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»

Trump's First 100 Days are a Climate and Environmental Nightmare

Trump's first 100 days have been a dismal failure. Trump failed to deliver on almost every single one of his promises leading many to conclude that the self-proclaimed deal-maker can't seem to close. True to his word he is making progress on one front, depriving Americans of clean air and clean water.

Trumps Muslim ban failed, his attempt to pass health-care legislation also failed. Congress will not finance his wall and nor will Mexico.  Rather than drain the swamp he has made the swamp bigger. The president has rewarded the wealthy on the backs of the poor and the middle class. His one-page reward-the-rich tax plan does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing and if it were ever enacted by Congress it would trigger economic ruin.

Clearly, Trump does not have a clue about how to get things done in Washington.  Here is a general summary of Trump's first 100 days, by most accounts, the worst 100 days in modern US presidential history.



Trump's inauguration was a gloomy affair heralding the coming darkness. Even before Trump took the oath of office he cast a shadow over the proceedings at COP22.

Early in his term, some had the audacity to suggest that a Trump presidency would not be as bad as it seemed. They did not have the courage to face the truth about what a Trump administration would mean for the planet. However, their naive hopes were quickly dashed. Shortly after the inauguration, his administration purged all mention of climate change from the White House and State Department websites. However, they did leave one reference, a promise to eliminate Obama-era climate change policies.

Trump then picked Scott Pruitt to head the EPA and ex-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be the secretary of state. These two men and other members of the administration oppose science-based climate action plans. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, like so many others in the administration, opposes government funding for climate research.

This brings us to Trump's budget which was a declaration of war against environmental protections, climate action, and scientific research. Trump made it clear that he wants to decimate environmental protections and climate action in the US.

In their first month, the Trump administration resurrected dead or dying pipelines (the Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipeline). Within the first two months, they began eliminating vehicle fuel efficiency standards and then they went to work gutting the EPA with proposed budget cuts of 31 percent.

Trump has broken almost every promise he made except for one, the promise to eliminate environmental regulations. 

On the one hand, Trump is the most ineffectual US president in history on the other he has wreaked unprecedented environmental damage in his first 100 days.  His Executive Orders have systematically rolled back all vestiges of environmental progress in the US. These are protections that began under Republican presidents. He has ended the era of progressive climate action that we saw under President Obama and he has turned the US into a global climate pariah.

When he was running to be president leading Republican insiders suggested he was not fit to be president. After one hundred days in office, it is safe to say that those who made this statement have been vindicated. Even Trump himself conceded that the job is far harder than he had imagined. One hundred days into his presidency Trump has joined the chorus of those who say he is is not up for the job. The point may become moot if he is impeached for collusion with the Russians.

More than any other president who preceded him, Trump is an unmitigated disaster. However, people are standing up and offering unprecedented opposition.

Even before he was president heads of state, climate scientists and business leaders have all urged him to act on climate change. Early in his term, there was the Women's March. This was followed by the March for Science on Earth Day where scientists and others called Trump out for his war on science. One week later there was the Peoples Climate Movement event that drew attention to his utterly irresponsible climate conduct. Just to make sure we get the point, on April 28th, the eve of the Peoples Climate Movement event, all vestiges of climate science were removed from the EPA website.

Trump's strategy is encountering resistance from some business leaders and the courts are challenging his authority.  People are feeling that it is both necessary and appropriate to protest against Trump and they are seeing that there is power in their resistance.

The situation is grim but we need to try to stay hopeful and keep resisting the incompetence of this administration.

RelatedGlobal Warning 2017: Combating the Dystopia of the Trump Administration
Trump and the Darkness of Post-Factual Media
The Trump Administration is a Kakistocracy

Read More»

Republicans Trying to Kill the EPA Quickly

Trump drew first blood with an Executive Order that enfeebled some of the EPA's activities, now Republicans are going in for the kill. They recently proposed a bill that seeks to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Known as H.R.861, the bill has the following self-explanatory title: "To terminate the Environmental Protection Agency."

While this bill is unbelievably destructive for the American people it should come as no surprise when you consider Republican obstructionism for the last eight years and the man who is now President of the United States. Within his first two weeks in office, Trump signed an Executive Order that targeted the EPA.

The nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA sent a clear message that made his intentions clear. Pruitt has spent a good chunk of his adult life trying to dismantle the EPA from the outside. Now after having been confirmed in committee he gets to destroy the agency from the inside.

The proposed bill that would kill the EPA has moved on to committee. Don't wait to see if it moves forward from there. Call or email your congressman, write letters to your local newspapers, talk to your friends, don't let the EPA go down without a fight. Despite what Trump may say, the EPA is not a partisan body. Both Democrats and Republicans want and need clean air and water. Don't let Republicans deprive you of your basic human rights.

Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121 to reach your senators or representative, you can also find the direct number to any member's office by consulting the Senate phone list or House phone list.

Related
Republicans to Sell Off Public Lands and Strip Powers from Federal Agencies
The GOP Starts Gutting Environmental Protections and Transparency
Trump's War against the EPA has Begun
The Importance and the Power of Protest: Why We Must Stand Up to Trump
Pipelines Reborn: They're Back Thanks to Trump
Camps Raided as Trump Moves Forward with DAPL
The Obama Legacy and How Trump Signals the End of an Era (Videos)
Trump's Inauguration Met with Protests as Darkness Officially Descends

Read More»

Justice Scalia's Death Bodes Well for the Clean Power Plan

The EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP), the centerpiece of the Obama administration's climate efforts was stayed by the US Supreme Court on February 9, however the death of Conservative justice Antonin Scalia just a few days later breathes new life into the plan.

