US Corporate Climate Efforts in 2017 Offer Hope for 2018

Corporate climate action is one of the most hopeful stories of 2017 and many say there is reason to believe that it may prove to be an even bigger story in 2018. Hundreds of US corporations are slashing their emissions and adopting increasingly robust sustainability programs. A wide range of companies and organizations have committed billions to combat climate change. All across the US companies are crafting mitigation strategies and increasingly considering their adaptation needs. We are witnessing the broadest US corporate climate consensus that we have ever seen. It goes well beyond the Climate Action Partnership that was formed in 2007.

Corporate America, including some of the world's most well-known brands, are increasingly united in their resistance to Trump's climate denial. Many businesses have made it publically known that they support sustainability and oppose Trump. The reaction from the business community after the Paris Climate agreement was signed was resoundingly positive with more than 700 companies expressing their support. Even though Trump subsequently abandoned the Paris deal many US companies continue to support it.

Corporate America supported the Paris deal in part because they know that climate action is good business. A large number of studies corroborate the finding that sustainability offers good ROI. Corporations are already reaping the benefits of adopting science-based climate strategies. There is also strong evidence proving that corporate emissions reductions are compatible with growth.

Climate action is important for consumer-focused corporations because they gain reputational benefits. They also don't want to alienate the people they serve by failing to act. However, there are wider geopolitical issues at play as many corporate leaders in the US are concerned that the irrational climate position of the Trump administration will adversely impact their global operations. This has led many to conclude that Trump is a corporate risk factor.

Managing risks, particularly those associated with climate change is a corporate imperative. This view was expressed in an article by Michele Villa, Director, and Global Practices Leader at DuPont Sustainable Solutions. Villa acknowledges that companies see the value of reducing GHGs because of cost savings and reputational benefits, however, he points out that more attention needs to be given to adaptation risks. This may in part be due to the failure to consider longer-term time horizons.

"Like it or not, climate change is emerging as a risk that corporate leaders would be wise to take seriously. As we have seen, policies relating to climate change are not necessarily fixed in stone and can vary as politicians come and go, which makes it even more important for companies to assess and re-evaluate their response to these policies" Villa said. "Those organizations that make climate change risk management a priority will be more resilient and better able to withstand its effects."

It must be pointed out that corporate climate action is not new in the US. IBM set its GHG reduction goal in 1998 and Johnson & Johnson did the same in 2000. Now more than half of America's Fortune 500 companies have set climate-related goals. Many of these companies have adopted science-based renewable energy and emissions reduction targets. Some of these companies including Apple, Facebook, and General Motors, have pledged to go 100 percent renewable.

Walmart has embraced both renewable energy and science-based emissions reduction targets. The retail behemoth is leveraging its size to encourage one gigaton of GHG emissions reductions throughout their supply chain.

Corporations are also investing in innovations that can help us to address the climate crisis. In 2017 Microsoft said they will spend $50 million on artificial intelligence technology geared towards climate action. Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, told the Guardian the investment would spur clean energy technologies that reduce GHG emissions. Smith illustrated Microsoft's AI efforts by pointing to applications in more energy efficient buildings and increased agricultural yields. US companies are showing innovative leadership in a number of other areas including water stewardship.

The first wave of corporate climate actions pursued the financial benefits of energy efficiency and renewables. In recent years it has become apparent that renewable energy is both cheaper and subject to less price volatility than fossil fuels. Investments in renewables are now eclipsing fossil fuels. Now that the die is cast corporations are coming to terms with the new energy order as fossil fuels recede and renewables rise. Bill Gates appreciates the need to expedite the transition. As the head of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition Gates has prioritized the pressing need to find clean energy innovations.

In addition to the need for a more stable climate, interest in climate action is being driven by economic opportunities (eg companies see the powerful economic benefits of preventing disruptions to their supply chains). Corporate climate action is also being driven by a growing chorus of investors who are concerned about the risks associated with the climate crisis.

