Search
Close this search box.

Getting climate, energy & environment news right.

Conservatives have been vocal about our climate for years. Those voices won’t be ignored any longer.

[searchandfilter id="17558"]

Calls to save the turtles and protect wildlife have prompted many towns and restaurants across the country to scrap the use of plastic straws. Paper straws, which have become a popular alternative, have left many consumers unsatisfied due to their lack of durability and flimsiness. Pushback against these products has even created a cult-like following.

>>>READ: From Seed to Bottle: How the Wine Industry is Going Circular

Entrepreneurs are addressing these concerns by creating better, more durable alternatives than paper straws. One such startup is StrawFish, which is dedicated to creating new solutions for plastic pollution. The company was founded in South Florida in 2019 to “develop biodegradable products that bridge consciousness and consumption to highlight the impact our decisions have on the environment.” 

Recognizing that environmental solutions will be the most impactful when they impose minimal costs on businesses and consumers, StrawFish set out to make an affordable and convenient alternative to plastic straws. Aaron Kleinert, the managing partner and COO of StrawFish recently explained

“​​Learning that less than 15% of composting facilities in the US accept ‘bioplastics,’ our team couldn’t comprehend asking businesses and consumers to carry the responsibility of collecting, cleaning, sorting and sending this waste (on their own dime) to make sure it completes its life-cycle — many households also do not have the ability to spend hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars on a home composting machine. With this, the answer was simple — create solutions that consider how people use and dispose of waste in their everyday lives, how that waste is managed and the environmental conditions in landfills where the majority of this waste ends up.”

StrawFish’s solutions, which include cutlery in addition to straws, are built upon a decade of research and development. Instead of using paper or any other commonplace biodegradable material, StrawFish uses a truly unique material to create products: seashells. The shells are collected from the Baja Peninsula in Mexico, where the discarded shells pollute the local beaches. They are then transported to a facility where calcium carbonate is extracted from the shells and converted into a proprietary resin. That resin then builds the biodegradable products StrawFish sells. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The best part about this is that StrawFish products truly biodegrade. Many products marketed as biodegradable or compostable need a very specific environment to begin to break down and often cannot degrade in a landfill. StrawFish products attract microbes found in landfills and in the outdoors that eat away at the material and have been proven to biodegrade in 12 to 18 months. Contrast that time range with traditional plastic straws that take up to 200 years to decompose, and it is clear that StrawFish is the better option for reducing marine pollution. 

StrawFish’s solution is drawing the attention of corporations and investors alike. In the first half of 2023, the company generated $2.3 million in revenue. It has also partnered with Royal Caribbean, Cava, Shake Shack, and Compass Coffee in Washington, D.C.

>>>READ: The U.S. is Now Home to the World’s Largest SAF Facility

I had the fortune of trying Strawfish’s straw first-hand. While I typically skip the use of straws to limit single-use items in my life, the product’s wrapping which said “Turning Marine Pollution Into Disposable Solutions” caught my eye. Whereas paper straws disintegrate almost immediately, StrawFish’s hold up. They even look and feel like typical plastic ones, which made me curious enough to research the product and, much to my relief, find out about Strawfish’s biodegradable benefits.

Innovation is making alternatives to plastic better by the day. If you are out and about and spot a StrawFish option, you can use it with zero guilt and be happy about the impact the company is having on plastic pollution through its products. 

Kelvey Vander Hart is a native Iowan, a member of the American Conservation Coalition, and a communications specialist at Reason Foundation.

This was originally published by The Frontiers Institute.

It is in refrigerators, traffic lights, lighting fixtures, home furnaces, and plumbing – copper is one of the most important elements that makes today’s technology work. But copper isn’t just needed to make our everyday devices work by themselves, it is essential in generating the power needed to allow our devices to turn on. From wind turbines to natural gas power plants, copper is essential in bringing us the power we need.

>>>READ: The U.S. Must Capitalize on its Lithium Abundance

Yet despite its widely acknowledged importance and the abundance of copper reserves around the world, we continue to see a copper shortage. To make matters worse, the large majority of today’s copper mines occur in countries with far less environmental protection than ours. 

So why then did it take a decade to get the initial permit and then another four years of legal battles for the proposed Black Butte Copper Mine near White Sulphur Springs–boasting state-of-the-art environmental protections–to finally secure its operating permit?

