Ten Climate Proposals from the Leading Democratic Presidential Candidates

For the first time ever, all of the leading Democratic presidential candidates agree that climate change is a high priority issue that demands urgent action. They all released climate proposals ahead of the historic climate town halls on September 4th.

There is a great deal of agreement between the leading Democratic contenders. They all want to reverse Trump's actions and rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement. They all support zero-emissions, carbon-neutral electricity, the electrification of transportation and ending federal fossil fuel subsidies.

The candidates also share a common focus on socioeconomic disparities. They want to address inequality through climate action that assists vulnerable people in minority and other disadvantaged communities. They all offer varying degrees of support for the Green New Deal.

However, they differ on timelines and how they will pay for their plans. Some favor fining polluters, others prefer a carbon tax. Many want to end tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry and/or increase taxation on the wealthy.

Candidates are jockeying for the role of pack leading climate hawk. The position was vacated when former Washington governor Jay Inslee dropped out of the race last month. Both Warren and Castro have met with Inslee or his people, however, their climate proposals still fall short of Sanders's plan.

Bernie Sanders

• $16.3 trillion investment
• Carbon neutrality by 2030

Sanders makes it clear that he wants to lead the world to address the climate crisis. He wants to see 16.3 trillion in federal spending in a World War II style mobilization that would touch almost every sector of the economy. In addition to the size of the federal investment, Sander's proposal is unique in terms of time-frames. He wants the U.S. to be carbon neutral by 2030. He wants to transition away from fossil fuels and immediately ban energy extraction. Sander's plan includes 100 percent renewable energy which Sander's claims will produce 20 million jobs. He also wants to use the courts to level criminal charges against companies who conceal knowledge of harm caused by their products or services.

Elizabeth Warren

• $2 trillion investment
• Carbon neutrality by 2035

Warren has largely adopted Inslee's plan with some tweaks and additions. Warren has proposed a $2 trillion investment in green manufacturing, research and development. She wants to take the innovations produced through this investment and market them abroad. She recently added another $1 trillion to achieve zero-carbon emissions and the timelines breakdown as follows: New buildings by 2028, vehicles including trucks and buses by 2030 and electricity by 2035.

Kamala Harris

• $10 trillion investment (public and private)
• Carbon neutrality by 2045

Harris wants to invest $10 trillion in private and public money to make the U.S. economy carbon-neutral by 2045. Her plan dovetails with the Climate Equity Act put forward by her and Rep. Axexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Harris also wants to increase penalties for companies that violate federal pollution laws and she wants to restore the polluter pays model to fund the superfund program.

Cory Booker

• $10 trillion investment
• Carbon neutrality by 2045

Like Harris, Booker wants to invest $10 trillion to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. He wants to pay Americans a climate dividend with money raised through carbon fees levied against fossil fuel producers.

Julian Castro

• $10 trillion investment

Although the details are not clear, Castro also wants to see $10 trillion in spending. His plan emphasizes addressing economic inequality with civil rights legislation that will tackle environmental discrimination and environmental racism.

Beto O'Rourke

• $5 trillion investment 
• Carbon neutrality by 2050

O'Rourke wants to leverage a $5 trillion investment to get to zero emissions by 2050. He envisions a $1.5 trillion investment to reform energy and transportation infrastructure. O'Rourke is unique in wanting to work through Congress to set legally enforceable environmental standards including greenhouse gas emissions.

Joe Biden

• $1.7 trillion investment
• Carbon neutrality by 2050

Biden's plan adds to the work done by the Obama's administration while he was vice president. He would dedicate $1.7 trillion to eliminate GHG emissions by the middle of the century. He would end fossil fuels subsidies and ban new oil and gas permits on public lands. Biden embraces climate science and is calling for a timely clean energy revolution.

Pete Buttigieg

• $1.5 and 2 trillion investment (to leverage tens of trillions)

Buttigieg envisions spending between $1.5 and 2 trillion to leverage tens of trillions of dollars in private, state and local investment to combat climate change. He wants to invest another $25 billion in climate research and create a Climate Watch Floor in the Department of Defense. Buttigieg wants to make $1 trillion available to the economically disadvantaged.

Amy Klobuchar

• Carbon neutrality by 2050

Klobuchar wants to see zero-emissions by 2050. She also wants to bring back the Obama era clean power plan and gas mileage standards killed by Trump. She wants to work with Congress and take aggressive executive action.

