By Michelle Ma for Reasons to be Cheerful.
Broadcast version by Edwin J. Viera for New York News Connection reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration
Before he joined the Civilian Climate Corps, Robert Clark assumed building and electric work was all low-skilled labor, akin to “working at McDonald’s,” he said. That was before he learned to install electric heat pumps, maintain electric vehicle charging stations and perform 3D image modeling of spaces about to get energy upgrades.
The apprenticeship program has been life-changing, Clark said. Before joining, he struggled to find work, in part because of a felony conviction for burglary. “It’s a no-brainer,” he said of joining the Civilian Climate Corps, which pays him $20 per hour to learn skills and receive the certifications that he needs to get work. He hopes to go back to school to become an engineer.
Clark is one of 1,700 New Yorkers who has gone through the Civilian Climate Corps, which was developed by BlocPower, a Brooklyn-based building electrification startup, and the city of New York.
The program, launched in 2021 with $37 million from the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice, has a heady dual mandate: develop a workforce that can help the city meet its ambitious climate goals and bring those jobs to neighborhoods affected by gun violence.
“The labor supply is a big problem, but it’s also a massive opportunity,” said Donnel Baird, CEO and founder of BlocPower. Baird grew up in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood, where he said many Black and low-income families like his own would turn on their gas stoves in the winter to make up for inefficient heating systems.
“We are going into the lowest-income communities, where folks are at risk of gun violence — personally, their families, their communities — we’re training them on the latest, greatest software to install green infrastructure in urban environments, in rural environments,” Baird said in 2021. “That’s going to solve not only crime rates in low-income communities in New York City,” he added. “It’s [also] going to solve the business problem of the shortage of skilled construction workers across America.”
In several studies, access to jobs has been shown to correlate with lower crime rates; one study of youth employment in New York City revealed a 10 percent drop in incarceration for those who had summer jobs.
New York has ambitious plans to decarbonize its buildings, the city’s largest source of emissions. It has banned gas connections in new buildings and put caps on how much existing buildings can emit. By 2027, all new buildings will need to be fully electric. Officials say those changes will help the city reduce building emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and 80 percent by 2050.
New federal tax credits that are part of the Inflation Reduction Act provide additional incentives for developers and homeowners to replace outdated gas furnaces and boilers for electric upgrades.
There’s just one problem: there aren’t enough skilled workers.
“America has a shortage of skilled construction workers of any kind,” said Baird. Finding skilled construction workers who know how to install heat pumps, solar panels and transmission lines is especially challenging, with more electricians retiring each year than are replaced, according to the National Electrical Contractors Association. Rewiring America, an electrification nonprofit, estimates that the country needs a million new electricians to complete the new wiring needed for the energy transition.
“The pipeline for new electricians has been too narrow for too long,” said Rewiring America CEO Ari Matusiak. By his organization’s estimates, over a billion machines will need to be installed or replaced across American households over the coming decades, from breaker boxes to rooftop solar.
“The scale that is needed to meet the moment when it comes to our climate goals—but also to deliver savings to households and to reinvest in our communities—is pretty massive. And that requires people who know how to do that work,” Matusiak said.
Sam Steyer is the co-founder and CEO of Greenwork, a startup that connects clean energy developers with local contractors. Like Matusiak, he is intimately acquainted with the labor shortage in clean energy, a reality which he partly attributes to negative messaging about skilled trade work to Millennial and Gen Z workers.
“If you look back ten years, even, everyone was saying, ‘Oh, everything’s going to be replaced by automation and globalization, and the only path to a strong economic future is college,’” Steyer said. “I think we’re suffering the consequences of that now.”
Baird and his colleagues designed the Civilian Climate Corps program specifically to address these shortages. The program recruits trainees (or, as BlocPower prefers to call them, “members”) from low-income areas identified as having high rates of gun violence. It typically offers one month of workplace etiquette and business communication classes followed by about two months of technical training, which includes low-voltage electrical work, heating, ventilation, and air conditioner (HVAC) installation and workplace safety training. Most members then move on to on-site apprenticeships.
According to BlocPower, over 400 Civilian Climate Corps participants have secured jobs in related fields, and 62 percent have completed OSHA training. And perhaps most significantly for members, over 81 percent of whom were previously underemployed or unemployed, they get paid $20 per hour during their training.
This fall, BlocPower opened two training hubs in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn and the South Bronx. In October, Mayor Eric Adams announced a $54 million expansion of the program, which will allow 3,000 more New Yorkers to participate in the year ahead.
