Policy

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares107 Views

    How can India decarbonize its coal-dependent electric power system?

    by

    As the world struggles to reduce climate-warming carbon emissions, India has pledged to do its part, and its success is critical: In 2023, India was the third-largest carbon emitter worldwide. The Indian government has committed to having net-zero carbon emissions by 2070.To fulfill that promise, India will need to decarbonize its electric power system, and that will be a challenge: Fully 60 percent of India’s electricity comes from coal-burning power plants that are extremely inefficient. To make matters worse, the demand for electricity in India is projected to more than double in the coming decade due to population growth and increased use of air conditioning, electric cars, and so on.Despite having set an ambitious target, the Indian government has not proposed a plan for getting there. Indeed, as in other countries, in India the government continues to permit new coal-fired power plants to be built, and aging plants to be renovated and their retirement postponed.To help India define an effective — and realistic — plan for decarbonizing its power system, key questions must be addressed. For example, India is already rapidly developing carbon-free solar and wind power generators. What opportunities remain for further deployment of renewable generation? Are there ways to retrofit or repurpose India’s existing coal plants that can substantially and affordably reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? And do the responses to those questions differ by region?With funding from IHI Corp. through the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), Yifu Ding, a postdoc at MITEI, and her colleagues set out to answer those questions by first using machine learning to determine the efficiency of each of India’s current 806 coal plants, and then investigating the impacts that different decarbonization approaches would have on the mix of power plants and the price of electricity in 2035 under increasingly stringent caps on emissions.First step: Develop the needed datasetAn important challenge in developing a decarbonization plan for India has been the lack of a complete dataset describing the current power plants in India. While other studies have generated plans, they haven’t taken into account the wide variation in the coal-fired power plants in different regions of the country. “So, we first needed to create a dataset covering and characterizing all of the operating coal plants in India. Such a dataset was not available in the existing literature,” says Ding.Making a cost-effective plan for expanding the capacity of a power system requires knowing the efficiencies of all the power plants operating in the system. For this study, the researchers used as their metric the “station heat rate,” a standard measurement of the overall fuel efficiency of a given power plant. The station heat rate of each plant is needed in order to calculate the fuel consumption and power output of that plant as plans for capacity expansion are being developed.Some of the Indian coal plants’ efficiencies were recorded before 2022, so Ding and her team used machine-learning models to predict the efficiencies of all the Indian coal plants operating now. In 2024, they created and posted online the first comprehensive, open-sourced dataset for all 806 power plants in 30 regions of India. The work won the 2024 MIT Open Data Prize. This dataset includes each plant’s power capacity, efficiency, age, load factor (a measure indicating how much of the time it operates), water stress, and more.In addition, they categorized each plant according to its boiler design. A “supercritical” plant operates at a relatively high temperature and pressure, which makes it thermodynamically efficient, so it produces a lot of electricity for each unit of heat in the fuel. A “subcritical” plant runs at a lower temperature and pressure, so it’s less thermodynamically efficient. Most of the Indian coal plants are still subcritical plants running at low efficiency.Next step: Investigate decarbonization optionsEquipped with their detailed dataset covering all the coal power plants in India, the researchers were ready to investigate options for responding to tightening limits on carbon emissions. For that analysis, they turned to GenX, a modeling platform that was developed at MITEI to help guide decision-makers as they make investments and other plans for the future of their power systems.Ding built a GenX model based on India’s power system in 2020, including details about each power plant and transmission network across 30 regions of the country. She also entered the coal price, potential resources for wind and solar power installations, and other attributes of each region. Based on the parameters given, the GenX model would calculate the lowest-cost combination of equipment and operating conditions that can fulfill a defined future level of demand while also meeting specified policy constraints, including limits on carbon emissions. The model and all data sources were also released as open-source tools for all viewers to use.Ding and her colleagues — Dharik Mallapragada, a former principal research scientist at MITEI who is now an assistant professor of chemical and biomolecular energy at NYU Tandon School of Engineering and a MITEI visiting scientist; and Robert J. Stoner, the founding director of the MIT Tata Center for Technology and Design and former deputy director of MITEI for science and technology — then used the model to explore options for meeting demands in 2035 under progressively tighter carbon emissions caps, taking into account region-to-region variations in the efficiencies of the coal plants, the price of coal, and other factors. They describe their methods and their findings in a paper published in the journal Energy for Sustainable Development.In separate runs, they explored plans involving various combinations of current coal plants, possible new renewable plants, and more, to see their outcome in 2035. Specifically, they assumed the following four “grid-evolution scenarios:”Baseline: The baseline scenario assumes limited onshore wind and solar photovoltaics development and excludes retrofitting options, representing a business-as-usual pathway.High renewable capacity: This scenario calls for the development of onshore wind and solar power without any supply chain constraints.Biomass co-firing: This scenario assumes the baseline limits on renewables, but here all coal plants — both subcritical and supercritical — can be retrofitted for “co-firing” with biomass, an approach in which clean-burning biomass replaces some of the coal fuel. Certain coal power plants in India already co-fire coal and biomass, so the technology is known.Carbon capture and sequestration plus biomass co-firing: This scenario is based on the same assumptions as the biomass co-firing scenario with one addition: All of the high-efficiency