Three small Christmas presents

Court rulings, data centers, and something nice on the balcony

A solar-powered Christmas tree goes up in Rome

One of my jobs in the tiny Vermont town where I live is to lead the Christmas Eve service at the little white church alongside the river. I’m not actually a preacher, and it’s not particularly denominational—my wife and my daughter, who are Jewish, are usually on hand to belt out carols and there’s occasionally a reading from Dr. Seuss. But the neighbors stand at the pulpit one by one to recite the Scriptures that tell the story of this remarkable baby, and then I do my best in a short homily to pick out some points of light. A little harder this year than most, but perhaps more important because of that. The goal is to make sure the community holds, now more than ever.

And I suppose that in some way the community we’ve built around this newsletter is a congregation of sorts, with me again in the role of shambling, ill-trained preacher. So I’ve poked around in the news to bring you a trio of small gifts—ambiguous, by no means definitive, but nonetheless things to build on.

The first comes, somewhat remarkably, from Silicon Valley.

As you almost certainly know, the rapid growth of AI is causing despair among some energy experts. The giant data centers that “train” these various models to do what they do (help lazy students write banal termpapers, say) soak up huge amounts of electricity, and in the last year or two the fossil fuel industry has seized on that as avidly as they seized on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—anything to make the case for extending their business model a little longer. Arielle Samuelson, writing at Emily Atkin’s pathbreaking newsletter Heated, today offers a really powerful account of what’s gone on.

The growth of AI has been called the “savior” of the gas industry. In Virginia alone, the data center capital of the world, a new state report found that AI demand could add a new 1.5 gigawatt gas plant every two years for 15 consecutive years.

And now, as energy demand for AI rises, oil corporations are planning to build gas plants that specifically serve data centers. Last week, Exxon announced that it is building a large gas plant that will directly supply power to data centers within the next five years. The company claims the gas plant will use technology that captures polluting emissions—despite the fact that the technology has never been used at a commercial scale before.

Chevron also announced that the company is preparing to sell gas to an undisclosed number of data centers. “We're doing some work right now with a number of different people that's not quite ready for prime time, looking at possible solutions to build large-scale power generation,” said CEO Mike Wirth at an Atlantic Council event. The opportunity to sell power to data centers is so promising that even private equity firms are investing billions in building energy infrastructure.

So, ugh. Except that it’s important to remember that Big Oil is an industry that lies a lot, and some of those commitments may not be quite as firm as they’re saying. In fact, a new report—this is the first Christmas present—from a team of Silicon Valley types came out this morning, making the case that if these data centers are actually going to get built anytime soon, the best bet by far is for Google et al to put up solar farms next door. Building new gas plants, as they point out, takes a number of years—really, anything that requires a new connection to the grid goes slowly. But if you have a “co-located microgrid”—i.e., a dedicated solar farm right next to your mysterious warehouse of servers—that can be put up in a relative trice.

“Estimated time to operation for a large off-grid solar microgrid could be around 2 years (1-2 years for site acquisition and permitting plus 1-2 years for site buildout), though there’s no obvious reason why this couldn’t be done faster by very motivated and competent builders.”

The only one of the authors I knew before this was Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist employed by the payment company Stripe, but the others come from reputable places (Paces, which expedites renewable development, and Scale Microgrids) and they thank a passel of collaborators at places like Tesla and Anthropic. And their research seems impeccable—they work through the costs and the reliability of renewables paired with batteries, and they return again and again to the speed with which these new facilities could be built.

One thing they don’t stress, but which I think could be politically important, is that all of these big AI players have promised in recent years that they would zero out their emissions. And though no one in the White House will hold them to that, most of these companies are in places like Washington and California filled with environmentally committed workers and investors; we should be able to organize some pressure on them to do the right thing. It’s not the perfect thing. In a rational world we’d postpone the glories of AI long enough to power up all the heat pumps and cars from renewable electricity first. But if they get expertise building solar farms for their data centers, the experience may turn these behemoths into better crusaders for clean energy. One can hope, anyway. Here’s the final bottom line from the report:

Off-grid solar microgrids offer a fast path to power AI datacenters at enormous scale. The tech is mature, the suitable parcels of land in the US Southwest are known, and this solution is likely faster than most, if not all, alternatives … The advantages to whoever moves on this quickly could be substantial.

And then there’s the second present I promised, which was delivered yesterday afternoon by the Montana Supreme Court. It upheld, on a 6-1 vote, a lower court ruling that the state’s children have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment,” and that that includes carefully analyzing state energy policies to keep them from damaging the climate.