Andrew Yang

Yang wants to massively invest in technology including decarbonization research. He sees sea level rise as inevitable and as a consequence he is focused on climate adaptation. He wants to move people away from low lying flood prone areas.

Read More»

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»

Event - Solar Canada Annual Conference & Exposition

Solar Canada Conference and Exhibition will take place May 8-9, 2019 at the BMO Centre, in Calgary, Alberta. This event is Canada's largest and most important solar energy conference and a must-attend event for solar energy professionals, stakeholders and advocates.

Calgary provides an excellent backdrop to discuss Canada’s clean energy future. With recent solar projects going forward at an average contracting price of less than five cents per kilowatt-hour, Alberta is leading the country with the lowest rates on solar energy.

"Utility-scale solar is now cost competitive with natural gas, and this is transformative for our industry," says John Gorman, CanSIA President & CEO. "Achieving Alberta’s 30 per cent by 2030 renewable electricity target has just become a lot more cost-effective. This sends a clear signal to energy consumers and governments across Canada that solar is a clean and low-cost energy option." 

Attendees will gain insights into Canada’s changing energy markets and policies; discover revolutionary research and technologies; network with solar innovators; and, receive updates from jurisdictions across Canada.

Highlights

High-profile speakers including the Honourable Amarjeet Sohi, Federal Minister of Natural Resources and Rabia Ferroukhi, Acting Director of the Knowledge, Policy & Finance division at the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

An expo hall that brings together the entire solar industry supply chain and includes educational sessions, case studies, a dedicated section for startup companies, electric cars and more.

Top Reasons to Participate - Network and build relationships with Canada’s most important solar energy professionals at networking events that connect industry stakeholders and encourage business development and partnerships. - Discover the latest innovations, technology, trends, and visions the industry has to offer - Promote your brand as a key player in the solar energy industry

Speakers

• Amarjeet Sohi, Minister of Natural Resources, Government of Canada
• Michael Lohner, Partner, Crestview Strategy
• Gurbuz Gonul, Director, Country Support and Partnerships, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)
• Elizabeth Moore, Vice-President, Commercial, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)
• Chris Warwick, Mayor, Town of Hanna, Alberta
• Guy Bridgeman, SVP, Water Canada, EPCOR
• Katharine Hayhoe, Professor - Climate Change Center, Texas Tech University
• Jay Khosla, Assistant Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada

About CanSIA

Canadian Solar Industries Association (CanSIA) is a national trade association that represents the solar energy industry throughout Canada. Since 1992, CanSIA has worked to develop a strong, efficient, ethical and professional Canadian solar energy industry with capacity to provide innovative solar energy solutions and to play a major role in the global transition to a clean-energy future. Learn more at www.cansia.ca.

About Hannover Fairs (Canada) Inc.

Hannover Fairs (Canada) is a subsidiary of Hannover, Germany’s Deutsche Messe – one of the world’s largest and most active organizers of industrial technology events. Hannover Fairs helps companies expand domestically and internationally through exhibit and sponsorship opportunities at Deutsche Messe’s worldwide portfolio of events, including Energy at HANNOVER MESSE and Canada’s premier wind energy event, CanWEA Annual Conference and Exhibition. Visit http://www.hfcanada.ca for more information.

Click here for the program
Click here to register

Related
Energy Jobs and the Economy: Kenney's Plans for Alberta

Read More»

Declining Battery Storage Costs are Helping Renewables

BNEF Graph from a March 26, 2019 report titled:
Battery Power’s Latest Plunge in Costs Threatens Coal, Gas

Energy storage solves the intermittency problem of renewable forms of energy like wind and solar. Only a few years ago battery technologies were too immature to support widespread, large-scale deployment of renewables.  Now less expensive storage technologies are making renewables far more attractive. Despite the uneven allocation of subsidies, the plummeting price of energy storage has made it possible for clean energy to out-compete fossil fuels.

When they are partnered with some form of battery, renewables can power the world.  However, the amount of energy that will need to be stored is vast. Utility scale batteries are part of the answer but so are alternatives like pumped hydro.

A new study suggests pumped-hydro energy storage is a scalable inexpensive solution. Researchers identified 530,000 sites worldwide suitable for pumped-hydro energy storage. This would allow for a storage capacity the far exceeds the power requirements of the entire planet. These sites have the capacity to easily store at least 22 million Gigawatt-hours (GWh) of energy.

Led by Tesla, the profile of battery storage has increased dramatically in recent years. Price declines in energy storage are contributing to this increased competitiveness of renewable energy.