supercritical plants are also retrofitted for carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), a technology that captures and removes carbon from a power plant’s exhaust stream and prepares it for permanent disposal. Thus far, CCS has not been used in India. This study specifies that 90 percent of all carbon in the power plant exhaust is captured.Ding and her team investigated power system planning under each of those grid-evolution scenarios and four assumptions about carbon caps: no cap, which is the current situation; 1,000 million tons (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which reflects India’s announced targets for 2035; and two more-ambitious targets, namely 800 Mt and 500 Mt. For context, CO2 emissions from India’s power sector totaled about 1,100 Mt in 2021. (Note that transmission network expansion is allowed in all scenarios.)Key findingsAssuming the adoption of carbon caps under the four scenarios generated a vast array of detailed numerical results. But taken together, the results show interesting trends in the cost-optimal mix of generating capacity and the cost of electricity under the different scenarios.Even without any limits on carbon emissions, most new capacity additions will be wind and solar generators — the lowest-cost option for expanding India’s electricity-generation capacity. Indeed, this is observed to be the case now in India. However, the increasing demand for electricity will still require some new coal plants to be built. Model results show a 10 to 20 percent increase in coal plant capacity by 2035 relative to 2020.Under the baseline scenario, renewables are expanded up to the maximum allowed under the assumptions, implying that more deployment would be economical. More coal capacity is built, and as the cap on emissions tightens, there is also investment in natural gas power plants, as well as batteries to help compensate for the now-large amount of intermittent solar and wind generation. When a 500 Mt cap on carbon is imposed, the cost of electricity generation is twice as high as it was with no cap.The high renewable capacity scenario reduces the development of new coal capacity and produces the lowest electricity cost of the four scenarios. Under the most stringent cap — 500 Mt — onshore wind farms play an important role in bringing the cost down. “Otherwise, it’ll be very expensive to reach such stringent carbon constraints,” notes Ding. “Certain coal plants that remain run only a few hours per year, so are inefficient as well as financially unviable. But they still need to be there to support wind and solar.” She explains that other backup sources of electricity, such as batteries, are even more costly. The biomass co-firing scenario assumes the same capacity limit on renewables as in the baseline scenario, and the results are much the same, in part because the biomass replaces such a low fraction — just 20 percent — of the coal in the fuel feedstock. “This scenario would be most similar to the current situation in India,” says Ding. “It won’t bring down the cost of electricity, so we’re basically saying that adding this technology doesn’t contribute effectively to decarbonization.”But CCS plus biomass co-firing is a different story. It also assumes the limits on renewables development, yet it is the second-best option in terms of reducing costs. Under the 500 Mt cap on CO2 emissions, retrofitting for both CCS and biomass co-firing produces a 22 percent reduction in the cost of electricity compared to the baseline scenario. In addition, as the carbon cap tightens, this option reduces the extent of deployment of natural gas plants and significantly improves overall coal plant utilization. That increased utilization “means that coal plants have switched from just meeting the peak demand to supplying part of the baseline load, which will lower the cost of coal generation,” explains Ding.Some concernsWhile those trends are enlightening, the analyses also uncovered some concerns for India to consider, in particular, with the two approaches that yielded the lowest electricity costs.The high renewables scenario is, Ding notes, “very ideal.” It assumes that there will be little limiting the development of wind and solar capacity, so there won’t be any issues with supply chains, which is unrealistic. More importantly, the analyses showed that implementing the high renewables approach would create uneven investment in renewables across the 30 regions. Resources for onshore and offshore wind farms are mainly concentrated in a few regions in western and southern India. “So all the wind farms would be put in those regions, near where the rich cities are,” says Ding. “The poorer cities on the eastern side, where the coal power plants are, will have little renewable investment.”So the approach that’s best in terms of cost is not best in terms of social welfare, because it tends to benefit the rich regions more than the poor ones. “It’s like [the government will] need to consider the trade-off between energy justice and cost,” says Ding. Enacting state-level renewable generation targets could encourage a more even distribution of renewable capacity installation. Also, as transmission expansion is planned, coordination among power system operators and renewable energy investors in different regions could help in achieving the best outcome.CCS plus biomass co-firing — the second-best option for reducing prices — solves the equity problem posed by high renewables, and it assumes a more realistic level of renewable power adoption. However, CCS hasn’t been used in India, so there is no precedent in terms of costs. The researchers therefore based their cost estimates on the cost of CCS in China and then increased the required investment by 10 percent, the “first-of-a-kind” index developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Based on those costs and other assumptions, the researchers conclude that coal plants with CCS could come into use by 2035 when the carbon cap for power generation is less than 1,000 Mt.But will CCS actually be implemented in India? While there’s been discussion about using CCS in heavy industry, the Indian government has not announced any plans for implementing the technology in coal-fired power plants. Indeed, India is currently “very conservative about CCS,” says Ding. “Some researchers say CCS won’t happen because it’s so expensive, and as long as there’s no direct use for the captured carbon, the only thing you can do is put it in the ground.” She adds, “It’s really controversial to talk about whether CCS will be implemented in India in the next 10 years.”Ding and her colleagues hope that other researchers and policymakers — especially those working in developing countries — may benefit from gaining access to their datasets and learning about their methods. Based on their findings for India, she stresses the importance of understanding the detailed geographical situation in a country in order to design plans and policies that are both realistic and equitable. More

