes shifting to a nuclear power. It was referenced in passing, but to what extent? Do you think we could see bipartisan support of advanced nuclear and maybe even keeping existing nuclear plants open represented? McKinley Go to you first. No, I can't agree more. We don't have nuclear in West Virginia, but
it's all over the country. There were when I when I came to Congress or about 106 plant power plants now it's down to just in the nineties because they've been decommissioned. The problem has been getting support from the Democrats for the disposal of spent fuel rods in Yucca Mountain. John Chimp gets out Illinois fought for for 12 15 years to try to find that we have to have a solution to what we're gonna do. We spent fuel rods and they can't be left sitting around where they've become a danger to other folks that could get a get those, so I'm in very much supportive of it. It's part of her innovate first regulate later is the idea of nuclear, but we've got to find a way.
To dispose of the spent fuel rods. Forecaster. Disposal is 11 issue, And I think the recognizing that nuclear power is a carbon free sources is a very important piece of our getting to net zero overtime on we Democrats strongly believe in our Indy for advanced nuclear As well. One of the issues with the existing nuclear plants is going to be safety because they were going to look at extending their licenses. It cannot be done
without investments in the safety protocols in the folks who will inspect those plants. If they are safe and secure in their licenses can be extended for a certain amount of time. Then that will be appropriate and that would be a good carbons of freak. Fuel source. But for new plants, it's going to be very difficult
for them to compete on cost. For example, in in my neck of the woods in Florida, we had one utility who was aiming to construct a new nuclear power plant. They did the the costs and benefits and that just of the enormous cost of it, just put it out of reach They, the same utility was Looking to extend the life of an existing nuclear plant went in there and did repairs themselves and broke the plant. And here's what really except upsets ratepayers. This utility asked Ray pairs to pay in advance. Or not just the new nuclear plant, but for repairs of the old plant.
They ended up with not one kilowatt hour, an enormous cost having to be carried by Ray pairs in advance, and that wasn't fair. That's why they believe those investments or better made in clean energy technologies in solar, especially in the sunshine state in Florida and in energy efficiency, where our state has not placed much emphasis at all. So we have under five minutes remaining and so check cast. I'd like to stick with you just to close this out since Democrats do you have a majority? Can you give us specifics? What are you watching for? Next? What's the next hearing coming up? Are you looking for confirmations of you know in the in the administration is that the budget reconciliation? What of the top bullet points that we should be watching for? Thanks, Julia. Well, here we are. The day before the inauguration of Joe Biden. We understand that he has put together an expert team when it comes to clean energy policy, and that he has some very ambitious goals. So now it's incumbent upon the Congress to work
together in a bipartisan way to help implement that plan. We're gonna have great debate. Between Democrats and Republicans, rural members urban members of but a lot of it is going to come down to what the public presses us to do that the public will determine how ambitious we are, Uh, I see a growing consensus across America businesses, activist students of farmers and they want us to reach for the stars. They want us to be ambitious and help creating new foundation. In America, good paying jobs based on clean energy and environmental justice. We do have three minutes left representative McKinley. If you could
just put it in three bullet points. I'll have to jump in if we go over, But what should we look out on your side? Actually, at first the first. Julie, uh, we gotta get back to stability. Uh, that's been lost in the last. Maybe 34 years. We've lost ability
with it. I think we have to work together, but it's got to be in a way. Uh, in a bipartisan fashion we call for bipartisan didn't get support, uh, represented Castor's. She's right. She's calling
for bipartisan, but it That's when we called board. It was said Yeah, only because you want to do it your way and not our way. So it's gonna be. What do you mean by bipartisan? If it has that support, and the third thing I think the most important is we're gonna have to get the American public to understand.
It. It makes no difference when America does, and in reducing this carbon emissions that and read until the rest of the world attacks this we're still gonna have wildfires on the West Coast, droughts in the Midwest and hurricanes. It is a global problem. We all have to come together to fight this, and there's no point in decimating our economy in the United States. Because you re so that the rest of world hasn't followed suit. So
those to be the three things Thank you. And thank you for the audience and the chance for us to all chat here together. I look forward to a different administration. How we're all gonna work together because we've got to do something for this country. Well in that spirit. What I heard today is, you know there's incredible challenges and mobilization that would need to happen. We to be cognizant of consumer pocketbooks and bringing people along, But there is Community, at least in this conversation around a clean energy standard.
We'll have to depend on the year and how it's imposed on what technologies could be involved. There is a role for carbon capture sequestration, which sounds like it has bipartisan support, less so for a price on carbon but a unified view that the U. S needs to engage with the rest of the world in engaging on climate. Of course, the Devil's in the details of all of these things, but we'll end on a positive note there of highlighting the commonalities. So thanks so much to
both members for this great discussion. And thanks everyone who's listening. I'm gonna pass it over now to Global energy Center Director Randy Bella's. He leads us into our next segment, so over to you, Randy. Thank you.
Thank you, Julia and representatives Castor McKinley. What a remarkable conversation. Now, more than ever. It's heartening to see a serious, thoughtful, bipartisan discussion about climate action. There's always a conversational to touch also touches on another key takeaway from the global energy agenda. The report released this
morning in which we asked our survey question. What is the primary obstacle to net zero by 2050? You'll see. Foreign away. The top response was political will and policy regulation.
I think this panel showed us where some of the political challenges are, but also where we have opportunities for collaboration agreement. This chart also points out that there is still work to be done on the technological side, with the number four response being technologic technology availability, deployment and scale ability, which flows nicely into our next segment. On up next We're going to bring you two episodes of energy Source Innovation Stream, which we moderated by global energy centers. Olga Kucova, Olga and I launched Innovation Stream this spring. It highlights new energy technologies on we ended up hosting 35 episodes in 2020.
It was one of our most popular Global Energy Center series. I'm really pleased to see innovation Stream episodes as part of the Global Energy Forum this year. Now over to you, Olga for two episodes of Innovation Stream.
Thank you So much for Andy. Hello, everyone and welcome to the Global Energy Forum edition of Energy Source. Innovation Stream. I am thrilled to introduce Jonathan Carling, the chief executive officer of Welcome Back Energy, who will discuss the race to commercial fusion power. You remember to submit your questions through the event out so we can get to them. In the end of the presentation, Jonathan, it's such a pleasure to host you at the Global Energy Forum. The floor is yours. Thank you. Hello. I'm
Johnson. Carling. I'm CEO. Talking back energy on. Do I really welcome this opportunity to scoot Abby Sustainability week. Fusion Has bean studied in government law laboratories for 60 years or so on, and we're now the star of a race between private fusion ventures, which is going to accelerate. Face of development.
Exploit, please. Fusion is the reaction. It is not something power has been demonstrated in megawatts in the jet talking back, for example, near Oxford. We're talking like energy is based. The problem is efficiency than when they got out and we own the best solution to that problem. We could mix it might
minimize the energy and put On maximizing energy output in a compact device. A talking back is the top of magnetic Talking makes it by far the most mature device for doing this type of thing. Next one, please.