Some have argued that corporations have laid the foundation for climate action through their science-based climte committments.

"We’ve got hundreds of CEOs and hundreds of the world’s biggest businesses fully committed to acting on climate, both the risks and opportunities," said Nigel Topping, head of the We Mean Business climate coalition in 2015. "They’re working in a context where their competitors are all going in the same direction because of Paris and local regulations. I think largely the course has been set by major businesses."

According to a report from Corporate Accountability International, the president decided to abandon the Paris Accord and eviscerate US climate action because the fossil fuel lobby has allies in the Trump White House. The power that the fossil fuel lobby wields is antithetical to the facts. A large number of cost-benefit analyses conclude that although there are costs associated with climate action, they are far outweighed by the benefits.

Jonathan Pershing, Environment Program Director at the Hewlett Foundation and former US Special Envoy for Climate Change says we have the know-how all we need is the will. "There’s no doubt that the world has the technology and the ability to solve this problem" Pershing said. Without naming the Trump administration by name he went on to say that we need more, "commitment and resolve."

Trump, like the party he leads has nothing but disdain for science. Conversely, companies and the philanthropic organizations that they have spawned pay heed to science. These organizations are stepping up to fill the void left by the current administration.

At the end of last year on the day before the One Planet Summit, the nonpartisan Hewlett charitable Foundation announced it will donate $600 million to non-profits over five years to combat climate change around the world. They are specifically focusing on the core of the climate problem, namely supporting the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy.

"Huge numbers of people are already suffering from climate change from unprecedented flooding, superstorms, drought, famine, wildfires, and pest-borne disease – and this is just a fraction of what our children and grandchildren will suffer if we don’t get this under control," said Hewlett Foundation President Larry Kramer. "The world has made incredible progress in recent years, in ways that both mitigate warming and generate new economic opportunities. But we still have a long way to go. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is proud to increase its commitment to creating a clean energy system, and we urge all leaders – whether in philanthropy, business, or government – to step up to this challenge and increase their own commitments to solving climate change. Everyone must find their role in the solution—our future depends on it."

The Hewlett Foundation will work with the nations that have some of the biggest carbon footprints. They will provide funding to organizations that conduct scientific research, engage in advocacy, promote public-private partnerships, encourage investment and assist policymakers. They will also help experts to share their best-practice expertise.

In addition to unprecedented climate action we are seeing evidence that US corporations are coming to the aid of people in need. To illustrate the point, a Triple Pundit article by Jan Lee reported on a story in which companies have shown "overwhelming" support for a program to help disadvantaged children in California.

Contrary to what Trump would have you believe, sustainability is a boon and not a liability. It is essential that business leaders get this message. Until the Trump administration is either impeached or voted out of office, corporations are the last best hope for climate action in the US.

Related
10 Reasons Why Patagonia is the World's Most Responsible Company  
Corporations Offering Hope this Unhappy Thanksgiving
Business Action on Climate Change
Corporate Actions the Combat Trump's Climate Ignorance
Sustainability is Not Impervious to Trump
Sharing Sustainability Matters Now More than Ever
Which Side is Your Business On?
Businesses Support Sustainability and Oppose Trump
Business Leaders Advocate for Sustainability and Refute Trump
Amadeus' Sustainability Gains are a Win for Investors
HSBC Taking its Sustainability Commitments to New Heights
Mars' Sustainability Leadership Through Science Based Climate Action
Sustainability Leadership at BMW (Videos)
Ceres Company Network Gains Two High Profile Members
GlaxoSmithKline Doing Well by Doing Good
Sustainability Leadership at BMW (Videos)
Unilever A Sustainable Corporate Giant
Patagonia May be the World's Most Responsible Company

Read More»

Hilary Maintains her Climate Silence as O'Malley Pushes his Green Agenda (Iowa Democratic Presidential Town Hall)

Hilary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley are the three remaining candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president. On January 25th they fielded a barrage of questions from voters in a town hall meeting at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, The moderator was CNN anchor Chris Cuomo.