Policymakers in Washington have been pushing for a federal civilian climate corps for years. Early in his administration, President Joe Biden called for a program “to mobilize the next generation of conservation and resilience workers,” and Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation calling for the creation of a national civilian climate corps. Funding for such programs was ultimately dropped from the final version of the Inflation Reduction Act, but BlocPower hopes its program can “serve as a model for future national programming,” according to a spokesperson.
BlocPower is in the early stages of bringing its job-training program to cities like Buffalo, Denver and San Jose, according to a BlocPower spokesperson.
Cities like Ithaca, Philadelphia and Menlo Park, California have tapped the company to help electrify their buildings. Menlo Park has the ambitious goal of electrifying 95 percent of its existing buildings — about 10,000 of them — by 2030.
“One of the reasons we chose BlocPower is they’re very much aligned with our goals to focus first in areas that are predominantly communities of color, where the folks have been left out of energy innovations and need good-quality, long-term jobs,” said Angela Evans, Menlo Park’s environmental quality commissioner, who’s responsible for the city’s electrification program.
Though it’s known for being home to tech companies like Meta, Menlo Park is deeply segregated with large pockets of poverty and unemployment, especially in formerly redlined neighborhoods, Evans said. Menlo Park enlisted a local organization to build out its own job training program and plans to select its first cohort of 20 participants — primarily women and people of color — in early 2023.
“We absolutely have the tech, and we know that [electrification is] more efficient than gas, but it’s finding the folks who can do this and who are willing to do it,” Evans said. She’s spoken with quite a few “first-movers” who are eager to electrify their homes but are having a tough time finding available contractors.
Evans said that the city is raising funds to pay participants a comfortable living stipend; the state of California recently granted Menlo Park $4.5 million for its electrification program, part of which will be used to support job training, and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has also committed $75,000 to workforce development efforts. The training program will also offer onsite childcare and other benefits, Evans said.
Menlo Park’s program has not yet launched, but Evans said she is already getting calls from other cities across the country, including Chicago and Denver, interested in learning about Menlo Park’s decarbonization and workforce development efforts.
“My genuine hope is that not only will building electrification scale in cities throughout the country, but that we’re going to create good quality, clean energy jobs while we do it,” she said.
For Baird, it’s not just about training low-income communities for good-paying jobs. He wants to ensure they’re also able to get the same energy upgrades their wealthier neighbors have. If BlocPower can help increase the nation’s labor supply, it will reduce the cost of electrification for everyone, he reasons.
Clark, who is now in his second year in the program and helping BlocPower mentor new members, said he’s become a green-jobs evangelist and hopes to excite friends and families about opportunities in the burgeoning field. “The only reason people are hesitant about it is because they don’t understand it. They don’t know about green jobs,” he said.
Michelle Ma wrote this article for Reasons to be Cheerful.
get more stories like this via email
By Stephen Battersby for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Broadcast version by Kathryn Carley for Commonwealth News Service, reporting for the Pulitzer Center-Public News Service Collaboration.
As a phrase and as a promise, net zero has been a great success. Hundreds of countries have pledged to reduce their net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by around the middle of this century. So, too, have thousands of regions, cities, and companies. Net zero has become a beacon of hope, guiding us to climate safety.
But look closely, and the beacon becomes a little blurry. Some scientists argue that net zero might lead us to rely too heavily on technologies that capture CO2 from the air. That could bring dangerous delays and unwelcome side effects, and give fossil fuel producers leeway to keep pumping and polluting. And its allure may be obscuring our need to look beyond net zero to a more ambitious goal-a world of net-negative emissions.
Some climate scientists have ideas about how we could refine net zero to make it a more focused and effective target. Others say it should only be one part of a new climate narrative. "We don't think enough about net zero, what it means, and if it's the right goal," says environmental social scientist Holly Jean Buck, of the University at Buffalo in New York.
With the fate of the planet riding on the outcome, it's vital that governments and institutions are not led astray by their climate beacon-so the debate over net zero is more urgent than ever.
The Root of Zero
The idea of net zero is firmly based on climate science. In the 2000s, scientists worked out that if we stop pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, global average temperatures should roughly stabilize. That is because two effects of Earth's oceans happen to cancel out. Today, the atmosphere is kept relatively cool by the oceans. As seawater slowly warms, we lose that cooling effect, so if emissions fall to zero, we might expect the atmosphere to carry on warming for a few decades-a phenomenon known as thermal inertia. But the oceans also keep absorbing CO2, which should roughly balance the thermal inertia and keep temperatures steady.