A recent Bloomberg report says the cost of energy storage is plummeting and it can now compete with gas and even coal in many markets. The cost of lithium-ion batteries has fallen 35% to $187 per megawatt-hour since the first half of 2018. Batteries also have an added benefit. When storage batteries are not in use during periods of peak power demand they can help regulate the flow of power on electrical grids.

According to a 2017 BNEF report, the global storage market will double six times by 2030 and another BNEF report, a year later suggests that energy storage is a $620 billion investment opportunity to 2040.  The study predicts that the global energy storage market will grow to a cumulative 942GW/2,857GWh by 2040.

"Our analysis shows that the LCOE per megawatt-hour for onshore wind, solar PV and offshore wind have fallen by 49%, 84% and 56% respectively since 2010. That for lithium-ion battery storage has dropped by 76% since 2012, based on recent project costs and historical battery pack prices." Lithim-ion costs have fallen 35 percent in the past year alone

The good news continued into 2019 with ongoing cost improvements in lithium ion batteries. According to Jon Moore, Chief Executive of BNEF, the most recent New Energy Outlook report predicts even faster growth this year.

The more renewables/storage are scaled the most price competitive they will be. The price of batteries are expected to keep declining for the foreseeable future. According to a 2019 BNEF report, growing EV adoption will also help drive the cost of lithium-ion batteries down 73 per cent by 2030.

Declining prices make microgrid systems a very attractive opportunity. There are a number of practical illustrations of the real world viability of storage options. The Blue Lake Rancheria's 500-kilowatt solar array and storage system saved a California tribe $200,000 a year and makes them more self-sufficient. Tesla recently installed the world’s largest lithium battery in Australia and it has a payback window of only three years.

Related
Energy Storage Market Overview

EV Batteries: Declining Cost and Improving Energy Density (Videos)
The Declining Cost of Stationary Energy Storage
Renewable Energy Storage
13 Applications of Tesla Batteries that are Revolutionizing Renewables 
Renewable Energy Storage by Donald Sadoway (Video)
The Crucial Role of Public Private Private Partnerships in the Development of Energy Storage

Read More»

The Dream of 100% Renewable Energy is Alive and Well

The dream of 100 percent renewable energy is alive and well with many nations proving that it can be done. The transition away from fossil fuels to renewables is underway.  In the last couple of years we have seen some major changes. When we compare the leading renewable energy countries in 2016 to those who are leading today we find that there are several states that have stayed the course while some others have not.

Despite resistance from the Trump administration, renewables are growing n the US. It is not only California and Hawaii, states and territories across America are committing to 100 percent renewable energy. Washington DC, New Mexico, and Puerto Rico are looking to go 100 percent renewable. Local and state legislators in Arizona, Nevada, Missouri, and Colorado have all passed clean-energy bills. In addition to New Mexico five other governors elected in 2018 have said they want their states to become zero-carbon (Colorado and Connecticut) or close to it (Illinois, Nevada,and Maine).

Germany's green energy dominance allows the nation to meet more than one third of  electricity demands with renewables. Chancellor Angela Merkel has been a champion of renewable energy and as part of the nation's Energiewende program the country is committed to eradicating fossil fuel powered energy and generating all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050.

In places like Portugal renewable energy has at times been able to provide for all the nation's power needs. Last year renewable energy provided all of Portugal's electricity needs in the month of March. It is not only smaller countries that are meeting all of their energy demand with renewables. Both Germany and the UK have at times been able to generate all of their electricity needs from renewables. The UK owes much its renewable energy performance to Scotland, which derives all of its energy from renewables.

Costa Rica is almost entirely powered by renewables. According to figures provided by Costa Rica's National Centre for Energy Control the country gets its energy from hydropower, wind, geothermal, biomass and solar (hydrocarbons are less than one half of one percent). Costa Rica aims to be completely carbon-neutral by the year 2021.

Cost Rica is not the only clean energy leader in Central America, Nicaragua is on track to be 90 percent renewables-powered by the year 2020 and Uruguay already derives 95 percent of its power from renewables

"It really is time to debunk the myth that a country has to choose between development on the one hand and environmental protection, renewables, quality of life, on the other," the founder of renewable energy initiative group Costa Rica Limpia, Monica Araya, said. "[I]t's important to take note of what Costa Rica is doing here – their success can be ours too. We just have to want it badly enough."

