Is it "Move fast and build things" or "Move fast and break things"? And when it's "break", who loses? | A New Shade of Green | Sherry Listgarten | Almanac Online |

Local Blogs

A New Shade of Green

By Sherry Listgarten

E-mail Sherry Listgarten

About this blog: Climate change, despite its outsized impact on the planet, is still an abstract concept to many of us. That needs to change. My hope is that readers of this blog will develop a better understanding of how our climate is evolving a...  (More)

View all posts from Sherry Listgarten

Is it "Move fast and build things" or "Move fast and break things"? And when it's "break", who loses?

Uploaded: Aug 13, 2023

A few months ago our ex-Governor and ex-Terminator Arnold Schwarzenegger penned an op-ed for USA Today urging us to “Move fast and build things. Build a clean and abundant energy future. Build better. Build cleaner. Build now. Build, build, build.” He bemoans the bureaucracy that is delaying the rollout of transmission, carbon capture and storage, renewables, and more.

Similarly, climate writer Robinson Meyer expressed frustration with some of the environmentalist pushback in a conversation with the New York Times’ Ezra Klein. He suggested that instead of environmentalists pushing back on carbon capture and storage (CCS) infrastructure, they should embrace it wholeheartedly. “‘You want to do CCS? We totally agree. Essential. You must put CCS infrastructure on every power plant, on every factory that burns fossil fuels, on everything.’ If progressives were to do that and were to get it into the law … the upshot would be we shut down a ton more stationary sources and a ton more petrochemical refineries.”

But many environmentalists are not encouraging wholesale adoption of this technology. In fact, many are warning against adopting it too quickly, even while acknowledging that it can be useful for hard-to-abate sectors like cement and steel production as well as for the negative emissions we increasingly need as we slow-walk our way to climate mitigation. One of the leading negative emissions companies, ClimeWorks, says that “access to safe and permanent geologic CO2 storage will be a core requirement of achieving the mass-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal needed for net-zero”.

It is difficult to reduce CO2 emissions from cement and steel manufacturing. One option is to capture CO2 at the flue and sequester it underground. However, a sizable well would capture just 1 Mt CO2/year. Other options include green hydrogen fuel and alternative cements. Source: EPA Carbon Capture and Storage Information Session (2022)

So why don’t we just get moving on this and build, build, build? What are we debating? I’ve written about CCS before, but as a quick summary, carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured from a point source (e.g., a smoke stack) or from the air, compressed to a supercritical fluid, and transported to a sequestration site (typically by pipeline). There it is injected a mile or so below the surface via a “Class VI” injection well, where both physical and geochemical processes can keep it below the surface for hundreds of thousands of years if all goes well.

This diagram shows two CO2 injection wells, one into a saline reservoir and one into an old oil field. Some experts believe that old oil fields are the easiest repositories to use since they are well mapped and have low pressure, so can more easily accommodate CO2 injection. The diagram also shows a fault line and a freshwater repository near the surface. Source: EPA Permitting Report to Congress (2022)

Oil and gas workers have many of the skills needed to design, build, and operate this infrastructure, so their companies and others are jumping on the new CCS incentives offered by the Inflation Reduction Act. In Louisiana alone, there are applications for 39 wells. (And that number seems to go up every week.)

There are many carbon capture projects in development across the US, with a concentration in the Gulf Coast. Source: Clean Air Task Force (2023)

Our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a permitting process that is meant to ensure that these wells are safely sited, constructed, tested, monitored, and closed. That is important since leaks in the wells and fractures from underground pressure can contaminate drinking water supplies, induce seismicity, and cause CO2 to migrate to the surface where it can linger for hours. The pipelines can also leak, compromise wetlands, or even explode and disrupt nearby communities. The EPA is intent on ensuring that communities already disadvantaged by polluting industries are not further compromised by CCS.

