This coverage is made possible through a partnership with Grist and Interlochen Public Radio in Northern Michigan.

Like many buildings in this part of rural northern Michigan, the Tsuber Auto garage in the Village of Mesick is heated with propane, delivered by truck once or twice a month to the tank outside. 

On a recent morning, owner Vyacheslav Tsuber was sitting behind the counter of a small, brightly lit lobby with his son — one of eight kids. As Tsuber walked to the cavernous shop in the back, the smell of drip coffee mixed with rubber and grease. 

On average, he said, it costs anywhere from $3,000 to $5,000 a year to heat the shop. But that could soon change. DTE Gas Company, a subsidiary of Michigan’s largest utility, is expanding its natural gas network to the area, giving over 1,000 homes and businesses the choice to switch to natural gas. 

Natural gas is more climate-friendly than the propane and wood used in much of the region, according to DTE. The switch could also slash heating bills. 

“If the cost of natural gas is going to be nearly half of what propane costs, for a lot of people, this is an easy decision,” Tsuber said. 

The choice many see is between propane and natural gas, because that’s how DTE presented the project. What’s left out of that equation, say climate advocates, is a third option: electrification. Instead of locking in fossil fuels for decades to come — and reducing the incentive for people to electrify their homes — why not make it easier to switch to electric heating instead? 

Supporters of natural gas see it as a bridge fuel, something consumers can use on their way to a sustainable future.

But critics say we don’t have that kind of time.

As Sam Stolper, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Sustainability puts it: “We have really ambitious [climate] goals for good reason. They’re needs, not just goals, and we’re not going to hit them if we keep making decisions to switch to natural gas … instead of going straight to electrification.”

To him, the solution is clear. “It’s on governments to make it so that households are able to choose that option,” he said. 

Natural gas is a fossil fuel made up mostly of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas that is much more efficient at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. 

There have been major efforts to encourage more home electrification. The federal Inflation Reduction Act is providing tax credits and rebates for technologies like heat pumps.  

Still, getting off natural gas can be lengthy, pricey, and complicated, as Grist’s own reporters have experienced, requiring a deep dive into federal tax incentives and equipment upgrades.

The way homes are heated in the United States varies by region. In Michigan, natural gas is the primary heat source for more than three-quarters of households and the leading source of electricity. It also has the most natural gas storage of any state. That makes natural gas an especially attractive option for utilities since they can buy it from elsewhere during the summer, store it, and sell it for less in the winter. To make electricity more affordable, utilities’ rates would have to change substantially, said Parth Vaishnav, an assistant professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan.

“Relative to natural gas, electricity is really expensive in Michigan — more expensive than it is in many other states,” he said. “If you go from natural gas to a heat pump, it would raise almost everybody’s bills by quite a lot, and the problem would be worse for people on low incomes than for people on high incomes.”

Financial considerations and logistical legwork can make the prospect of adopting cleaner heating daunting. For some, it’s not really an option at all. 

“Not everyone, unfortunately, has the luxury to worry about a lot of environmental concerns,” said Conor Harrison, a geography professor at the University of South Carolina.

“Sometimes we are too quick to think about individual choices,” he said. “Changing a heating system in a house, like that is a major, major project. And it’s one that people typically don’t do until they have to.”

Then there are factors like the strength of the power grid and the resilience of its infrastructure, which experts say could complicate electrification. 

“Of course, you have freedom to choose how you heat your home, but frankly, only up to a point,” said Gernot Wagner, a climate economist with Columbia Business School. “If the electric grid isn’t capable of sending more power to your home, then you’re up a creek when it comes to installing a heat pump.”

Local initiatives have proved key to encouraging communities to embrace renewable energy in some cases. In others, municipal governments have moved to ban natural gas altogether. 

But sometimes it’s not just about choosing the cleanest option. Places like Mesick and Buckley have worked for years to make natural gas a reality, eyeing economic benefits for the community. 