O'Malley emerged from the Iowa Town Hall as the greenest of the three candidates with Sanders trailing some distance behind. O'Malley bluntly stated that "this planet is worth saving," and Sanders reaffirmed his commitment to tackle climate change. Hilary remained silent on climate and clean energy and let her rivals steal the green thunder.

As in previous debates, Hilary did not mention climate change or the clean energy economy once. Perhaps she is taking her cues from Republican presidential hopefuls or perhaps she knows that this is one area where she cannot hope to compete with her Democratic rivals (see the climate positions of the Democratic presidential candidates: O'Malley, Sanders and Clinton).

Alternatively, Hilary's silence on green issues may be part of a clever strategy. According to a poll conducted towards the end of 2015, Americans do not think climate change is anywhere near as important a concern as the economy. Only 3 percent of Americans said that they thought global warming was the most important issue facing the country today.

Climate is not a priority issue for the vast majority of voters so Hilary has nothing to gain from being a climate champion. Conversely embracing climate action risks alienating voters who are worried about the economic costs.

By allowing O'Malley and Sanders to own the climate spotlight she may be trying to entrench herself as the most "moderate" Democratic candidate. Her campaign may be betting that this will appeal to independent voters or even soft conservatives. Hilary's shrewd politics may win a general election, but she must first secure the Democratic nomination. With her lead shrinking and Sanders ahead in some states, it remains to be seen whether Hilary's strategy will succeed in getting her through the primary process.

Climate Change

Both O'Malley and Sanders made it clear that there is no cause to doubt the scientific veracity of anthropogenic climate change. Early in the evening Sanders got in a good shot at Republicans when he said, "in terms of climate change, which everybody here knows - and apparently everybody in the world knows except Republican candidates for president, is one of the great environmental crises facing this nation." O'Malley followed up by reiterating that he thinks climate change is the single biggest issue we face.

Green Energy Economy

The emerging green energy economy will be worth trillions by the time it replaces fossil fuels. However of the three Democratic hopefuls, only O'Malley appears to understand the scale of the economic opportunity this transition represents. "Climate change is the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States in 100 years" O'Malley said. "And I am the first candidate in either party to put forward a plan to move us to a 100 percent clean electric energy grid by 2050, and create 5 million jobs along the way."

O'Malley, cited the fact that Iowa gets 30 percent of its electricity from wind power. He also pointed to the 5000 jobs the wind industry has created in that state. He indicated that he wants to manufacture cleantech components like wind turbines in America. He wants to train people to retrofit buildings and install distributed energy systems. He also said that he wants to put American cities at the center of the low carbon economy, or as he put it, be at the, "leading edge to this clean green environment."

O'Malley indicated that all three Democratic hopefuls aspire to do right by the planet, but he was quick to distinguish himself as the most focused on clean power. In a shot that appeared to be directed towards Hilary's moderate stance on green energy, O'Malley said:

"And we're not going to get to 100 percent clean electric grid with an "all of the above" strategy, any more than we got to the moon with an "all of the above" strategy. It was an engineering challenge. And we are up to this as Americans. But incrementalism, half steps, splitting the loaf, that's not going to get us. And that's not what your generation wants. You want the straight truth and you want us to face our challenges fearlessly and make this new reality ours."

Sustainable Agriculture

O'Malley was the only candidate who spoke to the importance of sustainable agriculture:

"The ability to consume and to grow, and to do that within the footprint of this place that we call home. So, I would like to work with congress, and I plan to work with congress, to do more in the Farm Bill to reduce the barriers of entry to new farmers as they start up. Huge capital costs that go into buying the land and buying the equipment. But it's also what's best for keeping our rural economies, and it's best for America. So I've seen in my own state a whole movement to the "buy local" movement and the sort of farming that you describe. We need to do more as a nation to encourage young farmers to go into farming to reduce those barriers and those capital costs, even at the same time that we push back against the concentration monopoly power in the agricultural sector. And that's what I intend to do."

