In late March, President Joe Biden unveiled a $2.3 trillion infrastructure package, the American Jobs Plan, that his administration hopes to move forward this year. The plan would make major investments in improving physical infrastructure such as roads, schools and bridges while also creating good-paying jobs, expanding collective bargaining rights and funding long-term care services under Medicaid.
The presidentâ€™s plan also endorsed another proposal that a group of bipartisan lawmakers hope makes it into a final bill: expanding carbon-capture utilization and storage (CCUS) in the United States. The SCALE Act, introduced in mid-March by eleven senators and six House representatives, represents the countryâ€™s first comprehensive CO2 infrastructure and jobs bill. In describing the presidentâ€™s infrastructure plan, the White House said it ?â€świll support large-scale sequestration effortsâ€ť that are ?â€śin line with the bipartisan SCALE Act.â€ť
The legislation, which would authorize $4.9 billion in spending over five years, would create programs to transport and store carbon underground. Its provisions include establishing low-interest loan programs modeled off of federal highway development programs, increasing EPA funding for permitting carbon storage wells, and providing grants to states to create their own permitting programs. Advocates point to countries such as Canada, Norway and Australia where elected officials have made similar investments in carbon storage infrastructure.
The SCALE Act is notable both for the support it has, and hasnâ€™t, received. Its early endorsers include a half-dozen industrial labor unions, centrist climate groups like the National Wildlife Federation, and energy companies like GE Gas Power and Calpine. Fossil fuel industry support for carbon-capture has historically been a top reason why progressive climate groups, meanwhile, remain skeptical of the idea, wary of subsidizing anything that amounts to corporate giveaways to some of the worldâ€™s worst polluters. While carbon-capture has long been a flashpoint in Democratic climate politics, most critics of the policy have stayed quiet on the SCALE Act for now.
Modeling released in December by the Princeton Net-Zero America Project found that construction of nearly 12,000 miles of pipelines capable of storing 65 million tons of CO2 per year would be needed by 2030 for the United States to reach net-zero emissions by 2050?â€”?a stated goal of the Biden administration. The Clean Air Task Force, a climate advocacy group, says the SCALE Act programs are ?â€śconsistentâ€ť with the quantity and timeline of infrastructure deployment needed to meet those goals.
To date, nearly all U.S. carbon-capture projects are situated near existing CO2pipelines and Lee Beck, the CCUS policy innovation director at the Clean Air Task Force, says the SCALE Actâ€™s goal would be to capture emissions from multiple sources and then transport the CO2 for storage elsewhere, as is currently being carried out through Canadaâ€™s Alberta Carbon Trunk Line System and Norwayâ€™s Northern Lights Project.
Supporters point to a number of recent scientific analyses that make the case for greater investment in carbon-capture. In February, the National Academies of Sciences released a report on decarbonizing the U.S. energy system which recommends that, over next decade, officials should focus on increasing deployment of carbon-capture technologies by a factor of ten while investing in permanent CO2 storage infrastructure. In 2020, the International Energy Agency warned that it would be ?â€śvirtually impossibleâ€ť to reach net-zero emissions without carbon capture technology, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said carbon capture is likely necessary to meet global climate targets. Supporters note that renewable energy sources like wind and solar are not viable alternatives for reducing carbon emissions in the industrial sector, which account for 32 percent of the United Statesâ€™ energy use and nearly a quarter of its direct greenhouse gas emissions.
President Bidenâ€™s campaign climate plan called for accelerating development of carbon-capture and he included Brad Markell, the executive director of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Council, on his Department of Energy transition team. Markell endorsed the SCALE Act in March and said it ?â€świll be crucial to meeting President Bidenâ€™s goals of reaching net-zero emissions in the power sector by 2035 and economywide by 2050.â€ť
In addition to Bidenâ€™s support, the Congressional politics bode well for SCALE Act advocates. Introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D?Del.) and Bill Cassidy (R?LA) in the Senate, the bill would first go through the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where Joe Manchin (D?W.V.), a co-sponsor of the bill, serves as chair. The House version of the bill was introduced by Reps. Marc Veasey (D?TX) and David McKinley (R?W.V.) and the chamber passed several carbon-capture bills last year. In March, Democratic governors of Pennsylvania and Louisiana (Tom Wolf and John Bel Edwards) joined the Republican governors of Oklahoma and Wyoming (Kevin Stitt and Mark Gordon), in writing a letter to Congress urging the passage of the SCALE Act in any future infrastructure package.
In an email, Sen. Coons told In These Times that he ?â€śappreciates [Energy] Secretary Granholmâ€™s public statements in support of CCUS, including CCUS transport infrastructure, and am encouraged by my conversations with the Biden administration over the last several months.â€ť
Perhaps the biggest asset working in the SCALE Actâ€™s favor is the support of organized labor. Biden has faced heat in the media in recent weeks over whether he can truly deliver an ambitious climate agenda while supporting unions. The SCALE Act has endorsements from labor groups including the Utility Workers Union of America, IBEW and North Americaâ€™s Building Trades Unions. And the BlueGreen Alliance?â€”?a coalition of labor and environmental groups?â€”?supports CCUS, though has not yet taken a position on the bill. One analysis commissioned through the Decarb America Research Initiative estimated that the SCALE Act would generate roughly 13,000 jobsannually over the 5?year period, though many unions are excited by the prospect of simply maintaining existing jobs.