This ruling is under the state constitution, which was amended shortly after Earth Day in 1970 to include environmental protections. (America’s western states have not always been bright red). The landmark ruling comes almost a year and a half after a remarkable trial, which featured a mix of young Montanans explaining how climate change was damaging their lives (breathing wildfire smoke, for one) and nationally renowned climate experts who volunteered their time to make a compelling case. The state all but punted its response, not even putting its lead climate-denier on the stand after paying her large sums of money to prepare testimony, and the district court issued a powerful finding that’s now been upheld.

This doesn’t necessarily have national implications—shamefully, the Biden DOJ has buried the federal equivalent, Juliana v. U.S., under a blizzard of writs, picking up where the Trump administration left off. And it probably won’t immediately change Montana’s current commitment to using more gas. But it is a clear moral victory that will cast a long shadow. As Cornell legal scholar Leehi Yona said this morning, “This is a historic case and one that could serve as a model for state-level lawsuits, particularly as an alternative to federal courts (such as the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently seems unreceptive to climate cases).”

Mostly, I’m happy for the kids involved. I got to interview a couple of them on stage this fall at a gathering sponsored by Protect Our Winters. They were eloquent and moving, and I hope very much that this ruling strengthens their commitment to fight. The Trump era will end someday, and we’ll need a new wave of smart and moral people to carry on the crucial fights—these are them!

And the third? Attentive readers will remember how happy I was earlier this year at news that half a million Germans had taken advantage of a new law to hang solar panels from the balconies of their apartments. Well, according to a new report in the Guardian, by year’s end that number has swelled to a million and a half Germans, and now it’s taking off in Spain and elsewhere.

Manufacturers say that installing a couple of 300-watt panels will give a saving of up to 30% on a typical household’s electricity bill. With an outlay of €400-800 and with no installation cost, the panels could pay for themselves within six years.

In Spain, where two thirds of the population live in apartments and installing panels on the roof requires the consent of a majority of the building’s residents, this DIY technology has obvious advantages.

With solar balconies, no such consent is required unless the facade is listed as of historic interest or there is a specific prohibition from the residents’ association or the local authority. Furthermore, as long as the installation does not exceed 800 watts it doesn’t require certification, which can cost from €100 to €400, depending on the area.

“The beauty of the solar balconies is they are flexible, cheap and plug straight into the domestic network via a converter, so you don’t have to pay for the installation,” says Santiago Vernetta, CEO of Tornasol Energy, one of Spain’s main suppliers.

Putting up one of these would be illegal almost everywhere in America—but that’s something to work on next year. Why should Europeans have all the fun? Belgium has just ended its ban. As one official explained: “If 1.5 million Germans have bought solar balcony kits there must be something in it,” he says.

I wish I had yet more such gifts to offer (I’m keeping a close eye on Albany, where Gov. Hochul may still sign the crucial Climate Superfund bill before year’s end, and if that happens I’ll let you know). But I hope these help set the holiday mood just a little. I can tell you that it’s snowing this afternoon up here on the spine of the Greens. And since I’m typing up the program for the Christmas Eve service this afternoon, I can tell you how it ends: with everyone in town walking through the church doors and into the (hopefully crisp) night air singing “Go Tell It on the Mountain.”

+The remarkably generous Climate Breakthrough awards gives $4 million to individuals to build out their climate campaigns. This year’s winners were just announced. The one I know best is the wonderful Eriel Deranger

Eriel Tchekwie Deranger is a formidable advocate for Indigenous rights and environmental justice. In 2015, she founded the Canada-based Indigenous Climate Action and has led it to become a powerful advocate for Indigenous sovereignty and rights-based approaches to environmental protection. Through the Climate Breakthrough Award program, Eriel is seeking to pioneer the first-of-its-kind globally coordinated effort to elevate Indigenous-led climate solutions, ensuring they receive the recognition, resources, and representation they deserve on the global stage. Indigenous-led climate solutions are undervalued and underrepresented. This work promises to reshape the global climate movement, ensuring that Indigenous voices are not just included but are central to the fight for climate justice.

+Climate change has made the insurance market so impossible that desperate homeowners are turning to essentially unregulated companies, as Sophie Alexander and Leslie Kaufman report

But climate change is supercharging storms, floods and fires and making them more common. Conventional insurers are determining that houses in places struck often by extreme weather are too risky to insure, canceling hundreds of thousands of policies. In the last two years, seven of the 12 biggest home insurers have limited their coverage in California. For those whose policies have been dropped by major insurers, non-admitted insurance is one of their only remaining options for coverage. It means regular homes in some parts of the country are now viewed by the insurance industry as the equivalent of a fireworks factory.