Fossil Fuels

Sanders has repeatedly come out against fossil fuel pipelines. He spoke about his opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, the Bakken Pipeline and pipelines in Vermont and New Hampshire. "I think we've got to break our dependence on fossil fuel." Sanders said. He then asked the question, "Why did it take Hillary Clinton such a long time before she came into opposition to the Keystone Pipeline?"

Related
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate

Read More»

Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate

Three candidates met for the fourth Democratic debate hosted by NBC News and YouTube and moderated by anchor Lester Holt. The debate took place in Charleston, South Carolina, on Sunday January 17th. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were present for the debate. However, except for a passing reference to renewables ("I would work quickly to present to the congress my plans for creating more...clean and renewable energy...") Clinton did not address climate change or energy issues. Hilary's silence on these importance issues in the fourth debate mirrors her strategy in the preceding debate.

Here are the climate and energy remarks made by Sanders and O'Malley during the fourth debate:

Climate Change

Sanders: The debate is over. Climate change is real. It is already causing major problems. And if we do not act boldly and decisively, a bad situation will become worse. It is amazing to me, and I think we’ll have agreement on this up here, that we have a major party called the Republican Party that is so owned by the fossil fuel industry, and their campaign contributions, that they don’t even have the courage, the decency to listen to the scientists. It is beyond my comprehension (APPLAUSE) how we can elect the president of the United States, somebody like Trump, who believes that climate change is a hoax, invented by the Chinese. (LAUGHTER)

Energy

O'Malley: I believe the greatest business opportunity to come to the United States of America in 100 years is climate change. And I put forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create five million jobs along the way. (CHEERING) Thank you.

Sanders: Bottom line is, we need to be bold and decisive, we can create millions of jobs. We must, for the sake of our kids and grandchildren, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.

O'Malley: ...we need a new agenda for America’s cities. We have not had a new agenda for America’s cities since Jimmy Carter. (APPLAUSE) We need a new agenda for America’s cities that will invest in the talents and the skills of our people, that will invest in CBBG, transportation, infrastructure and transit options and make our cities the leading edge in this move to a redesigned built, clean, green energy future that will employ our people.

O'Malley: Lester, on this stage tonight, this Democratic stage, where we actually believe in science, (LAUGHTER) I would like to challenge and invite my colleagues here on this stage to join me in putting forward a plan to move us to a 100% clean, electric energy grid by 2050. It can be done with solar, with wind, (APPLAUSE) with new technologies, with green buildings.

Related
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Republican Climate Avoidance and the 6th Primary Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election
To Understand Republican Presidential Candidates you need to Follow the Money

Read More»

Republican Climate Avoidance and the Sixth GOP Debate

Republican candidates for president seem to think that if you ignore the climate crisis American voters won't notice. During the sixth Republican debate there was no mention of climate change or global warming, the COP21 deal, renewable energy, cleantech, or the low carbon economy, and of course nary a word was uttered on emissions or greenhouse gases.

Climate change was a no show in the first Republican debate, the CNBC presidential debate and in the November debate they made their opposition to climate action clear. Republican presidential candidates have stated that they do not believe we should not do anything to combat climate change.

For their part the Democratic Presidential contenders have made their support for climate action clear in the CBS debate and the third debate. In fact the differences between the two parties on climate change have led some to conclude that it may give the Democrats the edge in the 2016 election.

The current slate of Republicans presidential contenders are vulnerable to criticism. Their anti-science policy positions will not stand up to scrutiny. Republicans have tried to kill the Clean Power Plan and they have worked to sabotage the COP21 deal.

Despite polls which show that American climate deniers are an increasingly rare breed, Republicans keep ignoring or undermining climate action.

