PIK Director Issues A Bleak Forecast For The Environment – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

In the world of environmental science, the letters PIK carry a lot of weight. They stand for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one of the most respected climate research organizations in the world. In a recent interview with Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung, PIK director Ottmar Edenhofer said he believes it is possible that the fight against global heating will succeed in cooling the earth in the second half of the century, but only if emissions from fossil fuels are reduced to near zero as soon as possible.

Tools that might help cool the Earth include carbon removal systems that remove carbon dioxide from the air and bury it underground where it turns into rock, Edenhofer said, but there is a catch. Currently, none of those systems have proven effective at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in sufficient quantities to have any measurable impact on the average temperature of the Earth. Furthermore, the cost of removing the small amounts of carbon dioxide they are capable of is astronomically high and has remained so for a decade or more.

“There are also other options, such as growing fast-growing biomass for combustion with CO2 capture or applying crushed minerals to soils to accelerate weathering,” he said, before adding, “I am convinced that CO2 removal and storage can save us from the very worst.” In the interview, Edenhofer urged Western countries to build up an industry for CO2 removal and storage. “We can complement the European emissions trading system with a trade in certificates for CO2 removal and storage,” he said. “I also see the industrialized countries as having a moral obligation here. Our past emissions have caused the world’s climate problems, and the damage is most serious in the global south,” Eidenhofer explained.  “If we can lower temperatures again by removing CO2, that would only be fair.” The industrialized countries could and should “create a planetary garbage disposal on a large scale to remove the garbage from the atmosphere that we have dumped into it.”

But there is a catch no matter how you look at it. The only real chance of overcoming the climate crisis is if emissions are reduced to near zero, Edenhofer stressed. “If we do not succeed in doing this, and if we do not manage to remove huge amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere in the second half of the century, then we will have to come to terms with an Earth that is hostile to humans in large regions. The 1.5 degree Celsisus target has become unattainable by direct means, It can probably only be achieved by an ‘overshoot’ with subsequent reversal.” Without a more ambitious climate policy, the world is heading for warming of around three degrees by the end of the century, the PIK director said. The consequences would be fatal, he said. “The current state of knowledge leaves no room for doubt about that.”

US Environment Considerations Take Center Stage

Matthew Tejada is a former Environmental Protection Agency official who is now a senior vice president at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He thinks there is a chance all the hoola about cutting the size of the federal government in the next administration could actually work to the advantage of environmental activists. “It’s a truth test to all of their messaging,” Tejada told Grist recently. “These handouts to the oil and gas industry, which allow these multinational corporations to earn billions of dollars a year, fly in the face of everything else they talk about.”

How large those federal subsidies are depends on who is doing the math. The Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker has pegged them at nearly $18 billion in 2023. The International Monetary Fund estimate is $757 billion, including what it calls ‘implicit’ subsidies such as undervaluing environmental harm. While the exact number is debated, it is clear that ending these industry benefits could reap billions in revenue. “The enormous handouts that we continue to make to an industry that extracts tens of billions of dollars out of our country already should certainly be somewhere within their line of sight,” Tejada said. “There are dozens and dozens of different subsidies.”

One major tax break allows companies to deduct most of the cost of drilling new oil and gas wells. The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan panel of Congress, estimates that repealing this “intangible drilling costs” provision could bring an additional $6 billion in revenue by 2032. Another provision — the percentage depletion tax break — allows independent producers to recover development costs of declining oil, gas, and coal reserves and has been on the books since 1926. Eliminating it could generate an additional $7.3 billion.

“I don’t know how much they will be able to cut the tax code subsidies,” said Mark Jacobson, a Stanford University professor of civil and environmental engineering. In all likelihood, he said, oil and gas companies will lobby successfully to preserve their interests. And, he argued, the largest benefit they receive from the government is the ability to pollute, which is outside DOGE’s mandate. “They don’t touch on hidden subsidies,” said Jacobson. “The biggest subsidy is allowing these companies to freeload off our health.” Neither the Trump transition team or the American Petroleum Institute responded to multiple requests for comment.

Both Tejada and Jacobson said their wish list for DOGE would go beyond fossil fuel subsidies. One deadline Tejada is watching arrives this spring, when the tax cuts of the first Trump administration expire. Letting them lapse could be one way the government could work toward a balanced budget. Jacobson said another often overlooked topic is Washington’s support for corn-based ethanol fuels. The government has spent billions propping up a fuel that studies show has greater climate and environmental impacts than gasoline and now accounts for 45% of all the corn grown in the US. But for now these hopes for DOGE tackling environmental concerns remain just that. “They probably will end up cutting a lot less than they want to cut,” Jacobson said.

The federal government is now firmly in the grip of people who worship fossil fuels and think we should get down on our knees and thank heaven for the bountiful energy oil and methane have supplied for well over a century. For them, there is not such thing as too many emissions. That attitude may represent the biggest danger to a sustainable Earth there is.