This diagram shows the different types of storage mechanisms, potential leakage pathways (e.g., via old wells and fault lines), and monitoring mechanisms. Source: EPA Inspector Training Course (2019)

The oil and gas majors are confident about the technology, stating that “CCS technologies have been operating safely in the US for more than 50 years with an established record of performance.” They are frustrated with the slow EPA approval process -- the EPA has approved only six applications to date, with just two in operation. One expert told me: “I’ve been told that the EPA has not, cannot and will not be able to process applications for Class VI permits in a timely and competent manner. In that case, it is obvious that States need to step in to enforce the EPA regulations if progress is to be made on carrying out the intent of the IRA legislation.”

Indeed, the EPA has said that it would like to outsource the permitting process to states, as it has done for other types of injection wells. Louisiana is one of several states seeking primacy over permitting Class VI wells. The governor and the developers argue that Louisiana has better knowledge of its local geology, good expertise from the considerable well activity already in place, better access to local communities that may be impacted, and therefore can do this more quickly and more safely. The Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association says that “Local oversight through the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) will give the state the ability to quickly and safely implement the latest processes, technologies, and regulations to keep Louisiana at the forefront of energy innovation and production.”

Not everyone is in agreement that LDNR would do a good job. Paige Powell’s family grew up in (and in several cases got cancer in) Louisiana’s Cancer Alley. Powell is now Policy Director for Commission Shift, an oil and gas watchdog in Texas. Powell points to inadequate supervision that has led to thousands of old and abandoned wells and an unsafe injection program that has resulted in geologic subsidence and uplift, both in Louisiana and in nearby Texas. “The induced seismic activity, sinkholes, well corrosion and blowouts that we have seen in Texas (Permian Basin, Lake Boehmer, Anita Ranch, The Wink Sinks, Daisetta Sinkhole, Crane County Geyser) are similar to what’s happening in Louisiana (Bayou Corne, Freshwater City), and are indicative of the myriad problems with the Class VI programs managed by these state agencies.” During a hearing on this topic Powell expressed doubts about LDNR, the organization that would take over permitting from the EPA, stating that “LDNR has a long history of not protecting the resources which it stewards.”

Scott Eustis, the Community Science Director for Healthy Gulf, is equally distrustful of LDNR. He says during a hearing: “We have a broken land. Look at a map for the vast non-compliance issues the department has. There are thousands of broken wells across the state. The department does not have the staff to deal with it.” He points to the more than 200,000 wells in Louisiana and the existing geologic fragility and questions how CO2 can safely be stored in that context. “You see two kinds of applicants…. Some take the bore hole guidance by EPA seriously, and they say we have to build a 100-mile pipeline to get to the last bit of Louisiana that is not Swiss cheese. That is a tremendous wetlands impact. That is Conoco, Exxon, and Denbury. Denbury says they have to inject into a federal wetlands restoration project because Louisiana is so unsuitable with respect to the number of bore holes. Then we have companies like Sempra, totally ignoring that, they’re injecting into Black Lake with 1500 existing bore holes, just in that one field.”

The Gulf Coast Pipeline has impacted over a thousand acres of wetlands. Source: Healthy Gulf comment to EPA (2023)

Multiple environmental organizations question Louisiana’s commitment to ensuring the safety of its people and its environment. The Environmental Defense Fund states that “Louisiana has a well-documented history of favoring industry and economic interests over communities and the environment.”, questions the state’s commitment to environmental justice, and dismisses its staffing plan as ”far insufficient to address the large and growing list of proposed projects.” The Clean Air Task Force highlights an active hostility in the state towards environmental justice, with the state having filed a lawsuit against the EPA challenging its relevance. They also point to a conflict of interest in which the inspection and permitting program is funded by operating wells, potentially leading to pressure to approve permits. Earthjustice shares those points and takes issue with the lack of long-term liability for corporations deploying unproven technology. Louisiana is asking the state to assume both legal and financial responsibility from corporations after the well is closed and deemed safe, which deviates from EPA requirements and the practice of the two other states that have primacy (Wyoming and North Dakota). Earthjustice also points to the state’s low fines for violation ($5000/day vs EPA’s $60,000+/day) and reluctance to enforce them. The concerns go on, comprehensively depicting a business-friendly department with lax oversight, inadequate capacity and expertise, and little interest in protecting disadvantaged communities.