Republicans are at odds with Americans on the subject of climate change and the Clean Power Plan. Even Pope Francis has condemned Republican climate denial in his address to Congress. To understand the Republican's seemingly irrational stance you need to follow the money to the fossil fuel industry.

In the sixth Republican debate closest anyone got to a discussion of anything green was when the it was used as a prefix to the word card in a xenophobic exchange on the horrors of immigration. Rubio even suggested that "radical jihadist" are somehow behind the issuance of green cards.

The only one of the candidates who mentioned energy and oil is Kasich. It came up when he was asked the following question:

"while everyone has been focusing on Iran’s provocations, I’m wondering what you make of what Saudi Arabia has been doing and its recent moves in the region, including its execution of a well-known Shi’ite cleric and its move to dramatically increase oil production, some say in an effort to drive down oil prices and force a lot of U.S. oil producers out of business. Sure enough, oil prices have tumbled. One brokerage house is predicting a third or more of American oil producers and those heavily invested in fracking will go bankrupt, and soon Saudi Arabia and OPEC will be back in the driver’s seat."

Kaisich replied saying:

"With Saudi Arabia and oil production, first of all, it’s so critical for us to be energy independent, and we’re getting there because of fracking and we ought to explore because, see, energy independence gives us leverage and flexibility, and secondly, if you want to bring jobs back to the United States of America in industry, low prices make the difference. We’re seeing it in my state and we’ll see it in this country. And that’s why we must make sure we continue to frack."

It is ironic that in Kasich's closing remarks he explained that his grandfather was a coal miner, who went blind and died of black lung.

Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
The Green Elements of the First 2012 Presidential Debate
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election

Read More»

Climate Excerpts from the CBS Democratic Primary Debate

The CBS Democratic Democratic primary debate took place in Des Moines, Iowa on Saturday November 14th. Here are the climate related excerpts from that debate. The moderator for the debate was CBS News political director John Dickerson. Hilary Clinton summarized the field of Democratic candidates for President when she said, "All of us believe climate change is real."

DICKERSON: Senator Sanders, you said you want to rid the planet of ISIS. In the previous debate you said the greatest threat to national security was climate change. Do you still believe that?

SANDERS: Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world -- this is what the CIA says -- they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops ask you're going to see all kinds of international conflict.

CORDES: Governor O'Malley, you also want to make public college debt-free. You want...

OMALLEY: That's right.

CORDES: ... states to freeze tuition. You've got your own family leave plan. How would you pay for it? In Maryland, you raised the sales tax, you raised the gas tax and you raised taxes on families making over $150,000 a year. Is that the blueprint?

OMALLEY: Nancy, the blueprint in Maryland that we followed was yes, we did in fact raise the sales tax by a penny and we made our public schools the best public schools in America for five years in a row with that investment. And yes, we did ask everyone -- the top 14 percent of earners in our state to pay more in their income tax and we were the only state to go four years in a row without a penny's increase to college tuitions.

So while other candidates will talk about the things they would like to do, I actually got these things done in a state that defended not only a AAA bond rating, but the highest median income in America. I believe that we pay for many of the things that we need to do again as a nation, investing in the skills of our people, our infrastructure, and research and development and also climate change by the elimination of one big entitlement that we can no longer afford as a people, and that is the entitlement that many of our super wealthiest citizens feel they are entitled to pay -- namely, a much lower income tax rate and a lower tax rate on capital gains.

Related
Climate and Energy Excerpts from the Fourth Democratic Primary Debate
Climate and Clean Energy in the Third Democratic Debate
The Green Elements of the First 2012 Presidential Debate
Republican Climate Avoidance and the 6th Primary Debate
Climate all but Absent from the Republican CNBC Presidential Debate
Climate Change a No-Show in the First Republican Debate
Republican Presidential Candidates Say the US Should Not Do Anything to Combat Climate Change
Opposition to Climate Action in the November Republican Primary Debate
Climate Change May Give Democrats the Edge in the 2016 Federal Election

Read More»

The US and China Working Together on Climate Change

The US and China have well earned reputations as the global leaders in greenhouse gas emissions so the fact that the two nations are working together to combat climate change is very significant. Together their combined emissions account for around 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. However, the leaders of both nations are making prodigious strides in efforts to reduce their footprints.