“Propane was good, but natural gas is so much cheaper. That’s why it becomes, really, the frontrunner,” said Takis Pifer, the mayor of Buckley.

Pifer, who previously worked as an analyst for DTE, acknowledged that other energy systems can work — he had a heat pump installed in his home — but said it made sense to give consumers more choices.

There’s also hope that the addition of natural gas will give a boost to businesses in the area. 

“It’s exciting. It’s a good thing for town,” said Debbie Stanton, who has worked as Mesick’s village clerk for over two decades. 

Stanton isn’t against renewable energy; she got a grant to install a heat pump for the village office. But she said natural gas will create additional options for people living there; in the past, businesses looking to set up shop in Mesick opted to go to places that had a gas hookup. And with rising prices, saving on heating bills could help residents. 

“I raised three kids, and I spend more on groceries right now for the two of us than I did when I had my three kids at home,” she said. “You listen to people that have families, they’re spending $500 a week on groceries. So there’s not a lot of money left over for other things, and maybe being absolutely green isn’t their priority at this time.”

Oil and gas companies have long promoted natural gas as a clean energy source, despite knowing that it was a major contributor to climate change. 

Despite Michigan’s goal of economy-wide carbon neutrality by 2050 and calls for reducing reliance on fossil fuels, it has by no means shunned natural gas.

Last year, the state awarded $50 million in grants for “low-carbon energy infrastructure” — much of which went to expanding biogas and natural gas. As Planet Detroit reported at the time, utility and gas industry lobbyists donated tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to legislators who wrote and sponsored the bills behind the funding. 

DTE received $7.28 million as part of that, making the roughly $17 million gas main extension project possible, said Scotty Kehoe, the utility’s director of gas operations for Greater Michigan.

“Natural gas is one of those ways that we’re reducing our carbon footprint,” he said. “While natural gas might not be a renewable energy source, it is a very clean energy source.”

Despite utilities continuing to push forward with natural gas, the energy landscape is changing. 

Read Next

Michigan wants fossil fuel companies to pay for climate change damages

Izzy Ross

After a major methane leak at a Pennsylvania storage reservoir in 2022, the federal government began rolling out new rules for gas storage facilities, along with plans to fine companies for leaking methane.

More homeowners are buying heat pumps than gas boilers. Federal incentives for heat pumps and energy-efficiency measures may help reduce the demand for natural gas heating. 

Some places, like a remote community in Washington state, have created a cooperative finance model to fund heat pump installations. 

And Michigan is harnessing federal incentives to start offering home-energy rebates for efficiency upgrades and electrification this fall — right around the time DTE is planning to finish its natural gas project. 

Back at the auto shop in Mesick, mechanic Vyacheslav Tsuber is considering all this. Some of his heating equipment will have to be replaced in the next few years, and natural gas would be convenient. Still, he said, he has more homework to do. 

“We are very conscious to make sure that our decisions [are] environmentally friendly,” he said, “Or [are] at least better than what we use right now.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Northern Michiganders are getting off propane — and on to natural gas on May 22, 2024.

Could changing the way you cook help fight global warming? If you’ve considered this question and you live in a rich country, you’ve probably been thinking about whether to ditch your gas stove for an electric or induction cooktop. But for nearly a third of the world’s population, even that gas stove would be a big step up from the preindustrial cooking methods still in wide use across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Some 2.3 billion people regularly cook their meals over open fires or on makeshift stoves using fuels like wood, animal dung, charcoal, and coal — methods that generate deadly local air pollution and are far more carbon-intensive than the electric and gas stoves enjoyed by the relatively wealthy of the world.

The lack of access to these “clean cooking” technologies is responsible for 3.7 million premature deaths annually, due to the harms of breathing smoke from cooking fires (which often accumulates indoors), according to a report from the International Energy Agency, or IEA. Fortunately, the total number of people without access to clean cooking is falling, largely due to progress in Asia and Latin America. But in Africa, that number is trending in the opposite direction, as campaigns for clean cooking have not been able to keep up with massive population growth in sub-Saharan Africa. In an effort to address this, representatives of 55 nations convened in Paris last week for the Summit on Clean Cooking in Africa, organized by the IEA. The marquee announcement of the conference was a $2.2 billion pledge by governments and the private sector to increase access to clean cooking in Africa.

