Alternative and Renewable Energy

Latest story

88 Shares129 Views

How Trump May Unintentionally Cut Carbon Emissions

by

President Trump has expressed little interest in fighting climate change. One of his key cabinet officials has even sought to evaluate whether humanity benefits from a warming climate, in a bid to undermine environmental rules.Yet even as he works to accelerate oil and gas production, Mr. Trump’s economic approach may inadvertently reduce greenhouse gas emissions, as consumption slows in response to a global trade war.Any reprieve for the planet, however, would be brief. Over the longer term, tanking the economy with tit-for-tat tariffs is likely to impede progress, because of how much clean energy deployment depends on overseas supply chains and because voters are less likely to support climate policy when they’re financially stressed.Carbon emissions, largely a byproduct of going places and making things, have always been tethered to economic growth. Forecasters increasingly anticipate that Mr. Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs could tip the economy into recession as companies and consumers cut spending in the face of higher prices for imported goods.“If we’re talking about a traditional recession, people fly less, they buy less stuff, there’s less investment in capital goods,” said Alex Heil, a senior economist at the Conference Board, who focuses on energy and climate. “And just a slowdown in economic activity is likely to slow down carbon emissions.”That is what happened in the last two recessions. Global carbon emissions dipped slightly, before resuming their upward march. (Emissions in the United States continued to decline after 2008 as cheap natural gas displaced coal, and it’s possible that a similar peak is nearing for the rest of the world.)Carbon Emissions Slow When the Economy Takes a Hit

.dw-chart-subhed {
line-height: 1;
margin-bottom: 6px;
font-family: nyt-franklin;
color: #121212;
font-size: 15px;
font-weight: 700;
}

Global annual carbon emissions
Source: Global Carbon BudgetBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Clean Energy Was Lifting Manufacturing. Now Investment Is in Jeopardy.

    by

    With the Trump administration reversing support for low-carbon power, the business case for making wind, solar and electric vehicle parts gets weaker.American manufacturing has been in the doldrums for years, battered by high borrowing costs and a strong dollar, which makes exports less competitive. But there has been a bright spot: billions of dollars flowing into factory construction, signifying that a potential rebound in production and employment is around the corner.The flood of investment has been driven by two major categories of subsidies provided under the Biden administration. One offered incentives for the construction of several enormous semiconductor plants set to begin operation in the coming years. The other supercharged the production of equipment needed for renewable energy deployment.This second category is in jeopardy as the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress seek to roll back support for low-carbon energy, including battery-powered vehicles, wind power and solar fields.One option to raise money to offset the cost of their desired tax cuts is truncating credits for renewable power generation.“If it ends up that the timeline for these credits is shortened, then the incentives to develop an onshore manufacturing facility obviously go down,” said Jeffrey Davis, a lawyer with White & Case who specializes in renewable energy incentives. “If you’re looking at the prospect of sales and revenue over a three-year period instead of an eight-year period, the manufacturing facility may not pencil out.”The Biden administration’s strategy relied on a push and a pull. First, push the supply of clean energy products through tax breaks, loans and direct grants to manufacturers. Equally important was pulling demand along: rebates for buying electric cars, tax credits for producing renewable power, and subsidies for states and individuals to install solar arrays. Companies contemplating manufacturing investments took both sides into account when planning where to build or expand a plant.Investment in Factories Has Been BoomingAmerica isn’t yet making more stuff, but it’s building more buildings to make more stuff — largely because of subsidies for clean energy and semiconductors.

    Figures for each quarter are shown at a seasonally adjusted annual rate, in chained 2017 dollars.Source: Bureau of Economic AnalysisBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    Trump’s Plans to Scrap Climate Policies Has Unnerved Green Energy Investors

    by

    President-elect Donald J. Trump is expected to roll back many of the rules and subsidies that have attracted billions of dollars from the private sector to renewable energy and electric vehicles.Money is the mother’s milk of politics, but the outcome of elections also determines where it flows — and last month’s was especially crucial for the energy industry.Clean investment — including renewable energy as well as the manufacturing of electric vehicles, batteries and solar panels — has boomed since the passage of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, championed by President Biden. In the third quarter of 2024, it reached a record $71 billion, according to a tracker maintained by the Rhodium Group, an energy-focused research firm, and M.I.T.The big question looming now on Wall Street: Will President-elect Donald J. Trump, who called Mr. Biden’s policies the “green new scam” during the campaign, pull back enough of those subsidies and regulations to meaningfully change the economics of investing in decarbonization?Market reactions right after the election seemed clear. Clean energy stocks dropped sharply, while shares of oil companies bounced, indicating a divergent view of how the two sectors will fare in the coming years.Near the top of Mr. Trump’s agenda next year is extending his 2017 tax cuts. He will most likely need to reduce spending elsewhere to do that. Clean energy tax credits — worth about $350 billion over just the next three years, according to the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation — would be a tempting target. The more those subsidies are pared, the more projects would no longer make financial sense.President Biden has championed the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and other policies designed to address climate change and spur investment in cleaner forms of energy.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Officials to Visit China for Economic Talks as Trade Tensions Rise