In addition to its global leadership in utility scale renewable energy projects, China has a stated goal of installing 8 gigawatts of distributed solar generation in 2014. The Chinese government has also set stringent restrictions on diesel emissions with the aim of eliminating trucks that produce significant amounts of things like nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. Perhaps the most significant action taken by China involves its pledge to cut carbon pollution.

The Chinese pledge came exactly one day after President Obama announced that he was significantly reducing emissions from US power plants. This is but the latest initiative under the President's Climate Action Plan. Under this plan the Obama is addressing air pollution, increasing renewable energy and setting the stage for a global agreement on climate change.

Like the US, China's efforts are not limited to restricting CO2. The nation is passing environmental laws designed to combat air pollution including HFCs. They are also moving away from coal as well as doing more to protect their water resources.

The US-China Climate Change Working Group launched in Beijing last year is working together to develop plans to deal with the UN climate change negotiation that takes place in Paris next year.

As explained by the US Secretary of State, "we have hopes that this unique partnership between China and the United States can help set an example for global leadership and global seriousness," Kerry said. "But this is not just about china and the United States. It’s about every country on Earth doing whatever it can to pursue cleaner and healthier energy sources. And it’s about the all of us literally treating the pain in the foot, so the whole body hurts a little less."

These two nations working together to reduce emissions is a very significant development. This is the first time both the US and China have restricted CO2 emissions. The efforts of the world's two leading economic powers may help to inject new life into efforts to sign a global climate treaty in Paris next year.

Related Articles (US)
The Implications of Curbing US Power Plant Emissions
Obama Increases Federal Renewable Energy Adding to His Climate Action Plan
Obama Signs a Climate Change Resilience Executive Order
Environmental Action in a New Agreement Between the US and Nordic Countries
The Obama Administration's Climate Action (Spring - Summer 2013)
Combat Climate Change: 3 Ways to Support President Obama
Reaction to President Obama's Historic Georgetown University Speech
Infographic -  President Obama's Climate Action Plan
Full Transcript of President Obama's June 25th Georgetown University Address on his Climate Action Plan
President Obama Climate Action Plan (Full Document)
Video - President Obama's Climate Action Plan
Obama's Speech Signals the End of the Debate on Climate Change and the Dawn of Consorted Action
Thank President Obama for his Bold Leadership on Climate Change
Obama Reigning in Emissions from Existing Coal Power Plants, Transportation and Homes
President Obama Set to Unveil a National Climate Change Mitigation Strategy
Video - White House Announces President Unveiling of a National Climate Change Mitigation Strategy
President Obama's Climate Change Adaptation Strategy
President Obama's Clean Energy Trust Fund
Green Excerpts of President Obama's 2013 State of the Union Address
President Obama's 2013 Inaugural Address: "We Will Respond to the Threat of Climate Change"
Green Inauguration of President Obama: "Faith in America's Future"
Hopes for Environmental Action in President Obama's Second Term
President Obama's Victory Speech: "The Best is Yet to Come"
Taking Stock of President Obama's Environmental Efforts in His First Term