A major reason is that despite our strong environmental protections, a small number of radical groups have managed to hijack our permitting process, seriously delaying or preventing responsible mines–ironically deepening our dependence on irresponsible mining in other countries.

Background

In 2010, Tintina Montana (sometimes referred to by its majority shareholder, Sandfire Resources) acquired mineral rights for 1,888 acres of private land in Meagher County. With the discovery of high-grade copper on the property, Tintina spent the next 5 years gathering data, conducting tests, identifying and planning for all possible scenarios, consulting scientists and engineers.

Drawing from laboratory tests conducted on the would-be tailings, extensive water quality monitoring and analysis, independent meta-analysis of case studies from research around the world, and the expert analysis of a working group, the resulting proposal would create arguably the most environmentally responsible mine in Montana’s history.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

The strong environmental protections went as far as including everything from a reverse osmosis water treatment plant to a Cemented Tailings Facility widely acknowledged to be very expensive but enabled the “highest level of tailings safety management,” going well beyond the 2017 United Nations zero-failure standards report.

With a proposed plan in place, Tintina submitted a mine operating permit application to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) under the Metal Mine Reclamation Act (MMRA) in December 2015. 

Far from rubber-stamping the application DEQ went through an extensive project review, sending back the application for revisions from Tintina on three different occasions. When finally completed the administrative record of the permitting process amounted to nearly 90,000 pages.

In 2017, DEQ found the revised application to be sufficient to begin the environmental analysis under the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In February 2020, DEQ issued its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) totaling 1052 pages. Two months later, on April 9th, DEQ issued its decision to permit the mine with the modification that additional mined-out voids be backfilled with cemented paste tailings. 

Lawsuit 

Despite being touted as the “most stringent [permit] ever issued for a hard rock mine in Montana,” six groups filed suit on June 4, 2020, disputing the permit issuance. 

In the suit, the groups challenged DEQ violated MMRA and MEPA when it granted Tintina its operating permit. The three issues brought forward in the suit alleging MEPA violation all revolved around one of the most commonly litigated issues in all MEPA cases: Was the MEPA analysis adequate?

On April 8th, 2022, District Court Judge Katherine Bidegaray ruled that DEQ had violated MMRA and MEPA when it granted an operating permit to Tintina. While the decision did revoke the mine’s operating permit, a subsequent remedy allowed Tintina to begin Phase 1 of the project while they appealed the decision. 

>>>READ: All of the Above on Energy Requires the Critical Minerals Below

On February 26, 2024, the Montana Supreme Court issued a 5-2 decision overturning the District Court’s ruling, reinstating the Department of Environmental Quality’s decision to grant Tintina a permit, stating that “DEQ made a scientifically driven permitting decision that was supported by substantial evidence.”

*It should also be noted that the same groups have filed a separate suit regarding the Black Butte Copper Mine’s use of water under the Montana Water Use Act. This suit is currently pending a decision before the Montana Supreme Court.

The Impact

While MEPA was intended to help improve the environment, examples like the Black Butte Copper Mine show how in practice MEPA actually harms projects that are necessary for addressing our biggest environmental challenges.

The copper to be mined from Black Butte is not only essential to everyday devices we use, but it is also a vital element in global efforts to reduce emissions, improve the environment, and combat climate change:

  • According to a 2023 McKinsey & Company report, the push for electrification is projected to increase annual copper demand to 36.6 million metric tons by 2031–that is 6.5 million metric tons more than projected capacity will allow.
  • Renewable energy, such as wind and solar, use 4 to 6 times more copper per megawatt than a fossil fuel power plant. Transitioning a majority of energy production from fossil fuels to renewables, as advocated for by Montana environmental activists, will require a lot more copper.
  • For countries to meet their climate goals, the world will need to add or replace 49.7 million miles of transmission lines by 2040. Copper, along with aluminum, is essential to building out the grid to accommodate electric cars, solar power, etc.
  • Around 50% of the global copper supply is currently being mined in nations classified as ‘unstable’ or ‘extremely unstable,’ many of which have few environmental protections. For example, Chile, the global leader in copper mining has engaged in egregious environmental destruction, including directly dumping tailings into the ocean. Reducing the world’s reliance on these nations will require more copper from responsible mines in the United States.

Despite the critical role copper plays in environmental progress and a proposal for the most responsible copper mine in Montana history, a small number of radical groups were able to hijack our permitting process and block Black Butte for years.