In light of this, what do we make of the fossil fuel companies’ assurance that “CCS technologies have been operating safely in the US for more than 50 years with an established record of performance?” The fact is that there is nothing operating at the pressure, capacity, and scale of the proposed wells, which makes them much more challenging to operate safely. Furthermore, many of the prototypes and even the success stories have had serious issues.

A report released a few months ago details significant issues that some of the most hyped Class VI wells, managed by Equinor in the Norwegian sea, have had. “The two fields were among the most thoroughly studied pieces of earth on the planet. Despite the wealth of information in hand, scientists could not predict the geological challenges.” In one of the projects, the CO2 moved to an unexpected region after only three years. They still do not know the extent of this new region that is being filled.

Carbon dioxide in the Sleipner well moved to an unexpected area after just three years. Source: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis presentation (2023)

In the other, pressure in the reservoir increased dramatically after only 18 months, risking its integrity. The well had to be closed and another one found quickly and at great expense, putting the nearly $7B project in jeopardy. The report draws some blunt conclusions.

Source: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis presentation (2023)

If high pressure CO2 underground leaks and seeps upwards into drinking water reservoirs near the surface, the water becomes acidic and can leach toxic chemicals, endangering our water supply. But what about CO2 leaks into the air? That seems safer, no? Well, think again. In 2012 a CO2 pipeline exploded in Satartia, Mississippi. Below is a photo of the pipe break and a snippet of a report of that event, beginning with a woman who hid under the covers with her young grandchild and great-grandchildren when her son called to warn her about an explosion he heard.

Image source: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Text source: National Public Radio report (2023)

This happened even though the pipeline valves were shut off within minutes of the accident. This technology is still very new, particularly at the pressures and scales now being proposed. And it’s not only environmentalists pointing that out. Almost every major power organization in the United States is calling out the immaturity of the carbon capture and storage industry as they push back against the proposed Clean Air Act, which relies on CCS to clean up power plants. They say that relying on it so soon is infeasible and will put our power grid at risk.

When companies rush to deploy risky technology, who is most likely to bear that risk? These projects are historically located in the communities least able to fight back. With that in mind, Louisiana passed a bill last month stating that 30% of revenues from CO2 storage under state land or water bottoms would go to local governments. But is that what residents want? Many are enthused about the jobs and revenue this will bring to their community, and have considerable trust and confidence in LDNR and the developers. Others worry that a decrease in oil and gas revenue would threaten the finances of local schools, and feel they need to support the industry to protect their kids.

But those who have felt more of the negative impacts from oil and gas development are strongly opposed to more development that puts them and their communities at risk. The split at the hearings is stark. Louisiana resident Jesse George spoke with a quiet anger at a hearing on this topic. “There is a groundswell of folks in Louisiana who are prepared to challenge every page of permit and oppose every foot of pipeline to prevent further degradation by the same petrochemical companies that have turned our state into an ever-eroding cesspool…. We know from past experience with oil and gas wells and pipelines where these projects will be sited -- in low-income communities, Black communities, and Indigenous communities. And I can guarantee you that none of the folks speaking in support today are volunteering their own neighborhoods for the siting of these projects. Environmental justice must be more than campaign rhetoric and public hearings such as this must be more than just a procedural box to check.”

An Earthjustice spokesperson told me “Our take is that the ‘move fast and break things’ model has gotten us to the point where the burdens of our society are borne by the most vulnerable people, and that is not a sustainable model for a true transition. We would very much like to move fast while considering safety and equity. We must learn lessons from the fossil fuel economy and not make the same mistakes building something new.” That sentiment is similar to what a geologist expert and CCS consultant told me last year, though he looks at it more from an economic perspective. “Permitting and regulation is critical… If we don’t do it right, it will be like fracking. Everybody hates fracking. We don’t want that to happen with CO2 storage.”