Related Articles (China)
China's New Year: Pollution and Drought Underscore the Contradiction of Pollution and Mitigation
Chinese Smog Crisis is Driving the Transition to a Greener Economy 
2013 Low Carbon Competitiveness Index: US Falling and China Rising
Asian Policies for the Low Carbon Economy and Renewable Energy
Innovation in the Low Carbon Energy Economy
China's Economic Growth and Low Carbon Leadership
Working Paper - China’s Overseas Investments in the Wind and Solar Industries: Trends and Drivers
Smog Pollution Mutes Chinese New Year Celebrations
Outlook for Chinese Solar in 2012
China is Leading in Renewable Energy
China's Most Recent Five Year Plan is Greener than Ever
China Leading the Green Economy (Video)
China Powers Ahead in Green Technologies
China's Green Laws for Business
Green Investment Opportunities in China
China's Green Investments and Growing Economic Preeminence
China Wants a Global Climate Change Treaty
Green Asia: China
The Greening of China's Cities, Counties and Towns
China More Receptive to EVs than the US
China Poised to Challenge Global Green Auto Market
China-US Green Cooperation
China can School the US About Green Growth
China's Green Innovation and the Challenge for America
China's Green Stimulus, US/China

Read More»

The Implications of Curbing US Power Plant Emissions

The new rules curbing power plant emissions in the U.S. will have far reaching impacts both domestically and around the world. Curbing emissions from power plants is part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan which he announced in 2013. Last September, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released proposed standards to curb U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) from new power plants. On June 2nd of this year, the EPA announced it will restrict emissions including carbon, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent by 2030 from all power plants. The EPA guidelines also include plans to prepare the U.S. for the effects of climate change, including strengthening roads, bridges and shorelines.

To circumvent the obstinacy of Republicans, the President is using his executive authority and putting forward the new rules under the Clean Air Act. The historic announcement will reduce carbon pollution from power plants by almost one third (30 percent) from 2005 levels by 2030. Even more significantly, they may spur global action that enables us to secure a binding climate treaty in 2015.

President Obama has previously pledged to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. America is already a third of the way towards meeting the national average of a 30 percent reduction in emissions. Some states, especially those in the north-east have already cut their power plant emissions by 40 percent compared with 2005 and over 1,000 mayors have signed agreements to cut their cities’ emissions.

The new power plant emissions standards are significant because energy generation is the single largest source of GHGs, accounting for nearly 40 percent of the emissions that cause climate change.

Two camps

A number of environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council lauded the proposal as a “historic step to combat climate change.” Republicans and business groups including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Chamber of Commerce are vociferously resisting the new rules saying they will undermine U.S. competitiveness, hurt the economy and cause an energy crisis. Ceres and their green investor network heralded the announcement as “a critical step” to dealing with climate change. A 120-day public comment period will allow both camps to offer their views before the final rules are released in 2015. We can expect a fierce battle over the issue during this year’s mid-term elections.

Coal power

Coal power is going to be substantially curtailed under the new rules. Even before the new rules were announced about one third of coal plants online in 2009 have closed or are slated to close. The closure of coal plants is significant because coal-fired electricity generation is the most carbon intensive energy source in the U.S. and as such, it is responsible for the lion’s share of the nation’s GHG emissions. Coal is responsible for 40 percent of American power generation and 74 percent of the country’s CO2 emissions from the electricity sector. The new rules will impact the nation’s 1,300+ coal-fired power plants and many of these plants are unlikely to be able to meet the new standards.

Flexibility

The new rules have incorporated a good deal of flexibility so that each state can develop a unique plan based on their differing energy mixes. In addition to cleaner forms of energy, states can also choose to focus on energy-efficiency schemes as a way of meeting EPA standards. States have until 2016 (or 2017 if they need more time) to come up with a strategy for meeting the targets. The new rules will come into force in all states in 2020. If states do not submit a compliant plan, EPA will make one for them.

Legal

There are two legal facets that have a bearing on the new rules for power plants in the U.S. The first is the Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA is obligated to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act. The second involves the fact that these new rules are flexible and pay heed to both technical feasibility and economic impacts. This will make it more likely that the rules will survive inevitable legal challenges.

Renewable energy and emissions trading

These new rules will drive rapid growth of renewables and clean energy jobs. In addition to supporting the growth of renewable energy, the new rules will also help to grow emissions trading programs, under which renewable energy facilities would receive credits, which could be sold to coal plants. States can set up their own emissions-trading programs, or participate in existing programs. Nearly a dozen states have already implemented their own market-based programs to reduce carbon pollution. Emissions trading will help to prevent energy shortages which could occur if all coal plants were forced to close at once.

