Thread by @bradplumer

Our latest: We were curious to see how far the US could cut emissions if it adopted just a handful of the most ambitious policies that are already in place around the world.

So @EnergyInnovLLC helped us explore, using their energy policy model: nytimes.com/interactive/20… /1

One big takeaway: With just 7 actions, they estimate you could cut US emissions roughly in half.

That includes a moderate carbon tax (like British Columbia has), a clean electricity standard (like CA or NY are doing), a huge push on EVs (Norway-style) plus a few others. /2

This obviously isn't the *only* way to tackle climate change (and probably isn't even the best). It's more a way of seeing that there are already a bunch of policies being pursued around the world that could really add up if adopted more widely. /3

Many thanks to @robbieorvis, @megmahajan and @silvio_marcacci for working with us on this, providing smart advice, and doing the modeling. And @BlackLi did the great visuals /4

A few points I noticed: The models suggest you can make big, rapid cuts to emissions with a high carbon tax. But if you're limited to the lower carbon pricing levels that have so far been attainable around the world, you'd need a bunch of additional policies to get deep cuts. /5

On the other hand, few policies work as *quickly* as a carbon tax to cut emissions. In the modeling, many policies take years before they have a big impact. Carbon pricing makes a dent right away — partly by spurring utilities to switch away from coal much more rapidly. /6

Elsewhere, getting to 100% carbon-free electricity in the next few decades would take a large bite out of US emissions — but is still only one piece of a much bigger puzzle. /7

Meanwhile, it's really, really hard to cut transportation emissions quickly. Even with an aggressive push to ramp up electric car sales (and Norway-style policies are extremely aggressive!), the long delay in fleet turnover means that vehicle emissions fall relatively slowly. /8

Which is just a way of saying that if you want to decarbonize transportation quickly, you'll need a lot more than just electric cars (reducing driving miles is one big area to look at). Plus there's still trucking, shipping, aviation... /9

Curbing HFCs and f-gases has a potentially large impact on emissions (though the exact amount is sensitive to projections of future HFC use). Worth noting that this is a policy that a fair number of Republicans support: nytimes.com/2018/06/20/cli… /10

Final takeaway: Even after some really big (and not easy!) climate policies, we're only halfway to zero. Deep decarbonization would require going far beyond what any country anywhere has tried to date. Industry and agriculture in particular are two hard, oft-neglected areas. /11

By far the biggest caveat here is that we're assuming all these policies work as intended—which, as we note, is hardly assured.

For much more detail on smart climate policy design (and keeping costs down), it's worth checking out this book: amazon.com/Designing-Clim… /12

Anyway, you can check out our piece for more on the methodology and assumptions used: nytimes.com/interactive/20…

For more fun, @EnergyInnovLLC has a fascinating policy simulator that lets you design and model your own climate policies: us.energypolicy.solutions/scenarios/home# /end