Simone H. Stewart, PhD
Senior Industrial Policy Specialist
National Wildlife Federation
The Carbon Action Alliance invited Dr. Simone Stewart, senior industrial policy specialist at the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), to share her insights on the importance of air quality improvement and the role of carbon capture in climate action plans. NWF recently released a fact sheet detailing the potential air quality benefits of carbon capture from industrial processes co-authored by Dr. Stewart. This document includes research from the Great Plains Institute, which demonstrates how retrofitting industrial plants with carbon capture technology can significantly reduce criteria air pollutants, particularly in minority and low-income communities. The six criteria air pollutants, among the most commonly regulated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) due to their harmful effects on human health, can cause a range of issues from asthma to cardiovascular disease.
Why does NWF care about air quality?
The work of the National Wildlife Federation is centered around the intersection of three main pillars: conservation, climate, and environmental justice. Air quality, and improving it, is an issue that impacts each one of these strategic pillars. As our climate changes drastically due to human activity and its associated emissions, including criteria pollutants, we are consistently confronting their impacts on people and wildlife. To encourage a climate that is healthy for wildlife, ecological systems they rely on, and people, we have to tackle air quality issues—both historic and potential. Ideally, our work at NWF is paving a way toward more equitable solutions that would benefit wildlife and people, as well as strengthen the bond between the two.
The factsheet cites a modeling study from GPI indicating potential health and air quality benefits associated with carbon capture. How should community members approach models?
It is important to recognize that communities, especially those made up of underrepresented populations, have a reason to distrust scientific studies from institutions, whether governmental, non-profit, or academic. Studies and models have not historically prioritized these communities or included ethical practices and have sometimes done significant harm to them. Knowing this, NWF does our best to use modeling and data collection like polling, to inform ourselves of a landscape perspective of a particular region before having conversations on the ground with communities or grassroots organizations doing work in local communities. Models are only ever as good as the data and knowledge of the people who make them, so certain barriers can inhibit policymaking while biases can perpetuate the disregard for historic or cultural practices. If anything, models tell us what could be possible in a certain scenario—from there it is up to advocacy orgs to work with communities to help them achieve the outcomes that would most benefit them.
Potential health benefits from reducing air pollutants were calculated using EPA’s COBRA tool, which estimates local and regional health impacts and their economic value based on air quality changes. Facilities were chosen for several carefully considered reasons: a facility’s median carbon dioxide emissions for a given sector, if they were not closing, if they had sufficient emissions to qualify for the 45Q tax credit, if they had emissions data available in the National Emissions Inventory and EPA’s FLIGHT databases, and if they did not have capture systems installed. The report also encourages policymakers to fund more research so clean air advocates can continue to understand best practices to reduce harmful industrial emissions.
How could improvements in public health simultaneously sustain industries that worsen air quality? What can communities do about this?
Models and academic reports have shown that there is substantial potential for the addition of carbon capture equipment in certain facilities to reduce the amount of criteria pollutants outputted by those facilities. If we can bring the results of these models to fruition, it would greatly benefit many disenfranchised communities facing very real health concerns, as well as the environment. It is also important to recognize that carbon capture should not be used as a pass for pollutive and extractive industries to continue business as usual or delay a transition to a more just and green economy.
Many carbon capture projects are receiving funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and therefore are supported through the Department of Energy (DOE) and must submit a Community Benefits Plan (CBP) as a part of their application for federal funding. These CBPs are an opportunity for community members and organizations to engage with project developers and create standards for what they would like to see. This could include requirements for transparent reporting on air quality, funding for air quality monitors throughout their region, and funding for community science so the public can do their own testing and verification. Communities can also advocate for restorative justice benefits like building or funding supportive infrastructure their community might lack to address harms historically perpetuated by a particular industry.
The factsheet mentions the importance of community engagement. What examples have you come across in your work where this is done well? Where do you see creativity and real community ownership?
Many principles of community engagement are successfully taken from across sectors–public health, public education, and others in clean energy and environmental policy. In the carbon management space, there are few examples—due to its nascency—but one that is frequently referenced is the Community Alliance for Direct Air Capture (CALDAC) project in California’s Southern San Joaquin Valley. This partnership between Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and the University of California Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy, and the Environment is a trial to build a community-led direct air capture project. Similarly, a community benefits agreement between community groups in Nebraska and pipeline company Tallgrass, resulted in a partnership that compensates landowners, provides first responders with emergency training, and donates $500,000 to local nonprofits. These models for community governance and ownership are important to consider as we unpack what it truly means to strive for a just and equitable future in which carbon management plays a role. DOE’s implementation of CBPs as a way to measure Justice40 is also an innovative approach and might lay a foundation for what it means for communities to negotiate with industry to achieve the benefits they desire–though I think it is important for us to consider larger frameworks that dismantle unjust practices that have historically been perpetuated by industry.
What are some “big swings” policymakers, industries, and communities could take to tackle air quality across the country?
Agencies should be equipped with the necessary resources so they can justly enforce regulations. Whether they are building a new facility or have been operating in a region for decades, industries are essentially members of the surrounding community. As such, they should be beholden to the same standards as our neighbors. Technological innovation, like carbon capture as an air quality improvement method, will be necessary moving forward, but it also needs to be matched with holding polluters accountable for their contributions to negative impacts, while empowering communities with resources as things change and we chart a path forward for necessary industries.