In 2017 Sri Lanka announced that it would get all of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050, primarily wind and solar energy. There will be 15,000 MW of wind and 16,000 MW of solar capacity with the rest coming from  hydro and biomass energy. If they succeed the country will save a total of $18 billion that would have been spent on fossil fuels. Sri Lanka is one of 43 members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum who committed to produce 100 percent of their electricity through renewables by 2050 at the Marrakesh COP negotiations.

Denmark aims to be 100 percent of fossil-fuel-free by 2050. Chile is also looking at going 100 percent renewable by 2050. California expects to be fully transitioned to renewables by 2045.

Other countries that are 100 percent renewable include Iceland which generates the most clean electricity per person on earth, with almost 100 percent of its energy coming from renewable sources. In 2015 Sweden announced they were eliminating fossil fuel usage in the country. Scotland is able to produce enough wind power to export electricity..China is the undisputed growth leader in renewable energy while Taiwan is working towards the modest goal of 20 percent renewables by 2025. 

We are also seeing large scale investments in renewable energy from some of the most unlikely places including Saudi Arabia. The oil producing state plans to develop almost 10 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2023, starting with wind and solar plants in its vast northwestern desert.Kenya, Morocco, and even the isolated island state of Tasmania are taking bold steps towards clean energy.

There are a number of energy success stories, but as a whole we are not transitioning fast enough. Although Clean energy is the answer to both air pollution and the climate crisis, many governments are failing to advance the necessary policies.  

Related
The New RE100 Initiative: 1000 Businesses 100% Renewable
Europe is Proving that 100% Renewables is Possible
Moving Towards 100% Renewables in the US
Renewable Energy in Africa and the Middle East
The ABCs of Latin American Renewable Energy (Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica)
Asian Renewable Energy (China, India Japan, South Korea)
Australia Can Go 100% Renewable Due to Falling Costs
Australian State Meets Energy Needs with Renewables
Australia Can Dump Coal and Adopt Renewables
Canada Could Get All of Its Electricity from Renewables
Europe Moving Towards 100 percent Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy Case Studies: Burlington Vermont and Argentina
Germany's Renewable Energy Leadership

Read More»

The World's Poor are Hurt Not Helped by Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Governments argue that fossil fuel subsidies are designed to help the poorest members of society, however, this is not borne out by the research.  The true beneficiaries of these subsidies are wealthier people and wealthier nations not the poor.

According to an IEA report, more than 85 percent of these subsidies go to middle and higher end income earners while only 8 percent of the aid is reaching the poorest 20 percent. These subsidies encourage energy consumption as people with the lowest incomes tend to be lower energy users and rarely drive.

"Fossil-fuel subsidies as presently constituted tend to be regressive, disproportionately benefiting higher income groups that can afford higher levels of fuel consumption," the report said. "Social welfare programs are a more effective and less distortionary way of helping the poor than energy subsidies."

Impediment to renewable energy 

 

Not only do fossil fuel subsidies not help the poor they actually impede the growth of renewables. This is particularly true for rural poor, where renewable energy would be both well suited and highly competitive.

"These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place," former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention Christiana Figueres said.

Green climate fund

Fossil fuels subsidies are harmful to both the poor and poorer nations. Wealthy nations spend as much as 40 times more money on fossil fuel subsidies than they invest in the Green Climate Fund to help poor countries adapt to global warming. Eight industrialised nations (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States) spend a combined $80 billion a year on public support for fossil fuel production, but have pledged only about $2 billion a year to the Green Climate Fund, Oil Change International said.

"Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies could be a massive double win," Alex Doukas, said Oil Change International's senior campaigner, said. "It would stop a huge waste of public money that's driving the climate crisis, while at the same time freeing up money that can help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change and make the shift to renewable energy."

Climate costs

Almost all economists agree that climate change hurts the economy. This view was presented in a 2018 article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, titled, Benefits of curbing climate change far outweigh costs, by Dana Nuccitelli. In fact global warming has been hurting the economies of poorer countries for about 40 years.

The medical costs alone justify climate action. A recent WHO report concludes that the health gains from meeting the terms laid out in the Paris Agreement would more than make up for the financial costs. The Lancet report points to the costs of inaction. "About 712 climate-related extreme events were responsible for US$326 billion of losses in 2017, almost triple the losses of 2016," the report says. What makes this even more troubling is the fact that almost all of these losses occurred in uninsured low-income countries.