    More stories

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Energy

      Reducing carbon emissions from residential heating: A pathway forward

      by

      In the race to reduce climate-warming carbon emissions, the buildings sector is falling behind. While carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the U.S. electric power sector dropped by 34 percent between 2005 and 2021, emissions in the building sector declined by only 18 percent in that same time period. Moreover, in extremely cold locations, burning natural gas to heat houses can make up a substantial share of the emissions portfolio. Therefore, steps to electrify buildings in general, and residential heating in particular, are essential for decarbonizing the U.S. energy system.But that change will increase demand for electricity and decrease demand for natural gas. What will be the net impact of those two changes on carbon emissions and on the cost of decarbonizing? And how will the electric power and natural gas sectors handle the new challenges involved in their long-term planning for future operations and infrastructure investments?A new study by MIT researchers with support from the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) Future Energy Systems Center unravels the impacts of various levels of electrification of residential space heating on the joint power and natural gas systems. A specially devised modeling framework enabled them to estimate not only the added costs and emissions for the power sector to meet the new demand, but also any changes in costs and emissions that result for the natural gas sector.The analyses brought some surprising outcomes. For example, they show that — under certain conditions — switching 80 percent of homes to heating by electricity could cut carbon emissions and at the same time significantly reduce costs over the combined natural gas and electric power sectors relative to the case in which there is only modest switching. That outcome depends on two changes: Consumers must install high-efficiency heat pumps plus take steps to prevent heat losses from their homes, and planners in the power and the natural gas sectors must work together as they make long-term infrastructure and operations decisions. Based on their findings, the researchers stress the need for strong state, regional, and national policies that encourage and support the steps that homeowners and industry planners can take to help decarbonize today’s building sector.A two-part modeling approachTo analyze the impacts of electrification of residential heating on costs and emissions in the combined power and gas sectors, a team of MIT experts in building technology, power systems modeling, optimization techniques, and more developed a two-part modeling framework. Team members included Rahman Khorramfar, a senior postdoc in MITEI and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS); Morgan Santoni-Colvin SM ’23, a former MITEI graduate research assistant, now an associate at Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.; Saurabh Amin, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and principal investigator in LIDS; Audun Botterud, a principal research scientist in LIDS; Leslie Norford, a professor in the Department of Architecture; and Dharik Mallapragada, a former MITEI principal research scientist, now an assistant professor at New York University, who led the project. They describe their new methods and findings in a paper published in the journal Cell Reports Sustainability on Feb. 6.The first model in the framework quantifies how various levels of electrification will change end-use demand for electricity and for natural gas, and the impacts of possible energy-saving measures that homeowners can take to help. “To perform that analysis, we built a ‘bottom-up’ model — meaning that it looks at electricity and gas consumption of individual buildings and then aggregates their consumption to get an overall demand for power and for gas,” explains Khorramfar. By assuming a wide range of building “archetypes” — that is, groupings of buildings with similar physical characteristics and properties — coupled with trends in population growth, the team could explore how demand for electricity and for natural gas would change under each of five assumed electrification pathways: “business as usual” with modest electrification, medium electrification (about 60 percent of homes are electrified), high electrification (about 80 percent of homes make the change), and medium and high electrification with “envelope improvements,” such as sealing up heat leaks and adding insulation.The second part of the framework consists of a model that takes the demand results from the first model as inputs and “co-optimizes” the overall electricity and natural gas system to minimize annual investment and operating costs while adhering to any constraints, such as limits on emissions or on resource availability. The modeling framework thus enables the researchers to explore the impact of each electrification pathway on the infrastructure and operating costs of the two interacting sectors.The New England case study: A challenge for electrificationAs a case study, the researchers chose New England, a region where the weather is sometimes extremely cold and where burning natural gas to heat houses contributes significantly to overall emissions. “Critics will say that electrification is never going to happen [in New England]. It’s just too expensive,” comments Santoni-Colvin. But he notes that most studies focus on the electricity sector in isolation. The new framework considers the joint operation of the two sectors and then quantifies their respective costs and emissions. “We know that electrification will require large investments in the electricity infrastructure,” says Santoni-Colvin. “But what hasn’t been well quantified in the literature is the savings that we generate on the natural gas side by doing that — so, the system-level savings.”Using their framework, the MIT team performed model runs aimed at an 80 percent reduction in building-sector emissions relative to 1990 levels — a target consistent with regional policy goals for 2050. The researchers defined parameters including details about building archetypes, the regional electric power system, existing and potential renewable generating systems, battery storage, availability of natural gas, and other key factors describing New England.They then performed analyses assuming various scenarios with different mixes of home improvements. While most studies assume typical weather, they instead developed 20 projections of annual weather data based on historical weather patterns and adjusted for the effects of climate change through 2050. They then analyzed their five levels of electrification.Relative to business-as-usual projections, results from the framework showed that high electrification of residential heating could more than double the demand for electricity during peak periods and increase overall electricity demand by close to 60 percent. Assuming that building-envelope improvements are deployed in parallel with electrification reduces the magnitude and weather sensitivity of peak loads and creates overall efficiency gains that reduce the combined demand for electricity plus natural gas for home heating by up to 30 percent relative to the present day. Notably, a combination of high electrification and envelope improvements resulted in the lowest average cost for the overall electric power-natural gas system in 2050.Lessons learnedReplacing existing natural gas-burning furnaces and boilers with heat pumps reduces overall energy consumption. Santoni-Colvin calls it “something of an intuitive result” that could be expected because heat pumps are “just that much more efficient than old, fossil fuel-burning systems. But even so, we were surprised by the gains.”Other unexpected results include the importance of homeowners making more traditional energy efficiency improvements, such as adding insulation and sealing air leaks — steps supported by recent rebate policies. Those changes are critical to reducing costs that would otherwise be incurred for upgrading the electricity grid to accommodate the increased demand. “You can’t just go wild dropping heat pumps into everybody’s houses if you’re not also considering other ways to reduce peak loads. So it really requires an ‘all of the above’ approach to get to the most cost-effective outcome,” says Santoni-Colvin.Testing a range of weather outcomes also provided important insights. Demand for heating fuel is very weather-dependent, yet most studies are based on a limited set of weather data — often a “typical year.” The researchers found that electrification can lead to extended peak electric load events that can last for a few days during cold winters. Accordingly, the researchers conclude that there will be a continuing need for a “firm, dispatchable” source of electricity; that is, a power-generating system that can be relied on to produce power any time it’s needed — unlike solar and wind systems. As examples, they modeled some possible technologies, including power plants fired by a low-carbon fuel or by natural gas equipped with carbon capture equipment. But they point out that there’s no way of knowing what types of firm generators will be available in 2050. It could be a system that’s not yet mature, or perhaps doesn’t even exist today.In presenting their findings, the researchers note several caveats. For one thing, their analyses don’t include the estimated cost to homeowners of installing heat pumps. While that cost is widely discussed and debated, that issue is outside the scope of their current project.In addition, the study doesn’t specify what happens to existing natural gas pipelines. “Some homes are going to electrify and get off the gas system and not have to pay for it, leaving other homes with increasing rates because the gas system cost now has to be divided among fewer customers,” says Khorramfar. “That will inevitably raise equity questions that need to be addressed by policymakers.”Finally, the researchers note that policies are needed to drive residential electrification. Current financial support for installation of heat pumps and steps to make homes more thermally efficient are a good start. But such incentives must be coupled with a new approach to planning energy infrastructure investments. Traditionally, electric power planning and natural gas planning are performed separately. However, to decarbonize residential heating, the two sectors should coordinate when planning future operations and infrastructure needs. Results from the MIT analysis indicate that such cooperation could significantly reduce both emissions and costs for residential heating — a change that would yield a much-needed step toward decarbonizing the buildings sector as a whole. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Energy