As we work carefully to develop successful deployments, we should be ensuring that this limited resource, CCS, is used for the projects that need it most, and not to unnecessarily expand fossil fuel use. Earthjustice worries about this, saying: “A major, major issue for us is not whether we should be investing in negative emissions (we should be) through CCS, but what CCS in practice will be used for. Many CCS-related projects would expand and accelerate petrochemical buildout and are part of a dangerous growing global push toward carbon capture and away from phasing out fossil fuels.” CCS should not provide an excuse to reduce the pressure to ramp down fossil fuel use in the power sector, agriculture, and more.

The generous new federal incentives for emerging technologies can lead to unhealthy and ultimately counter-productive gold rushes with perverse outcomes. There is a lot of concern that this will happen with both CCS and hydrogen incentives. The pushback we are seeing is critical to ensuring that our emissions goals remain front and center so that these incentives achieve their purpose, which is not to enrich oil and gas companies or accelerate our use of fossil fuels.

I’d love to hear your take on some of the permitting debates, and if you have experience living in a community with an environmental burden.

Current Climate Data (June/July 2023)
Global impacts, US impacts, CO2 metric, Climate dashboard

A total of 15 billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have been confirmed in the United States this year—the most events since 1980 for the January-July period. These consisted of 13 severe storm events, one winter storm and one flooding event.

Comment Guidelines
I hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines or your comment may be edited or removed.
- Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
- Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.
- Stay on topic.
- In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.
Local Journalism.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by David Coale, a resident of Barron Park,
on Aug 13, 2023 at 7:35 am

David Coale is a registered user.

Too bad the IRA has pegged CCS as the main solution for carbon sequestration, it is not. Look at Blue Planet Systems Web Link

“Our aggregate makes concrete carbon negative, transforming the built environment from a carbon burden, to a carbon sink."

While we need larger companies that can do carbon sequestration at scale, we also need the right technology that will ensure it is done safely. Putting all our carbon sequestration eggs in the CCS basket is unwise. The mineralization of CO2 guarantees there will be no leakage and permanence of the process while supplying needed building materials.

Posted by Bystander, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood,
on Aug 13, 2023 at 11:39 am

Bystander is a registered user.

It is very difficult to always look at the big picture when we see so much failing closer to home.

[Rest of comment removed since not relevant to this post. @Bystander, if you would like to discuss the reliability of Palo Alto's power, please see Web Link Thank you!]

Posted by Karl Danz, a resident of Los Altos,
on Aug 14, 2023 at 5:39 pm

Karl Danz is a registered user.

Kudos to Sherry Listgarten for her thorough overview of Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS).

She writes, “I've written about CCS before, but as a quick summary, carbon dioxide (CO2) is captured from a point source (e.g., a smoke stack) or from the air, compressed to a supercritical fluid, and transported to a sequestration site (typically by pipeline)." It may seem like a minor point but it's critical to note that the phrase “or from the air" does not apply to CCS. Capturing CO2 directly from the air (or from the oceans) is referred to as Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

At best, CCS is a potential approach to emissions reductions, and as Listgarten notes there are a number of significant issues with many of the approaches to sequestration.

CDR on the other hand is an essential negative-emissions capability that must be scaled up rapidly, per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

California is well positioned to be a leader.

As David Coale notes, it is now possible to create carbon-negative concrete. I too am quite excited about Los Gatos-based Blue Planet Systems. Durably storing CO2 in concrete is one of the best places to put it. There are at least a dozen other California startups working on a diverse set of techniques along the continuum from biological to technological.

I am also excited about a current bill in the California Legislature, by our own Sen. Josh Becker. SB-308, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Market Development Act, would create a framework for developing the state's CDR capacity so that we can achieve net zero by 2045, as required by law.