Urgent priority

In 2015 a coalition of eight national governments (Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland), with the support of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), called the phasing out of subsidies an urgent priority.

"Accelerating the reform of fossil-fuel subsidies is therefore an urgent priority," the coalition known as Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform wrote In a communiqué. "The International Monetary Fund views that fossil fuel prices should reflect not only supply costs but also environmental impacts like climate change and the health costs of local air pollution. The majority of fossil-fuel subsidies are also socially regressive, with benefits disproportionately skewed toward middle- and upper-middle income households..."[removing subsidies would also] free up financing for sustainable development and support both national and international environmental priorities. At the same time, accelerated subsidy reform needs to be undertaken alongside measures that protect the poor and vulnerable groups from the impact of higher energy prices."

The brunt of climate impacts are being felt by people who have contributed the least to the climate crisis and who can least afford to deal with it. Fossil fuel subsidies are not a solution, in fact they are a central part of the problem.

Related
Fossil Fuel Industry Pays Legislators to Protect their Subsidies
What Would Happen if we Redirected Fossil Fuel Subsidies to Renewable Energy
Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies is a Crucial First Step
The Energy Paradox: Environmental Defense on Canada's Escalating Subsidies
Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21
Time to Reduce the Subsidy Gap Between Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy

Read More»

Clean Energy from Renewable Sources is the Answer but Government Policies are a Problem

Replacing dirty energy with clean sources of power is the key to addressing the climate crisis. The extraction and burning of fossil fuels are a major source of greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions and as such they are the leading cause of anthropogenic climate change.

The combination of climate change, pollution and habitat destruction are driving the 6th great extinction and this is an existential crisis. The best science tells us radically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions is one of the most impactful things we can do is and to do this we must wean ourselves off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. 

The argument that such a transition is prohibitively costly does not reflect the findings in a plethora of cost benefit analyses all of which conclude that climate action (eg replacing fossil fuels with renewables) is far more cost effective than inaction.

Whether on the grid or locally generated, prioritizing the transition to clean power is our only hope of keeping temperatures from surpassing the upper threshold limit of 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms.

The evidence shows that nations that prioritize renewable energy see substantial decreases in their emissions. According to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, countries that are transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources are also reducing their carbon emissions.

This research shows a proportional relationship between clean energy policies and emissions reduction. The study also revealed that the countries with the most significant declines were also the most efficient energy users. This may be attributable to things like efficient heating and electric vehicles.

As reported by the CBC, one of the researchers who contributed to the study said countries need to invest more in renewables to reduce costs. Professor Corinne Le Quéré, from the University of East Anglia, said increasing our investments in renewables would drive down costs just as they did with solar energy.

In the same article climate scientist Michael Mann points to renewable energy as a source of hope.
"There is a clear path toward averting catastrophic climate change," Mann said. "We just have to follow it."

Ending fossil fuels and replacing them with renewables really is the answer and the transition is already underway, however, it is not happening quickly enough. According to the IPCC we have less than a dozen years to act and the Gap report tells us national governments are not doing enough.

Expediting our efforts to make this transition is the way forward, all we are lacking is the political will to make it happen.

Related
What Would Happen if Fossil Fuel Subsidies Were Redirected Towards Renewable Energy?
Fossil Fuels are at the Core of the Climate Crisis
The Rise of Renewables and the Fall of Fossil Fuels
Trump Undermines Renewables to Help Fossil Fuels and the Cities and States that Oppose Him
Energy Storage Market: Overview and Forecasts
Price Declines Driving Solar Energy Leadership 
Countries Leading the Renewable Energy Revolution
Renewable Energy Can Replace Fossil Fuels

Read More»

Fossil Fuel Industry Pays Legislators to Protect their Subsidies

Image credit: The Price of Oil

The fossil fuel industry spends tens of millions of dollars each year to defend subsidies. This is part of their longstanding practice of buying influence so that they can shape political outcomes.

The Price of Oil quotes research that estimates the fossil fuel industry gets a 5,800 percent return on these investments in the form of fossil fuel subsidies. Estimates of the value of U.S. federal subsidies (excluding climate and health impacts) to the domestic oil and gas industry range from $4 billion a year, to $41 billion annually. One recent comprehensive study of U.S. energy subsidies identified $72.5 billion in federal subsidies for fossil fuels between 2002-2008, or just over $10 billion annually. Taxpayers provide $7bn a year for fossil fuel subsidies on public lands.