In total 27 states, the coal industry, and the Republican party want to stop the EPA's efforts to reign in emissions from US power plants. Their efforts to undermine the plan are at odds with American opinions. Polls show that the majority of Americans support the CPP even in states that oppose it.

The unprecedented Supreme Court ruling ignored the merits of the plan which includes health, cost and climate benefits. The implementation of the plan are now on hold until the D.C. Circuit Court reviews the legality of the case. The same court denied a request for a stay of the CPP. For the CPP to be killed by the courts the challengers will have to prove irreparable-harm and such claims are almost impossible to prove.

The EPA and President Obama remains confident that we will see the plan proceed after the hearing scheduled for June. As Obama explained:

"I've heard people say, 'The Supreme Court struck down the clean power plant rule.’ That's not true, so don’t despair people. This is a legal decision that says, 'Hold on until we review the legality.' We are very firm in terms of the legal footing here."

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy made a statement in which she said that the ruling “is not going to slow us down.”

However, even the most optimistic environmentalists are disappointed by the Supreme Court's actions. At the very least it provides a legal basis for states to refuse to move forward on the implementation of the plan. At its worst it is a major blow to the COP21 climate agreement reached in December of last year in Paris.

As everyone knows global emissions reductions are contingent on US leadership. President Obama was instrumental in getting countries like China, India and Brazil to sign-on to the Paris deal. The failure of the US to substantially reduce its emissions represents a major impediment to global climate action. It significantly increases the likelihood that the world will not ramp up emissions reductions to keep temperatures from rising beyond the 1.5 to 2 degree Celsius upper threshold limit.

The CPP would reduce emissions from US power plants by one third by 2030. If it is not implemented the US will not be able to meet its pledge to cut its carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The legal case against the CPP is premised on the fifth and tenth amendments to the US Constitution (confiscation of private property and states' rights). The rebuttal to these claims is that coal will continue to be part of the power mix and the US Supreme Court's ruling that the EPA has the right to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Regulators already have the authority to monitor toxic releases as they cross state boundaries.

Even without the CPP there is still hope for emissions reduction from the US energy sector as renewables and gas are replacing coal for economic reasons. Other sectors are also decreasing emissions. The next president could rewrite the CPP, reform fossil fuel leasing programs, and regulate methane. However the stay on the CPP makes an already difficult battle that much more arduous.

The Supreme Court's stay of the CPP speaks to the power of the ideological conservative judicial activists on the Supreme Court. The 5-4 decision had conservative and moderate justices ruling that a “stay” was appropriate while the more liberal judges dissented from the majority decision.

The stay indicated that a majority of the justices foresee a reasonably high likelihood that they would ultimately strike down Obama’s plan. Now that Scalia is gone, getting a majority of justices to strike down the CPP is very unlikely. The D.C. Circuit panel composed of a majority of Democratic appointees will almost certainly uphold the regulations in June.

Although Republican legislators can be counted on to continue their politically motivated campaign of obstructionism, even if they refuse to support a replacement to Scalia it is very unlikely the Supreme Court justices who oppose the CPP will get the support they need to kill the plan.

The Conservative majority in the Supreme Court has died along with Justice Scalia. This turn of events is critical because climate change cannot be stayed by the courts. As the EPA explained in a statement:

"We’re disappointed the rule has been stayed, but you can’t stay climate change and you can’t stay climate action."

air, clean, emissions, reduction, climate action, United States, U.S., Obama Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, pollution,

Related
Clean Power Plan Facing Lawsuits Despite Raft of Benefits
President Obama Introduces and Explains the Clean Power Plan (Video)
The Health Benefits of Combating Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Family Health and the Clean Power Plan (Videos)The Clean Power Plan for the Health of Latinos: Congresswomen Sánchez Testimonmy to the EPA
Republicans at Odds with Americans on Climate Change and the Clean Power Plan
Clean Power Plan: Business Opportunities and Economic Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
Historic Clean Power Plan Includes Three New Additions
The EPA's Efforts to Reign in Climate Pollution from New Power Plants and the Supreme Court
Coal vs EPA: The Benefits of the Clean Power Plan Far Outweigh Costs
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
Video - The EPA's Clean Power Plan
Infographic - Obama's Clean Power Plan Explained
US GHGs and the EPA's Clean Power Plan (Infographic)
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez in Support of the Clean Power Plan
Support for the EPA's Clean Power Plan

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»

Obama Signs Executive Order to Reduce GHGs in the Federal Government and Across their Supply Chain

President Obama is leading by example and significantly reducing the federal government's greenhouse gas emissions. In the first week of November the President signed an executive order that cuts emissions and weaves sustainability into the fabric of the federal government.

The move will cut government greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 40 percent and avert 26 million metric tons of GHG emissions by 2025. The White House claims that this will save tax payers up to $18 billion in energy costs and increase the share of federal energy derived from renewables by at least 25 percent.

The new EO also calls for emissions reduction in the federal government's $445 billion supply chain. The sustainability record of the government's major suppliers is already publicly available. The Federal Supplier Greenhouse Gas Management Scorecard documents the emissions of companies in the governments supply chain.

Federal vehicles will reduce their GHGs by 30 percent and federal buildings will improve their energy efficiency by 2.5 percent a year and water intensity in federal buildings will improve by 2 percent a year

For more information about the Executive Order click here.

Related Articles
President Obama's Green Executive Orders
Executive Order 13514: Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance
Executive Order 13626: Accelerating Investment in Industrial Energy Efficiency
Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management
Obama Makes Good on Executive Order to Reduce the Federal Government's GHGs
President Obama's Executive Orders in His First Year (2008)

Read More»