“Does an event like Milton bring more business into the non-admitted market?” McLean asks. “That’s almost certain.”

It’s not just Florida. The wildfires and hurricanes walloping California, South Carolina and Louisiana are pushing consumers into non-admitted policies. Companies behind this coverage take in less than 2% of all US homeowners insurance premiums, but their share of the market for residential insurance has nearly doubled over the past decade. Between 2022 and 2023, non-admitted home insurance premiums grew 27.5%, compared to 13.8% in the admitted market, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence.

+David Helvarg explores the contradictions of Alaska, both “victim and perpetrator” of the climate crisis

Alaska is both the most climate-vulnerable state in the nation and, with its ice-locked methane beginning to defrost, a virtual climate bomb. The Biden administration’s moderate moves on energy in the 49th state satisfied no one. President-elect Trump, who calls the climate crisis “one of the greatest scams of all time,” could, with his energy policy of “drill, baby, drill,” set off that bomb.

+The fallout continues from the insightful Department of Energy report on LNG exports that I described last week. In Newsweek, California Congressman Jared Huffman and European parliamentarian Marie Toussaint make the case that Europe and American needs no more of this stuff:

Wind, solar, and battery storage are already far better options—environmentally and economically—than gas. Renewables are increasingly becoming the cheapest form of power worldwide, and advancements in storage technology continue to make clean energy a reliable backbone for modern power grids.

As if to underscore the point, the German government announced it will shut a huge LNG port in 2025

“During the gas crisis, our capacities have already made a significant contribution to calming the market, the gas supply has been stabilized and gas prices have since fallen significantly," the government-owned port operator said in a statement.

And in Ireland, plans for a vast new LNG import terminal have been put on hold

New Fortress Energy told the US Securities and Exchange Commission that there are multiple risks that could preclude the development of the Shannon LNG project and that the results of these risks could have a material effect on the results of its operations.

On the other hand, Chase Bank CEO Jamie Dimon was in New Orleans and touring a big new LNG operation

"They've done an unbelievable job," Dimon said. "We've been banking them for quite a while now. I think their plans are going to be a huge amount of the LNG capability of the United States of America."

+A new study from UC Davis makes a compelling case that the “social cost” of carbon emissions—the amount of damage per ton that the government sets for figuring out what kinds of development make sense—has been set far too low.

The study, published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), shows that current estimates for the social cost of carbon, or SCC, fail to adequately represent important channels by which climate change could affect human welfare. When included, the SCC increases to just over $280 per ton of CO2 emitted in 2020 — more than double the average published in the academic literature. The study’s estimate is also larger than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s central estimate of $190 per ton of CO2.

And speaking of costs, Amaan Habibulla makes a strong case for a universal carbon price in a new essay.

Imagine a world where the cost of emitting carbon dioxide — the invisible culprit behind climate change — is no longer invisible. The Bridgetown Initiative envisions a single, internationally adopted price on carbon emissions, one that all countries agree to implement so that every nation, industry, and company faces the same incentive to reduce pollution.

In other words, it proposes making a single global standard rather than allowing different regions or nations to set their own rules. At its heart, the concept is simple — assign a realistic price per ton of carbon emitted and use it as a financial signal that encourages businesses to pollute less. For example, if a factory must pay $50 for each ton of CO2 it releases, it might invest in energy-efficient machinery or switch to renewable energy sources to avoid these extra costs — ultimately operating more sustainably and making better choices for the planet.

Currently, different regions have implemented a patchwork of carbon pricing systems, like the European Union’s Emissions Trading System, California’s cap-and-trade policy, and China’s national carbon market. These systems operate independently, with wildly varying costs for emitting a ton of CO2 — ranging from as low as $0.46 to as high as $167. Such inconsistency and the lack of a unified approach lead to inefficiencies and conflicting priorities, leaving emissions unchecked.

+Finally, the Biden administration this morning announced a new NDC—if you’re not familiar with UN-speak, that means it made America’s next climate pledge to the body that oversees the Paris accords. It promised to cut emissions 61 to 66% below 2005 levels by 2035—a promise that won’t be binding in any way, especially after President Trump pulls us out of the global climate pact. Still, it’s an important recognition that we can, and should, be moving faster.

Experts said it’s key for the Biden administration to set a strong goal – even if Trump claws it back – as other high-polluting countries, including China, prepare their own climate targets.

“I think it’s a really important signal,” Kate Larsen, of the climate think tank Rhodium, said. “The US is demonstrating that we are there as partners with the rest of the world, setting that that long term vision – even if we for the next four years won’t have a full federal government organized around achieving that.”