While cooking disparities have been recognized for decades as a health crisis and driver of gender-based inequality in the world’s poorest regions — given that women are typically responsible for cooking in these households and thus most directly exposed to indoor air pollution — the climate crisis has given the issue additional urgency in recent years. Darby Jack, a professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University, attended last week’s summit and told Grist that “there was a fair amount of focus on clean cooking as a low-hanging climate fix,” in contrast to the issue’s longstanding framing as primarily a public health crisis.

Smoke-spewing cookstoves and fires are responsible for around 2 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions — roughly equivalent to the carbon contribution of global air travel. But besides being an easier problem to solve than the notoriously difficult-to-decarbonize aviation sector, universal access to clean cooking would bring a litany of attendant health and welfare benefits, and help preserve ecosystems and biodiversity threatened by unsustainable wood-harvesting methods.

At the summit, a host of signatories including countries, civil society organizations, and corporations issued a declaration “making 2024 the pivotal year for clean cooking.” But conspicuously absent from the declaration was any mention of what Jack described as a “perennial debate” among advocates of clean cooking: the question of what kind of stoves count as appropriate improvements on preindustrial methods and, in particular, the role of liquefied petroleum gas, or LPG, in addressing the crisis.

“Is it smart, is it ethical, is it good for the Earth to promote a fossil fuel, when in other domains we’re trying to move away from fossil fuels?” asked Jack, whose own answer to this question, and that of many other experts, is yes — for now.

Read Next

Most Americans want to electrify their homes — if they can keep their gas stoves

Tik Root

“Long term, we want to electrify everything and have renewable energy, but that’s a long way away,” Jack added.

In the U.S., Jack’s work has involved advocating for moving people from gas to electric stoves, but he believes Africans can’t afford to wait for the infrastructure and investment necessary to avoid using LPG as a “transition fuel.”

“The ideal thing would be cooking with electricity from a clean grid, and that’s just really far away in Africa. It’ll take billions of dollars to get the grid ready for electric cooking, and further billions to get the grid clean,” Jack told Grist. And in the meantime, he noted, the industrialized world is busy building out natural gas infrastructure. “The idea we should tell Africa they can’t use gas for environmental reasons, while we’re not just using it but further developing it, is a profound hypocrisy,” he added.

Other researchers disagree. One of them is Daniel Kammen, an energy professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Although he considers Jack a friend with a reasonable position on the issue, Kammen contends that the adoption of LPG stoves “slows down the process for us to switch to electric cooking” in Africa, and he argues that the rapidly increasing cost-effectiveness of electric cooking is underappreciated by health researchers.

Kammen told Grist that he sees the enthusiasm for LPG stoves as stemming from their role as “a lifeline being thrown to the fossil fuel companies — fossil fuel companies want to keep them on the agenda.”

Indeed, the Paris summit was heavily attended by gas companies, and despite the lack of official recognition of LPG in the event’s declaration, some in the industry celebrated the attention as a “turning point” for the fuel. At the conference, the Dutch commodities trading multinational Vitol announced $550 million worth of clean cooking investments in Africa, partly in the form of LPG infrastructure. The interest in clean cooking as a climate solution has also given rise to a growing carbon credit market in which polluters such as airlines buy “cookstove credits” that pay for some portion of the transition from older to newer forms of household cooking — though a study Kammen co-authored this year showed that such credits often dramatically overestimate the emissions reductions that the new stoves achieve.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Billions of people cook over open fires. Are gas stoves the solution? on May 22, 2024.

Eating your vegetables is one of the best things you can do for your body…

The post Cutting Carbon From Your Vegetarian Diet appeared first on Earth911.

