Report: Texas Can Get to Net-Zero by 2050 and Simultaneously Bolster the Economy

Tradeoffs

There is no single solution to reaching net zero, however, said Gee, the report’s lead author. Ideally, policymakers and industry leaders will blend elements of all four approaches. The researchers view the report less like a road map and more like a menu.

For a simple example of the tradeoffs, consider all-electric vehicles. They are a cornerstone of the widespread electrification strategy. Historically, governments have enticed people to buy electric cars and trucks by cutting the taxes on them. But such inducements have mainly benefitted the wealthy, while largely failing to reach the poor.

The carbon-scrubbing facilities are a slightly more complicated example of the tradeoffs. At first blush, the facilities could seem like the ideal solution. They could render coal or natural-gas plants essentially carbon-neutral, thereby neutralizing a key criticism of that industry. Proficiency with the technology could also mean profits for Texans who get paid to remove emissions on behalf of others.

But the tech is new. It is promising but has not been deployed on a wide scale, and it would require significant amounts of land: for the facilities (on the surface); the captured carbon (buried underground); and wind farms, which are most obvious source of power for the facilities. As the report notes, capturing and burying carbon — which would have to then be monitored — is also less environmentally friendly than not emitting carbon at all.

Likewise, hydrogen fuel is not a silver bullet.

Industrial-scale hydrogen creation via electrolysis is new. To fuel jets and ships, as the researchers envision, hydrogen would probably have to be combined with other chemicals in processes that are still relatively immature. And the process of creating hydrogen requires significant amounts of water — an increasingly precious resource in drought-prone, fast-growing Texas.

Still, there is a lot to like about a switch to hydrogen, Webber said. Texas is already one of the world’s largest producers of hydrogen. The operators of many chemical plants have experience handling it. Pipelines that now transport oil and gas could be converted to handle hydrogen. Because of the level of investment and accompanying job creation, the hydrogen-centric scenario creates by far the highest economic bang for the buck in the UT report.

The report concludes that the worst tradeoffs emerge from assuming that business can continue as usual for Texas. That assumption could leave the state behind its competitors. Worse, it would allow glaring social inequities to continue festering. The UT report accounts for some the social costs created by the fossil fuel industry. Those costs include environmental cleanup and higher medical spending to treat conditions linked to air pollution, such as asthma. The scientific consensus is that pollution’s consequences already fall hardest on poor and minority communities — and that the disparity will grow worse if climate change continues unabated.

Ultimately, Gee said, a decarbonized economy would make Texas a more just place.