Thread by @ShellenbergerMD

The Green New Deal Excludes Nuclear And Would Thus Increase Emissions -- Just Like It Did In Vermont

My latest column @Forbes — please share!
forbes.com/sites/michaels…

@Forbes 1. The Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) today excludes nuclear energy from the proposed mix. If it were ever actually attempted nationally, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions — just as a similar effort did in Vermont.

@Forbes 2. Vermont is home to @AOC allies, and Green New Deal advocates, Senator @SenSanders and climate activist @billmckibben who insist the world can be powered on renewables alone.

But consider what’s actually happened in their own state.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 3. In 2005, Vermont legislators promised to reduce emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2028, through the use of renewables and energy efficiency only.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 4. What’s happened since? Vermont’s emissions rose 16.3% — more than twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period. When you account for the U.S.’s faster growth in population Vermont’s per capita emissions rose 5% while U.S. per capita emissions declined 17%

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 5. Did Vermont fail to do energy efficiency, which the Green New Deal and green groups like Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) claim is the most important way to reduce emissions?

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 6. Nope. In 2018, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy ranked Vermont among the top five states for aggressive action on energy efficiency — for the fifth year in a row.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 7. Did Vermont’s electric utility block access to distributed renewable energy sources, like rooftop solar panels? On the contrary. The state’s main electric utility has been a pioneer in helping customers go “off-grid” with solar and batteries.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 8. What’s going on? If Vermont did everything that Ocasio-Cortez, McKibben, Sanders, and other Green New Deal advocates wanted, why have its emissions risen so sharply?

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 9. In 2012, the operator of Vermont’s sole nuclear plant, Vermont Yankee, was trying to decide whether to keep it operating. One option was a small subsidy like the kind Illinois awarded nuclear plants for their climate benefits. But that would have required local support.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 10. One influential local voice loudly opposing continued operation of the nuclear plant belonged to the climate activist Bill McKibben. “I've been opposed to Vermont Yankee for a long time,” McKibben wrote in 2012.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 11. “I believe Vt. is completely capable of replacing (and far more) its power output with renewables, which is why my roof is covered with solar panels,” wrote McKibben

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 12. Pro-nuclear environmentalists disagreed. In a highly-detailed 2010 analysis they warned that the closure of Vermont Yankee would increase emissions.

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 13. McKibben was unmoved. In a 2013 debate at Vermont’s Middlebury College with pro-nuclear filmmaker Robert Stone, McKibben told the crowd, “We don’t need nuclear power.”

@Forbes @AOC @SenSanders @billmckibben 14. Vermont’s rising emissions prove that it did. Had Vermont’s utilities supplied its customers with power from Vermont Yankee instead of from out-of-state fossil electricity, nearly half of the state’s increase in emissions since 1990 could have been avoided.

15. I reached out to McKibben to ask if he regretted his anti-nuclear advocacy. He responded that Vermont Yankee’s closure “didn't, I think, lead to big increases in emissions from Vermont electricity.”

16. He pointed to a New York Times data tool, which he said showed “the state replaced the [nuclear] power by buying lots and lots more hydro from Quebec.”

17. But that’s not what the data actually show. In reality, Vermont’s utilities couldn’t replace with in-state generation the lost electricity from Vermont Yankee, instead turning to electricity imports from the New England power pool, primarily from natural gas.

18. McKibben points to rising emissions from transportation, arguing that “Vermont has done nothing to change the transportation system that is by far the main source of carbon emissions, followed by home heating.”

19. It’s true that emissions from transportation are the largest source of the state’s emissions. But Vermont’s emissions from transportation were higher in 2005 than in 2015 and the long distances driven by Vermonters comes with the territory in this rural state.

20. And it’s not true that Vermont “has done nothing” on transportation, as McKibben claims. In fact, it has won awards from the U.N. for putting in place “design-oriented strategies” so that it “does not rely solely on automobiles.”

21. Why did McKibben, who describes climate change as a grave threat to human civilization, call for the closure of the single largest source of clean energy, Vermont Yankee, in his home state?

22. McKibben told me that it was because its owner “misled (a polite word) the state about everything, including (the final blow) whether or not they had underground pipes carrying nuclear waste.”

23. I asked a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission officer who studied the issue, Chuck Casto, if that’s what happened.

24. Casto was the top official in charge of the U.S. government’s response to the 2011 nuclear accident in Fukushima, Japan, and someone who even anti-nuclear activists say is a straight-shooter on nuclear safety.

25. According to Casto, who oversaw a major study on the issue, the pipes were normal pipes carrying discharge water, not “nuclear waste.” At one point, their water had tiny amounts of tritium, a hydrogen isotope, at levels so low the water could be safely drank (which it wasn’t)

26. McKibben isn’t the only Vermonter against nuclear. Senator Sanders wants to deny new licenses to nuclear plants, which would drastically increase carbon emissions in the electricity sector.

27. The same is true for the Sierra Club, NRDC and Environmental Defense Fund. All are actively advocating the closure of nuclear plants throughout the country while openly taking money from, and investing in, oil, gas, and renewable energy interests.