    by

    The recently established U.S.-China Financial Working Group is set to meet for discussions about financial stability and curbing the flow of fentanyl.A group of senior Biden administration officials is traveling to Shanghai this week for a round of high-level meetings intended to keep the economic relationship between the United States and China on stable footing amid mounting trade tensions between the two countries.The talks will take place on Thursday and Friday and are being convened through the U.S.-China Financial Working Group, which was created last year. Officials are expected to discuss ways to maintain economic and financial stability, capital markets and efforts to curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States.Although communication between the United States and China has improved over the past year, the economic relationship remains fraught because of disagreements over industrial policy and China’s dominance over green energy technology. The Biden administration imposed new tariffs in May on an array of Chinese imports, including electric vehicles, solar cells, semiconductors and advanced batteries. The United States is also restricting American investments in Chinese sectors that policymakers believe could threaten national security.The U.S. delegation, which is scheduled to depart on Monday, is being led by Brent Neiman, the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for international finance. He will be joined by officials from the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission. They are expected to meet with the People’s Bank of China’s deputy governor, Xuan Changneng, and other senior Chinese officials.“We intend for this F.W.G. meeting to include conversations on financial stability, issues related to cross-border data, lending and payments, private-sector efforts to advance transition finance, and concrete steps we can take to improve communication in the event of financial stress,” Mr. Neiman said ahead of the trip, referring to the abbreviation for the financial working group.Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen pressed Chinese officials during her trip to China in April to stop flooding global markets with cheap clean-energy products.Pool photo by Tatan SyuflanaAmerican and Chinese financial regulators have been conducting financial shock exercises this year to coordinate their responses in the event of a crisis, like a cyberattack or climate disaster, that might affect the international banking or insurance systems.The Biden administration has been urging China to take action to prevent chemicals used to produce fentanyl from being exported to other countries and smuggled into the United States. There were signs of progress this month when China announced that it would put new restrictions on three of these chemicals, a move that the United States described as a “valuable step forward.”Other economic issues between the two countries continue to be contentious. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen pressed Chinese officials during her trip to China in April to stop flooding global markets with cheap clean-energy products, warning that its excess industrial capacity would distort global supply chains.But after a meeting of Communist Party leaders last month, there was little indication that China would retreat from its investments in high-tech manufacturing or take major steps toward rebalancing its economy by bolstering domestic consumption.The talks this week are the fifth meeting of the financial working group and will be the second time the officials have convened in China. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    How China Pulled So Far Ahead on Industrial Policy

    by

    For more than half a century, concerns about oil shortages or a damaged climate have spurred governments to invest in alternative energy sources.In the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter placed solar panels on the roof of the White House as a symbol of his commitment to developing energy from the sun. In the 1990s, Japan offered homeowners groundbreaking subsidies to install photovoltaic panels. And in the 2000s, Germany developed an innovative program that guaranteed consumers who adopted a solar energy system that they would sell their electricity at a profit.But no country has come close to matching the scale and tenacity of China’s support. The proof is in the production: In 2022, Beijing accounted for 85 percent of all clean-energy manufacturing investment in the world, according to the International Energy Agency.Now the United States, Europe and other wealthy nations are trying frantically to catch up. Hoping to correct past missteps on industrial policy and learn from China’s successes, they are spending huge amounts on subsidizing homegrown companies while also seeking to block competing Chinese products. They have made modest inroads: Last year, the energy agency said, China’s share of new clean-energy factory investment fell to 75 percent.The problem for the West, though, is that China’s industrial dominance is underpinned by decades of experience using the power of a one-party state to pull all the levers of government and banking, while encouraging frenetic competition among private companies.China’s unrivaled production of solar panels and electric vehicles is built on an earlier cultivation of the chemical, steel, battery and electronics industries, as well as large investments in rail lines, ports and highways.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Budget Lays Out Battle Lines Against Trump

    by

    President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump offer vastly different policy paths on almost every aspect of the economy.President Biden in his budget this week staked out major economic battle lines with former President Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. The proposal offers the nation a glimpse of the diverging directions that retirement programs, taxes, trade and energy policy could take depending on the outcome of the November election.During the past three years, Mr. Biden has enacted key pieces of legislation aimed at bolstering the green energy economy, making infrastructure investments and reinforcing America’s domestic supply chain with subsidies for microchips, solar technology and electric vehicles. Few of those priorities are shared by Mr. Trump, who has pledged to cut more taxes and erect new trade barriers if re-elected.The inflection point will be arriving as the economy enters the final stretch of what economists are now expecting to be a “soft landing” after two years of high inflation. However, the prospect of a second Trump administration has injected increased uncertainty into the economic outlook, as companies and policymakers around the world brace for what could be a dramatic shift in the economic stewardship of the United States.Here are some of the most striking differences in the economic policies of the two presidential candidates.Sparring over the social safety netAt first glance, Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump might appear to have similar positions on the nation’s social safety net programs. In 2016, Mr. Trump broke with his fellow Republicans and refused to support cuts to Social Security or Medicare. Mr. Biden has long insisted that the programs should be protected and has hammered Republicans who have suggested cutting or scaling back the programs.In his budget proposal on Monday, Mr. Biden reiterated his commitment to preserving the nation’s entitlement system. He called for new efforts to improve the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, including making wealthy Americans pay more into the health program. However, his plans were light on details regarding how to ensure both programs’ long-term sustainability.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    This Arctic Circle Town Expected a Green Energy Boom. Then Came Bidenomics.