      Smart carbon dioxide removal yields economic and environmental benefits

      by

      Last year the Earth exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above preindustrial times, a threshold beyond which wildfires, droughts, floods, and other climate impacts are expected to escalate in frequency, intensity, and lethality. To cap global warming at 1.5 C and avert that scenario, the nearly 200 signatory nations of the Paris Agreement on climate change will need to not only dramatically lower their greenhouse gas emissions, but also take measures to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and durably store it at or below the Earth’s surface.Past analyses of the climate mitigation potential, costs, benefits, and drawbacks of different carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options have focused primarily on three strategies: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), in which CO2-absorbing plant matter is converted into fuels or directly burned to generate energy, with some of the plant’s carbon content captured and then stored safely and permanently; afforestation/reforestation, in which CO2-absorbing trees are planted in large numbers; and direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), a technology that captures and separates CO2 directly from ambient air, and injects it into geological reservoirs or incorporates it into durable products. To provide a more comprehensive and actionable analysis of CDR, a new study by researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3) first expands the option set to include biochar (charcoal produced from plant matter and stored in soil) and enhanced weathering (EW) (spreading finely ground rock particles on land to accelerate storage of CO2 in soil and water). The study then evaluates portfolios of all five options — in isolation and in combination — to assess their capability to meet the 1.5 C goal, and their potential impacts on land, energy, and policy costs.The study appears in the journal Environmental Research Letters. Aided by their global multi-region, multi-sector Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, the MIT CS3 researchers produce three key findings.First, the most cost-effective, low-impact strategy that policymakers can take to achieve global net-zero emissions — an essential step in meeting the 1.5 C goal — is to diversify their CDR portfolio, rather than rely on any single option. This approach minimizes overall cropland and energy consumption, and negative impacts such as increased food insecurity and decreased energy supplies.By diversifying across multiple CDR options, the highest CDR deployment of around 31.5 gigatons of CO2 per year is achieved in 2100, while also proving the most cost-effective net-zero strategy. The study identifies BECCS and biochar as most cost-competitive in removing CO2 from the atmosphere, followed by EW, with DACCS as uncompetitive due to high capital and energy requirements. While posing logistical and other challenges, biochar and EW have the potential to improve soil quality and productivity across 45 percent of all croplands by 2100.“Diversifying CDR portfolios is the most cost-effective net-zero strategy because it avoids relying on a single CDR option, thereby reducing and redistributing negative impacts on agriculture, forestry, and other land uses, as well as on the energy sector,” says Solene Chiquier, lead author of the study who was a CS3 postdoc during its preparation.The second finding: There is no optimal CDR portfolio that will work well at global and national levels. The ideal CDR portfolio for a particular region will depend on local technological, economic, and geophysical conditions. For example, afforestation and reforestation would be of great benefit in places like Brazil, Latin America, and Africa, by not only sequestering carbon in more acreage of protected forest but also helping to preserve planetary well-being and human health.“In designing a sustainable, cost-effective CDR portfolio, it is important to account for regional availability of agricultural, energy, and carbon-storage resources,” says Sergey Paltsev, CS3 deputy director, MIT Energy Initiative senior research scientist, and supervising co-author of the study. “Our study highlights the need for enhancing knowledge about local conditions that favor some CDR options over others.”Finally, the MIT CS3 researchers show that delaying large-scale deployment of CDR portfolios could be very costly, leading to considerably higher carbon prices across the globe — a development sure to deter the climate mitigation efforts needed to achieve the 1.5 C goal. They recommend near-term implementation of policy and financial incentives to help fast-track those efforts. More

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in Energy

      Toward sustainable decarbonization of aviation in Latin America

      by

      According to the International Energy Agency, aviation accounts for about 2 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and aviation emissions are expected to double by mid-century as demand for domestic and international air travel rises. To sharply reduce emissions in alignment with the Paris Agreement’s long-term goal to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has set a goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Which raises the question: Are there technologically feasible and economically viable strategies to reach that goal within the next 25 years?To begin to address that question, a team of researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3) and the MIT Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment has spent the past year analyzing aviation decarbonization options in Latin America, where air travel is expected to more than triple by 2050 and thereby double today’s aviation-related emissions in the region.Chief among those options is the development and deployment of sustainable aviation fuel. Currently produced from low- and zero-carbon sources (feedstock) including municipal waste and non-food crops, and requiring practically no alteration of aircraft systems or refueling infrastructure, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) has the potential to perform just as well as petroleum-based jet fuel with as low as 20 percent of its carbon footprint.Focused on Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru, the researchers assessed SAF feedstock availability, the costs of corresponding SAF pathways, and how SAF deployment would likely impact fuel use, prices, emissions, and aviation demand in each country. They also explored how efficiency improvements and market-based mechanisms could help the region to reach decarbonization targets. The team’s findings appear in a CS3 Special Report.SAF emissions, costs, and sourcesUnder an ambitious emissions mitigation scenario designed to cap global warming at 1.5 C and raise the rate of SAF use in Latin America to 65 percent by 2050, the researchers projected aviation emissions to be reduced by about 60 percent in 2050 compared to a scenario in which existing climate policies are not strengthened. To achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, other measures would be required, such as improvements in operational and air traffic efficiencies, airplane fleet renewal, alternative forms of propulsion, and carbon offsets and removals.As of 2024, jet fuel prices in Latin America are around $0.70 per liter. Based on the current availability of feedstocks, the researchers projected SAF costs within the six countries studied to range from $1.11 to $2.86 per liter. They cautioned that increased fuel prices could affect operating costs of the aviation sector and overall aviation demand unless strategies to manage price increases are implemented.Under the 1.5 C scenario, the total cumulative capital investments required to build new SAF producing plants between 2025 and 2050 were estimated at $204 billion for the six countries (ranging from $5 billion in Ecuador to $84 billion in Brazil). The researchers identified sugarcane- and corn-based ethanol-to-jet fuel, palm oil- and soybean-based hydro-processed esters and fatty acids as the most promising feedstock sources in the near term for SAF production in Latin America.“Our findings show that SAF offers a significant decarbonization pathway, which must be combined with an economy-wide emissions mitigation policy that uses market-based mechanisms to offset the remaining emissions,” says Sergey Paltsev, lead author of the report, MIT CS3 deputy director, and senior research scientist at the MIT Energy Initiative.RecommendationsThe researchers concluded the report with recommendations for national policymakers and aviation industry leaders in Latin America.They stressed that government policy and regulatory mechanisms will be needed to create sufficient conditions to attract SAF investments in the region and make SAF commercially viable as the aviation industry decarbonizes operations. Without appropriate policy frameworks, SAF requirements will affect the cost of air travel. For fuel producers, stable, long-term-oriented policies and regulations will be needed to create robust supply chains, build demand for establishing economies of scale, and develop innovative pathways for producing SAF.Finally, the research team recommended a region-wide collaboration in designing SAF policies. A unified decarbonization strategy among all countries in the region will help ensure competitiveness, economies of scale, and achievement of long-term carbon emissions-reduction goals.“Regional feedstock availability and costs make Latin America a potential major player in SAF production,” says Angelo Gurgel, a principal research scientist at MIT CS3 and co-author of the study. “SAF requirements, combined with government support mechanisms, will ensure sustainable decarbonization while enhancing the region’s connectivity and the ability of disadvantaged communities to access air transport.”Financial support for this study was provided by LATAM Airlines and Airbus. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Energy

