Event - Clean Cities Renewable Energy Procurement

Clean Cities Renewable Energy Procurement will take place on July 24-25, 2019 in Denver, Colorado. This event answers the question, what does it take for cities to buy their own renewable energy? It will showcase the stories of pioneering cities who are developing and executing a successful game plan for renewable power procurement. Profit from their experience and learn the most sophisticated approaches to accomplishing your environmental goals.

Across the nation, citizens are demanding clean energy, and cities have responded by making commitments to 100% renewable or clean power. Delivering on these commitments, however, is a complex undertaking, and many cities find themselves challenged to find the right strategies and solutions to meet their ambitious public targets. The process can also be very different depending on whether a city is located in a de-regulated or traditional electric power market.

The Clean Cities Renewable Power Procurement Summit, hosted by the City of Denver, has been organized to help cities navigate the many complex considerations involved in procuring renewable power. Bringing together executives from cities across the country who are actively involved in the process, procurement consultants and renewable energy suppliers, the meeting will provide guidance and discussion of how cities should weigh their available options, formulate priorities and strategies, evaluate the economics and risks, and gain political and legal support.

Because cities need to develop an informed understanding of renewable power procurement, the meeting has been designed in conjunction with the Planning Committee to be of maximal educational value. This is a unique opportunity to engage with the most sophisticated thinking about renewable energy procurement as well as profiting from the real world experience of your peers. You will gain valuable insights and best practices to implement as you pursue own city’s environmental goals.

To see the agenda click here.
For more information or to register click here. 

Read More»

The Benefits of Climate Action Far Outweigh the Costs

Despite problems with existing economic models and resistance from political and business leaderships the logic of climate action is irrefutable. The merits of climate action is born out by a slew of studies and rudimentary math. 

When we factor the costs of environmental damage it is difficult to come up with an assessment that does not convincingly demonstrate the value of climate action over business as usual. Here are three separate assessments that come to the same fundamental conclusion.

In a 2018 Vox article David Roberts concludes, "these days, it has gotten almost impossible to make sustainability look like a bad deal." He points to the fact that as the cost of business as usual keep rising, the costs of sustainable alternatives keep declining.

Large potential reduction in economic damages under UN mitigation targets

In a 2018 Guardian article Damian Carrington says that climate action will save the world $30 trillion in damages which is far more than the costs of cutting carbon emissions. Citing an article published in Nature Carrington writes, "Data from the last 50 years shows clearly that when temperatures rise, GDP and other economic measures fall in most nations, due to impacts on factors including labour productivity, agricultural output and health."

"By the end of the century, we find the world will be about 3% wealthier if we actually achieve the 1.5C target relative to 2C target," said Marshall Burke, assistant professor at Stanford University in the US, who led the new work. "In dollar terms, this represents about $30tn in cumulative benefits...The estimated cost of meeting the 1.5C target is about $0.5tn over the next 30 years," he said: "So our evidence suggest the benefits of meeting the targets vastly outweigh the costs...We also calculated what’s going to be the additional economic cost if we hit 3C instead of 2C. This will cost the globe an additional 5-10% of GDP, relative to 2C; that is tens of trillions of dollars. These are very large numbers," Marshall said.

The actual costs are likely to be much higher as study did not include the costs of climate change that are hard to quantify.

Cambridge University’s Judge Business School

In a 2015 Think Progress article Joe Romm wrote that climate action avoids over $400 Trillion in damages. Romm was citing an analysis from Cambridge University’s Judge Business School. The author, Chris Hope, an expert on the economics of climate change, told Romm that the "corresponding value for a low emissions scenario is about $80 trillion." The cost of melting permafrost alone represents $43 trillion in damages. "So climate action remains a figurative no brainer," Romm said "and climate inaction remains a literal no-brainer."

Although it may seem obvious, straight forward math is confounded by disinformation from those with dirty energy agendas and misinformation from short term thinkers. However, even those with tiny time horizons will find that there are short and medium term savings that come with climate action.