Innovation

The new rules will also spur green innovation. A few illustrations were provided in a recent analysis by Lux Research. This report suggests the rules will contribute to improvements in the efficiency of natural gas powered turbines, demand for commercial and utility scale solar power, energy efficiency programs, as well as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for surviving coal plants.

Health and economic benefits

As explained by EPA chief Gina McCarthy, this move will not cause energy prices to skyrocket, in fact it will save vast sums of money from medical bills associated with pollution. Coal-fired electricity generates airborne toxins like mercury, which causes neurological problems, and sulfur, which contributes to respiratory ailments. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that curbing pollution will reduce medical problems and premature deaths.

While all Americans will benefit from the new rules, the most vulnerable communities stand to benefit the most from the new rules. This includes people of color, the elderly, and those in low income communities. The plan will help to reduce asthma among black and Latino youth who are twice as likely to be hospitalized for this condition and four times as likely to die than their white peers.

“In just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided — and those numbers will go up from there,” President Obama said. Overall, the economic value of these savings far outweigh the tiny increases in costs.

Global impact

The new rules will enhance the U.S. bargaining position at international climate talks and pressure other nations to get onboard. The standards give the U.S. government the credibility it requires to lead international efforts to combat climate change. It may even provide the impetus to encourage other countries to sign a globally binding climate treaty by the end of 2015.

As described by Andrew Steer, the chief executive of the World Resources Institute, the new rules are a “momentous development” for America’s efforts to deal with climate change.

“These new standards send a powerful message around the world that it’s time to face the global threat of climate change,” Steer said.

There is reason to believe that the new rules may already be having an impact. Just one day after the new rules were released, China, the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter, announced that it’s considering a cap on carbon emissions.

Impediments to progress

The fact that Republicans control the House of Representatives means the President cannot promise to do anything requiring congressional action. Further, international treaties require ratification by two-thirds of the Senate and that is highly unlikely. However, we may be able to see an international agreement that does not require Senate ratification.

Beyond domestic political resistance, two of the biggest hurdles to a global climate deal may come from Australia and Canada, both of whom are racing to cash in on their fossil fuel reserves. According to a report in the Morning Herald, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is in the process of putting together an alliance of British Commonwealth countries to reject a climate agreement.

Despite the insane lack of foresight from some national governments, the idea of reigning in emissions represents little more than common sense. The absence of emission limits is ecologically untenable and contrary to the short term thinking of some, failing to reign in climate change is ultimately economic suicide. As the EPA tweeted, “When it comes to climate change, the most costly thing to do is to do nothing.”

The new rules signal the end of coal and the beginning of a cleaner future in the U.S. and perhaps even the wider world.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related
Video - The White House's Climate Assessment Explained
The Paradox of President Obama's All of the Above Energy Strategy
The US and China Working Together on Climate Change
President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address: Summary and Green Highlights
The Implications of Curbing US Power Plant Emissions
Video - Reason to be Hopeful for 2014: Obama Found the Courage to Act on Climate Change

Read More»

Video - The White House's Climate Assessment Explained

Referencing the White House's Climate Assessment, Dr. John Holdren, President Obama's Science Advisor, says that climate change "is not a distant threat, it is affecting the American people already."

Depending on where you are in the US, summers are longer and hotter, we are seeing more wildfires and allergies as well as heatwaves, extreme precipitation events, storm surges, draught and other impacts on agriculture. To learn more about President Obama's climate action place click here.

Related
The Paradox of President Obama's All of the Above Energy Strategy
The US and China Working Together on Climate Change
President Obama's 2014 State of the Union Address: Summary and Green Highlights
The Implications of Curbing US Power Plant Emissions
Video - Reason to be Hopeful for 2014: Obama Found the Courage to Act on Climate Change

Read More»