      Study shows how households can cut energy costs

      by

      Many people around the globe are living in energy poverty, meaning they spend at least 8 percent of their annual household income on energy. Addressing this problem is not simple, but an experiment by MIT researchers shows that giving people better data about their energy use, plus some coaching on the subject, can lead them to substantially reduce their consumption and costs.The experiment, based in Amsterdam, resulted in households cutting their energy expenses in half, on aggregate — a savings big enough to move three-quarters of them out of energy poverty.“Our energy coaching project as a whole showed a 75 percent success rate at alleviating energy poverty,” says Joseph Llewellyn, a researcher with MIT’s Senseable City Lab and co-author of a newly published paper detailing the experiment’s results.“Energy poverty afflicts families all over the world. With empirical evidence on which policies work, governments could focus their efforts more effectively,” says Fábio Duarte, associate director of MIT’s Senseable City Lab, and another co-author of the paper.The paper, “Assessing the impact of energy coaching with smart technology interventions to alleviate energy poverty,” appears today in Nature Scientific Reports.The authors are Llewellyn, who is also a researcher at the Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions (AMS) and the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm; Titus Venverloo, a research fellow at the MIT Senseable City Lab and AMS; Fábio Duarte, who is also a principal researcher MIT’s Senseable City Lab; Carlo Ratti, director of the Senseable City Lab; Cecilia Katzeff; Fredrik Johansson; and Daniel Pargman of the KTH Royal Institute of Technology.The researchers developed the study after engaging with city officials in Amsterdam. In the Netherlands, about 550,000 households, or 7 percent of the population, are considered to be in energy poverty; in the European Union, that figure is about 50 million. In the U.S., separate research has shown that about three in 10 households report trouble paying energy bills.To conduct the experiment, the researchers ran two versions of an energy coaching intervention. In one version, 67 households received one report on their energy usage, along with coaching about how to increase energy efficiency. In the other version, 50 households received those things as well as a smart device giving them real-time updates on their energy consumption. (All households also received some modest energy-savings improvements at the outset, such as additional insulation.)Across the two groups, homes typically reduced monthly consumption of electricity by 33 percent and gas by 42 percent. They lowered their bills by 53 percent, on aggregate, and the percentage of income they spent on energy dropped from 10.1 percent to 5.3 percent.What were these households doing differently? Some of the biggest behavioral changes included things such as only heating rooms that were in use and unplugging devices not being used. Both of those changes save energy, but their benefits were not always understood by residents before they received energy coaching.“The range of energy literacy was quite wide from one home to the next,” Llewellyn says. “And when I went somewhere as an energy coach, it was never to moralize about energy use. I never said, ‘Oh, you’re using way too much.’ It was always working on it with the households, depending on what people need for their homes.”Intriguingly, the homes receiving the small devices that displayed real-time energy data only tended to use them for three or four weeks following a coaching visit. After that, people seemed to lose interest in very frequent monitoring of their energy use. And yet, a few weeks of consulting the devices tended to be long enough to get people to change their habits in a lasting way.“Our research shows that smart devices need to be accompanied by a close understanding of what drives families to change their behaviors,” Venverloo says.As the researchers acknowledge, working with consumers to reduce their energy consumption is just one way to help people escape energy poverty. Other “structural” factors that can help include lower energy prices and more energy-efficient buildings.On the latter note, the current paper has given rise to a new experiment Llewellyn is developing with Amsterdam officials, to examine the benefits of retrofitting residental buildings to lower energy costs. In that case, local policymakers are trying to work out how to fund the retrofitting in such a way that landlords do not simply pass those costs on to tenants.“We don’t want a household to save money on their energy bills if it also means the rent increases, because then we’ve just displaced expenses from one item to another,” Llewellyn says.Households can also invest in products like better insulation themselves, for windows or heating components, although for low-income households, finding the money to pay for such things may not be trivial. That is especially the case, Llewellyn suggests, because energy costs can seem “invisible,” and a lower priority, than feeding and clothing a family.“It’s a big upfront cost for a household that does not have 100 Euros to spend,” Llewellyn says. Compared to paying for other necessities, he notes, “Energy is often the thing that tends to fall last on their list. Energy is always going to be this invisible thing that hides behind the walls, and it’s not easy to change that.”  More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Environment