New Climate Economy Report

Roberts said a global shift to sustainability would save us $26 trillion by 2030. He cites the 2018 New Climate Economy Report that says, "We can have growth that is strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive." The report looked at energy, cities, food/land use, water, and industry/innovation/transportation and indicated that almost $90 trillion will be invested in infrastructure in the next decade.

"[S]hifting to sustainable technologies and techniques would save trillions of dollars through 2030 in increased productivity, innovation, and reduced health costs. Sustainability costs less," Roberts wrote about the report. "Policymakers worldwide need to price carbon, roll back fossil fuel subsidies (and other policies that impede sustainability), invest in sustainable infrastructure, harness the private sector, and protect vulnerable communities." 

The report also indicates that current models and projections underplay the benefits of transitioning to a sustainable low carbon economy. "Current economic models are deeply inadequate in capturing the opportunities of such a transformational shift, or the grave dangers of climate inaction," the report states. "We need a new class of economic models that can capture the powerful dynamics at play, including transformative technological advances, preservation of essential natural capital, and the full health benefits of cleaner air and a safer climate, including the containment of pandemic diseases."

We have the required solutions but we need the will to enact policy to scale them up.  In addition to problems with our economic models we are also contending with a failure of leadership. "The barrier — now, as always... is sufficient political and business leadership," the report said.


Related
Economic Assessments Overwhelmingly Support Climate Action
Economic Arguments as a Pretext to Torpedo Climate Action
Does Business Need Government to Incentivize the Green Economy?
The Energy Efficiency Opportunity and the Case for Government Leadership
Climate Crisis Economics: A Serious Threat and a Real Opportunity
We Cannot Afford to Deny the Cost of Climate Change

Read More»

A Realist Makes the Case for Cassandra

Is this the best of times or the worst of times? Charles Dickens historical novel, A Tale of Two Cities begins with the words, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair."

In a recent article Stephen Martin Walt assesses our times and weighs the merits of optimistic assessments alongside more apocalyptic interpretations. He asks: "Who’s right: Cassandra or Dr. Pangloss? Are we on the brink of serious trouble, as Cassandra of Greek myth prophesied, or is all for the best 'in this best of all possible worlds,'  as the fictional Pangloss insisted in Voltaire’s Candide?"

Walt is an American professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He belongs to the realist school of international relations. He has made important contributions to the theory of defensive neorealism and he has authored the balance of threat theory.

For those who are interested in a cogent and sound analysis Walt offers a review that is well worth the read. He lays out the facts in a way that transcends the usual polemics. In the May 20th Foreign Policy article Walt leads with a discussion of climate change which he describes as the "single most vexing political test humankind has ever faced." Here is an unabridged excerpt of his comments on the climate crisis from the article.

"We haven’t known about man-made climate change for very long, but alarming evidence of its negative consequences continues to accumulate. Moreover, the pace and extent of change appears to be closer to the worst-case end of the spectrum. We are virtually certain to see a rise of more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit in atmospheric temperature in the next 20 years, for example, and a major study by the United Nations scientific panel on climate change estimates that a rise of that magnitude would cause roughly $54 trillion (!) worth of damage.

But the troubling part is how tepid the response has been. A well-funded army of people rejecting mainstream climate science tried first to convince us the problem simply didn’t exist, and they have worked to block meaningful actions to address it. At the global level, profligate energy users mostly tried to make sure that somebody else got stuck with the costs of mitigation. When the president of the United States refuses to accept that climate change is even occurring and wants to resurrect coal (the dirtiest of all fossil fuels), you know we’re in trouble. And my guess—see here—is that adapting to this problem is going to affect politics and society in ways we’ve barely begun to imagine.

I’m not saying dealing with this challenge is easy. It’s always hard to get people to make sacrifices today for the sake of future generations, and there are big cross-generational and cross-national equity issues involved. In fact, I believe developing an effective global response to atmospheric warming is the single most vexing political test humankind has ever faced. And so far, we’re flunking it, and placing whole societies in risk. Boy, I hope I’m wrong."

Read More»