â€śWe see carbon-capture technology as a way to retain jobs in industries that are core sectors of our union,â€ť said Anna Fendley, the director of Regulatory and State Policy for the United Steelworkers. ?â€śIt feels like the conversation around reducing emissions in the U.S. has been so focused on the power sector for so long and now a lot of groups and advocates are learning more about the industrial sector.â€ť
A false solution?
Carbon-capture opponents have described the policy as one of several ?â€śfalse solutionsâ€ť to the climate crisis. Though many of these activists typically say that we canâ€™t afford not to invest in fighting climate change, on matters of CCUS, they argue the technologies are too expensive, too under-developed, and will detract from other important investments that government needs to make in order to transform the economy. At worst, critics fear investments in carbon-capture could prolong overall dependence on fossil fuels.
Last September, the House of Representatives passed a clean energy package, but after a coalition of progressive climate groups?â€”?including Sunrise Movement, Friends of the Earth, and the Climate Justice Allianceâ€”protestedthe billâ€™s inclusion of pro-carbon capture provisions, 18 Democrats, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D?N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D?Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D?Minn.), and Ayanna Pressley (D?Mass.), voted against it. In These Times reached out to a number of climate groups that have opposed carbon-capture infrastructure in the past, including Sunrise Movement, Friends of the Earth, and the Labor Network for Sustainability. Most have not spoken publicly on the SCALE Act to date and declined to comment for this story.
Limited organizational capacity for rapid legislative analysis is one possible factor for the silence. Joe Uehlein, president of the Labor Network for Sustainability, said their group had not heard about the SCALE Act prior to In These Timesâ€™ inquiry. While noting they are ?â€śnot in the CCUS camp,â€ť Uehlein said the group hasnâ€™t yet decided how it plans to respond to the bill. The Sierra Club declined the Charleston Gazette-Mail?â€™s request for comment on the SCALE Act.
Some left-wing organizations, like Sunrise Movement and Evergreen Action, have previously acknowledged that industrial carbon capture could be acceptable, and others have expressed more interest in direct air capture, a method that sucks CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Basav Sen, the Climate Justice Project Director at the Institute for Policy Studies and the co-chair of the Energy Democracy Working Group at the Climate Justice Alliance, told In These Times that rather than protesting individual pieces of carbon-capture legislation?â€”??â€śwhich would make it a game of whack-a-moleâ€ť?â€”?environmental justice groups in his coalition are focused on educating members of Congress and their staff on why they should avoid such ?â€śfalse solutionsâ€ť altogether. He added that putting new demands on the electrical grid through CCUS, direct air capture, and even industrial production of steel and cement at current levels was misguided at this stage of the transition away from fossil fuel energy.
Sen also criticized carbon-capture advocates for citing the 2018 IPCC report as evidence that CCUS is needed, as opposed to reforestation which the IPCC also explored. Reforestation, or replanting an area with tress, is another way to remove CO2 from the air. Research suggests this solution can also offer significant short-term emissions reductions, but a 2019 IPCC report also warned that planting large-scale forests for carbon-removal efforts could lead to increased food insecurity and other environmental issues.
Beck, of the Clean Air Task Force, argued that it would be irresponsible to take any decarbonization options off the table in 2021, and emphasized that building out CO2 infrastructure would not help keep aging or non-economical facilities online. Shannon Heyck-Williams of the National Wildlife Federation agreed that ?â€śwhen it comes to coal power generation, there really is no future for coal power in America and carbon-capture doesnâ€™t change that.â€ť
But Beck and Heyck-Williams also maintained that, since there are so many existing natural gas facilities in the United States, it does makes sense to try and capture the carbon coming out of those plants?â€”?at least for now. ?â€śIt would be faster to retrofit some of these facilities than expect they will be all phased out in the next decade in the current climate policy environment,â€ť argued Beck.
SCALE Act supporters know theyâ€™ll have to tread carefully with language around CO2 pipelines, given the years of dedicated activism in the climate movement against new oil and gas pipelines. Advocates of CCUS prefer to focus on phrases like ?â€śCO2 infrastructureâ€ť and ?â€ścarbon management,â€ť which they hope will steer the conversation away from flashpoints like Keystone XL. Beck notes that carbon infrastructure includes not just pipelines but also shipping, rail and barge. ?â€śCO2 pipelines are very different in terms of size and safety,â€ť added Jessie Stolark, the public policy and members relations manager for the Carbon Capture Coalition. ?â€śBut to be completely honest, I do think we have an uphill battle in terms of reassuring people and conveying that kind of information.â€ť
Whether progressive climate groups will choose to rally opposition to a congressional infrastructure bill that includes the SCALE Act?â€”?like they did for the clean energy package in 2020?â€”?remains unclear. It will undoubtedly be tougher to pressure lawmakers to vote against a package that includes so many other key priorities. For now, rather than take aim at Bidenâ€™s new infrastructure plan for its support for carbon-capture, progressive climate groups have stuck to criticizing the package for committing too little spending on climate change mitigation efforts overall, with some advocates calling for a minimum of $10 trillion in spending over the next decade.
â€śItâ€™s up to us to ensure that this proposal is strengthened, becomes law and that it is the first ofÂ manyÂ pieces of legislation that will address the many crises facing our generation,â€ťÂ saidÂ Deirdre Shelly of the SunriseÂ Movement.Â
This blog originally appeared atÂ In These TimesÂ on April 15, 2021. Reprinted with permission.
About the Author:Â Rachel M. Cohen is aÂ journalist based in Washington D.C.Â