      Q&A: Examining American attitudes on global climate policies

      by

      Does the United States have a “moral responsibility” for providing aid to poor nations — which have a significantly smaller carbon footprint and face catastrophic climate events at a much higher rate than wealthy countries?A study published Dec. 11 in Climatic Change explores U.S. public opinion on global climate policies considering our nation’s historic role as a leading contributor of carbon emissions. The randomized, experimental survey specifically investigates American attitudes toward such a moral responsibility. The work was led by MIT Professor Evan Lieberman, the Total Chair on Contemporary African Politics and director of the MIT Center for International Studies, and Volha Charnysh, the Ford Career Development Associate Professor of Political Science, and was co-authored with MIT political science PhD student Jared Kalow and University of Pennsylvania postdoc Erin Walk PhD ’24. Here, Lieberman describes the team’s research and insights, and offers recommendations that could result in more effective climate advocacy.Q: What are the key findings — and any surprises — of your recent work on climate attitudes among the U.S. population?A: A big question at the COP29 Climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan was: Who will pay the trillions of dollars needed to help lower-income countries adapt to climate change? During past meetings, global leaders have come to an increasing consensus that the wealthiest countries should pay, but there has been little follow-through on commitments. In countries like the United States, popular opinion about such policies can weigh heavily on politicians’ minds, as citizens focus on their own challenges at home.Prime Minister Gaston Browne of Antigua and Barbuda is one of many who views such transfers as a matter of moral responsibility, explaining that many rich countries see climate finance as “a random act of charity … not recognizing that they have a moral obligation to provide funding, especially the historical emitters and even those who currently have large emissions.”In our study, we set out to measure American attitudes towards climate-related foreign aid, and explicitly to test the impact of this particular moral responsibility narrative. We did this on an experimental basis, so subjects were randomly assigned to receive different messages.One message emphasized what we call a “climate justice” frame, and it argued that Americans should contribute to helping poor countries because of the United States’ disproportionate role in the emissions of greenhouse gasses that have led to global warming. That message had a positive impact on the extent to which citizens supported the use of foreign aid for climate adaptation in poor countries. However, when we looked at who was actually moved by the message, we found that the effect was larger and statistically significant only among Democrats, but not among Republicans.We were surprised that a message emphasizing solidarity, the idea that “we are all in this together,” had no overall effect on citizen attitudes, Democrats or Republicans. Q: What are your recommendations toward addressing the attitudes on global climate policies within the U.S.?A: First, given limited budgets and attention for communications campaigns, our research certainly suggests that emphasizing a bit of blaming and shaming is more powerful than more diffuse messages of shared responsibility.But our research also emphasized how critically important it is to find new ways to communicate with Republicans about climate change and about foreign aid. Republicans were overwhelmingly less supportive of climate aid and yet even from that low baseline, a message that moved Democrats had a much more mixed reception among Republicans. Researchers and those working on the front lines of climate communications need to do more to better understand Republican perspectives. Younger Republicans, for example, might be more movable on key climate policies.Q: With an incoming Trump administration, what are some of the specific hurdles and/or opportunities we face in garnering U.S. public support for international climate negotiations?A: Not only did Trump demonstrate his disdain for international action on climate change by withdrawing from the Paris agreement during his first term in office, but he has indicated his intention to double down on such strategies in his second term. And the idea that he would support assistance for the world’s poorest countries harmed by climate change? This seems unlikely. Because we find Republican public opinion so firmly in line with these perspectives, frankly, it is hard to be optimistic.Those Americans concerned with the effects of climate change may need to look to state-level, non-government, corporate, and more global organizations to support climate justice efforts.Q: Are there any other takeaways you’d like to share?A: Those working in the climate change area may need to rethink how we talk and message about the challenges the world faces. Right now, almost anything that sounds like “climate change” is likely to be rejected by Republican leaders and large segments of American society. Our approach of experimenting with different types of messages is a relatively low-cost strategy for identifying more promising strategies, targeted at Americans and at citizens in other wealthy countries.But our study, in line with other work, also demonstrates that partisanship — identifying as a Republican or Democrat — is by far the strongest predictor of attitudes toward climate aid. While climate justice messaging can move attitudes slightly, the effects are still modest relative to the contributions of party identification itself. Just as Republican party elites were once persuaded to take leadership in the global fight against HIV and AIDS, a similar challenge lies ahead for climate aid. More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Environment

      MIT delegation mainstreams biodiversity conservation at the UN Biodiversity Convention, COP16