If you’re planning a green renovation or remodeling project, you now have more green-friendly products…

The post How to Negotiate With a Contractor for Green Building Projects appeared first on Earth911.

Island nations in the Pacific, Caribbean and West Indies won a major international legal victory this week that puts more pressure on large governments like the European Union and China to curb their carbon emissions.   

On Tuesday, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg, Germany, unanimously ruled that state parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 169 parties to the treaty include several of the world’s top emitters: China, India, the European Union, and Russia. The United States, also a big polluter, is not a party to the convention. 

The tribunal said in its advisory opinion that greenhouse gases count as marine pollution and that state parties to the convention must “take all necessary measures to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution.” 

“The ITLOS opinion will inform our future legal and diplomatic work in putting an end to inaction that has brought us to the brink of an irreversible disaster,” said Gaston Browne, prime minister of Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister, according to Reuters.

Nikki Reisch from the Center for International Environmental Law, which supported the island nations’ case, said the advisory opinion lays the foundation to hold big polluters accountable by clarifying their obligations under international law. Reisch said this is the first time an international court has commented on the intersection of oceans and climate change. 

“It’s a landmark decision in that it adds great weight to the growing body of case law and legal interpretations underscoring states’ legal duties to urgently and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the environment and human rights,” she said. “It’s a testament to the persistent courage and leadership of small island states that have really been at the forefront of the struggle for climate justice and accountability and the forefront of legal developments.” 

In 2022, island nations including Palau and Vanuatu first brought the case before the tribunal. They wanted to know what are the obligations of state parties “to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment in relation to the deleterious effects that result or are likely to result from climate change.” 

The island countries have been dealing with storms, heavy rainfall, coral bleaching, and other negative effects of climate change despite contributing relatively little carbon emissions. In islands like Vanuatu, the climate effects particularly harm Indigenous Pacific Islanders, some of whom are already facing dislocation from their ancestral villages. 

Reisch said the sweeping opinion is particularly significant because it makes clear that complying with the Paris Agreement, the 2015 international treaty on climate change, isn’t enough. 

The opinion said countries should also “take all measures necessary” to ensure their carbon emissions don’t damage other states or their environments. 

State parties to the convention also have an obligation to support developing states with climate adaptation, especially those particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. That includes giving them “preferential treatment in funding, technical assistance and pertinent specialized services from international organizations,” the tribunal wrote. 

The tribunal found state parties also have the legal obligation to monitor greenhouse gas emissions; to report on their observations and analyses, and to protect oceans from acidification. States may even need to restore marine habitats if they’ve been degraded, the tribunal concluded. 

Sarah Cooley from the Ocean Conservancy who gave expert testimony in the case, praised the tribunal’s embrace of climate science. 

“Today’s judgment from (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea)  is a massive victory for our ocean, communities impacted by climate change, and science in general,” she said.  

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Small island nations get big climate victory in international maritime court on May 21, 2024.

The Ford Motor Company said on Monday that it supports the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) new regulations to reduce passenger vehicle tailpipe emissions by 49 percent over 2026 levels by 2032, reported Reuters.

Ford is the second-largest automobile manufacturer in the country.

“Complying with emissions regulations requires lengthy advance planning, and Ford has taken steps to transform its business to ensure compliance with stricter emissions standards,” the Michigan-based automaker said, as Reuters reported.

Ford said the new rule would provide regulatory stability to the industry.

Alliance for Automotive Innovation — a trade group representing most major automakers, including Ford, Toyota Motor, General Motors, Honda Motor, Hyundai Motor and Volkswagen — said it approved of two of the regulations’ key provisions.

Specifically, it agreed with the inclusion of electric vehicles (EVs) in averages of fleetwide emissions and the exclusion of upstream emissions in compliance calculations.

The auto alliance said the requirements “are essential if vehicle manufacturers are to have any possibility of demonstrating compliance with the GHG reduction targets,” reported Reuters.

Republican state lawmakers have expressed concern that the Biden administration wants to force American passenger vehicle manufacturers to transition to EV production.

