The Bernie Sanders campaign has made a big point of its dramatic plan to combat climate change. Parts of this plan are:

Investing in green energy, primarily into solar

Reducing subsidies for fossil fuels

Reduce fossil fuel exports

Ending license renewal for nuclear power

Ban fracking

Tax carbon emissions

Invest in algal fuel and cellulose biofuels

Improve the electric highway, transition to electric cars and trucks

Set new fuel efficiency standards (65 MPG by 2025 instead of 55)

Improve the rail system

Invest in efficiency improvements for buildings

The Clinton campaign has also released a more conservative and incentive-driven plan. Her plan includes:

Investing in green energy, primarily into solar

Reducing subsidies for fossil fuels

Improve transparency of the energy consumption of properties for renters, buyers, and mortgage underwriters

Expand the Energy Star program

Incentivize the removal of oil and propane heaters for homes

Reduce methane leaks, improve oil cars and pipelines

Improve building codes, set new standards for public buildings (hospitals, schools, etc.)

Invest in R&D (nuclear, fuels, sequestration)

Encourage transportation infrastructure improvements (rail, bus, electric, etc.)

I have been thinking recently a bit about both plans. First let me comment on things that I think can only be good:

I personally support the carbon tax. There are a number of very real problems with a carbon tax, but such a tax, especially when combined with other regulations and trade agreements, would no doubt have a positive effect in forcing the free market to reduce carbon emissions. American households consume far more energy per capita than most of the developed world. It isn't just because of population density or weather, even our best states consume more than countries like Japan or the UK. We need to change consumer behavior. Clinton is probably concerned that a carbon tax would have an uneven impact on the poor. This is corroborated by studies on the subject (basic needs make up a larger fraction of expenses for the poor) A revenue-neutral carbon tax (a carbon tax with a refund for individuals that undoes the increase in tax revenue) can penalize carbon emissions with minimal impact and would probably be more palatable to conservative lawmakers. It would also make a carbon tax more progressive because the wealthy would pay into the tax more, but receive the same lump sum rebate. ​ Conservatives will be concerned about damage to the economy and businesses simply moving overseas where they can pollute without penalty. This is a problem that such a tax would have to be structured to address, but energy is relatively cheap in the US and the tax could start low and have a gradual increase to ease the transition.

I like that both candidates are focusing on an incremental approach to improving the efficiency of existing buildings. When I was still a student, one project the physics department did with undergraduates was to try to compare the cost vs. benefit of our LEED certified remodels and minor improvements such as replacing old windows in dormitories. By far, the incremental improvements were more cost effective. I like Clinton’s plan to improve transparency for consumers with regards to energy consumption and cost. This strikes me as a very cost-effective approach that could deliver even better results if combined with subsidies or tax for people who don’t intend to sell.

Clinton’s plan to reduce methane leaks is of tremendous importance. Methane is ~30x more harmful than CO2 and leakage is the single biggest source .

. Both candidates plan to improve public transportation and cargo infrastructure. Our nation is far behind in public transportation compared to the rest of the world.

Algal and cellulose biofuels and biogas are promising and I am encouraged to see that Sanders shows interest in them. (I think jet fuel will be necessary for a long time to come.) That said, I believe that they are a long-term investment and not a solution in the near future. Low natural gas prices threaten government support of research. Either way, we need a Democrat in the White House to stonewall that from happening and expand funding. Subsidies need to be directed to promising technology instead of pork. Corn ethanol should not enjoy the subsidies and protections it does until technology for cellulostic fuel matures. In fact, I support reevaluating ethanol subsidies and targets entirely because it’s probably better to just burn it and generate electricity, even for beets and sugarcane.