Finally, carbon removal allows us to restore the climate. "Climate restoration" means restoring CO2 concentrations back to safe levels that have historically supported human survival. Another wonderful local state senator, Dave Cortese, just last month succeeded in getting the Senate to pass his Resolution SR-34, making Climate Restoration a top policy priority.

Posted by Barron Park Denizen, a resident of Barron Park,
on Aug 15, 2023 at 11:54 am

Barron Park Denizen is a registered user.

I am trying to get some general numbers in my head--can anyone furnish some solid figures?

1. How much CO2 is emitted annually worldwide, including from natural sources?

2. How much CO2 was emitted by the 2020 and 2021 California forest fires?

3. How much CO2 would a typical sequestration project secure annually, assuming it's successful, and reliably over an extended number of years despite the geologic uncertainties? This would ideally be a net number, accounting for the energy needed for the process and underground storage.

4. How much CO2 dissolves into the ocean annually?

My guess is, #3 will be, by far, the smallest of these figures. And that dissolving in the ocean is the predominant mechanism of sequestration given the long half-life of atmospheric CO2. Unfortunately, with a striking degree of ocean acidification.

A follow-up question could be, what would the net CO2 benefit be if Palo Alto eliminates natural gas service? And would that be a cost-effective way to reduce the level of atmospheric CO2? Would Palo Alto more effectively achieve its CO2 reduction goals by contributing to a sequestration project? Or contributing to a reforestation project?

That could be better than massively sequestering the treasure of its citizenry.

Posted by Michael Austin , a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Aug 15, 2023 at 3:37 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Following are some interesting numbers you and the rest of us emit.

An average human emits 2.3 LBS. Carbon on an average day.
A person engaged in vigorous activity will emit up to eight time that amount.

This winter when football stadiums are stuffed full, imagine the amount of carbon from each stadium. Or, indoor hockey arena, basketball court, etc.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Aug 15, 2023 at 5:05 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@Karl: Yes, there are lots of ways to remove carbon dioxide, and more seemingly every day. Nature already does a lot of it (CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and also by trees and soil). We can accelerate those processes -- for example, plant trees, enhance ocean uptake, enhance rock weathering, enhance soil sequestration -- or even make buildings that trap concrete in the cement. There are pros and cons to all of these. I think one reason that trapping CO2 at flues and burying it is so popular is that it takes advantage of the skills of people in the fossil fuel industry, providing an important transition. It is also a very fast/efficient way to capture CO2, assuming that CO2 has to be produced at all.

Anyway, I certainly didn't mean to imply that the *only* form of negative emissions (carbon dioxide removal) is to capture and sequester the carbon. That is just one of many. But my guess is that it will be an essential one. I hope that others prove to be scalable and affordable and safe. I appreciate your sharing that information about policies.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Aug 15, 2023 at 5:33 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@BarronParkDenizen: The image below, from this presentation, may have some answers to your questions.

Using very, very, very round numbers:
1. Worldwide emissions is around 40 gigatons CO2
2. California wildfires in 2020 were around 100 megatons. Canada in the past 7 months is around 250 megatons.
3. A sizable CCS project can capture and sequester 1 megaton per year.
4. Around 10 gigatons dissolves in the ocean each year.

Yes, the ocean helps a lot, but so does the land (soil, vegetation).

As to what is the most cost-effective way to reduce our emissions, well, it depends. What you really want to do is move innovation forward. That is what is behind Stripe et al's incredibly expensive carbon offsets. The benefit is more than just amount of CO2 removed.

We all need to stop using gas. Early movers provide much more value by vetting technology, seeding industry, etc. Palo Altans have sky-high emissions and huge wealth relative to the rest of the world, not to mention a very temperate climate. I do think there is extra value in being an early mover, and I do think Palo Alto is as reasonable a place for that as anywhere. But the question is a good one and deserves a longer discussion at some point. There can be a tradeoff between acting locally and displacing the most emissions per dollar.