Former President Donald Trump has said he will reverse Biden administration regulations that support EVs if he regains the White House.

A California-led group of 22 states support the tailpipe emissions rule, saying without future vehicle emissions reductions they could suffer harm.

“Motor vehicle emissions standards are intended to help achieve and maintain air quality goals that benefit human health and the environment,” Ford said on its website.

The final rule — Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3 — is one of the most important environmental rules of the Biden presidency, Reuters reported.

However, according to EPA chief Michael Regan, it does not impose a mandate of adopting EVs on manufacturers.

“The final ‘Phase 3’ standards build on EPA’s Heavy-Duty Phase 2 program from 2016 and maintain that program’s flexible structure, which is designed to reflect the diverse nature of the heavy-duty vehicle industry,” EPA said. “The standards are technology-neutral and performance-based, allowing each manufacturer to choose what set of emissions control technologies is best suited for them and the needs of their customers.”

EPA has projected that from 35 to 56 percent of new vehicles sold would be electric between 2030 and 2032.

“[T]he standards can be met with a diverse range of heavy-duty vehicle technologies, including advanced internal combustion engine vehicles, hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,” EPA added.

The post Ford Announces Support for EPA Automobile Tailpipe Emissions Rule appeared first on EcoWatch.

In a historic win for a group of small island nations — including the Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda — the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) has found that human-produced greenhouse gas emissions absorbed by the world’s oceans are considered marine pollution.

In its first ruling related to climate, the tribunal — a United Nations maritime law court — advised that countries are obligated to safeguard marine environments by doing more than is required by the 2015 Paris Agreement, reported Reuters. Many small island nations are threatened by rising sea levels due to global heating.

“As the legal guardian of the Ocean Treaty, ITLOS has taken a critical first step in recognising that what small island nations have been fighting for at the COP negotiations for decades is already a part of international law,” said professor Payam Akhavan, the legal representative of the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (COSIS), as Euronews Green reported. “The major polluters must prevent catastrophic harm to small island nations, and if they fail to do so, they must compensate for loss and damage.”

COSIS — a group of nine small island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean that are threatened by sea-level rise — requested the opinion of ITLOS.

Though the decision is an “advisory opinion,” it should provide precedent for future cases.

“What happened today was that the law and science met together in this tribunal, and both won,” said Cheryl Bazard, European Union of the Bahamas ambassador, as reported by Reuters.

In its opinion, ITLOS said nations must monitor and reduce emissions and specified what their environmental impact assessments need to contain.

The court also said goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are required to be objectively set and based on relevant international standards and rules, as well as the best available science — a higher standard than the Paris Agreement.

“To those that would hide behind the weaknesses of international climate treaties, this opinion makes clear that compliance with the Paris Agreement alone is not enough,” said Nikki Reisch, Centre for International Environmental Law director, as Reuters reported.

In its opinion, ITLOS makes clear what countries must do about climate change in their national climate plans, national and regional courts and international obligations, such as during talks like the COP29 United National Climate Change Conference, reported Euronews Green.

The tribunal was asked to consider whether greenhouse gas emissions qualified as marine pollution, what a country’s obligations were to prevent and reduce pollution and what their obligations were to preserve and protect oceans from climate change impacts.

The decision of ITLOS that greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans are a type of marine pollution means states’ legal obligation to preserve and protect marine environments under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea applies to the main contributors to the climate crisis as well.

“States also have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment from climate change impacts and ocean acidification,” said Judge Albert Hoffman in the delivery of the advisory opinion in Hamburg, as Euronews Green reported. “Where the marine environment has been degraded, this obligation may call for measures to restore marine habitats and ecosystems.”

Other countries that brought the case before the tribunal were Niue, Vanuatu, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Palau, Nevis and St. Kitts.

The post Small Island Nations Secure Historic Climate Win From International Ocean Tribunal appeared first on EcoWatch.