    by

    In Mo i Rana, a small Norwegian industrial town on the cusp of the Arctic Circle, a cavernous gray factory sits empty and unfinished in the snowy twilight — a monument to unfulfilled economic hope.The electric battery company Freyr was partway through constructing this hulking facility when the Biden administration’s sweeping climate bill passed in 2022. Perhaps the most significant climate legislation in history, the Inflation Reduction Act promised an estimated $369 billion in tax breaks and grants for clean energy technology over the next decade. Its incentives for battery production within the United States were so generous that they eventually helped prod Freyr to pause its Norway facility and focus on setting up shop in Georgia.The start-up is still raising funds to build the factory as it tries to prove the viability of its key technology, but it has already changed its business registration to the United States.Its pivot was symbolic of a larger global tug of war as countries vie for the firms and technologies that will shape the future of energy. The world has shifted away from decades of emphasizing private competition and has plunged into a new era of competitive industrial policy — one in which nations are offering a mosaic of favorable regulations and public subsidies to try to attract green industries like electric vehicles and storage, solar and hydrogen.Mo i Rana offers a stark example of the competition underway. The industrial town is trying to establish itself as the green energy capital of Norway, so Freyr’s decision to invest elsewhere came as a blow. Local authorities had originally hoped that the factory could attract thousands of employees and new residents to their town of about 20,000 — an enticing promise for a region struggling with an aging population. Instead, Freyr is employing only about 110 people locally at its testing plant focused on technological development.“The Inflation Reduction Act changed everything,” said Ingvild Skogvold, the managing director of Ranaregionen Naeringsforening, a chamber of commerce group in Mo i Rana. She faulted the national government’s response.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Climate Change Takes Center Stage in Economics

    by

    With climate change affecting everything from household finances to electric grids, the profession is increasingly focused on how society can mitigate carbon emissions and cope with their impact.A major economics conference this month included papers on wind turbine manufacturing, wildfire smoke and the stability of electricity grids.From left: Joe Buglewicz for The New York Times; Earl Wilson/The New York Times; Zack Wittman for The New York TimesIn early January in San Antonio, dozens of Ph.D. economists packed into a small windowless room in the recesses of a Grand Hyatt to hear brand-new research on the hottest topic of their annual conference: how climate change is affecting everything.The papers in this session focused on the impact of natural disasters on mortgage risk, railway safety and even payday loans. Some attendees had to stand in the back, as the seats had already been filled. It wasn’t an anomaly.Nearly every block of time at the Allied Social Science Associations conference — a gathering of dozens of economics-adjacent academic organizations recognized by the American Economic Association — had multiple climate-related presentations to choose from, and most appeared similarly popular.For those who have long focused on environmental issues, the proliferation of climate-related papers was a welcome development. “It’s so nice to not be the crazy people in the room with the last session,” said Avis Devine, an associate professor of real estate finance and sustainability at York University in Toronto, emerging after a lively discussion.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

  • 150 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    As Utility Bills Rise, Low-Income Americans Struggle for Access to Clean Energy

    by

    The Biden administration has deployed various programs to try to increase access to clean energy. But systems that could help lower bills are still out of reach for many low-income households.Cindy Camp is one of many Americans facing rising utility costs. Ms. Camp, who lives in Baltimore with three family members, said her gas and electric bills kept “going up and up” — reaching as high as $900 a month. Her family has tried to use less hot water by doing fewer loads of laundry, and she now eats more fast food to save on grocery bills.Ms. Camp would like to save money on energy bills by transitioning to more energy-efficient appliances like a heat pump and solar panels. But she simply cannot afford it.“It’s a struggle for me to even maintain food,” Ms. Camp said.Power bills have been rising nationwide, and in Baltimore, electricity rates have increased almost 30 percent over the last decade, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While clean energy systems and more efficient appliances could help low-income households mitigate some of those increases, many face barriers trying to gain access to those products.Low-income households have been slower to adopt clean energy because they often lack sufficient savings or have low credit scores, which can impede their ability to finance projects. Some have also found it difficult to navigate federal and state programs that would make installations more affordable, and many are renters who cannot make upgrades themselves.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More