MEPA-fueled litigation not only ties up projects in the courts but also forces agencies to expend considerable time and resources on crafting even more lengthy litigation-proof environmental analyses to preempt future legal challenges, further delaying vital projects.

It’s imperative that we reform the environmental permitting process to strike a better balance between environmental protection and responsible resource development.

Tanner Avery is the Director for New Frontiers at the Frontier Institute.

In battle, the surest way to know you’re over the target is when you start taking heavy flak. Kate Aronoff’s angry piece in the New Republic “The Conservative Climate Caucus is Nonsense” shows that the House Conservative Climate Caucus is exactly where it needs to be. 

>>>READ: Yes, There’s a Republican Climate Plan, and It’s Awesome

What triggered Aronoff were recent pieces in the Wall Street Journal and Politico chronicling the rise of the 80-plus caucus that is helping Republicans find their voice on an issue that has confounded them for 30 years. Led by U.S. Representative John Curtis (R-UT), the caucus represents an existential threat to the left’s climate monopoly. 

Partisans on the left are panicking because the caucus is appealing to younger voters who want climate solutions that aren’t backed by people who throw soup on paintings, glue themselves to roads, and define success by calling Senators “sick fu&#s.” 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

As the Wall Street Journal piece reported, “Younger conservatives are particularly concerned; two-thirds of Republicans between the ages of 18 and 29 believe the U.S. should take steps to achieve the goal set by the Biden administration of becoming carbon neutral by 2050, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey.”

If making a pitch to younger voters wasn’t enough to cause partisan hacks on the left to lose their minds, the caucus’ decision to think and act independently of Trump is just too much. 

As Curtis told Politico, “We’re not dependent on a standard-bearer outside of the House … I don’t think it’s a surprise to anybody that charting the course as a Republican to talk about climate has never been easy, and so if there are headwinds, we’ll keep pushing forward.”

The caucus isn’t looking to pick a fight with Trump, but their success and vision also don’t conform to the left’s favorite narrative that the GOP has been completely taken over “climate change is a hoax” Trumpism. If Trump wants success to be his revenge (and pass legislation), he may well consider what the caucus thinks about policy. 

>>>READ: 2024: The Year of Freedom Conservatism

Absent in Aronoff’s piece was any mention of policies in our Climate and Freedom Agenda the caucus’s members tend to support like permitting reform, the incredible promise of next-generation nuclear technology, carbon capture, natural solutions, tax reform, reforms to the Department of Energy that will spur innovation, and more. 

Aronoff also didn’t challenge our thesis, which is widely accepted by the caucus, that if you want to prove you’re serious about climate solutions, economic freedom is the answer. As we’ve shown, free economies are twice as less free economies. Partisan hackery, ad hominin attacks and insinuating caucus members are shills to “fossil fuel interests” does nothing to disprove our thesis which is backed not just by science but economics. 

The left’s “everything but fossil fuels” strategy is out of step with science, reality and younger voters who know that an “all of the above strategy” is more likely to lower emissions while lifting people out of poverty. Aronoff says nothing about the tradeoffs involved with shutting down American fossil fuel production overnight, or perhaps she’s fine with fueling Putin’s war machine or putting four billion people who depend on food grown with fossil fuel-derived fertilizers at risk of starvation. 

So don’t just stay where you are, Conservative Climate Caucus, open the bomb bay doors. The sooner conservatives blow up the narrative that they don’t care about climate change and don’t have any policy ideas, the sooner we’ll get to a serious debate about durable solutions that will be good for people and the planet. 

David Hart writes on the need to prioritize geothermal in RealClearEnergy.

The C3 Take
  • New drilling technologies are also allowing geothermal to be tapped in previously unavailable locations, but the full promise of geothermal is not being realized due to government policies.
  • Geothermal does not enjoy the same permitting exclusions as fossil fuels, even though they employ the same drilling techniques.
  • Funding for Department of Energy geothermal R&D has also remained stagnate, while other renewable R&D has increased.
  • Geothermal is an abundant source of reliable and clean power and should be put on the same playing field as other energy sources.

“DOE is the only plausible candidate to fill this role in the United States. It routinely takes significant technical risks in order to create opportunities for private investment. It did so when nuclear power was commercialized in the 1950s, it aided solar and wind from the 1970s on, and it is trying to do so now for carbon capture, hydrogen, and even nuclear fusion. Geothermal energy is a more-than-credible addition to this list.”

Read the full article here.

Sonal Patel of Power reports on a new development in the world of fusion energy.

