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"]

As the most consumed beverage globally, the world quite literally runs on coffee. However, increased hot and dry weather and drought-induced shortages have driven prices higher and are raising concerns over coffee’s future. Luckily there is hope. Scientists and farmers are exploring the economic and environmental merits of shade-grown coffee. 

A recent study published in ScienceDirect found that coffee grown in areas with high shade (at least 30 percent canopy cover) had substantially higher biodiversity rates than coffee grown in full sun or with less shade cover. Increased biodiversity may not seem like much to celebrate, but it could change the future of coffee. 

Coffee used to be grown in shaded areas that were not totally cleared. But demand has increased—according to the International Coffee Association, global coffee consumption nearly tripled between 1990 and 2020, and current consumption rates are predicted to double by 2050. When coffee hybrids (the outcome of plants bred for both resiliency and flavor) were created in the 1970s that could withstand full sun, producers started clearing more land and growing coffee in full sunlight to speed up the growth process and increase crop yields. 

>>>READ: StrawFish: Putting A Unique Spin on Biodegradable Products

For a while, that style of farming was effective. Coffee producers were able to keep up with growing coffee demand since more sun makes for a faster growth process and higher crop yields. But decades later, farmers face two key problems imperiling future coffee crops: soil erosion and a lack of biodiversity. 

Soil erosion is a common result of removing tree and plant cover from an area, and it is a problem coffee farmers are facing. As soil erodes, minerals and nutrients that plants need to grow are quickly diminished, requiring farmers to supplement their crops with fertilizers and other additives. Meanwhile, when land is cleared, biodiversity is diminished—birds, pollinators, and other helpful animals only stick around when they have adequate canopy cover. Coffee farmers are now having to use more pesticides and herbicides to deal with the insects targeting coffee plants that birds would have previously eaten. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Shade-grown coffee helps protect soil health, making it simpler for farmers to raise a healthy crop. When coffee is planted under trees (or trees are planted simultaneously with coffee in restoring already cleared areas) the trees can help transfer much-needed nitrogen into the soil through their root systems and leaf litter. Tree roots can also help pull nutrients that crops need from deep in the soil up to the surface. As canopy cover returns, so does soil health. 

Birds and pollinators also return when canopy cover is established.The Society for Conservation Biology highlighted this benefit to shade-grown coffee: 

“Retaining shade cover on coffee farms helps to preserve insect- and nectar-eating birds. In turn, these species provide important ecosystem services–-that is, free services provided to humans by controlling insect pests and pollinating crops. For example, a study in Jamaica concluded that insect-eating birds benefited coffee farmers by $125 per acre per year by controlling pests.” 

The environmental benefits are great. But is shade-grown coffee profitable? Do farmers have reason, other than the environment, to return to this growing method? Yes, it is, and yes, they do. 

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

The whole point of full-sun coffee was to increase yields and profits for coffee farmers. But with diminishing soil quality and new pest problems, coffee farmers are having to use more and more agrochemicals to achieve the same yields (not to mention increased amounts of labor). A team of researchers from Cornell and Columbia Universities studied different coffee-growing processes in 2019 and concluded that trade-offs make sun-grown and shade-grown coffees similarly profitable. Writing for CornellLab of Orinthology about the research, Gustave Axelson explains why farmers could find shade-grown practices compelling: 

“Farmers saved money in supplies and labor costs associated with fertilizer applications, as organic decomposition of leaf litter within a healthy, biodiverse ecosystem provided free natural fertilization of coffee plants. And even though shade-grown coffee is a less-intensive farming operation (there are fewer coffee plants per hectare under shade versus sun-grown farming, and the yield in coffee beans is generally about 30% lower), the lower yields are offset by lower labor and input costs for fertilization and pest control that can be more than $2,000 cheaper per hectare.” 

As an added benefit, the slower growth process means shade-grown is considered superior in taste to coffee grown in full sun. A paper published by Nicholas Girkin, an environmental scientist at the University of Nottingham, suggests that the superior taste of shade-grown coffee beans may be due to a lengthened ripening period brought on by slower growth under shade. Multiple studies have demonstrated that researchers are willing to pay more for quality coffee, particularly coffee labeled with different certifications, and farmers could benefit. 

If you are a coffee drinker, you have the potential to impact the future of the crop. Coffee certifications such as “Bird-Friendly” and “Rainforest Alliance” on coffee packaging allow consumers to know that their brew is playing a role in creating a demand for more sustainable coffee options. 

In a warming world, coffee production is especially susceptible to drought. However, reforms in growing practices and crop management like shade-grown coffee can save the crop, improve the environment, and keep the world caffeinated.