There have been many calls to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies. A decade ago President Obama began his relentless - but ultimately doomed - efforts to eliminate oil and gas subsidies. Although Republicans are the largest recipients of oil industry campaign contributions their are a handful of Democrats who welcome donations and block efforts to repeal subsidies.

In 2011 three dozen members of Congress sent a letter to the Super Committee urging an end to fossil fuel subsidies. The committee ignored the request although this would have saved as much as $122 billion over a decade. It failed because of the influence of fossil fuel industry money on the Super Committee. Eight Super Committee members received over $300,000 in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 1999: Senators Baucus (D-MT), Kyl (R-AZ), Portman (R-OH), and Toomey (R-PA), and Representatives Camp (R-MI), Clyburn (D-SC), Hensarling (R-TX), and Upton (R-MI).

There have been a number of bills to end subsidies but they have all been killed by members of the GOP. A 2011 bill to end fossil fuel subsidies was killed by the Senate Republicans (45 Republicans and three Democrats voted to keep oil subsidies). Senators who opposed eliminating the oil subsidies received an average of 5 times as much cash as those who voted to eliminate the subsidies.

"The industry finances corrupt politicians, who in turn help them keep fossil fuels economically viable at a time when the science suggests most oil, gas and coal needs to be kept in the ground," Jason Kowalski, policy director at 350.org said in a Center for Biological Diversity press release. "They set out to rig the system and they succeeded. History will judge them harshly."

Opponents to ending subsidies put forward an old and deeply flawed economic mythology. They contend this would hurt industry, eliminate thousands of jobs, and reduce tax revenue. However, close scrutiny does not bear out their concerns. Natural resource extraction jobs are less than 1 percent of state jobs and the industry gets more in state subsidies than it pays in taxes. The health benefits alone far outweigh the costs.

Related
What Would Happen if we Redirected Fossil Fuel Subsidies to Renewable Energy
Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies is a Crucial First Step
The Energy Paradox: Environmental Defense on Canada's Escalating Subsidies
Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21
Time to Reduce the Subsidy Gap Between Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies

Read More»

What Would Happen if Fossil Fuel Subsidies Were Redirected Towards Renewable Energy?

Subsidies are at the heart of energy issues. Clean power receives a tiny fraction of this money while the fossil fuel industry continues to reap the lion's share.  Fossil fuel subsidies are four to ten times larger than those given to renewable energy.

Governments around the world gave about $490 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry in 2014 and only $112 billion in subsidies for renewable power generation.  Governments are planning on continuing their preferential allocation of resources to fossil fuels. According to the IEA, over the next 25 years, only 15 percent of the G20's investment in energy will be devoted to renewables.

Two recent studies support the contention that ending our use of oil gas and coal could solve the climate crisis. The transition away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy is already underway. However, we need to expedite the process. One of the fastest ways we can do this is by ending fossil fuel subsidies and redirecting these subsidies to renewable energy. This would allow carbon pricing schemes to work better, reduce health hazards from air pollution and promote job growth.

Simply removing subsidies for fossil fuels would benefit renewables as dirty energy subsidies are inversely correlated with the growth of clean energy. Redirecting subsidies from fossil fuels to clean energy and efficiency would provide immense environmental and social benefits.  Redirecting such subsidies would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent study shows that if we immediately phased out fossil fuels, we have a 64-66 percent chance of keeping temperatures from increasing more than 1.5 C. We have known that we need to end fossil fuel subsidies for many years. As explained a decade ago in the Leader’s Statement from the G20 Pittsburgh Summit, fossil fuel subsidies are inefficient, they "encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change".

Christina Figueres, the former Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was instrumental in bringing about the positive outcome at COP21. She has repeatedly spoken out against fossil fuel subsidies. "These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place,"  Figueres is quoting as saying in a book called "Making the Switch".

Right now fossil fuel prices are artificially low because they include subsidies and do not reflect environmental and health impacts. If we were to end fossil fuel subsidies it would allow increasingly cost competitive renewable sources of energy to out compete dirty energy.

While IEA figures show that government subsidies for fossil fuels are around 10 times greater than those for renewable energy, when we factor climate and environmental costs, then the fossil fuel subsides increased another 10 times to nearly $5 trillion a year according to the IMF. The IMF in partnership with the World bank has said:

"Subsidies distort resource allocation by encouraging excessive energy consumption, artificially promoting capital-intensive industries, reducing incentives for investment in renewable energy, and accelerating the depletion of natural resources."

