So how does “The American Jobs Plan” try to place the environment at the heart of America’s future economic growth?

Green power

Biden has called for the US energy sector to be fully decarbonized by 2035.

To this end, he has asked Congress for $100 billion to invest in the national grid and shift to cleaner energy, as well as a ten-year extension of tax credits for renewable generation and storage.

“The tax credit for wind and solar has been quite successful in creating a large scale investment and build-out,” Dan Lashof, president of the World Resources Institute told AFP, welcoming the extension.

The plan calls for $15 billion in prototype projects for utility-scale energy storage, carbon capture, hydrogen, nuclear and floating offshore wind power.

It also foresees a $27 billion “Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator”—in other words, a Green Bank to mobilize private investment.

Lindsey Walters, a climate expert at the Third Way think tank, welcomed the idea of introducing a national Clean Energy Standard to seed renewable production and new jobs.

“You are setting smart regulations in place that are providing that long-term market demand for clean energy technologies,” she told AFP.

White House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy also touted the measure in a call with reporters Thursday.

“We think it’s one of the best methods to actually get the reductions we’re looking for with a level of certainty,” she said.

Electric vehicles

The other major green aspect of the package is an eye-catching $174 billion investment “to win the EV (electric vehicles) market,” where the US currently has one-third of the market share of China.

This includes establishing incentives to create a network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030.

The money will be also be used to spur domestic supply chains for raw materials and parts, and helping factories retool to build both the vehicles and batteries.

Estimated major spending in US President Joe Biden's $2 trillion 
infrastructure plan.

Some 50,000 diesel vehicles would be replaced, while at least a fifth of the yellow school bus network would be electrified.

“Globally the market seems to be moving more towards electric vehicles,” said Walters, adding the addition of the “right policy landscape” would give the existing trend an extra nudge.

What do climate experts think?

For the most part, experts polled by AFP are happy with the proposal.

UC Berkeley scientist Amol Phadke, who authored the noted “2035 report” on transitioning energy said: “Power and transport are (among) the most important sectors for climate mitigation and this plan is rightfully ambitious on those sectors.”

But some climate groups think the US should be spending more.

Denali Sai, a spokesperson for climate nonprofit 350.org, acknowledged the plan called for five times the amount spent by former president Barack Obama in his 2009 recovery package.

“But this spending is still way too small to face the climate crisis at scale and it’ll take a lot more spending to fully decarbonize the US economy,” she added.

The campaign group would like to see a $16 trillion bill and is skeptical of funding carbon capture technology, which it believes represents a free pass to the fossil fuel industry.

Another criticism is that the US hasn’t said it will follow the lead of several countries that have announced a phase out of new fossil fuel vehicles.

Will it pass?

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday vowed Republicans would oppose the plan because of the tax hikes it requires, scuppering Biden’s hopes for bipartisan support.

Though most bills require 60 Senate votes to pass, it’s possible to pass some using a simple majority of 51, which Democrats have, through certain legislative procedures.

That will still require the buy-in from more fiscally conservative moderate Democrats.

“I would just underscore the cost of inaction,” Ali Zaidi, deputy White House climate advisor told reporters, pointing to 22 extreme weather and climate-related disasters last year that each exceeded $1 billion in cost.

“On the competition side of the ledger, every year that we delay, we’re talking about other countries racing ahead to seize the competitive advantage in these incredibly important industries of the future,” he added.

The post How Biden’s infrastructure plan addresses the climate crisis appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.

If a third of the planet’s most degraded areas were restored, and protection was thrown around areas still in good condition, that would store carbon equating to half of all human caused greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution.

The changes would prevent about 70% of predicted species extinctions, according to the research, which is published in the journal Nature.

Scientists from Brazil, Australia and Europe identified scores of places around the world where such interventions would be most effective, from tropical forests to coastal wetlands and upland peat. Many of them were in developing countries, but there were hotspots on every continent.

“We were surprised by the magnitude of what we found – the huge difference that restoration can make,” said Bernardo Strassburg, of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, and the lead author of the study. “Most of the priority areas are concentrated in developing countries, which can be a challenge but also means they are often more cost-effective to restore.”

Only about 1% of the finance devoted to the global climate crisis goes to nature restoration, but the study found that such “nature-based solutions” were among the cheapest ways of absorbing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the additional benefits being the protection of wildlife.

Rhinoceros hornbill, an inhabitant of Malaysia’s biologically rich 
130m-year-old Belum Temengor forest – which benefits from protection 
but is also subject to human interference, such as lake creation. 
Photograph: Fazry Ismail/EPA

Restoring nature did not have to be at the expense of agriculture and food production, Strassburg said. “If restoration is not properly planned it could lead to a risk to agriculture and the food sector, but if done properly it can increase agricultural productivity. We can produce enough food for the world and restore 55% of our current farmland, with sustainable intensification of farming.”

The study also says that planting trees, the “nature-based solution” that has received most support to date, is not always an appropriate way of preserving biodiversity and storing carbon. Peatlands, wetlands and savannahs also provide habitats for a wealth of unique species, and can store vast amounts of carbon when well looked after. Strassburg said: “If you plant trees in areas where forests did not previously exist it will mitigate climate change but at the expense of biodiversity.”

Nathalie Pettorelli, a senior research fellow at the Zoological Society of London, who was not involved in the research, said: “This paper provides further scientific evidence that ecological restoration is a sensible and financially viable solution to address the global climate and biodiversity crises. How ecosystems will be restored is however as important as where and how much will be restored. Ensuring that the best science is used to make decisions about how to restore each local ecosystem will be key.”

Three-quarters of all vegetated land on the planet now bears a human imprint. But some scientists have a target of restoring 15% of ecosytems around the world.

Alexander Lees, senior lecturer in biodiversity at Manchester Metropolitan University, who was also not involved with the study, said: “[This] analysis indicates that we can take massive strides towards mitigating the loss of species and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide by restoring just 15% of converted lands. The global community needs to commit to this pact to give back to nature post-haste – it’s the deal of the century, and like most good deals available for a limited time only.”

The study focused on land, but the oceans also offer vast benefits linked to biodiversity and opportunities for absorbing carbon dioxide and mitigating climate change, said Richard Unsworth, senior lecturer in marine biology at Swansea University, and director of Project Seagrass, which restores vital marine habitats.

Unsworth said: “Marine habitat restoration is also vital for our planet and arguably more urgent given the rapid degradation and loss of marine ecosystems. We need restored ocean habitats such as seagrass and oysters to help promote biodiversity but also to help secure future food supply through fisheries, and lock up carbon from our atmosphere.”

The post Rewild to mitigate the climate crisis, urge leading scientists appeared first on News Agency nabakhabar.