When the war in Ukraine upended the global energy supply in 2022, South Korea suddenly found itself competing for natural gas. Cut off from Russia’s supply, an energy-starved Europe began buying up supplies worldwide. In 2022 alone, South Korea saw electricity costs rise approximately $17 billion because of the global spike in natural gas prices.

To improve its energy security after this upheaval, South Korea is doubling down on its imports. The country is using government financing to develop liquid natural gas (LNG) supply terminals, both at home and abroad. Its over-investment in LNG has already been costly: Citizens of South Korea are paying higher energy prices, without any gains in energy security, economic strength, or sustainability. 

And even as the government invests billions in new capacity, the country’s demand for natural gas over the next decade is projected to plummet. By the time the new South Korean terminals start operating, they may end up sitting idle for much of the time. 

A complex and expensive fuel 

Today, natural gas fuels about 25% of South Korea’s energy mix, used for everything from cookstoves to industrial manufacturing. Much of this is transported as liquified natural gas, or LNG — a process which cools the gas until it transforms into fluid, making it safer and easier to transport. The process requires enormous, specialized infrastructure. Custom cooling and regasification terminals must be built on either end of the shipping route, and the specially built tankers that move the LNG also require super-cooled tanks. 

This infrastructure is colossally expensive. From 2013 to 2023, South Korea’s public finance investment in new LNG carrier ships totaled approximately $44.1 billion, and the government plans to pay as much as $5 billion U.S. dollars for the new LNG terminals in the next few years.

“This will hinder the country’s energy transition to cheaper, domestically sourced renewable energy,” writes Michelle Kim, an energy finance specialist with the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, in a recent report about South Korea’s LNG industry. Kim’s research shows that the country is on track to more than double its LNG import capacity. Yet as the country works to transition to net-zero by 2050, the government’s own projections show a dramatic decrease in natural gas demand.  The new terminals South Korea are building are projected to fall to under 20% of their capacity by 2036. This will create what is known as “stranded assets,” meaning the government is investing billions of dollars into highly specialized infrastructure that soon will sit nearly unused. 

South Korea’s focus on LNG also has major implications for the global climate. “What we’re seeing is the development of a massive surplus capacity of LNG, compared to what’s needed for keeping warming to 1.5 degrees,” says scientist Bill Hare, the CEO of Climate Analytics, a climate science and policy institute. A new report by a global collaborative of clean energy advocates shows that South Korea is one of the top international public financiers of fossil fuels.

Over the past decade, South Korea has invested over $3 billion of government financing into major U.S LNG infrastructure projects, such as the enormous new Rio Grande and Port Arthur facilities. And South Korean energy giant Hanwha is planning to invest still more in the Rio Grande project, with multi-million dollar loans from public and private banks in Korea.  

This investment is dramatically increasing the United States LNG export capacity. “The US is set to double its existing capacity by the end of 2027,” says Jamie Lee, an international climate specialist at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “That’s startling because the United States is already the top LNG exporter in the world.” Much of this rapid expansion is driven by South Korea’s investment – the country is one of the largest consumers of United States LNG exports.

Such investment is out of step with other developed countries, who are throttling back on gas: Other regions, including the European Union, the UK, and Canada, have committed to halt government financing for international fossil fuel infrastructure.

Ironically, the South Korean government has prioritized natural gas in part because of a misconception that it is cleaner than coal, which plays a large role in South Korea’s energy use. But when the emissions from its extraction, transport, processing, and consumption are taken into account, natural gas shows little or no improvement over other fossil fuels. In fact, natural gas currently accounts for 22% of global fossil fuel emissions.

Sejong Youn, the founder of the climate policy advocacy organization Plan 1.5, says, “The myth was appealing. If you didn’t look too closely, it appeared to be a better alternative. And that myth allowed policymakers and companies to continue business as usual, without the complexities that renewable energy introduces to the energy system.”

A financial black hole

Youn also points out other dangers of pouring public money into new natural gas infrastructure. “Whatever we build at this point will decide our future. Expanding gas infrastructure locks our country into a fossil fuel system,” he says. 