What would happen if we diverted subsides away from fossil fuels and towards renewables?  We would be well on our way to addressing the climate crisis while at the same time we would improve air quality.

Related
Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies is a Crucial First Step
The Rise of Renewables and the Fall of Fossil Fuels
Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21
Time to Reduce the Subsidy Gap Between Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress
Problems and Solutions to the Climate Crisis from the World Economic Forum in Davos
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies

Read More»

Ending Fossil Fuel Subsidies is a Crucial First Step

Ending fossil fuel subsidies is the first step towards addressing climate change. We know that the climate crisis is a genuine emergency and we also know that fossil fuels are the leading cause, hence transitioning away from them is central to addressing the crisis we face.

"The first step towards that is to stop supporting the industry with our public dollars," Stephen Kretzmann, the executive director of Oil Change International is quoted as saying in a Center for Biological Diversity press release. "These subsidies are a raw deal for American taxpayers, and a disaster for our climate."

Fossil fuel subsidies are antithetical to carbon reduction efforts by governments, businesses, cities and communities worldwide. They are harmful to the environment and economic development. As Jake Schmidt, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in a blog: "Given tight budget times and the need to address global warming, subsidizing activities that are heating the planet just doesn't make sense. The only beneficiaries of fossil fuel subsidies are oil, gas and coal companies that are raking in record profits at the expense of the rest of us."

As explained on the Price of Oil website, a fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers. There are a lot of activities under this simple definition—tax breaks and giveaways, but also loans at favorable rates, price controls, purchase requirements and a whole lot of other things.

Fossil fuel subsidies have been around since 1926, despite the fact that it is the most profitable industries in the world. As explained by Denmark’s Minister of Trade and Development Cooperation, Mogens Jensen, "Fossil-fuel subsidy reform are a key climate change mitigation policy with clear economic, social and environmental benefits."

Globally, the combination of production and consumption subsidies for the fossil fuel industry amount to more $600 billion annually.

According to the OECD production subsidies are estimated to be between $45 billion and $75 billion (budgetary support and tax expenditures) by the 24 richest OECD countries. Fossil fuel subsidies distort energy markets and each OECD country averages between $160-200bn each year. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), consumption subsidies in 37 developing countries were worth $557bn annually.

According to a 2015 IMF publication when we factor the cost of damage from pollution and climate change, fossil fuel companies are getting $5.3tn a year in subsidies. To put this number into context that is equivalent to $10m a minute every day, that is more than the total health spending of all the world’s governments. Let that sink in, we spend more on energy that is killing people and the planet than we do on helping people to be well.

As reported by BBC News phasing out fossil fuel subsidies could reduce carbon emissions by 10 percent by 2030. In combination with the right carbon pricing scheme a 40 percent reduction in emissions is possible in some countries.

In 2015 a coalition of eight national governments (Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland), with the support of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), called for the "phase-out of subsidies to fossil fuels in the lead-up" to COP21. :

"The International Energy Agency (IEA) highlights fossil-fuel subsidy reform as a key component of a set of energy measures to combat climate change and estimates that even a partial phase-out of fossil-fuel subsidies would generate 12 percent of the total abatement needed by 2020 to keep the door open to the 2°C target. Accelerating the reform of fossil-fuel subsidies is therefore an urgent priority," the coalition known as "the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform" wrote In a communiqué. "The International Monetary Fund views that fossil fuel prices should reflect not only supply costs but also environmental impacts like climate change and the health costs of local air pollution. The majority of fossil-fuel subsidies are also socially regressive, with benefits disproportionately skewed toward middle- and upper-middle income households..."[removing subsidies would also] free up financing for sustainable development and support both national and international environmental priorities. At the same time, accelerated subsidy reform needs to be undertaken alongside measures that protect the poor and vulnerable groups from the impact of higher energy prices."

France has joined in calling on governments to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. Despite a G7 pledge to end subsidies by 2025 and a 2013 commitment from the US and China to eliminate and consolidate fossil fuel subsidies we are not seeing much action on this front.

According to the IEA, the estimated value of global fossil-fuel consumption subsidies decreased by 15 percent to $260 billion in 2016, the lowest level in a decade. However, we are not seeing major reductions and in countries like the US and Canada these subsidies are actually increasing.