      by

      For the first time, MIT sent an organized engagement to the global Conference of the Parties for the Convention on Biological Diversity, which this year was held Oct. 21 to Nov. 1 in Cali, Colombia.The 10 delegates to COP16 included faculty, researchers, and students from the MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative (ESI), the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), the Department of Urban Studies and Planning (DUSP), the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), and the Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy.In previous years, MIT faculty had participated sporadically in the discussions. This organized engagement, led by the ESI, is significant because it brought representatives from many of the groups working on biodiversity across the Institute; showcased the breadth of MIT’s research in more than 15 events including panels, roundtables, and keynote presentations across the Blue and Green Zones of the conference (with the Blue Zone representing the primary venue for the official negotiations and discussions and the Green Zone representing public events); and created an experiential learning opportunity for students who followed specific topics in the negotiations and throughout side events.The conference also gathered attendees from governments, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, other academic institutions, and practitioners focused on stopping global biodiversity loss and advancing the 23 goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), an international agreement adopted in 2022 to guide global efforts to protect and restore biodiversity through 2030.MIT’s involvement was particularly pronounced when addressing goals related to building coalitions of sub-national governments (targets 11, 12, 14); technology and AI for biodiversity conservation (targets 20 and 21); shaping equitable markets (targets 3, 11, and 19); and informing an action plan for Afro-descendant communities (targets 3, 10, and 22).Building coalitions of sub-national governmentsThe ESI’s Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) Program was able to support two separate coalitions of Latin American cities, namely the Coalition of Cities Against Illicit Economies in the Biogeographic Chocó Region and the Colombian Amazonian Cities coalition, who successfully signed declarations to advance specific targets of the KMGBF (the aforementioned targets 11, 12, 14).This was accomplished through roundtables and discussions where team members — including Marcela Angel, research program director at the MIT ESI; Angelica Mayolo, ESI Martin Luther King Fellow 2023-25; and Silvia Duque and Hannah Leung, MIT Master’s in City Planning students — presented a set of multi-scale actions including transnational strategies, recommendations to strengthen local and regional institutions, and community-based actions to promote the conservation of the Biogeographic Chocó as an ecological corridor.“There is an urgent need to deepen the relationship between academia and local governments of cities located in biodiversity hotspots,” said Angel. “Given the scale and unique conditions of Amazonian cities, pilot research projects present an opportunity to test and generate a proof of concept. These could generate catalytic information needed to scale up climate adaptation and conservation efforts in socially and ecologically sensitive contexts.”ESI’s research also provided key inputs for the creation of the Fund for the Biogeographic Chocó Region, a multi-donor fund launched within the framework of COP16 by a coalition composed of Colombia, Ecuador, Panamá, and Costa Rica. The fund aims to support biodiversity conservation, ecosystem restoration, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable development efforts across the region.Technology and AI for biodiversity conservationData, technology, and artificial intelligence are playing an increasing role in how we understand biodiversity and ecosystem change globally. Professor Sara Beery’s research group at MIT focuses on this intersection, developing AI methods that enable species and environmental monitoring at previously unprecedented spatial, temporal, and taxonomic scales.During the International Union of Biological Diversity Science-Policy Forum, the high-level COP16 segment focused on outlining recommendations from scientific and academic community, Beery spoke on a panel alongside María Cecilia Londoño, scientific information manager of the Humboldt Institute and co-chair of the Global Biodiversity Observations Network, and Josh Tewksbury, director of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, among others, about how these technological advancements will help humanity achieve our biodiversity targets. The panel emphasized that AI innovation was needed, but with emphasis on direct human-AI partnership, AI capacity building, and the need for data and AI policy to ensure equity of access and benefit from these technologies.As a direct outcome of the session, for the first time, AI was emphasized in the statement on behalf of science and academia delivered by Hernando Garcia, director of the Humboldt Institute, and David Skorton, secretary general of the Smithsonian Institute, to the high-level segment of the COP16.That statement read, “To effectively address current and future challenges, urgent action is required in equity, governance, valuation, infrastructure, decolonization and policy frameworks around biodiversity data and artificial intelligence.”Beery also organized a panel at the GEOBON pavilion in the Blue Zone on Scaling Biodiversity Monitoring with AI, which brought together global leaders from AI research, infrastructure development, capacity and community building, and policy and regulation. The panel was initiated and experts selected from the participants at the recent Aspen Global Change Institute Workshop on Overcoming Barriers to Impact in AI for Biodiversity, co-organized by Beery.Shaping equitable marketsIn a side event co-hosted by the ESI with CAF-Development Bank of Latin America, researchers from ESI’s Natural Climate Solutions Program — including Marcela Angel; Angelica Mayolo; Jimena Muzio, ESI research associate; and Martin Perez Lara, ESI research affiliate and director for Forest Climate Solutions Impact and Monitoring at World Wide Fund for Nature of the U.S. — presented results of a study titled “Voluntary Carbon Markets for Social Impact: Comprehensive Assessment of the Role of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) in Carbon Forestry Projects in Colombia.” The report highlighted the structural barriers that hinder effective participation of IPLC, and proposed a conceptual framework to assess IPLC engagement in voluntary carbon markets.Communicating these findings is important because the global carbon market has experienced a credibility crisis since 2023, influenced by critical assessments in academic literature, journalism questioning the quality of mitigation results, and persistent concerns about the engagement of private actors with IPLC. Nonetheless, carbon forestry projects have expanded rapidly in Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and local communities’ territories, and there is a need to assess the relationships between private actors and IPLC and to propose pathways for equitable participation. 

      Panelists pose at the equitable markets side event at the Latin American Pavilion in the Blue Zone.

      Previous item
      Next item

      The research presentation and subsequent panel with representatives of the association for Carbon Project Developers in Colombia Asocarbono, Fondo Acción, and CAF further discussed recommendations for all actors in the value chain of carbon certificates — including those focused on promoting equitable benefit-sharing and safeguarding compliance, increased accountability, enhanced governance structures, strengthened institutionality, and regulatory frameworks  — necessary to create an inclusive and transparent market.Informing an action plan for Afro-descendant communitiesThe Afro-Interamerican Forum on Climate Change (AIFCC), an international network working to highlight the critical role of Afro-descendant peoples in global climate action, was also present at COP16.At the Afro Summit, Mayolo presented key recommendations prepared collectively by the members of AIFCC to the technical secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The recommendations emphasize:creating financial tools for conservation and supporting Afro-descendant land rights;including a credit guarantee fund for countries that recognize Afro-descendant collective land titling and research on their contributions to biodiversity conservation;calling for increased representation of Afro-descendant communities in international policy forums;capacity-building for local governments; andstrategies for inclusive growth in green business and energy transition.These actions aim to promote inclusive and sustainable development for Afro-descendant populations.“Attending COP16 with a large group from MIT contributing knowledge and informed perspectives at 15 separate events was a privilege and honor,” says MIT ESI Director John E. Fernández. “This demonstrates the value of the ESI as a powerful research and convening body at MIT. Science is telling us unequivocally that climate change and biodiversity loss are the two greatest challenges that we face as a species and a planet. MIT has the capacity, expertise, and passion to address not only the former, but also the latter, and the ESI is committed to facilitating the very best contributions across the institute for the critical years that are ahead of us.”A fuller overview of the conference is available via The MIT Environmental Solutions Initiative’s Primer of COP16. More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in Energy

      Is there enough land on Earth to fight climate change and feed the world?

      by

      Capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius is a tall order. Achieving that goal will not only require a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, but also a substantial reallocation of land to support that effort and sustain the biosphere, including humans. More land will be needed to accommodate a growing demand for bioenergy and nature-based carbon sequestration while ensuring sufficient acreage for food production and ecological sustainability.The expanding role of land in a 1.5 C world will be twofold — to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and to produce clean energy. Land-based carbon dioxide removal strategies include bioenergy with carbon capture and storage; direct air capture; and afforestation/reforestation and other nature-based solutions. Land-based clean energy production includes wind and solar farms and sustainable bioenergy cropland. Any decision to allocate more land for climate mitigation must also address competing needs for long-term food security and ecosystem health.Land-based climate mitigation choices vary in terms of costs — amount of land required, implications for food security, impact on biodiversity and other ecosystem services — and benefits — potential for sequestering greenhouse gases and producing clean energy.Now a study in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of competing land-use and technology options to limit global warming to 1.5 C. Led by researchers at the MIT Center for Sustainability Science and Strategy (CS3), the study applies the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework to evaluate costs and benefits of different land-based climate mitigation options in Sky2050, a 1.5 C climate-stabilization scenario developed by Shell.Under this scenario, demand for bioenergy and natural carbon sinks increase along with the need for sustainable farming and food production. To determine if there’s enough land to meet all these growing demands, the research team uses the global hectare (gha) — an area of 10,000 square meters, or 2.471 acres — as the standard unit of measurement, and current estimates of the Earth’s total habitable land area (about 10 gha) and land area used for food production and bioenergy (5 gha).The team finds that with transformative changes in policy, land management practices, and consumption patterns, global land is sufficient to provide a sustainable supply of food and ecosystem services throughout this century while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with the 1.5 C goal. These transformative changes include policies to protect natural ecosystems; stop deforestation and accelerate reforestation and afforestation; promote advances in sustainable agriculture technology and practice; reduce agricultural and food waste; and incentivize consumers to purchase sustainably produced goods.If such changes are implemented, 2.5–3.5 gha of land would be used for NBS practices to sequester 3–6 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 per year, and 0.4–0.6 gha of land would be allocated for energy production — 0.2–0.3 gha for bioenergy and 0.2–0.35 gha for wind and solar power generation.“Our scenario shows that there is enough land to support a 1.5 degree C future as long as effective policies at national and global levels are in place,” says CS3 Principal Research Scientist Angelo Gurgel, the study’s lead author. “These policies must not only promote efficient use of land for food, energy, and nature, but also be supported by long-term commitments from government and industry decision-makers.” More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Environment