Net zero took off in 2018, driven by the United Nations report "Global Warming of 1.5 °C." Three years earlier, the Paris Agreement had set out a goal to limit warming to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 °C. The new report laid out how the world might try to hit the more ambitious end of that goal, based on models that combine climate and economic activity. It concluded that to avoid warming of more than 1.5 °C, we would not only have to cut emissions deeply, but also remove a lot of CO2 from the atmosphere. Such removal could balance any stubborn, ongoing sources of greenhouse gases, known as residual emissions. These might include CO2 from concrete manufacture, for example, or nitrous oxide from fertilizers. So instead of absolute zero emissions, the new goal aimed for net zero, which allows some residuals to be balanced by removal.
This was only possible because technologies that remove CO2 from the air had become feasible. "Targets through the years have tended to reflect the practicality at the time of reducing emissions," says climate ecologist Stephen Pacala at Princeton University in New Jersey. "When you could envision a practical path to zero net emissions without leaving the world in poverty-all of a sudden, humanity jumped on net zero as a target."
It has undoubtedly had a galvanizing effect. "Before this, few companies had climate targets at all," says Sam Fankhauser, a climate economist at the University of Oxford in the UK. "So this is a step in the right direction."
But that shouldn't be the end of the story. "Net zero comes from the science, so it's subject to change as we learn more," says climate economist Sabine Fuss at the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change in Berlin, who was a lead author on the "Global Warming of 1.5 °C" report. Climate scientists agree that the concept holds several crucial ambiguities that need to be resolved.
Zero Sum
For a start, what is the best balance between cutting emissions and removing CO2? That depends on which emission sources will be too difficult to cut. But when Buck and her colleagues analyzed 50 national long-term climate strategies, they found that countries are inconsistent in how they consider residual emissions. "The risk is that governments put things that are expensive or politically inconvenient to abate into the 'residual box,'" the paper states. That makes it hard to know how much CO2 removal we need.
According to these strategies, the average residual emissions in developed countries will be 18% of current total emissions at the time of net zero. Extended to the whole world, that would imply annual removals of at least 12 billion tonnes of CO2.
Natural solutions, such as planting forests, can't come close to reaching this quantity on their own-and in a warming world, they will be increasingly vulnerable to fire, disease, and chain saws. So the assumption is that we will use a range of novel removal methods: using machines to suck CO2 directly from the atmosphere, for example, or burning biomass to generate energy while capturing and storing the CO2 emitted.
Most of these technologies operate at small scales today, collectively removing only about two million tonnes of CO2 per year. For now, most of them are expensive to operate. Some need a lot more research and development and may yet prove difficult to scale up. That's the first problem with asking too much of carbon removal: It might not have the capacity to meet such high demand, and then we would fail to hit net zero.
The second problem is unwanted side effects. Deployed at large scale, biomass-based CO2 removal could compete for land with agriculture or with rich ecosystems, which could push up global food prices or harm biodiversity. Other approaches are also likely to have snags, especially if stretched too far. Direct air capture requires a lot of energy, which must come from a very-low-carbon source not to be counterproductive. Enhanced weathering, which involves grinding certain types of rock to speed natural CO2-absorbing chemical reactions, could create air pollution.
Without defining the levels of reductions and removals that lead to net zero, there's no clear imperative for each country or company to cut its emissions to the bone. Instead, they might hope to pay others to remove lots of CO2 on their behalf. "Everyone thinks they will buy negative emissions from someone else," says climate scientist Bas van Ruijven at the International Institute for Advanced Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria.
Worse, it seems increasingly likely that CO2 removal will have to go beyond merely balancing residuals. "Now it looks like we will need net negative to meet the Paris goal," says Fuss. That means removing more CO2 from the atmosphere than we put in. Researchers in the international ENGAGE project have developed models that include a range of sociopolitical constraints, such as the ability of governments to enforce climate legislation. These models project that climate warming will overshoot the 1.5 °C target by 2050. Reversing that overshoot would require several hundred gigatonnes of CO2 removal during this century. "So you cannot have an enormous amount of residual emission, as then you need an even more enormous amount of carbon removal," says van Ruijven, who is a member of the ENGAGE project.
It may be wise to go further and try to repair some of the damage we have done, dialing down global temperatures closer to pre-industrial levels and curbing the ocean acidification caused by absorbed CO2. That would, of course, require even more removals. Despite this, companies and countries are not yet planning to reach net negative.
In some quarters, net zero is seen as a final goal. This could leave the door open for fossil-fuel production to continue at high levels and for new infrastructure that could commit us to burning those fuels for decades to come. "We haven't focused enough on the phaseout of fossil fuels," says Buck. "If we only focus on emission at the point of combustion, then we are missing half the picture." The 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (known as COP28) alluded to this problem, calling for "transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems." But, this falls far short of a phaseout. "It is promising that they said something, but it could have been stronger," says Buck. "What you need is a plan and a lot of resources committed to phaseout."