The C3 Take
  • California-based Longview Fusion Energy has partnered with fusion construction specialist Fluor to design a commercial laser fusion power plant, following a breakthrough in fusion technology at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s National Ignition Facility (NIF).
  • Fusion energy, achieved through the fusion of light atoms like hydrogen, requires extremely high temperatures to initiate fusion reactions, a process facilitated by NIF’s laser-driven inertial confinement method.
  •  Longview’s power plants aim to replicate NIF’s fusion breakthrough using modern lasers and patented designs, with plans to deliver carbon-free energy to the market starting in the 2030s, potentially revolutionizing the energy industry.

“The Fusion Industry Association reports that at least 25 companies ‘think the first fusion plant will deliver electricity to the grid before 2035.’ It notes: ‘Companies are increasingly confident of meeting their ambitious goals. That will require focus on mid-term milestones, embracing risk and parallel pathways, new partnerships, and (crucially) more resources.’ So far, at least one company, Type One Energy Group, has announced a potential site for its stellarator fusion prototype at Tennessee Valley Authority’s Bull Run Fossil Plant in Clinton, Tennessee, a shuttered coal plant.”

Read the full article here.

Robert Walton of UtilityDive reports on why electricity prices are rising.

The C3 Take
  • Residential electricity costs rose by 3.6% in the past year and is expected to hit a three-decade high in 2025.
  • The volatility of fuel costs has something to do with this increase, but the main culprit is the cost of transmission.
  • Monopoly utilities are not required to competitively bid for transmission projects, which increases costs and those costs are passed down to consumers.
  • At the same time an inefficient permitting process delays project completion times which hurts the reliability of the grid and raises electricity prices.

“The BLS inflation data released yesterday is ‘especially damning,’ said Paul Cicio, chair of the Electricity Transmission Competition Coalition. While electricity generation costs have fallen due to low natural gas prices, ‘transmission costs continue to accelerate,’ he said.”

Read the full article here.

This article originally appeared in Newsweek.

If you need your garbage collected, you call Waste Management. But if you’re a nuclear power plant operator, don’t bother calling the federal government—in 40 years they still haven’t made a pickup.

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), which directed the Department of Energy to site, build, and operate a repository for the disposal of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel. Since that time, political paralysis has prevented the government from creating a storage site, which has left spent fuel in communities that did not consent to its presence and were promised its removal. Overcoming this decades-long failure is critical to reviving nuclear power and achieving climate goals without unfairly burdening local populations or taxpayers.

>>>READ: Securing America’s Nuclear Energy Fuel Supply Chain

The federal government’s inability to fulfill its legal obligation has not stopped the private sector from safely managing spent nuclear fuel. For over 30 years power plant operators have stored spent fuel with zero incidents of radioactive leakage or death. Since the 1950s, the U.S. has generated a little over 90,000 metric tons of waste, which would be easy to permanently store and manage. If it were all stacked up, it would fit on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards.

While the industry’s safety in the handling of spent fuel is commendable, the status quo is not sustainable for taxpayers or the environment.

The Department of Energy still holds the obligation to collect and dispose of the nation’s spent fuel. But with no national storage facility available, the federal government currently pays power plant operators to store spent fuel on-site. Taxpayers have been left to pick up the tab, spending $2 million per day and nearly $9 billion total since 1998. If left unaddressed, this figure will rise to an estimated $30 billion by 2030.

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

America’s inability to implement a feasible waste solution has also come at a cost to the environment. Eleven states—including California, New York, and New Jersey—have imposed moratoriums on new nuclear power until a repository is completed. Instead of building out a fleet of reliable, carbon-free nuclear energy, these states have placed their hopes on renewables, which need baseload natural gas to survive.

Finding a solution to this challenge will require political willpower, community engagement, and innovative thinking.

Many of the answers have been outlined already in the 2012 Blue Ribbon Commission’s report, which includes eight high-level recommendations to address spent fuel storage in the U.S. To date, the Department of Energy has begun to implement only one of those recommendations—starting the process of developing a consent-based siting process for an interim storage facility for spent fuel in 2021.

>>>READ: Congress Charts a Path to Unleash American Nuclear Power

However, under the current structure of the NWPA, the Department of Energy is not legally authorized to build an interim storage facility. While the original NWPA mandated and described a process to select a location for a repository, subsequent amendments have limited the scope to a single site, Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The law now functionally excludes consideration of any other sites or storage methods.