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

Hannah Ritchie writes in Sustainability by the Numbers that local air pollution may have peaked globally.

The C3 Take
  • The World Health organization estimates that around 7 million people die prematurely from local air pollution each year.
  • Recent data suggest that local air pollution (gasses like nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc.) may have peaked around the world.
  • As we explore in our Free Economies are Clean Economies report, economic freedom has a strong correlation to air pollution.
  • As countries rise up the economic ladder they are able to afford cleaner burning energy sources, basic healthcare, and new technologies.

“Note that this is not a finger-pointing exercise where rich countries tell poorer ones not to pollute. We’re mostly talking about local air pollution. The negative impacts of pollution are felt by domestic populations. It’s about how we ensure that the poorest countries can gain access to energy, alleviate poverty, and develop while limiting the number of people who die prematurely from air pollution in the process.”

Read the full article here.

Yusuf Khan of The Wall Street Journal reports on a company that is turning bacteria into carbon-free products.

The C3 Take
  • LanzaTech has developed technology using bacteria that can turn carbon emissions into ethanol, which can be used to produce sustainable fuels, plastics, and other products.
  • LanzaTech is focusing heavily on sustainable aviation fuel with its subsidiary LanzaJet, which has received backing from British Airways, Microsoft, and Bill Gates’ Breakthrough Energy.
  • While the company has had a dip in performance and stock, analysts view LanzaTech’s technology as scalable and undervalued and has received attention from major brands like ArcelorMittal and Lululemon.

“LanzaTech’s approach is to take waste carbon emissions from an industrial site and inject them into a bioreactor with the bacteria. From there, the bacteria digest the gas to produce ethanol and a protein coproduct.”

Read the full article here.

The New York Post writes about the cost of closing Indian Point.

The C3 Take
  • New York’s closure of Indian Point nuclear power plant has increased emissions and costs for consumers.
  • Since the closure of the plant, New Yorkers have had to pay close to $500 extra per year in electricity costs.
  • Forced closures of nuclear power plants hurt ratepayers and the environment.

“Worse, absent changes to the climate laws, Zuber predicts more residents and businesses will leave New York because of skyrocketing energy costs, including the cost to build new transmission lines for renewal projects, not to mention the vast subsidies needed to build those solar and wind plants.”

Read the full article here.

This article originally appeared in RealClearEnergy

After decades of anti-nuclear rhetoric and moratoriums on new nuclear power plants, legislatures nationwide are finally embracing nuclear power as a clean, viable energy source by overturning state bans. While a step in the right direction, several of these ban lifts only apply to small modular reactors (SMRs), which have a capacity of 300 megawatts (MW) or less and are smaller than the current fleet of large light water reactors, many of which boast over 1,000 MW per reactor. Rather than focusing exclusively on certain forms of nuclear power, state and federal lawmakers should pursue policies that unleash competition in the industry to reduce costs and meet America’s economic and environmental goals. 

>>>READ: U.S. Inability To Address Nuclear Waste Harms Environmental Progress

In California, the General Assembly is considering lifting its moratorium, but only for reactors up to 300 MW. Maine is advancing a similar piece of legislation that would allow for the construction of reactors up to 350 MW and a Connecticut bill would authorize a feasibility study for SMRs. Last year Illinois lifted its decades-long moratorium with legislation that authorized the build-out of reactors up to 300 MW. 

Handcuffing America’s energy future to certain technologies—many of which are not yet commercially available— could hamper competition, environmental progress, and grid reliability. 

As the U.S. looks to support the AI revolution and increased electrification, firm, baseload power is critical. In Virginia, Dominion Power is forecasting that grid demand will double through 2035 as data centers and cloud computing increase in the Commonwealth. Georgia plans to build an additional 18 gigawatts by 2040 to keep up with the state’s energy demand and Texas’ ERCOT is now expecting to reach peak loads of 152 gigawatts by 2030—far more than its current peak of 86 gigawatts. 

While SMRs may be used to meet some of this oncoming demand—and companies like Microsoft are planning to use these reactors in the future—the challenges of building first-of-a-kind designs, along with output constraints of the technology may prove an SMR-only strategy foolhardy. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

In addition to electricity, megawatt-specific caps are impractical for the nation’s industrial base. Steel, concrete, and chemical production all require heating inputs at very high temperatures. Currently, these needs are met by coal and gas, but promising innovations in advanced nuclear could soon displace that. 

X-Energy, for instance, is deploying its Xe-100, an 80 MWe gas-cooled reactor, to decarbonize operations at Dow Chemical’s Seadrift site along the Gulf Coast. The Xe-100 is deployed in packs of four to generate 320 MWe. While the reactor could be deployed in packs of two or three, this would lessen its total output and reduce industrial production. 

