What’s the cheapest, quickest way to reduce climate change without roiling the economy? In the United States, it may be by reducing methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
"With the pressures of climate change and the urgency to incorporate alternative energy resources like wind and solar, the fixation on the purported benefits of energy transition technologies overshadows the glaring reality — an absence of strategy around identifying and quantifying other life cycle externalities, such as waste disposal or environmental impacts," write fellow Rachel Meidl and research assistant Mathilde Saada. Read more on the Baker Institute Blog.
In October the UAE declared a goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. That goal seems incredibly lofty for an oil-dominated economy, but the UAE's particular advantages may uniquely suit the task, energy fellow Jim Krane explains in this week's Forbes post.
In the push for decarbonization, "turquoise" hydrogen offers a unique, commercially viable technology that reduces CO2 emissions, argue Rachel A. Meidl and Kenneth B. Medlock III.
Rachel A. Meidl, Kenneth B. Medlock IIISeptember 23, 2021
Circular processes cannot solve the sustainability problem, but critically implementing circularity with system-level thinking can help to urgently adopt a more resilient, regenerative model for avoiding resource scarcity while fostering economic growth, argues a Forbes piece co-authored by Rachel Meidl.
Rachel A. Meidl, Vilma Havas, Brita StaalAugust 9, 2021
Circular economy principles are oftentimes used in conjunction or synonymously with the term “sustainability.” However, although there is a relationship between sustainability and circularity, these two concepts are very different. Energy fellow Rachel A. Meidl explains the distinction in a new post for the Baker Institute Blog.
Amid recent disputes on oil trade, "fractious Saudi-UAE relations are ... better understood as a return to the pre-2015 status quo than a unique diplomatic breach," write Jim Krane and Kristian Coates Ulrichsen.
Methane emissions are both "extraordinarily bad" and "easy to fix," so why not address them now? A federal tax of $1,500 per metric ton emitted could curb and counter the impact of U.S. methane emissions, argues this commentary piece.