Congress should reform the law to give the Department of Energy the flexibility to site permanent and temporary storage facilities as it sees fit. Importantly, funding for the construction of these sites already exists through the Nuclear Waste Fund, which has over $44.3 billion collected to be spent on a nuclear waste disposal facility.

Reducing restrictions to a consent-based process is in the best economic and environmental interest of the United States. As has happened in the case of Yucca Mountain, a lack of community buy-in increases costs and delays projects. However, when stakeholders are engaged, approval for the nuclear industry greatly improves. In fact, the communities most supportive of nuclear power are the ones that have the technology in their vicinity.

Congress also should continue to fund R&D programs like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project, which is working to deploy a sodium-cooled fast reactor that effectively runs on spent nuclear fuel at the site of a retiring coal plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming. If this project is successful, it could provide a solution to address America’s spent fuel challenges.

It has been over 40 years since Congress first set out to establish a storage facility for spent nuclear fuel in the United States. Its failure to do so has cost taxpayers and the environment dearly, but solutions remain. By reforming the broken NWPA, engaging with communities, and investing in innovation, the U.S. can more efficiently handle its spent fuel and address one of the biggest roadblocks to unleashing a nuclear energy revolution.

Todd Woody of Bloomberg writes about how AI-powered architecture is designing eco-friendly homes.

The C3 Take
  • Icon, an Austin startup, is utilizing giant 3D-printing robots to construct an entire suburban neighborhood.
  • The firm’s AI architect, Vitruvius and is expected to automate construction schematics generation by the end of the year, halving build times and potentially reducing home costs by $100,000 all while employing climate friendly building materials
  • Additionally Icon has launched its CodeX program which incentivizes architects to submit designs for 3D-printed homes by paying them 1% of construction costs.

“Icon has spent 18 months developing its artificial intelligence program — named Vitruvius after an ancient Roman architect — which uses a chatbot to converse with would-be homeowners about their dream projects. After the user responds to a series of prompts, Vitruvius offers several versions of a house, complete with exterior and interior renderings and floor plans.”

Read the full article here.

Lisa Stiffler of Geekwire reports on an irrigation tech startup that is helping farmers save money and water.

The C3 Take
  • FarmHQ, formerly CODA Farm Technologies, is a startup that is looking to automate the irrigation process for farmers.
  • The firm’s system controls water flows and shares irrigation data to the user in real time with an app on a phone.
  • Last year this system helped farmers save approximately 365 million gallons of water over roughly 40,000 acres on customer farms.
  • The company recently raised $750,000 in seed funding.

“Smaller farms have historically irrigated using labor-intensive, manually operated systems. The systems could malfunction, flood crops, and operated inefficiently, requiring farmers to regularly go into the fields to check sprinklers and turn them on and off.”

Read the full article here.

Tim McDonnell of Semafor reports on solar financing in Africa.

The C3 Take
  • Holm is a South African company that is using AI to streamline rooftop solar project applications and has recently launched a financing venture that will allow low-income families to lease to own solar panels.
  • Groupe Filatex, the largest private power producer in Madagascar, is working with the World Bank to finance small solar farms on the island which is dependent on dirty and expensive imported heavy crude.
  • Meanwhile Ignite is deploying small solar panels to remote villages in Rwanda and charging consumers $1 per month subscriptions to keep the panels.

“For African countries, the biggest obstacle to building out the solar industry is that the financing tricks used in China, Europe, and the U.S. to clear the way for widespread solar adoption — government subsidies and utility payments to solar-equipped customers — can’t work in places where states, utilities, and households are all chronically strapped for cash. At the same time, supply chain problems and the widespread perception by financial institutions that investments in Africa are high-risk mean that the cost of solar is far higher than in other places — the same solar system costs twice as much in Ghana as in the U.S. Bringing down the cost of capital requires a stronger track record of profitable investments than what the industry has been able to show so far. That means new business models are needed to make solar affordable for a broader base of customers.”

Read the full article here.

Copyright © 2020 Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions

Subscribe to our exclusive email designed for conservatives who care about climate.

Help us promote free market solutions for climate change.

5 Incredible Ways Economic Freedom Helps the Planet.

Sign up for our newsletter now to get the full list right in your inbox.

Thank you for signing up

Help us promote sensible solutions for both planet and prosperity.

Download Now

The Left’s Top 10 Climate Denials

Download Now

nikola-majksner-hXNGeAFOgT4-unsplash