>>>READ: Jeff Duncan Outlines Policies to Unleash American Nuclear Power

TerraPower, meanwhile, is set to break ground on its Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming. A 345 MW sodium-fast cooled reactor, Natrium is built with a molten salt thermal storage system that can increase the system’s output to 500 MW when needed. This flexibility will be especially important in complementing renewable-heavy grids while producing enough heat and power to support certain industrial processes. 

While both X-energy and TerraPower’s designs could be disruptive, neither would be legally allowed in Illinois or California because of the states’ megawatt caps. As a result, any heavy industry in these states will continue to rely on the only affordable baseload power available: fossil fuels. 

An SMR-only strategy also pushes back the timeline of a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. While promising and worth investing in, many of these technologies are still in the pilot or demonstration phase, and the U.S. will likely not see the first of these reactors commercially available until the end of the decade. 

A technology-neutral nuclear energy strategy would allow for the construction of larger advanced reactors like the AP1000, which recently began delivering electricity to the grid at Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia. While critics are right to point out that Vogtle was seven years delayed and $17 billion over budget, it should be noted that these cost overruns were a result of poor project management and an undeveloped workforce—both of which were byproducts of the U.S. not building nuclear reactors for some 30 years. It’s worth noting that between Vogtle 3 and 4, there was roughly a 30 to 40 percent cost reduction between the two units. Capitalizing on that hard-fought experience would further drive down the cost of large nuclear, benefiting consumers, investors, and the long-term health of the grid. 

State SMR “carve-out” and feasibility study bills are both a positive sign of a shifting perspective on nuclear and a troubling limitation to its deployment. The market should determine which sizes and types of nuclear power are commercially viable, not state lawmakers. Instead of repeating past mistakes and picking winners and losers, policymakers must ensure that all forms and sizes of nuclear energy can be thoroughly evaluated as part of our energy future.

The Economist reports on how big tech is coping with AI’s power needs.

The C3 Take
  • Data centers and cloud computing from Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft used 90 terawatt-hours (twh) of electricity in 2022, as much as Colombia.
  • To satiate their growing energy needs, tech companies are increasingly turning to clean forms of energy.
  • Amazon, for instance, has bought a data center that runs on nuclear power and Google is exploring advanced geothermal usage.
  • AI’s power demands will be met by private sector innovation and regulatory modernization.

“Google and Microsoft have also teamed up with Nucor, a giant American operator of steel mini-mills, which consume lots of electricity. In March the trio announced that they will aggregate demand and jointly offer contracts to clean-energy projects, both early-stage commercial ones and entirely novel ‘first-of-a-kind’ ventures. The idea is to guarantee custom for developers of promising technologies like long-duration energy storage, clean hydrogen, next-generation geothermal and nuclear energy.”

Read the full article here.

Corbin Hiar of E&E News reports on a new DAC plant that is set to open.

The C3 Take
  • The “Mammoth” direct air capture (DAC) plant in Iceland will open this week.
  • The plant was designed by Climeworks will be able to permanently remove up to 36,000 metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually, 9 times more than their current largest plant.
  • The U.S. has also taken steps to accelerate direct air capture with Occidental currently constructing a DAC plant in West Texas that will able to pull 500,000 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.

“Occidental and a separate coalition that includes Climeworks have also been selected by the Department of Energy to develop two direct air capture hubs capable of eventually removing 1 million metric tons of carbon per year. Those projects are planned for southern Texas and southeastern Louisiana and backed by roughly $1 billion in federal grants.”

Read the full article here.

Diana Olick of CNBC reports on a startup that is reducing food waste.

The C3 Take
  • Food waste is a major problem in the U.S., with about one-third of food produced ending up in landfills, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
  • The startup Hungryroot uses AI to curate grocery deliveries tailored to each customer’s preferences and needs based on detailed questions.
  • Their model allows them to send only the precise amounts of foods the customer will use for meal kits and recipes, significantly reducing food waste compared to traditional grocery shopping.
  • The company claims their processes lead to 80% less food waste at their facilities versus traditional supermarkets.

“The company can reduce its own waste as well. If it determines that a user has no preference between broccoli and Brussels sprouts, and the company happens to have more broccoli in its warehouse, that’s what they’ll recommend.”

Read the full article here.

With election season in full swing, the stage has been set for a second Biden-Trump showdown. For many voters, November now represents a choice between two disappointing, polarizing extremes – including on the issues of energy and climate. 