Zero Clarity
Net zero holds a host of other ambiguities. "Today, everybody has their own idea of what net zero means," says Fuss. "So we should take a step back and refine the concept. It is really important to get all these things straight, so we are not fooling ourselves."
For example, it's unclear whether net zero should include climate feedback effects, such as CO
2 emitted by thawing permafrost. These could require vastly more removals to prevent temperatures from rising.
Nor does the target emphasize urgency. If governments are aiming for net zero in 2050, they might feel free to kick their heels for a while. But many mitigation measures will need decades to scale up, so "it's vital to reduce emission as much as possible in the short-term," says Fuss. "You don't break something just to then repair it."
Net zero doesn't yet specify the durability of removals, either. Today's emissions will linger for centuries, so they can't simply be balanced by a form of removal that is likely to last only years or even decades. As Fankhauser et al. write: "Achieving net zero through an unsustainable combination of fossil-fuel emissions and short-term removals is ultimately pointless."
The sum should also explicitly include any knock-on effects. For example, planting forests at high latitudes can be counterproductive because they create a darker landscape that absorbs more solar heat, melting local ice and snow.
Then there is the question of whether to include other greenhouse gases, such as methane, in the net-zero sum. Methane has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere, so attempting to cancel out methane emissions with CO
2 removal would tend to mean more warming in the short term, and less in the long run. That could be good or bad, depending on whether it takes us past climate tipping points.
Zooming in on Zero
How can we do better? The first thing is to decide what should be classed as a residual. "We should make sure that residual emissions are truly hard to abate," says Buck. Voluntary codes are starting to address that, including the net-zero corporate standard launched by the Science Based Targets initiative, which calls for residuals to be only 5-10% of a company's current emissions.
To get removals moving, Fuss thinks that we need higher prices on carbon emissions. "If we are asking people to remove, we are asking them to perform a public service," she says, "so we should be compensating them for extracting each tonne of CO
2."
Carbon pricing could also curb fossil fuel production. Pacala led a 2023 National Academies report on accelerating decarbonization, which, among other things, recommended an economy-wide carbon tax in the United States. He says that the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (the nation's main policy tool for moving toward net zero) omitted any such tax in order to gain political traction.
Assuming that carbon removals can scale up fast enough, it will be vital to prove how much CO
2 they are removing, through monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. That could be challenging. "MRV is hard enough with forests, where we already have decades of experience," says Buck. "With novel techniques, it's a big challenge, and I'm not sure it's solvable on a timescale of 20 years or so." But there are some promising signs. In November 2023, the European Parliament voted to adopt a new certification scheme for removals, aiming to boost their credibility and scale. Meanwhile, advances in remote sensing and machine learning could make MRV more achievable.
As well as trying to redefine net zero, perhaps nations and societies also need to take a step back and think more broadly about what to strive for. Buck thinks that net zero should become just one among a set of targets, including reductions in fossil-fuel production and enhancing the capacity of countries to implement the clean-energy transition. She also considers the term to be fundamentally unsatisfying, a piece of accountancy that is not compelling to most people. Perhaps the world needs a more inspiring climate narrative that comes not just from scientists, but also other groups. "We need to evolve broader languages," Buck says, "and make more effort to understand what would encourage people to change their lifestyles and consumption."
Fankhauser, meanwhile, cautions against focusing on climate impacts alone. "The risk is that we maximize natural systems for carbon uptake but compromise biodiversity and other ecosystem services," he says. "We need a holistic point of view."
Climate solutions should also avoid dumping pollution or costs disproportionately on disadvantaged communities. This isn't just a moral matter. "People are not going to go along with these changes unless they see benefits in their own lives," says Pacala, who points to the plight of coal miners in the United States and other workers whose jobs may be threatened by the energy transformation. "We have to manage the jobs of legacy workers, who were previously thrown under the bus," he says.
At the moment, there is no pithy phrase to sum up these diverse aims. "Net zero is powerful because it is two words," says Fankhauser. Adding more detail could spoil that rhetorical impact. Low-residual, urgent, all-greenhouse-gas net zero, aligned with biodiversity and poverty reduction-it hardly trips off the tongue. For now, at least, researchers and policymakers may have to stick with those two words, while carefully contemplating all the things that add up to zero.
Stephen Battersby wrote this article for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
get more stories like this via email