There are a number of ideas that I have trepidation about. For example:

I am concerned about Bernie’s desire to decommission nuclear plants and lack of interest in investing into R&D. Nuclear produces ~20% of power in the US. Decommissioning pants is expensive and still requires storage of waste, and that 20% will have to be made up elsewhere, which ultimately means that other more polluting sources will not be replaced as quickly as if we kept nuclear plants operating. Nuclear power has advanced a great deal. The Fukushima Daiichi disaster has highlighted the risks of nuclear power, particularly with regard to flooding, but that plant is old and many of the risks were already known prior to the accident with no countermeasures taken by TEPCO. It showed primarily that much more oversight was necessary. Generation III, Generation IV, micro nuclear, and a number of other technological improvements should result in less waste and safer operation as well as much more power output. While I do believe that we need to consider the risks of nuclear power carefully, I think Bernie’s no nuclear platform is a knee-jerk reaction that could do more harm than good.

I am concerned by both candidates’ ambitions pans to expand solar power very rapidly. Solar is indeed a very promising source of clean energy; however photovoltaic solar panels are not free. Inexpensive manufacturing of panels overseas uses dirty fuel for refining and mining of raw materials and often results in irresponsible dumping that poisons the ground and water. Concentrated (reflective) solar is less problematic, but is now losing to photovoltaics in efficiency. We should take care to ensure responsible manufacturing along the way.

I am concerned by Bernie’s blanket ban on fracking and restriction of exports. China, India, and the developing world pose the greatest problem in fighting global warming. LNG is preferable to oil sands or coal and nuclear preferable to natural gas (though nuclear poses security challenges in some parts of the world). It is true that if fossil fuel companies profit, there will be less incentive to move away from them, but we must also recognize that the developing world is not going to leap to a green economy.

Things I’m neutral on:

I think Bernie’s focus on an electric highway is a bit of a red herring; I do not believe that it is feasible in rural parts of the country. If we want to move to an electric highway, the most important use of funds is R&D for cheaper batteries or more storage capacity. In certain high population density corridors along the coasts and part of the mid-west, I do believe that electric highways make sense even today. These areas are already investing in the electric highway. Having worked briefly as a grunt with MOFs, I can say that fossil fuels are a remarkable store of energy. It is unlikely that we will move away from fossil fuels for long-distance transportation by car, truck, or aviation in the near future. Small battery-powered cars are still range-limited and I don’t believe that electric trucks make much sense except where they are already used (low speed, short range electric trucks for construction or utility use).

I’m confused by Clinton’s plan to move away from heating oil and propane (maybe I missed the page where it’s explained. Clinton’s plan has countless PDF files explaining each program). If the idea is to move to a natural-gas infrastructure in rural areas, I wonder if the benefit is enough for the investment. If the idea is to move to under-floor electric or geothermal heat-pumps or something, I wonder if incentives will be sufficient to offset the increase in costs.

Things I wish for:

Since both Clinton and Sanders are trying hard to sell themselves as New Yorkers, I wish there was some discussion of waste management. It’s not sexy, but landfills produce tremendous amounts of methane (~18% of total methane production in the US) on top of which New York sends out hundreds of trucks each day that get only a few miles per gallon loaded with garbage. There is no national recycling standard. Such a standard have never passed congress because of differing needs by state (curbside pickup is great in California, but might not make as much sense in Wyoming), but we should be pushing recycling of aluminum and plastics at a federal level. There is no federal penalty for excess waste generation. Some countries tax packaging. Incineration and other modern forms of waste-to-energy already do qualify for renewable tax credits and there are already programs such as LMOP and AgStar, but new programs could be introduced to promote better waste management. This is probably political suicide due to NIMBY-ism until after the general election.

The EPA does not have any program for enteric fermentation. This is the second biggest source of methane emission in the US. In fact, burps, farts, and poop combined make up more than 4% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US . I don’t know if it’s worth dumping money into something that’s just a few % of total emissions, but we should invest in a study on it since it could be an inexpensive way to reduce emissions if it just takes a diet change.

It is my personal belief that within 20 years, self-driving cars will be widely accepted and cost-effective and I believe it will transform the entire transport infrastructure. Car fleet will be slashed, the cost of bus operation will fall, and trucks will be able to operate in convoys with small safety gaps resulting in reduced drag. Such a transition should immediately make electric cars practical if an infrastructure is designed that can adopt to autonomous cars as feeders for public transportation. Obama has just dedicated $4 billion toward facilitating the technology from the Dpt. of Transportation and I think we should keep going.

Closing thoughts: