carbonandhappiness-blog - Tumblr blog

carbonandhappiness-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Trump’s Executive Order on Climate Change Is Lazily Conceived; Likely to Be Effective Nonetheless

The President’s Executive Order on Climate Change, formally referred to as “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth” outlines 8 target areas for deregulation, changes in accounting methods, and scaling back of environmental reviews. Some of these 8 are more specific than others, and each is well summarized at the 'Climate Deregulation Tracker' resource compiled by Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law: http://columbiaclimatelaw.com/climate-deregulation-tracker/trump-issues-executive-order-on-climate-change/.

On a legal basis, this could have been much worse. The implications of the Executive Order are not good, by any means. But there are plenty of “smoke and mirrors” at play, as well. And as I will speak to later in this post, the real danger lies in what comes next --- as there have already been deceptive bills introduced in Congress that would give very real, legal consequence to the Order’s aims.

On a whole, owing to the American public’s lack of education and engagement on climate issues, I’d classify this Executive Order as “lazily conceived, but likely to be effective nonetheless.”

There are a lot of similarities to the healthcare plan complexity, but instead it will be the American public (and not a political party) who harms themselves by failing to bear down and face these complexities.

It will become apparent pretty quick (in just these summaries, alone) how complicated climate regulation can be. Trying to be as concise as possible without losing the necessary context, the 8 target areas of the new Executive Order are the following:

1. Clean Power Plan (CPP): The order directs the EPA to immediately review the Obama era’s key regulatory centerpiece on emissions mitigation (the CPP established carbon dioxide (CO2) emission limits for existing fossil fuel-fired power plants). The order states that “if appropriate”, the EPA should initiate a new notice-and-comment rulemaking to suspend, revise, or rescind the plan. [This is first and foremost a “smoke and mirrors” market signal. Here lies an easy scapegoat “victory” for the Trump administration, based solely on jobs-based rhetoric. In reality, the coal sector employs less people in the U.S. than the fast food chain Arby’s and there are more PhD’s in the state of West Virginia than coal miners... However, the intended effect of the draft CPP is already happening in many states due to changing market forces alone. States have always had the power to define their own energy future under the CPP, and many are moving forward in the same manner regardless of the new Executive Order. You can find state-by-state targets, draft rule reductions, and progress updates at E&E’s Clean Power Plan Hub.]

2. Emission Standards for New Power Plants: Similarly, the order also directs EPA to review the emission standards for NEW coal-fired power plants and to rescind or rewrite that rule “if appropriate”. The order also directs the Attorney General to request a stay of the case involving these standards pending EPA’s reconsideration of the rule. [This exemplifies the “short term-ism” mindset of fossil fuel interests, allowing them to move forward with development of coal resources, knowing legal battles could last years hung up in courts and could outlive the Trump era.]

3. Methane Regulations: The order calls for the review (and potential rescission or re-writing) of several regulations aimed at reducing methane emissions from oil and gas operations, those for the oil and gas (private) sector and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)’s public agency methane waste rule (aimed at curbing methane emissions from oil and gas development on federal lands). Again, the order also directs the Attorney General to request a stay of cases involving these rules pending their reconsideration. [Recognize a pattern, yet?]

4. Social Cost of Carbon, Methane and Nitrous Oxide: The order disbands the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon and rescinds the federal estimates for the social cost of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide. [This has tremendous implications for future regulatory actions on climate change in the U.S., to be discussed further in this post... if you’re impatient just jump to here: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/03/the-hidden-impact-of-trumps-energy-executive-order-000384].

5. Environmental Reviews: The order revokes the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s guidance on climate change in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. [The CEQ Guidance has led to often-interminable delays in leasing and permitting decisions on federal lands, currently preventing extensive fossil development on federal lands.]

6. Coal Leasing Moratorium: The order directs the Department of Interior (DOI) to amend or withdraw Secretarial Order 3338, which called for a programmatic environmental review and modernization of the federal coal leasing program, and to lift the moratorium on federal coal leasing. [This goes hand-in-hand with the President’s rhetoric on coal development and E.O. target area #5, above.]

7. Other Obama-era Plans and Orders: The order revokes several additional plans and orders, including:

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan and accompanying Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions;

Presidential Memorandum on Power Sector Carbon Pollution Standards (2013);

Executive Order 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change (2013);

Presidential Memorandum on Mitigating Impacts on Natural Resources from Development and Encouraging Related Private Investment (2015);

Presidential memorandum on Climate Change and National Security (2016)

[Very concerning among these is the abandonment of Climate Action Plan and E.O. 13653, both of which were targeted towards climate impact preparedness and adaptation to issues already being faced – such as coastal erosion due to sea-level rise and increased heat-wave mortality… Metaphorically speaking, if the whole Trump Executive Order was a moving car and the rest of the target areas in this Order were aimed at removing fuel economy standards, artificially reducing gas prices, and recklessly increasing speed limits, Order Action #7 would aim to remove the car’s safety belts, airbags, and cloud the windshield.]

and… 8. Reviewing Regulations for Energy Production Impacts: The order instructs agencies to “immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law.” [Vague, much? Don’t ignore the predictable nature of the private sector to capitalize where possible.]

Okay, wow, we made it to the end of that list and you are still here…

The bad news (okay, the bad news on top of bad news) is that this is just the beginning.

Remember when I said that the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is important? Well here is the reason why:

The House of Representatives has already moved quickly and quietly to pass an Act that would prohibit the EPA from writing any regulation that uses science that is not publicly available. On the surface, sure, this sounds very reasonable. But once you start digging in a bit you uncover the insidious motive of this Trojan Horse: “This [Act] would prevent the EPA from using studies based on people’s medical records, which are technically not “transparent” because the EPA is legally and ethically mandated to keep health data confidential.” It would make it harder, even impossible for the EPA to use public health studies to finalize science-based public health protections.” Kind of the EPA’s job, right?

Guess what the name of Act is? Answer: The Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act, or ‘HONEST’ Act. (You seriously can’t make this stuff up… http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press-release/honest-sab-bills-undermine-science#.WN_wyjvys2x)

The possible legal fallout out of decisions around the Social Cost of Carbon are of great concern, as the tactics here are insidious, and not well understood by the public. To a large part of the American public, the SCC remains the “most important number you’ve never heard of”. [Oversimplifying a bit, the SCC is the cost-benefit quantification of carbon dioxide emissions (taking into account the negative impacts of pollution – primarily public health impacts, damages, and decreased productivity under changed climate conditions). On an incremental basis (of cost per metric ton of carbon emitted), this value (federally recognized at $37/ton until Trump.’s new Order) was used in previous regulations and guidance that shaped industry standards and guidance materials in many areas including national vehicle fuel economy standards, cement manufacturing pollution limits, mercury air pollutant limits, energy efficiency standards for residential and commercial appliances, and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to name just a few.]

While there is a great range of uncertainty revolving around the actual value for SCC to be used (quantifying it requires projecting socioeconomic conditions decades – even centuries – in the future and modeling to uncertain levels of climate impacts), many believe that this value is already being undervalued. A 2015 study by researchers at Stanford University even published a paper saying that the SCC could be as much as 6 times greater than those used during the Obama administration, which were meant to be conservative.

It is therefore alarming that Trump’s executive order altogether eliminates the [Social Cost of Carbon] working group and effectively turns over the job of cost-estimation to individual agencies. The order also scraps all the technical underpinnings for the Obama group’s work, and tells agencies to estimate carbon costs by following the guidance of a Bush-era regulatory document from 2003. “In the event that federal agencies have to monetize the costs of greenhouse gas regulations, the order specifies that they should follow OMB Circular A-4, which contains general guidelines on how to conduct cost-benefit analysis in rulemakings but does not provide specific direction on how to calculate the costs of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Although the new Executive Order does not immediately change existing guidance, one must think about the future of climate action post-Trump. Should the HONEST Act pass, the inability to use public health data to form SCC values would be incredibly damaging in any efforts to put in place a price on carbon – a strategy that has become increasingly appealing to fiscally-conservative GOP members that want the market to fight climate pollution (instead of federal regulation on individual industries such as coal, cement, steel, etc).

But enough on Social Cost of Carbon already. How about the dangerous decision to leave millions of Americans vulnerable to climate impacts? This is truly backward thinking. If climate change is real — regardless of the cause — why not prepare for the costs and damage of it? Not to mention, we can already see the impacts.

While the proposed federal budget already proposes cuts to similar climate adaptation funding via NOAA Sea Grant programs and Coastal Resilience Grants, revoking the Obama-era Climate Action Plan and Executive Order 13653 (“Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change”) may prove to be a shot in the foot. “Given the president’s focus on building infrastructure and his desire to cut federal spending, many analysts said it would make sense for him to maintain or even expand programs to reduce the cost of disasters (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-27/trump-said-to-toss-obama-s-orders-to-prepare-for-extreme-weather).

As someone who was fully expecting a lot of these proposed changes that come with the new Executive Order (such as the attack on Social Cost of Carbon and the Clean Power Plan), the attack on climate adaptation action items is one that actually threw me for a loop. Take a look at the changes that have already occurred on EPA’s website, and you’ll see that the website changes emphasize adaptation. Coupled with new language framing climate change as an adaptation issue, the early changes seemed to indicate that the EPA could continue its climate work but with less of a focus on reining in the underlying cause of climate change. The first changes on Jan. 22 included a page formerly called “Federal Partner Collaboration,” now dubbed “EPA Adaptation Collaboration”: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/epa-climate-web-pages-change-21133

Two “lazy” parts of this Executive Order may be lost on a disengaged public. While environment-based organizations (such as Sierra Club, NRDC, Greenpeace, etc.) will be pushing buttons here, there is the risk of losing a greater amount of public pressure from civil society simply for not engaging on the legal fine print.

#1: The new Executive Order does not in any way clarify what a replacement of the Clean Power Plan may look like. There is a major difference between the CPP and the nation’s healthcare plan in this regard. Since the CPP went through an intensive rule-making process with lengthy public comment periods, revoking the rule cannot legally be done without a replacement rule (which itself must have a similarly lengthy period made available for public comment). In essence, dismantling this rule will require just as much effort as it took to put it in place. If the healthcare debacle was any indication, the commitment to see this through is still not visible in any manner. (I, personally, expected to see a more developed attack strategy at this juncture).

#2: Another area where this Executive Order gets lazy is that it does not go after the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, something that many conservatives were hoping for. This has become an interesting behind-the-scenes development that has actually brought new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt quite a bit of heat from the right. The Endangerment Finding declares that greenhouse gas emissions threaten human health and welfare and makes the EPA legally responsible for regulating carbon dioxide. Without it, these gases wouldn't be air pollutants in the eyes of agency regulators and EPA couldn't make companies reduce them. Therefore, by leaving this fight off the table for now, the long-term outlook (beyond the Trump presidency) does not look good for climate denial folk. In essence, they saw perhaps their best opportunity to stymie future federal climate regulation erased --- and by the guy who is personally on record saying that he does not believe carbon pollution is the major contributor to climate change! Pruitt himself, as the Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, joined 14 other states in an unsuccessful attempt to undermine EPA's endangerment finding in 2012. A monstrous betrayal of the best kind?

It is not a small detail to overlook. But then again, the evening news doesn’t come close to reporting to this degree of detail. (Overall, climate change coverage on the major non-cable networks dropped from a combined 146 minutes in 2015 to just 50 in 2016.) The fights here are far from over. “A cadre of conservative climate skeptics are fuming about the decision [to not pursue the Endangerment Finding at this time] — expressing their concern to Trump administration officials and arguing Pruitt is setting himself up to run for governor or the Senate. They hope the White House, perhaps senior adviser Stephen Bannon, will intervene and encourage the president to overturn the endangerment finding... Trump administration officials have not totally ruled out eventually targeting the endangerment finding. Conservative groups have petitioned the EPA to look at reopening it, one source said, and the agency may eventually be compelled to respond to the petition.”

Another part that gets lost in all this discussion of what is actually in the text of the Executive Order is what is missing from it. Namely, the campaign promise of Trump to remove the U.S. from the Paris Agreement (or even worse, the UNFCCC process altogether). It was reported that there was a large division within members close to Trump that the U.S. should withdraw. Members urging the President to keep the U.S. in the accord included Secretary of State and former Exxon CEO, Rex Tillerson.

Per an article published in the Economist back in November, “even if Trump honours American’s commitment to the Paris accord, it is unlikely that his administration will galvanize action” (well there’s an understatement...), yet “the idea of the world’s second-biggest polluter free-riding on the efforts of others has some countries mulling counter-attacks – one proposal, a carbon tariff on American exports, could lead to damaging trade war… The main practical way a Trump administration is likely to weaken the Paris agreement is by avoiding America’s commitments to pay large sums to help other countries cope with climate change.” They certainly need it. And, so far, Trump has made it very clear that funding of international efforts related to climate change are to be tabled under the “America First” mentality.

Intertwined with all the climate denialism, the “America First”, energy-independent, nationalistic rhetoric is abundant (inside and outside of the Executive Order). Within the Order, there are obvious clues that there is to be a large increase in oil and gas development on federal lands. This could mean very bad news for some national parks, and was probably the primary reason for all the rhetoric surrounding the Clean Power Plan. (Remember, the full version of the Clean Power Plan was already hung up in courts, not likely to go anywhere making this an easy, visual “win” for the Trump administration – and a nod to the oil and gas sector (i.e., “drill baby, drill” v2.0).

However, “there are limits to what Mr. Trump’s embrace of fossil fuels can achieve. For all the trillions of dollars-worth of oil and gas that he hopes will be fracked on federal lands, no one will sink a well unless it is profitable to do so. That needs oil prices to be substantially higher than they are now.” http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21710807-or-without-america-self-interest-will-sustain-fight-against-global-warming-climate

#climate change #climate #Clean Power Plan #CPP #energy #America First #Paris Agreement #Social Cost of Carbon #EPA #executive order #HONEST Act #climate denial

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

*** My goal in the next year is to help as many folks as I can in understanding climate change: how it interplays with economy/risk, the merits/tradeoffs of potential solutions, the ways our political actions work to undermine progress. And most importantly, actions anyone can take to contribute immediately. I have committed myself to a daily climate-related post every day for the next year. ***

(Date of Original Post: 11/18/2016)

Day 7: 'When discussing "warming," the "where" matters'

For anyone who lives along a coast, this alarming. For everyone else, the same should hold true.

One of more misleading things about climate change negotiation process is the concentration on temperature targets like 1.5 or 2-degree rise. It is tough for many to grasp that this is a global average, with the extreme temperatures averaged over the entirety of the globe. But these extremes do exist. And where they exist (largely at the Earth's poles) will be the issue of this generation and all future generations.

Large populations and major portions of global economies have a high degree of exposure to sea-level rise.

"...even as the seas are rising, coastal areas are booming: From 1970 to 2010, the population in the coastal United States grew 39 percent, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which expects the population in these areas to increase another 8 percent between 2010 and 2020. As of 2010, 123 million Americans lived in coastal counties, at population densities more than four times higher than those of the country as a whole. The same pattern holds around the globe: 60 percent of cities with populations over 5 million are within 60 miles of the sea, and they’re growing rapidly. This rush to the shore puts more lives, wealth and infrastructure in harm’s way." - http://journalistsresource.org/studies/environment/climate-change/impact-global-warming-rising-seas-coastal-cities

"A joint report from the World Wildlife Fund and Allianz SE determined that a midcentury global sea-level rise of 20 inches, with an additional 6 inches in some localized areas along the northeast U.S. coast, could jeopardize assets worth close to $7.4 trillion." Putting this is perspective, it is looking less and less likely that we will be able to hold mean sea-level rise to below 3 feet (36 inches) before 2100. This is what many cities are now using as a mid- (not high-) range estimate when planning adaptation measures. (And that's not to say all cities are planning.)

"Most of the top ten port cities with the largest number of people exposed to coastal flooding are growing and industrializing Asian cities... Collectively, they are home to a total of nearly 66.4 million people and have combined future exposed assets of more than $19 trillion."

- http://carnegieendowment.org/2013/05/16/protecting-coastal-cities-from-rising-seas-pub-51814

A bunch of informative and helpful podcasts on sea-level rise:

http://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/to-the-point/will-southern-floods-force-republicans-to-accept-climate-change

http://www.npr.org/tags/395537206/sea-level-rise

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

(Date of Original Post: 11/17/2016)

Day 6(b): 365? Looks like they've got one for every day of the year, too.

#climate change #climatechange #industry #Mars #Nike #LeviStrauss #Starbucks #ParisAgreement #COP22 #marrakesh #business #PriceOnCarbon #carbonpricing #carbon pricing

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

(Date of Original Post: 11/17/2016)

Day 6(a): Peter Gleick is one of the best, forward-thinking, savvy minds this nation has right now - we owe it listen on what he has to say on integrated water resource management and policy.

#water #policy #waterresources #IWRM #integrated water resources management #water policy #Peter Gleick

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

(Date of Original Post: 11/16/2016)

Day 5: 'Globalization and Localization: Container ships and the climate, '

This past Friday it was announced that a firm plan for "potentially easing the shipping industry’s impact on the climate" will be delayed for 7 years under a roadmap drafted by a United Nations agency.

"Climate-changing pollution escapes from ships as they burn some of the most polluting types of fuel available. Ships are blamed for 2 to 3 percent of the heat-trapping carbon dioxide released each year and their emissions may grow by 50 to 250 percent by 2050." (Putting the scale of these emissions in perspective: 2 to 3 percent does not sound like a lot - but it is an amount greater than the aggregate emissions of 97 to 110 nations that are party to the Paris Agreement.)

The link between international trade agreements (e.g. NAFTA, TPP, TTIP.) and climate change is hugely important, particularly from a legal perspective - as it begs a question of responsibility: Who is most responsible for these emissions? The nations where the energy is used and emissions from production of good are generated? Or the nations where the consumers generate the demand?

"Unlike power plants and motor vehicles, which operate according to national rules, international ships and airlines often operate outside the direct regulation of any nations. “The international nature of shipping and commercial aviation means that some, even most emissions take place outside of the legal jurisdictions of countries,” says Robert Stavins, an economics professor at Harvard who researches and tracks environmental diplomacy."

A lot of what is shipped via maritime freight is goods that may be produced within the borders of the countries they are destined for overseas. Adding to the puzzle: a relentless, demand for time-sensitive, perishable food products (allowing consumers to have year-round access to fruits/vegetable regardless of growing season).

I briefly touched on the promise of The Rust Belt and post-industrial American cities in yesterday's post (Day 4). I did so because the localization movement represents one potential pathway for these economies to re-emerge. Such cities "have land assets most large cities lack... In the Northeast and particularly in the Midwest, that land is among the richest in the world. It is... too often overlooked: in a sustainable future, land will be needed for re-localizing agriculture."

Considering how our two largest food-producing states (California and Texas) look more and more red with each new drought map, The Rust Belt has not only politically relevant in U.S., but also globally relevant. In addition to what happens with international trade deals, what the U.S. does in the next decade to revitalize, renew, and re-localize agriculture/manufacturing within our borders will also influence future climate trajectories.

“What can I do immediately?”: Start paying attention to where your food is produced as well as the local growing seasons of your favorite fruits/vegetables. A good starter's guide is "The Locavore Way" by Amy Colter. Not only are there emissions in transport, but also refrigeration and production of preservatives.

It doesn't end with emissions. There are many ways in which shipping industry has environmental and ecological impacts. For instance, ocean noise is harming and even killing whales, dolphins and other creatures in water bodies all around the world. Consider adding your voice to join a global movement of people standing up for the future of our oceans: http://www.sonicsea.org/take-action

#climatechange #climate change #TheRustBelt #United States #oceans #emissions #shipping #shipping industry #eat local #international trade #NAFTA #TPP #TTIP #International Maritime Organization #IMO

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

(Date of Original Post: 11/15/2016)

Day 4: 'When the 1990's are no longer nostalgic'

"Relaxing" environmental regulations (or dismantling, rather) to undercut overseas trade margins may have helped the Rust Belt of a few decades ago.

Similarly, an intervention to end a "war on coal" may have shifted market forces in an era where shale gas wasn't accessible (and therefore abundant and cheap).

Instead, global megatrends (including automation of manufacturing jobs, technology transfer via Internet and other ICT, new age materials, and reductions in cost/increased scalability of renewables) have been changing the global manufacturing and energy markets for the greater part of 2 decades. The magnitude of private sector support for the Paris Agreement is a signal of such a market shift: Microsoft, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont, Duke Energy, Google and Delta Air Lines already set their own internal prices on carbon pollution - and they aren’t doing so philanthropically. Or if that market signal is not clear enough, how about the re-affirmation of Saudi Arabia to the Agreement post-U.S. election?

Simply put, promised actions under President-elect Trump to "withdraw the U.S. the Paris Agreement" and "save the coal industry," when realized, align the U.S. better with a 1990's economy than the global economy we are likely to see 2020 or 2030. Such ideas not only exhibit poor natural resources management, but also demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of global markets.

Backtracking on the United States' obligation under the Paris Agreement would not only be detrimental to planetary energy balance, but would also be a poor business decision. When 193 parties (the most ever for an international accord of any kind) sign on - and 110 of them ratify it (to make it legally binding years ahead of its predicted timeline) - it means you cannot easily withdraw without consequence. Proposed economic sanctions (such as the one Europe is considering) hit harder when you are already trying to revitalize an industry (coal) that is no longer cost-competitive.

Protecting environmental regulations and honoring our Paris pledge does not mean "coal country" and The Rust Belt need to become economic sacrifice zones. "[T]here will be a demand in a low-carbon economy. We are, after all, on the brink of a third industrial revolution, and these cities are highly suited to play a central part in it" ("Small, Gritty, and Green: The Promise of America's Smaller Indistrial Cities in a Low-Carbon World," Catherine Tumber). The Rust Belt - and the American middle class, more generally - surely still have the potential to re-emerge as a force on the global market.

But not using outdated models.

#coal #Trump #climatechange #climate change #ParisAgreement #war on coal #RustBelt #Rust Belt #decarbonization #nicolas sarkozy #United States #globalization #automation #ICT #sanctions

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

(Date of Original Post: 11/14/2016)

Day 3: For a while this was a legal battle that appeared destined to be discredited as a symbolic gesture. However, it keeps steamrolling through the legal process to the point where it cannot be ignored. The more you read into it, the harder it is to dismiss. Despite having no immediate impact on policy decisions, this case has the potential to be "one of the most significant in our nation’s history." Perhaps not for a direct outcome, but rather the doors it would open, civil suit-wise. It will not be going away anytime soon - these kids are no joke.

In the words of the judge, "I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society."

"The case, Juliana v. United States, will now go to trial starting sometime in 2017 and could prove to be a major civil rights suit, eventually finding its way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"Other than a widely covered case in the Netherlands last year, “this decision goes further than any other court ever has in declaring a fundamental obligation of government to prevent dangerous climate change... [The] existence of Aiken’s decision delineating a new fundamental right to a safe climate in federal court now means the odds have greatly increased that a new avenue to require climate action has been established.""

#JulianaVsUnitedStates #SupremeCourt #lawsuit #climatechange #climate #ActOnClimate #climatejustice #climate justice

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

Day #2: The battles between residential solar and regional utilities will be fought and won at the local level - and this fight is everywhere. [Today’s action items: Be cognizant of where you are/aren’t seeing solar panels; Look into getting your own electricity sourced from renewables; Acquaint yourself with your state’s energy portfolio]

Issue: What is now holding back the progress of rooftop solar (and broadly speaking, other forms of solar energy – such a community solar and concentrated solar) are local and regional utilities and their tactics (often deceitful) to maintain their share of “power.” The prospect of residential homes and businesses harnessing through distributed solar is a scary prospect to these utilities – who have for years been able to comfortably price electricity based on constantly-growing demand. Until the rise of potentially cheaper renewable options, regional and local entities depended on these utilities, as they were the only options to feasibly scale to meet rising demand. When subsidies are taken out of the picture, solar energy is now often a cheaper option than other sources of energy. And it is projected to get much cheaper (http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/solar-to-get-crazy-cheap/). A few more statistics on solar energy:

- Residential solar installations increased almost 60 percent between 2014 and 2015, and in 2015 America averaged one new residential solar installation about every 100 seconds.

- Solar installation alone added more jobs in 2014 than both the oil and natural gas sectors—jobs that can't be outsourced.

- In 2015, residential solar power installations once again represented the fastest-growing sector in U.S., with more than 2GW added for the first time in a single year -- a growth rate of 66% over 2014. But most of it is concentrated in one state…

- Almost 40% of the distributed PV capacity in the U.S. is located in California. The next nine states after California account for another 44%, according to the Energy Information Agency (EIA).

One example (of many) battles between residential solar and utilities came to the forefront in Florida this past week. A ballot measure aiming to purposely deceive voters (by peppering its language with “solar” language and printing flyers on green paper!) actually aimed to restrict the future of residential solar and further secure its long-term control over the market. The ballot measure was successfully defeated, after many organizations – including the union representing the state’s professional firefighters – revoked their endorsement. In a week that has seen significant setbacks to the future prospects of renewables in the U.S., we should take the time to welcome Florida to the sunshine revolution. Quotable: “I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait ’til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.” – Thomas Edison “What can I do immediately?”: Start paying attention to where you are seeing solar panels in your daily life. Do you see them often? If not, do a web search for “solar and [your city/state]" and find out why not. Remember that this is not a new technology: the first solar panels placed on the White House were installed in 1979 (during the Carter administration – and were taken down during the Reagan administration). Of all places, one of these panels now sits in a Chinese museum. What is new is that this is now a technology that has become increasingly cost-competitive (and no longer dependent on subsidies to make it so).

Going further: Fight for solar energy (particularly distributed, rooftop solar) in your state. Or if your state already has provisions for solar, look for the same in a neighbor state. These battles have been – and will continue to be – a major boon (or barrier) to the progress of renewables in the U.S. A good starting point would be to find what solar energy petitions are currently being circulated in your state (for example, search “solar” on a petition website: e.g. http://petitions.moveon.org/find/?q=solar&state=). You can also request that your own household power come from renewable sources (typically solar or wind, but potentially hydro or geothermal, depending on your location). This is becoming easier and easier for everyone to do. For me, this was an easy transition completed in a single day – I was able to switch* (in my case to wind energy) at no additional cost. [*While the electricity coming through the wires on my city block may not be sourced directly be from renewables, my billing statement assures me that my payments go towards increasing regional renewable capacity which the utility (PECO, in my case) is bound to, legally.] Digging deeper: Check out EE News Clean Power Plan Hub to see what your state’s plan for its energy portfolio entails. (Remember, in the absence of the Clean Power Plan – states will have even more freedom the chart their own course – meaning the onus will be even more on citizens to make their voices heard.). Thomas Friedman has also written extensively (in 2008!) on the trend of utilities hedging distributed solar in "Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – and How It Can Renew America”.

Additional resources/sources:

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3044132/sustainable-it/us-set-to-smash-solar-power-records-this-year.html

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/25/keep-it-in-the-ground-renewable-energy-breaks-new-records?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=KIITG+series+2016&utm_term=196346&subid=14760134&CMP=ema-60

#solar energy #solar power #solar #energy #residential solar #solar panels #florida #amendment1 #PECO #california

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

*** My goal in the next year is to help as many folks as I can in understanding climate change: how it interplays with the economy and risk, the merits and tradeoffs of potential solutions, the ways our political actions – local, regional, national, and global – work to undermine progress. And most importantly, actions anyone can take to contribute immediately to the climate movement. Due to the urgency of the climate crisis, expected scale-back U.S. climate action ambition, and attacks on climate literacy that are certain to accompany political transition, I have committed myself to a daily climate-related post every day for the next year. ***

Day #1: Today’s post focused on the same premise of ‘Out of Africa’, one of the storylines in last week’s episode of “Years of Living Dangerously”. [Today’s suggested action item: Ecosia web browser]

Before getting to the issue, I must stop and say that I cannot recommend enough the National Geographic Channel (previously Showtime) program, “Years of Living Dangerously”. It is simply the best example of climate journalism delivered in a digestible format (and is available on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/years-of-living-dangerously). The program’s format is a combination of travel journalism and climate science/policy/economic primers, all delivered by celebrated American figures who are not typically associated with such issues. Season 2 of YEARS features David Letterman, Don Cheadle, Thomas Friedman, Gisele Bündchen, Jack Black, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Nicki Reed, and Ty Burrell among others. Issue: Changing climate is spurring migrants from North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and Southern Asia. 'Climate migrants' do not have any official protection under international law, which has implications for the human security of migrants. Most of these migrants make their way to cities - often living in informal settlements that are most prone to disasters (natural or climate-induced). Many, particularly in the Mediterranean and Pacific, do not reach their intended destinations and are held indefinitely in detention centers – such as North African migrants in Malta (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isle-landers-what-happens-migrants-after-crossing-mediterranean-malta-photo-report-1500971) and Pacific Island migrants en route to Australia being held Nauru (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/world/australia/nauru-asylum-seeker-refugee-abuse.html).

Quotable: “We can build walls, or we can build gardens… We have to manage the unavoidable, to avoid the unmanageable.” – Thomas Friedman, NY Times

“What can I do immediately?”: Switch your default web browser to ‘Ecosia��. Ecosia is the search engine that plants trees with its ad revenue. It has already planted 5.5+ million trees, and averages a new tree planted every ~11 seconds. Tree planting is performed strategically in Sub-Saharan Africa, supporting the “Great Green Wall” to prevent desertification and land degradation (a precursor to economic hardships and climate-induced migration). I use it myself and don’t think twice about it. The search engine itself is very good, but if you cannot find what you are searching for, there is handy internal link within the Ecosia page to bring up Google’s results.

Going further: Support the UNHCR - the UN Refugee Agency (http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/environment-disasters-and-climate-change.html) or the Environmental Justice Foundation (http://ejfoundation.org/campaign/climate) and its work to safeguard and recognize legal status of climate refugees. Alternatively, take a stand for refugee policy and support in the United States. Just today, the U.S. is set announce a deal with Australia to end specific detention camps in Nauru and Manus Island and bring 1,800 refugees to the U.S (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3929238/Australia-United-States-announced-deal-resettle-1800-asylum-seekers.html). Regardless of the stories of these refugees – the idea of bringing in any refugees to U.S. at this time is certain to face some form of backlash, and is an action we would not come to expect under a Trump presidency.

Digging deeper: Watch the film ‘Climate Refugees: The Movie’ (also on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/392828), a multi-award winning Sundance film.

Additional links:

- http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/mckenzie-funk-windfall-interview-business-global-warming (Funk’s book, Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming, devotes an entire chapter to climate migration, focusing on Northern/West Africa and Small Island Developing States)

- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/resettling-the-first-american-climate-refugees.html?_r=0 (This isn’t just an international issue…)

- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-humanitarian-summit-climatechange-mig-idUSKCN0YF2UD

- https://tcf.org/content/commentary/we-need-to-prepare-for-climate-change-migrants/

#climatechange #climate #refugees #climate refugees #migrants #cop22 #cop22marrakech #malta #nauru #unhcr #refugee agency unhcr #years of living dangerously #tom friedman #ecosia

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

Efforts must be doubled!

My goal in the next year is to help as many folks as I can in understanding climate change: how it interplays with the economy and risk, the merits and tradeoffs of potential solutions, the ways our political actions – local, regional, national, and global – work to undermine progress (many of these are subtle, purposefully deceptive, or easily missed if you are not looking for them), and - most importantly - significant actions anyone can take to contribute to the climate movement (I will not be converting people to vegans, but I may suggest you dial back your beef consumption 25%; or send a link to petition against a specific pipeline not named Keystone or DAPL; or even just give you a new website to bookmark or podcast to listen to on your commute).

So, perhaps not fully realizing what I am throwing myself into, I am now committing myself to a daily climate-related post every day for the next year.

I will focus this post on things that people most critically need in order to be informed when discussing climate change. This is no longer about the science – it is about the politics, the economics, the feasibility of proposed solutions, the impacts being felt around the world at this moment, the freely available resources --- and again, what individuals can do to make an immediate impact. This will not be just a way to spread environmentalist spam, this will be an exercise in practice for me as well. There is a lot of environment/ climate-related click-bait out there, and filtering through it can be exhausting. But if I’m doing it anyway I might as well share it. My daily posts will vary in length --- some will be long, some will be short (perhaps even only a link on a particularly busy day), but be warned --- they are now coming every day for the next year.

Now, I am far from the most qualified person to do this, and I’m sure I’ll be far from perfect, but this is something I CAN do. It is THE something I can do.

In the past year, I started along these lines. I started a blog (http://carbonandhappiness.tumblr.com/), and kept an active, coupled Twitter account: @CO2andHappiness (https://twitter.com/CO2andHappiness)

Not stopping to count until recently, I also had more than 50 personal and unique climate interactions with folks that have either reached out, shared a link and a conversation, or an opportunity. Sometimes it was a simple “I really enjoy reading your environmental posts” in passing. Other times it was specific inquiries (e.g. parallels between climate change and social justice movements or the tradeoffs in bioenergy and biodiversity). Sometimes it was someone reaching out about interview help for an environmental or conservation group, and other times it was a request for material appropriate for a classroom. Some simply ask for something bite-sized (a petition they can sign, a new website to bookmark) to get them in the conversation.

All of this has been a new experience for me, and is not something I really asked for, but at some level enjoyed doing. But now it is not enough – if you are trying to tackle climate change on your own, you don’t know the first thing about climate change. You need people power, and more importantly informed people power.

I am hoping to really expand my own reach going into 2017, seeing this as the least I can do to contribute in a year that will most likely see significant step-backs and attacks on climate literacy. If I have never explicitly stated that I am open to interactions on climate - by whatever method (email, phone conversation, coffee/drinks, Facebook, Tumblr, etc.) and with whomever - this is that invitation. Friends welcome, friends-of-friends welcome, Republicans welcome and skeptics welcome.

The reason I am doing this is simple. The next 5 years will be make-or-break for the climate. We will either see the Paris Agreement lift off the ground, or we could see it fall apart. In the United States, we are more likely to see something closer to the latter. President-elect Trump has said he will “cancel the Paris Agreement” (although he may not have the executive power to do exactly that, he can still effectively cancel the U.S. contribution and jeopardize global cooperation). He has selected an outspoken climate change denier to head the Environmental Protection Agency. He has funding ties to the DAPL, pledged to save the coal industry, and has other ties to other fossil fuel interests– in a time when we should be moving away from these technologies. The Clean Power Plan, the Unites States’ largest action on climate change to date, may resurface in the Supreme Court that is no longer split, but well aligned to defeat it. Perhaps most disheartening? An opportunity missed. The US would be well situated to lead on climate, and benefit from jobs, manufacturing, and the ability to finance and partner overseas for technology transfer. Who do we want to lead world on this issue: the U.S., or China? We may have decided already.

[Disclaimer: I am no climate science expert, myself. But I am a believer in the scientific method. I keep a healthy degree of skepticism myself - and you can find me reading "Nature Climate" journals on any given day on my morning commute (which even I must admit is a funny juxtaposition; the typical rider on my route has more tattoos than environmental interactions in any given year). Coming from a civil/water engineering background, I am firmly grounded in practicality and ethics (as climate impacts on water will shape the next century of human development). In my spare time, I read. I study mitigation and adaptation policy, solutions, and the economics. And have plenty of personal stories to share, as well. If I do not have answers (much of climate science/policy is recognizing what you don't know), I can most certainly point you in the right direction and share resources.]

#climatechange #EPA #climate #Trump #myron ebell #election #COP22 #China

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Text

Hello from the other side

youtube

"History will judge today's effort as pivotal." - President Barack Obama speaking on the U.S.-China ratification of the Paris Agreement, 9-3-2016.

Seeing as how the initial goal for ratification was “pre-2020,” the early adoption and ratification of the Paris Agreement by U.S. and China demonstrates climate leadership from these nations (something I have previously refrained from stating... so, hello from the other side) and brings forth an incredible opportunity to accelerate the implementation timeline:

“… if the 55/55 threshold is reached by October 7th of this year, the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement would be held in conjunction with COP22 in Marrakech in November… Such rapid entry into force would continue the momentum created at Paris last year, [helping] spur early implementation”

With Mexico, Canada, and Australia having publicly committed to join this year - and Brazil on the verge – it would only require either the E.U. or Russia to close the remaining gap to cover 55% of global emissions. (What a time for an impeachment, Brexit, and Trump-Putin right?) Other large emitting countries that could further demonstrate leadership include Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and New Zealand.

Covering 55% of global emissions is the first of 2 requirements for the Agreement entering into force. The second part of the 55/55 threshold would require ~25 more nations (independent of their size/magnitude of emissions) to ratify the Agreement, essentially making this a question not “if” but “when”.

You can craft your own ratification scenario here: http://cait.wri.org/indc/#/ratification

As my elementary school science teacher Mr. Tortorici would say, “You gotta love the action.” I think the stakes are a little larger than Fantasy Football this time.

A refresher on the specifics of Paris Agreement entering into force and future implementation:

Sources:

http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/01/after-cop21-what-needs-happen-paris-agreement-take-effect

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliza-northrop/paris-agreement-getting-c_b_11478400.html

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/08/11/brazil-senate-approves-paris-climate-deal/

http://climateanalytics.org/hot-topics/ratification-tracker.html

#climate #climate change #paris agreement #cop21 #cop22 #marakesh #ratification #united states #china #eu #brexit #russia #brazil

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

Let's talk about this.

The inability for the U.S. to swiftly act on climate is evident in its INDC, or climate pledge, which plans to reduce by only 26-28% by 2025. Note, this is not a conservative pledge, it will require a lot to make 28% happen. The Clean Power Plan will need to be in full swing (which it is far from being), and it will need to reign in pollution from large sectors that have not been aggressively taxed for their climate impacts (e.g. cement, steel, etc.).

28% would be an aggressive undertaking, no doubt. But it shows just how much we have punted on this issue to-date. Beyond nations reaching their Paris goals, there exists a large international climate (ambition) gap. In order to reach global goals to limit temperature rise under 2 degrees C, the U.S. goal needs to be more like 45% by 2030 than 28% by 2025.

To even approach such levels of emissions reductions in these time frames (and yes, there is a ticking clock) will require system change. The good-evil, Clinton-Trump debates are rendered obsolete in a system in which the neither candidate is in-touch with such math.

A side note (and sadly-so): The goal of Paris was a 1.5-degree rise.

“The window for limiting warming to below 1.5 °C with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed." - http://gizmodo.com/the-window-for-avoiding-a-dangerous-climate-change-has-1782836113

And that's a big deal. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2458/why-a-half-degree-temperature-rise-is-a-big-deal/

#carbon tax #carbon pricing #paris agreement #clinton #carbon fee and dividend #climate change #indc

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

Big news out of Iceland today: A breakthrough in carbon capture & storage (CCS) technology. Carbon dioxide has been pumped underground and turned rapidly into stone, demonstrating a radically new and potentially more secure way to combat climate change. The problem? "There is no incentive to do it.”

The study's lead researcher, Juerg Matter, says the only thing holding back CCS was the lack of action from politicians, such as putting a price on carbon emissions.

An emissions trajectory to achieve a goal of 2 degrees rise may no longer mean bringing future emissions to zero, but actually to go negative - a target far beyond anything discussed during the Paris negotiations.

"In plain language, the complete set of 400 IPCC scenarios for a 50% or better chance of meeting the 2 °C target work on the basis of either an ability to change the past, or the successful and large-scale uptake of negative-emission technologies." - Ken Anderson, "A Duality in climate science"(commentary published in Nature Geoscience, Oct. 2015)

And this isn't just one skeptic digging for a scary-looking statistic.

The EU climate chief openly states says that aspirational 1.5C target was put into Paris climate deal at insistence of ‘most exposed countries’ and will require new strategies. However, he's a little dodgy on the details:

“About negative emissions, the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] will say when and how.”

Being a CCS-as-a-solution skeptic myself, I still cannot overstate the importance of today's breakthrough. While capture technologies don't have anywhere near the climate justice and other co-benefits of clean energy projects and lifestyle changes, we simply do not have the luxury to be choosy at this time given how long it has taken to see meaningful climate action. CCS will have a role.

As it stands, the global carbon budget for required to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees (the stated goal of Paris Accord) could be surpassed in just 5 years --- and potentially within the first term of the next U.S. president. (*Do you know your candidate's stance on pricing carbon?*) The bottom line is this: CCS development will be necessary in any global climate strategy. However, we still have time to choose how much we ultimately need rely on it. Does the next half century look like a lot of citizen-owned solar/renewables or will we see the new Exxon's (or maybe Exxon) mine the sky and reap the rewards? Or is it all a moot point?

Without a price on carbon, the market for neither is likely to exist.

Resources:

A free, open access and pre-edit of Ken Anderson's commentary in Nature Geoscience is available here: http://kevinanderson.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/For-my-website-On-the-duality-of-climate-scientists-submission-to-Nature-2015.pdf

and the published version here: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n12/full/ngeo2559.html

#carbon capture and storage (ccs)#climate change #greenhouse gas emissions #environment #energy #ccs #carbon pricing #Exxon

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

I cannot directly speak for those in communities entrenched in poverty, communities of color, migrant communities, or those of indigenous peoples (as I do not fit any of those descriptors) but what I can speak to is this: with climate change exacerbating what are already chronic stresses - deteriorating infrastructure, poor healthcare coverage, and limited access to other social resources and services - it is not crazy to think that what we are seeing in Flint, MI could become the norm in many similar communities.

We should not treat cases like Flint as ‘tragedies’, but rather acknowledge them as the (predictable) byproducts of a societal model that values economic growth above all else. A system that does not value equity and social justice - and does not pay for the true costs of pollution – requires that there must be sacrifice zones. And our society is riddled with them:

We have sacrifice zones for our cheap energy: coal miners in Appalachia (who directly sacrifice their health), residents living near drilling/fracking operations (who indirectly sacrifice their health), and indigenous communities displaced by rising seas or by large mountaintop removal and hydropower projects (sacrificing their land and way of life).

We have sacrifice zones for our Western diet. For our monoculture crops, we sacrifice biodiversity as well as displace human and non-human communities. Our reliance on convenience chemicals, artificial fertilizers, and other additives compromise the health of those downsteam, leaving many of our waterways un-drinkable, un-fishable, and un-swimmable. An endless craving of red meat requires that we sacrifice vast amounts of land and water resources that could otherwise be more responsibly managed (more than half of the world’s population suffers from severe water scarcity). As they struggle to feed a growing world population hungry for such a diet, it is a sad irony that farmers’ lives are often the ones must vulnerable to changing climate - losing their only source of income. Subsistence farmers and fisherman may have it worse, as they are least able to adapt to long-term droughts or migrating fish populations.

We have sacrifice zones for our luxuries: For our palm oil (an ingredient in everything from chocolate to shampoo to bread to lipstick), we yet again displace indigenous communities in order to slash-and-burn forests. For the gold and rare metals in our iPhones and Playstations we take advantage of communities everywhere from Peru to the Democratic Republic of Congo. Yet, at the other end, there exist more communities in India and Ghana salvaging these same metals from our e-waste. These communities are victims of environmental racism as well – sacrificing their natural resources, health, and security.

Cases of environmental racism are hardly determined by race alone (although it is an unfortunately good predictor) and a community can become a sacrifice zone for any number of reasons: the pollution of an airshed, watershed, or the depletion of natural resources and local biodiversity. However, the common thread here is that those on the frontlines of climate change are usually those who have contributed least to it and those whose voices continue to go unheard.

To truly confront the challenge will require more than limiting carbon emissions or plugging methane leaks. It will require us to not only to fix our physical infrastructure, but also address the inherent social and environmental justice issues that perpetuate these sacrifice zones.

#environmental racism #environment #environmental justice #social justice #climate change #ewaste #fisheries #palm oil #human rights #migrants #racial equality #sacrifice zones

34 notes · View notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

kudos to Jonathan Kamel for this really well-written post, describing what I also lament most when it comes to climate change. It isn't some apocalyptic or dystopian version of Earth beyond tipping points. It is about what we fail to stand up for or fail to love and cherish today.

(In addition to Jonathan's post, I also highly recommend "Love in the Anthropocene" by Bonnie Nazdam and Dale Jamieson)

Sea levels may rise faster and faster. The extreme weather events, losses of life, or 'world ender' views may eventually compel us to act decisively, they may not. But to me it is the slow changes - the decreases in biodiversity, the loss of cultural practices (that have otherwise stood the test of time), the memories that cannot be recreated (or that will never come to be) - that deplete the very richness of life.

The truth is that we are already losing a lot. Climate change may never look very different from what we are already seeing: marginalization of populations must vulnerable, slow violence, a Sixth Extinction event occurring mostly in the background of our human lives, the slow erosion of both natural and human capital, more and more invasive sacrifice zones - the “progress” made under the guise name of economic development, a refusal to evolve beyond dated bureaucratic models. To me, that’s the most worrisome part - not that something worse will happen, but that the things that are happening right now continue.

Climate change discussion likes to dwell death and destruction - but what it is really about (at least to me, my life isn't in any danger as I sit here writing this!) is a slow bleed of color in life. The lasting paint on the canvas we leave will ultimately show what we truly valued. Why should we protect a blank canvas for the sake of protecting the canvas?

We could get things right with the climate and still get many things wrong.

#climate change #climate #loveintheanthropocene #anthropocene

7 notes · View notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Link

A Question for The Democrats!: Is ‘I am not a Republican’ becoming the new ‘I am not a scientist’? By: Kyle Johnson 2.13.16. ***Follow on Twitter: @CO2andHappiness ***

When addressing global climate change, Republican presidential candidates are completely out-of-touch. The politicization and polarization on climate science continues to pose a very real threat. Yet the more I’ve watched this election cycle play out, I’ve begun to see a far more unsettling trend developing: amongst Democrats, climate change is becoming more and more of a talking point. And not in a good way.