      A vision for U.S. science success

      by

      White House science advisor Arati Prabhakar expressed confidence in U.S. science and technology capacities during a talk on Wednesday about major issues the country must tackle.“Let me start with the purpose of science and technology and innovation, which is to open possibilities so that we can achieve our great aspirations,” said Prabhakar, who is the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and a co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). “The aspirations that we have as a country today are as great as they have ever been,” she added.Much of Prabhakar’s talk focused on three major issues in science and technology development: cancer prevention, climate change, and AI. In the process, she also emphasized the necessity for the U.S. to sustain its global leadership in research across domains of science and technology, which she called “one of America’s long-time strengths.”“Ever since the end of the Second World War, we said we’re going in on basic research, we’re going to build our universities’ capacity to do it, we have an unparalleled basic research capacity, and we should always have that,” said Prabhakar.“We have gotten better, I think, in recent years at commercializing technology from our basic research,” Prabhakar added, noting, “Capital moves when you can see profit and growth.” The Biden administration, she said, has invested in a variety of new ways for the public and private sector to work together to massively accelerate the movement of technology into the market.Wednesday’s talk drew a capacity audience of nearly 300 people in MIT’s Wong Auditorium and was hosted by the Manufacturing@MIT Working Group. The event included introductory remarks by Suzanne Berger, an Institute Professor and a longtime expert on the innovation economy, and Nergis Mavalvala, dean of the School of Science and an astrophysicist and leader in gravitational-wave detection.Introducing Mavalvala, Berger said the 2015 announcement of the discovery of gravitational waves “was the day I felt proudest and most elated to be a member of the MIT community,” and noted that U.S. government support helped make the research possible. Mavalvala, in turn, said MIT was “especially honored” to hear Prabhakar discuss leading-edge research and acknowledge the role of universities in strengthening the country’s science and technology sectors.Prabhakar has extensive experience in both government and the private sector. She has been OSTP director and co-chair of PCAST since October of 2022. She served as director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) from 2012 to 2017 and director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) from 1993 to 1997.She has also held executive positions at Raychem and Interval Research, and spent a decade at the investment firm U.S. Venture Partners. An engineer by training, Prabhakar earned a BS in electrical engineering from Texas Tech University in 1979, an MA in electrical engineering from Caltech in 1980, and a PhD in applied physics from Caltech in 1984.Among other remarks about medicine, Prabhakar touted the Biden administration’s “Cancer Moonshot” program, which aims to cut the cancer death rate in half over the next 25 years through multiple approaches, from better health care provision and cancer detection to limiting public exposure to carcinogens. We should be striving, Prabhakar said, for “a future in which people take good health for granted and can get on with their lives.”On AI, she heralded both the promise and concerns about technology, saying, “I think it’s time for active steps to get on a path to where it actually allows people to do more and earn more.”When it comes to climate change, Prabhakar said, “We all understand that the climate is going to change. But it’s in our hands how severe those changes get. And it’s possible that we can build a better future.” She noted the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law in 2021 and the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act as important steps forward in this fight.“Together those are making the single biggest investment anyone anywhere on the planet has ever made in the clean energy transition,” she said. “I used to feel hopeless about our ability to do that, and it gives me tremendous hope.”After her talk, Prabhakar was joined onstage for a group discussion with the three co-presidents of the MIT Energy and Climate Club: Laurentiu Anton, a doctoral candidate in electrical engineering and computer science; Rosie Keller, an MBA candidate at the MIT Sloan School of Management; and Thomas Lee, a doctoral candidate in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society.Asked about the seemingly sagging public confidence in science today, Prabhakar offered a few thoughts.“The first thing I would say is, don’t take it personally,” Prabhakar said, noting that any dip in public regard for science is less severe than the diminished public confidence in other institutions.Adding some levity, she observed that in polling about which occupations are regarded as being desirable for a marriage partner to have, “scientist” still ranks highly.“Scientists still do really well on that front, we’ve got that going for us,” she quipped.More seriously, Prabhakar observed, rather than “preaching” at the public, scientists should recognize that “part of the job for us is to continue to be clear about what we know are the facts, and to present them clearly but humbly, and to be clear that we’re going to continue working to learn more.” At the same time, she continued, scientists can always reinforce that “oh, by the way, facts are helpful things that can actually help you make better choices about how the future turns out. I think that would be better in my view.”Prabhakar said that her White House work had been guided, in part, by one of the overarching themes that President Biden has often reinforced.“He thinks about America as a nation that can be described in a single word, and that word is ‘possibilities,’” she said. “And that idea, that is such a big idea, it lights me up. I think of what we do in the world of science and technology and innovation as really part and parcel of creating those possibilities.”Ultimately, Prabhakar said, at all times and all points in American history, scientists and technologists must continue “to prove once more that when people come together and do this work … we do it in a way that builds opportunity and expands opportunity for everyone in our country. I think this is the great privilege we all have in the work we do, and it’s also our responsibility.” More