Public financing of LNG infrastructure is based on financial calculations that assume it will be used for many decades. But to meet the country’s goal of global carbon neutrality by 2050, these facilities would need to cease operations well before their functional lifetime expires, creating an enormous net loss for South Korea’s government. 

But despite the government’s current illogical funding trajectory, it may still be possible to reverse course. 

Think globally, act locally 

The coastal South Korean city of Dangjin is a fossil fuel hub, where coal-fired power plants and blast furnace steel mills spew pollutants. A 2021 report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that pollution from Dangjin’s plants causes over 210 premature deaths annually. Plans for new LNG terminals would add to these pollutants, making the city the third-largest LNG storage hub in the world. 

Jungjin Kim, a leading local activist with the Korea Federation for Environmental Movements (KFEM), says Dangjin bears the burden of powering the country, while energy demand is concentrated in densely urban areas like Seoul. “Because most energy facilities cause large environmental impact and damage, these facilities are located in Dangjin to avoid the backlash from city residents,” he says. 

Focusing public investment on natural gas, he says, also has serious economic risks for the area. “If all the jobs are in the fossil fuel sector, the entire region will be in a very dire economic situation when the demand for it declines,” he says. “It will be similar to what happened to Detroit.”

Government investment in domestic renewables could have the opposite effect. Research by Climate Analytics shows that if the South Korean government refocused on offshore wind, solar, and other domestic production, it could both boost employment and increase energy security. “There’s enormous potential in South Korea for renewable energy development that would create a net increase in local jobs,” says Hare. This could also support other industries in South Korea, such as transitioning LNG shipbuilders into green fuel transport to support the country’s chemical and steel industries. A 2023 report by NRDC shows that replacing LNG with renewable alternatives could be far less costly for both the government and consumers.

Despite the push to build natural gas infrastructure, activists in Dangjin have already successfully halted government funding for coal there. Korea Beyond Coal, a coalition of South Korean climate organizations working to end coal, successfully campaigned to end their government’s overseas coal investments in 2021. The effort helped shift private investment away from the sector. “South Korea can play a major role in accelerating the global energy transition,” says Dongjae Oh, the head of the oil and gas program at Solutions for our Climate (SFOC). “South Korea can shift its massive overseas fossil financing to renewable energy and work with other governments to expand clean, healthy and affordable energy, such as solar and wind.” 

That’s not to say the path to energy security and economic growth via renewable energy would be smooth. The Korean Peninsula’s history of geopolitical instability, South Korea’s mountainous terrain, and urban population concentration all present challenges. But the biggest barrier to renewable energy is the lack of political will and concrete policies to support the country’s renewable energy production potential.

And that potential is huge: A 2023 report  by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that with the right government policies and supports, South Korea could meet 80% of the country’s electricity needs with clean power by 2035. 

A golden opportunity 

Advocates argue that despite its difficulties, such a transition would be deeply worthwhile. “Renewables are the biggest economic opportunity we’ve had since the Second World War,” says Hare. “The scale of government investment needed is huge, and it will generate many more jobs than continued funding of fossil fuels. It’s a win-win. Governments can make investments that get us to zero emissions, and citizens will benefit economically.”

Project 1.5 founder Sejong Youn agrees. “The government should spend money on renewable energy infrastructure and creating jobs,” he says. “It’s an area where, as citizens, we can and should demand change.”

Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC) is an independent non-profit organization based in South Korea that works to accelerate global greenhouse gas emissions reduction and energy transition. SFOC leverages research, litigation, community organizing, and strategic communications to deliver practical climate solutions and build movements for change.  We work collaboratively with partners from around the world and aim to grow and strengthen the global network of climate actors that drive bold solutions.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline South Korea’s energy trap: Government-funded dead end fossil fuel investments on May 21, 2024.

Why do European countries and 10 U.S. states tout very high bottle and can recycling…

The post We Earthlings: Can & Bottle Deposit Programs Work appeared first on Earth911.