Support for climate action is high, but willingness to pay astronomical costs is not. The average American wants common-sense and effective climate action, meaningful and pragmatic environmentalism that won’t break the bank for taxpayers. But, as of now, no one on the ballot this fall represents these priorities. Voters deserve a candidate who prioritizes energy affordability and commits to environmental progress.

>>>READ: Florida’s Lab Meat Ban and the Perils of Synthetic Conservatism

President Biden has prioritized climate, but through irresponsibly colossal spending.  With the Inflation Reduction Act, the Biden administration funneled billions into a transition from gas-powered to electric vehicles, the subsidies for which could cost taxpayers upwards of $1.8 trillion. Yet the administration has failed to meaningfully modernize the regulatory system that strangles clean energy projects in red tape, including accessing the critical minerals necessary for sustainable innovations like electric vehicles. Biden’s administration revoked the Keystone XL Pipeline’s permit, paused new liquefied natural gas export projects, and slow-walked oil and gas leasing on federal lands. 

While some of Biden’s more common-sense acts, like expanding applied research and development, and most recently, easing permitting for geothermal extraction on federal lands, have been moves in the right direction, his policies have largely spurned the climate realism, job creation, and lower fuel costs associated with an all-of-the-above energy approach.

President Biden’s predecessor was also deeply irresponsible on climate rhetoric, describing the issue as “nonexistent” and a “hoax.” Words matter, particularly when it comes to actualizing common-sense climate policy. Trump’s denialist language discourages conservatives from constructively engaging on climate, which hamstrings durable progress and hampers American leadership on the issue globally. In the year 2024, denialism is profoundly out of step with voters’ priorities. It is not a winning strategy for any serious candidate – and it certainly isn’t a winning strategy for our country and world. 

The economy or the climate? Why not both?

Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people. 

Americans across the political spectrum want to see something done about climate change. According to a CNN poll conducted this past December, 73% of adults in the country feel the government should take steps to reduce domestic emissions. This sweeping majority includes broad support from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. In fact, January 2024 research from the American Conservation Coalition found that, among young conservatives, 69% consider climate change an important issue, 76% want environmental conservation to be a priority, and 76% again support a shift toward clean energy. 

At the same time, climate change largely fails to compete with traditional pocketbook issues like the economy, energy costs, and taxes. One poll from the University of Chicago found that 62% of Americans would not even be willing to pay $1 a month to address climate change. Even among youth voters ranking the importance of major issues, climate change places 13 out of 16, while inflation is in first place.

Denialism is not a winning policy. But neither is radicalism. A Pew survey from the summer of 2023 found that only about one-third of Americans believe that the U.S. should phase out fossil fuels completely and as soon as possible, with a majority instead supporting a varied, inclusive energy profile. They support climate action on the corporate and individual levels, not through top-down government mandates.

Climate is becoming a growing part of every party’s strategy. But the “how” of the strategy is critically important. Embracing free market policies that boost productivity and wages and lower energy bills and emissions will be the hallmark of any successful pragmatic energy and climate platform. 

>>>READ: New Polling Shows Where Young Conservatives Stand On The Environment

While climate might not be the absolute make-or-break issue of the 2024 election, it should still be a priority for any candidate interested in accurately and fully representing the interests of the American public. And in a tight race where every issue – and every point – counts, adapting climate policy around voters’ priorities could ultimately represent a significant electoral advantage come fall. Indeed, the issues of cost of living, inflation, and climate and energy policy are inextricably intertwined – and will be top of mind for voters this fall.

Americans are tired of being forced to choose between inaction and extremism. With months remaining before ballots are cast, there is still time for 2024 to be a turning point away from the all-or-nothing climate narrative that hurts not only voters but also the candidates jockeying for their support. A new electoral path forward is possible – but it’s up to candidates to recognize the opportunity climate offers them. 

Nadia Suben is a member of the American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action), as well as the founder and former president of the organization’s New York City branch. She is a student at Indiana University.

Lisa Stiffler of GeekWire reports on a biodegradable plastics startup.

The C3 Take
  • Vancouver-based Bioform Technologies, a startup making biodegradable plastics from wood pulp, has raised up to $5 million from Brazil’s Suzano Ventures, the investment arm of a major pulp manufacturer.
  • Bioform’s bioplastic product can replace single-use plastics made from fossil fuels, generating 80% less carbon dioxide emissions, and can be recycled as paper or composted after use.
  • The startup, which aims to begin commercial production by 2027, is leveraging technology developed by University of British Columbia professors to produce sustainable alternatives to single-use plastics at competitive costs.

“The startup analyzed its climate impacts and found its product generates 80% less carbon dioxide compared to traditional plastic at commercial scale. The manufacturing process can use existing pulp mill machinery to make rolls of plastic.”

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