Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Clean energy permitting reform needed to boost economy, protect climate and burn less coal

Posted on 6 February 2023 by dana1981

Originally published by The Hill. While predicated on accepted scientific findings, this article includes conclusions of the author and is presented to our readers as an informed perspective.

After decades of failure to pass major federal climate legislation, Congress finally broke through last year with the Inflation Reduction Act and its close to $400 billion in clean energy investments. Energy modeling experts estimated that these provisions would help the U.S. cut its carbon pollution about 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, bringing the Biden administration’s Paris commitment of 50 percent cuts within reach. But there’s a catch — the new law could cause the U.S. to actually burn more coal, if it’s not coupled with clean energy permitting reform.

That’s because the energy modeling groups assumed nothing would limit the rate at which clean energy projects like big wind and solar farms would be deployed. A subsequent Princeton analysis found that the slow rate at which the U.S. is building its electric transmission infrastructure would act as a crucial bottleneck slowing that clean energy deployment.

In recent years, the nation has only expanded its electricity transmission capabilities at a rate of just 1 percent annually, only about half as fast as in prior decades. Over the past decade, the U.S. has built more than 10,000 miles of new natural gas pipelines per year, compared to an average of just 1,800 new miles of electric transmission lines. Building a single new transmission line takes over a decade on average. Meanwhile, 2030 is now a scant seven years away.

The optimistic projections of the potential carbon pollution cuts from the Inflation Reduction Act mostly stem from an expected explosion in solar panel and wind turbine installations, thanks to clean energy tax credits. Energy modelers expect a tripling in American wind and solar generation capacity over just the next seven years. But most of those wind and solar farms would be built in rural areas and in the windy middle of the country. The clean electricity those projects generate would need to be transported to households and businesses in big population centers, mainly in cities and along the coasts.

That will require a lot of new electric transmission lines. The Princeton modeling team estimated that if the U.S. continues its slow 1 percent rate of annual transmission infrastructure expansion, that will only suffice to allow about 20 percent of the potential emissions cuts to be realized. And if those new solar panels and wind turbines are unable to connect to the grid, the increased electricity demand from the other Inflation Reduction Act provisions — which incentivize people to transition to electric cars, heat pumps and induction stoves — would instead be met by burning more coal and gas.

As a result, the Princeton team estimated that, perversely, if the U.S. doesn’t speed up its electric transmission infrastructure build-out, it will burn about 25 percent more coal in 2030 than it would have if landmark climate policy had not passed, potentially causing thousands of extra premature deaths.

The lack of permitting reform could also delay the economic benefits here in California. Missing out on these new infrastructure projects could result in lost construction and maintenance jobs, land leasing revenue and tax revenue for our area.

It’s thus critical that Congress pass permitting reform legislation that will add to America’s capacity to transmit clean electricity and speed up the approval of clean energy projects that are waiting to be built, while preserving communities’ ability to make their voices heard on the environmental and other impacts of proposed energy projects. Doing so will unlock the climate pollution reduction potential of the Inflation Reduction Act while also improving peoples’ health and saving thousands of lives in disadvantaged communities living near fossil fuel power plant pollution sources.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 2:

  1. Here in my Australia, a country argueably one of the best for solar power generation, a somewhat similar situation

    I have always thought one of the keys to making unanimous the decisions to close our fossil fuel power generating plants, ( Well not for the political parties fossil fuel corporate overloads), is to guarantee full re-employment for the displaced workers. In a world of promises betrayed and bullshit COPS, this "survey" too, will be buried till before the next election cycle,

    0 0
  2. The recently available NASA satellite of infra-red transmission of earth's radiation clearly shows that no energy is escaping the earth in the wavelength range where CO2 can effectively absorb it.  (The 14-16micron range).  Thus there is no energy left in this range for more CO2 to absorb!

    So the whole "decarbonization" effort is an exercise in futility!  All the models seen are thus fatally flawed and should be junked on sight.

    Green energy is a massive misallocation of resources.  More should be spent to find the true cause of global warming.

    See NASA Technical Memorandum 103957, Appendices E and F.

    For full discussion, see "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty" on Kindle for 99c.  Or email me at and I will send a free pdf of the booklet.

    I challenge anyone to refute the basic physics of my position.  And welcome it!

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] You have made this baseless claim previously on another thread, and have failed to respond to the criticisms there.Failure to engage in discussion when people respond is not acceptable. Please read the Comments Policy.

    We are not interested in buying your book or engaging in an email discussion.


You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us