A very real danger that has emerged from Democrats not having a rational opposition regarding climate action is this: Democrats have been getting a free pass from the tougher questions. Or any questions... In the last Democratic debate, moderators failed to pose a single question on climate change. And while Sanders and Clinton are now bringing up climate change on their own (17 times during Thursday’s debate),they are doing so on their own terms --- and far too comfortably. We cannot take away the context of the world we live in when we discuss climate change.

My fear fits a Michelangelo quote, “The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it,” and an old proverb, “If we do not change our direction, we will end up where we’re headed.”

To me, both Clinton and Sanders have climate agendas that are just not bold enough given harsh realities of what we must achieve. We cannot give Democratic candidates the easy ride on climate questions simply because they are ‘The Democrats!’ (my apologies to Jeb! here but - like your donors - the “!” will have to find a new home). While I am glad Sec. Clinton and Sen. Sanders are comfortable saying climate change is real and has human causes, we are climbing Mount Everest here. And we are losing time. We must ask for more.

If debate moderators are unwilling to ask these questions, we must demand that they be replaced. They are doing the public a disservice.

Better yet, if the Republicans can have a whole debate on the economy – why can’t the Dem’s have a debate or Town Hall solely focused on climate change? I know y’all would watch…

Ahhh just for the fun of it, here’s how I imagine we could start:

- “If President Obama's Clean Power Plan is invalidated by the courts, which many neutral observers think it may be, what will you put in its place?” [no, “I will replace the Supreme Court justices” will not be accepted as an answer …]

- “There is a gap between the emissions reduction pledge the Obama administration has made as part of the Paris climate agreement and the emissions reductions the US is projected to achieve through existing rules and programs. There is also no easy way for the US to increase its mitigation ambition in the future, as everyone recognizes will be necessary to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. Understanding that congressional action is unlikely, what is your plan for filling the emissions gap, and how would you establish an effective mechanism for further reducing emissions in the future?”

[breathe, Secretary Clinton, breathe… and Senator Sanders, you’re on deck – please use this time to craft a response that does not include the words “income inequality”]

- “What is your approach to removing subsidies and incentives for fossil fuels?”

[Sen. Sanders, specifics please.]

- “In addition to mitigation of future climate change by reducing our emissions, climate adaptation (to changes already occurring or on the near horizon) is equally important. The Pentagon already recognizes changing climate as a national security threat – not just due to increased conflict but also due loss of military infrastructure and coastal assets due to sea level rise. Recently, in Flint, MI we saw just a glimpse of what happens when our crumbling infrastructure and institutional injustice/environmental racism converge. My question is this: with the need for these massive infrastructure renewal investment nationwide – as well as increased coastal erosion, inland flooding, and persisting drought due to changing precipitation patterns - how are we going to afford all of these adaptation efforts to address all these vulnerabilities?”

[Sec. Clinton, yes you may still have your photo op but no you will not be able to label all of these instances as “tragedies”, vouch for all these victims, fix their pipes, and still run the country in your free time … Sen. Sanders, do you still think it is realistic to address all these vulnerabilities and still be able to provide free tuition at state universities nationwide?]

- “There are a lot of concerns regarding transparency and labeling of food products containing GMOs. The production of GMOs certainly favor large agricultural corporations, yet food containing GMOs has never killed anyone. With the world population likely to surpass 9 billion by 2050 – and given the crop challenges already occurring and/or likely to arise under changing climate - the opportunity to produce more crops and feed a growing world population using GMO technology may have its merits. Under your presidency many GMO transparency battles are likely to be fought in the U.S. – where do you stand on these?

[Sen. Sanders, I will allow you to use the term “income inequality”, but please do so sparingly.]

- “ You are both in agreement with the White House characterization of climate as a top priority that requires aggressive action. Economists are in almost complete agreement that the most effective policy measure would be a tax on carbon. Yet ever since George H.W. Bush first considered such a tax, every president has been either afraid to propose it or has failed to achieve it. How willing are you to go the mat to get a serious carbon tax instated, and what would you do differently than your predecessors in order to succeed?”

[Sec. Clinton, where’d you go?]

Now, wouldn’t that be fun?

Note: I found a many of these questions here: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/presidential-debates-scientists-climate-change. A bunch of other substantive questions that would be great necessary debate material are there as well. Definitely worth a read!

#climate change #democrats #democratic debate #carbon tax #gmo #cop21 #clean power plan #hillary clinton #bernie sanders #imwithher #feelthebern #science

0 notes

carbonandhappiness-blog · 9 years ago

Text

System change and climate change: The case for Sanders

photo credit: <http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/ sanders_climate_bill.jpg>

There is only one fossil fuel that we may yet safely Bern. He is an independent senator from Vermont.

I truly believe Bernie Sanders is the most viable candidate to promote progress on social and environmental justice issues. There is definitely room for debate here, and his policies are far from perfect – but we don’t elect perfect presidents, do we? Although his policies leave something to be desired, the Obama presidency has shown us even a lame duck president has the power to shape the daily conversations we are having. Bernie, for all his policy gaps and at-times questionable number crunching, is the undoubtedly the best fit to bring the social and environmental justice movements closer together. And the most likely candidate to cultivate a political climate more hospitable to bold climate action that will endure long after leaving office.

As it is the focus of my blog, I would like to draw out the climate case, in particular, for Bernie Sanders.

---

I must first note that it is not the point of this blog to get political. This is a blog about climate change’s linkages to the more fit-to-print issues, its chronic stress on the everyday, and – more directly - its impact on the collective story of mankind.

Yet, there is a political climate that has been changing here in the United States for the past few months. A once all-but-inevitable Clinton/Bush presidential election has been turned on its head riding a growing wave of populism. There is a palpable excitement among youth and a larger contingency of voters typically disengaged with the political process. The ‘Land of Opportunity’ is re-awakening a vision and, for some, this vision is one that finally includes them.

For a climate voter, the Democratic primary election (and 2016 presidential election) holds a tremendous amount of weight. The outcome will have important climate implications not only the U.S. but the rest of the world as well. For the sake of our global climate, it is important that we elect the right candidate. After all, the President of the United States is the Leader of the Free World. We must recognize this. The fact that this Donald Trump could be the Leader of the Free World is (insert-your-own-word-here).

When it comes to climate agendas, Governor O’Malley’s is actually the most aggressive. Unfortunately he does not appear electable at this point. Secretary Clinton’s climate agenda also grew more progressive in 2015. And, transparency issues aside, I do believe she means well when it comes to the climate. While we do need a woman president, we must vote for the best candidate. This is what Democracy is about.

---

There are some 219,000,000 American citizens currently eligible to vote. Each has the right to vote. The right to vote. (My fellow Payton alumni will recognize Ms. Mitchell’s voice ringing through here).

I can’t help but feel I let Ms. Mitchell down in 2012. I did not participate in the general election. Faced with a decision between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, I felt that - regardless of the outcome - a president simply did not have enough power to make needed change happen by themselves. My vote would not certainly not change things.

I now consider myself lucky. President Obama proved me wrong. Although I cannot say that I agree with all his actions (or timing), he made it clear that the “regardless of gridlock, the President still sets the agenda for the nation… and we have [now] seen the power of the bully pulpit as Obama has moved our country significantly on issues of gay rights and environmental policy even without the help of Congress.”

I have no intent of letting Ms. Mitchell down again. I will be a first-time general election voter in 2016.

----

Throw Out the Candidates’ Climate Agendas (or pocket them, for now)

Let me make this clear: a U.S. president no longer has the executive power to decisively reduce climate emissions. That ship has long left the port.

Outside of implementing a carbon tax or similar fee-and-dividend system (either of which could not be done without Congressional approval) there is little that would radically change the scope of American emissions. And this is not in the president’s playbook. There are no more climate Hail Mary’s, if you will. It is a ground game from here on out, and the home court is the U.S. Congress floor.