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Aug 15, 2023 at 5:35 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@MichaelA: Your comment comes up periodically. Here was my reply in 2019 on this post.

Posted by Barron Park Denizen, a resident of Barron Park,
on Aug 16, 2023 at 11:25 am

Barron Park Denizen is a registered user.

Thanks, Sherry, for the CO2 mass balance diagram. At a net 19 Gtons to the atmosphere each year, a sizeable, successful CCS project, at 1 Mton/year, could sequester about 1/19,000 of the total.

I sincerely appreciate your balanced and fact-based blogs. After a peak in the 2030s or 2040s, the world will reduce consumption of CO2-producing energy, assuming battery storage supplemented by nuclear (thorium?) plants. There will be ongoing needs for fuel-powered construction and ag equipment, ships, freight locomotives, and airplanes, and for fertilizer, cement, and steel.

But I'm bothered by the idea that Palo Altans are rich and super-innovative and thus should be self-chosen as early movers--we hadn't heard we were being signed up for this. There's a loud perspective that accomplishing a Good Thing is virtuous, even if of doubtful effect, and thus merits tapping into the treasure of its citizens. Instead, our Council should be careful to ask, Why are we doing this? Is there any meaningful environmental improvement? What are the pros and cons? What are the options, and how much would they cost? If City staff can't answer these questions, vote "no."

In my case, we are retired, living in a small house that has gas heating and appliances. When the time comes to move out, the house will be demolished. For us to spend major dollars on electrification would be a financial burden and makes no sense, yet this is where people like us are being pushed. Instead of being a reliable provider of governmental services, the City is turning into a scary adversary.

OTOH, despite rash promises of a revamped City power grid by 2030, gas shutoff will be delayed by the impracticality of quickly reaching the 6 kilowatts per household modern standard. And the Utility Department's need for many more ground level, ugly, noisy transformers will raise a political howl. Then add in noisy outdoor heat pumps.

It will be best if electrification comes about in measured fashion. You can help!

Posted by Sherry Listgarten, a Almanac Online blogger,
on Aug 17, 2023 at 12:13 pm

Sherry Listgarten is a registered user.

@BarronParkDenizen: I am very concerned about climate change and our anemic response to it. I strongly agree with the kids and others who say that we are not doing enough and not doing it quickly enough. It's barely even a start to *begin* to reduce our consumption, as you suggest we do in a few decades. The world will keep warming until we get to net zero.

The politically easiest thing is to push the costs of our inaction to future generations (not to mention ongoing biodiversity loss). I am grateful to our City Council for not taking the easy route and for looking for ways to do more. IMO people who think similarly will be suggesting ideas and taking action, not just shooting down ideas and explaining why they can take no action. I'm always open to hearing alternative actions, either things the City should do or things that people can do.

Posted by Paly Grad, a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive,
on Aug 20, 2023 at 6:31 pm

Paly Grad is a registered user.

Do you think the City of Palo Alto should pilot a tree planting program? The goal could be to sign up 100 homeowners who would like the City of Palo Alto to plant a tree in their front yard or in the parking strip in front of their house.

“Parking strips are planting areas between the sidewalk and the street curb in residential neighborhoods. In neighborhoods without parking strips the right-of-way usually extends several feet into the front yard."

Leaflets could be included in our monthly utility bills just like the city did when they were promoting heat pump water heaters.

For more information on the Public Tree Planting Program follow this link: Web Link

Posted by Mondoman, a resident of Green Acres,
on Aug 20, 2023 at 11:03 pm

Mondoman is a registered user.

@Paly Grad
The program already exists (we got a tree through it a few years ago); no pilot needed.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Analysis/paralysis: The infamous ‘Palo Alto Process’ must go
By Diana Diamond | 15 comments | 2,645 views

Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,294 views

The Time and Cost Savings of Avoiding a Long Commute
By Steve Levy | 6 comments | 1,975 views

Planting a Fall Garden?
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,287 views