Related
Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Renewable Energy Post COP21
Time to Reduce the Subsidy Gap Between Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress
Problems and Solutions to the Climate Crisis from the World Economic Forum in Davos
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies

Read More»

The Energy Paradox: Environmental Defence on Canada's Escalating Oil Subsidies

Both Canada and the province of Alberta want to have it both ways. They want to be climate leaders and major oil and gas exporters.  The Canadian federal government and the provincial government in Alberta provide massive subsidies to the oil and gas industries in the form of tax breaks, fiscal support and direct grants.  Canada is the largest provider of government support for oil and gas production per unit of GDP in the G7.

After decreasing federal payments to Big Oil by $150 million in 2017 Justin Trudeau's Liberal government appears to have changed direction in 2018. Last May the Canadian government announced it was going to buy Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline for $4.5 billion. Last December the Liberals announced that they were giving oil and gas companies $1.65 billion in new grants, loans and financial supports. This is in addition to Export Development Canada, the country’s export credit agency, that provides, on average, $10 billion in government-backed support for oil and gas companies every year.

This is inconsistent with the government's decision to phase out coal and implement a national carbon pricing scheme. It is at odds with government investments in public transit, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. This also does not fit with Canada's commitment to phase out all of its inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

Alberta's fossil fuel subsidies have increased dramatically in the last few years.  Premier Rachel Notley's provincial government has provided $4.8 billion in subsidies to the oil, gas and coal industries in the last three fiscal years. She gave away more than $2 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies for the 2017/18 fiscal year (tax incentives, royalty holidays, research grants and direct subsidies). That is almost double the previous years total of $1.2 billion 

Like Canada Alberta's desire to have it both ways is creating an energy paradox.  These subsidies are in stark contrast to the goals of Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan (CLP)  which includes phasing out coal electricity, increasing renewable electricity, funding energy efficiency, more public transit and placing a cap on oil sands emissions.

A recent Environmental Defense report titled, Doubling Down with Taxpayers Dollars, chronicles fossil fuel subsidies in Alberta. The report was co-written with the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

"[T]hese subsidies work directly against the goals of the CLP by enticing fossil fuel companies to expand their operations. For Canada to fulfil its commitment to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies by 2025, all provinces must also end public support for oil, gas and coal companies."

In 2017, the aggregate gross profits of the Big Five oil sands producers were $46.6 billion.  In a recent Environmental Defense article,  Joshua Buck wonders how the Canadian oil industry can make billions in profits and yet receive ever increasing corporate subsidies.  Particularly when the industry is using some of these subsidies to expand extraction at a time when we should be winding down.  

"The science is telling us we have to pretty drastically reduce production of oil and natural gas, and in the face of headwinds in Canada around the price of oil and opposition from communities and opposition from First Nations, Canadian governments have really bent over backwards to try to help the industry with all these subsidies," said Dale Marshall, a program director with Environmental Defence.

Environmental Defence, along with Stand Earth, released a report titled Canada's Oil and Gas Challenge, at COP24.  The report indicated that emissions from the oil and gas sector are rising making it all but impossible for Canada to meet its Paris targets. Canada has agreed to 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 2005 levels by 2030.

The report also reviews how fossil fuel lobbyists have succeeded in pushing back against the federal government's efforts to reign-in emissions. They point out that only 20 percent of Canadian fossil fuel emissions will be taxed under the national carbon plan.

Realizing the compromising optics oil industry insiders were tripping all over each other to distance themselves from the hand-outs. As reviewed in an article by Patrick DeRochie the fossil fuel industry claims it does not get nor does it want subsidies.

Tim McMillan, CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, Canada’s primary oil industry lobby group, said the industry "didn’t ask for money under federal government programs." The CEO of Alberta oil and gas producer Whitecap Resources, Grant Fagerheim, said "this is absolutely not what is needed" and that "the energy sector is not looking for handouts, it’s not looking for support in the form of loans."

Alberta Opposition Leader Jason Kenney said, "None of them—none of them—are asking for handouts," and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said the oil and gas sector "doesn’t want free money."

Although this is political theater and public relations, it is hard to disagree with DeRochie when he says we should take them at their word and cut all subsidies.

Without the fossil fuel industry Canada would be justified in calling itself a climate leader. 
"The oil and gas industry, it’s fair to say, is one of the only things standing in the way of Canada showing leadership on climate change," said Marshall. "In every other respect there are really good initiatives happening in Canada, and yes, the oil and gas sector continues to get a free pass and that’s unfair. It’s unfair to other sectors and it’s unfair to other Canadians who are facing climate policies and are seeing the oil and gas industry be let off the hook."

Read More»