It is also evident in the hard-fought progress we have made to-date. The Clean Power Plan, the largest single action the U.S. has taken to address our own climate emissions, did not require any new legislation. It was crafted carefully under the provisions of the existing Clean Air Act from the 1970’s --- and will undergo legal battles for the greater part of this decade, if not longer. There has been Republican push-back after the Keystone XL decision, the Paris Accord in December 2015. And we can continue to expect similar push-back on future efforts to reduce fossil fuel consumption and development, domestically.

What’s worse? A large international climate (ambition) gap. In order to reach global goals to limit temperature rise under 2 degrees C, the U.S. goal needs to be more like 45% by 2030 than 28% by 2025.

A 45% reduction in carbon emissions does not happen without the overwhelming buy-in of the American people. This does not happen without removing the climate denial perpetuated by fossil fuel interests or significant green job growth. 45% does not happen without revisiting the idea that corporations can be people.

In plain terms, we do not get to 45% without confronting the disastrous Citizens United ruling, now six years old.

To even approach such levels of emissions reductions in these time frames (and yes, there is a ticking clock) will require system change. The environmental and social justice movements will have to grow together, or they will be overwhelmed. The chronic stresses that plague our society today could be further entrenched.

This kind of system change is not the kind that can be delivered in 4 or even 8 years of a presidency. And it is what advocates of Sanders’ revolution understand.

Clinton or Sanders could very well enter a lame duck presidency similar to what we have seen under Obama. This presents a choice: we can rely on executive branch action that could be sporadic (today we act on gun control, tomorrow on LGBT rights, and the next day on climate), OR we could cultivate a new, more-inclusive environment for discussion on an array of progressive issues.

From those that I’ve talked to about Bernie Sanders, what is most exciting to us is not the candidate (sure, he’s an adorable fed-up old man), but rather the revolution. There is excitement for system change. Ask not what we can get from our president tomorrow, but what foundation we can build for social, moral progress in the next four years. This revolution must be about increasing transparency and trust between our politicians and our citizens. It is about the dinner conversations we will be having in 2016-2020. Will these conversations be dominated by terrorism, international regime change, bigotry, and gun control --- or will they be deeper conversations about social and economic inequality, environmental justice, Reparations, and other forms of social progress?

This revolution is just as much about who we elect in 2016 as it is about who we elect to Congress in 2018 and 2020.

---

The Climate Case for Bernie

Bernie Sanders won my support in single answer at the 1st Democratic debate. When Bernie sidestepped what appeared to be a multiple choice question (“What is the greatest national security threat to the United States”) to deliver a truly thoughtful, multi-faceted response regarding climate change and its enduring secondary and tertiary effects (public health threats, resource constraints, increased potential for conflict, etc.), he had a moment. It was a “this guy gets it” moment. (For the record, I think Martin O’Malley gets it, too – it is unfortunate he has been marginalized as he has)

Bernie was certainly correct, climate change is the greatest security threat we face as a nation. This is echoed not only by progressives, but by the Pentagon. When it comes to the climate, the U.S. must recognize its incredible responsibility to act on matters outside our borders. Of our enormous military budget, most of it is not spent on weaponry and combat – it is spent non-combat operations, including foreign aid. Increased storm intensity and frequency of natural disasters are not just environmental problems. They mobilize our military. We are expected to be there for a typhoon in the Philippines or for a tsunami and nuclear disaster in Japan. Droughts and resource conflicts amplify inter- and intra-state conflict. This mobilizes our military. Our Navy, by far the largest in the world, is at a slow war was rising seas. “A 2011 National Research Council report found that 128 U.S. military sites could be impacted by sea-level rise of 3 feet or more. Of those, 56 are Navy facilities valued at $100 billion.”

Climate change has arguably been the most politicized issue in the United States. I would not even call climate change an issue. Rather, climate change is lens through which to view all other issues. Sanders spoke to this point and stood up to the scrutiny that followed his 1st debate response in the next debate, and my support has not wavered since.

---

At the same time, Hillary was not helping herself. Her response to the question "who is the enemy you've made that your proudest of?" was, confidently: "Republicans!" It was a terrible debate question to be sure, but an even more appalling answer.

It is not very presidential to alienate a significant portion of your country's population and smile while doing it. It is certainly not what this revolution is about: cultivating a new, more-inclusive environment for discussion on progressive issues.

Similarly, this is not the way we fix the climate. The motto of the climate movement has in fact been the opposite: To change everything, we need everybody. Of course, not everyone is so open to the idea that we have a climate crisis. Do myself and others sometimes feel like climate-versions of Jehovah's Witnesses? Absolutely.

But an “us-vs.-them” mentality is toxic, if not Trump-ian.

When it comes to policy itself, I am very impressed by Governor O’Malley’s aggressive campaign promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and incent clean energy solutions. His push for a 100% clean energy economy by 2050 is the most aggressive of any candidate.

But I am more encouraged by a hybrid top-down and bottom-up approach: Bernie Sanders supports a carbon tax and also touts a ‘Keep-It-In-The-Ground’ campaign. This is an approach that comes at it from both ends, and is most in line with the new climate math. Sanders would also tie his climate agenda to his broader message of combating economic inequality and confronting what he calls "the billionaire class."

It is all clean energy numbers with Hillary. And we have been waiting for more for six months. Lofty goals, but no mention of a lockdown on subsidies. She is also the last candidate one would expect to bring a carbon tax into the discussion.

---

2015 was an important year for the climate. It brought about the Paris Accord, a legally-binding instrument that increases the ambition of national goals and the transparency of carbon emissions reporting, a needed step in promoting international cooperation to combat a global emergency. However, the language of the Accord does not legally bind the U.S. – or any other nation – to meet its goals. Rather, it simply requires, under the new international negotiations framework, that each nation reports its progress (or lack of progress) and revises its plan every 5 years.

While this framework is a great progression from previous negotiations, its potential success relies overwhelmingly on the continued commitment of the U.S., China, and India – the world’s three largest emitters - over the next 15 years, and well beyond 2030. It is highly vulnerable to political and/or agenda change. It is therefore of utmost importance that conditions for long-term emissions reduction – backed by politically-sustainable policy - be reached as soon as possible in each of these nations.

China is racing ahead. By 2017, China plans to have a national carbon-trading system in place – effectively reforming its economy by pricing out carbon pollution. They have doubled-down on this commitment, moving forward with plans to close 4,300 existing coal mines and placing a 3-year moratorium on new coal developments. A climate policy mic-drop (if you will) that calls out the U.S. and India.

Here in the U.S. we have also seen a progressing environmental movement, albeit to a lesser degree, spearheaded by President Obama. 2015 brought the end to the Keystone XL pipeline, the introduction of the Clean Power Plan, new regulations on methane, a stalemate in Arctic drilling permitting, and a further push to control coal development on Public Lands. They are necessary drops in a bucket, but still just that.

With three Democratic candidates stressing the need to #ActOnClimate and opposing political party that cannot agree on the science, the 2016 U.S. presidential election presents an incredible climate opportunity/threat. It won’t be enough to choose a candidate that has the best plan, simply because we cannot bank on any such plan to come to fruition. We must assess these plans (which I’m sure you all are doing…) with a grain of salt and be smart with our votes. More than that, we need to be brave with our votes.

In my own opinion, for enduring climate policy to stand a chance, there exists a need for a long-view political revolution in this country rooted in transparency and social progress. Only with the social and environmental justice movement growing together do I also see a path for climate justice. There needs to be culture that will not only allow it to survive, but embrace it.

I will be supporting Senator Bernie Sanders, and I hope you will consider being brave and supporting him as well.

#ActOnClimate #climatechange #carbonpricing #feelthebern #election 2016

1 note · View note