Test - footprint

Showing posts with label footprint. Show all posts

How Apple Transitioned from Corporate Luddite to Environmental Leader

February 04, 2019 Add Comment Edit

Companies are showing that change is both possible and profitable. As we stare down the barrel of a dark future companies are acknowledging the emergence of a new reality that forces them to change the way they do business. Embracing sustainability makes sense even for those who were slow off the mark. Apple proves that it is possible to transition from a climate Luddite to a climate leader.

Leading corporations are helping to show the way forward and no company has come further in recent years than Apple. The tech leader has not always been an environmental leader. That changed when Tim Cook was named CEO in 2011. He then had the good sense to hire former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to be the VP of Environment, Policy, and Social Initiatives. Since then the company has significantly improved their sustainability performance while ameliorating working conditions and transparency.

In the last few years Apple has consistently led Greenpeace Tech Company Rankings and they have showed impressive leadership in recycling, renewables, emissions reduction, waste management and water conservation. Apple has vowed to use only recycled materials thereby ending their reliance on newly mined rare minerals and metals. This not only addresses the demands placed on finite resources it also mitigates against risks associated with supply chain shortages. Harvesting the raw materials they need from the billions of discarded phones and other electronics will also have a beneficial impact on waste management.

Apple gets 100 percent of its energy from renewables. Apple has also encouraged their suppliers to do the same. Apple and its suppliers generated over 2.5 billion kWh of clean energy in 2018. Apple’s 2017 Supplier Responsibility progress report indicated the adoption of renewables by several large suppliers will reduce carbon emissions by 7 million metric tons per year by the end of 2018.

and in its inaugural year their supply chain efficiency program reduced carbon emissions by 13,800 metric tons. In 2016, Apple tripled the number of supplier sites participating in its efficiency program. As of 2017 Apple suppliers had reduced their carbon emissions by 150,000 metric tons.

In 2015 Apple suppliers diverted more than 73,000 metric tons of waste from landfills. In 2016, the company’s suppliers diverted more than 200,000 metric tons of waste from landfills. As reported by Environmental Leader Apple’s 2017 Supplier Responsibility progress report indicates that the company’s suppliers had for the first time achieved 100 percent UL Zero Waste to Landfill validation for all final assembly sites in China. A total of 22 supplier facilities were certified as Zero Waste, including all their iPhone final assembly sites.

All of process chemicals at final assembly facilities were free of Apple-prohibited substances (Apple has identified a list of hazardous chemicals in their Regulated Substances Specification list). Apple is also working with its suppliers to identify and eliminate the use of these chemicals at its non-final assembly facilities.

Apple reported that its Clean Water Program saved more than 3.8 billion gallons of freshwater in 2016 representing a 35 percent average reuse rate across 86 sites. Since 2013, Apple’s water management program has saved more than 8 billion gallons of freshwater, Apple says.

The average environment assessment score across Apple’s 705 supply chain assessments in 2016 was 87 out of 100. In 2017, the average environment assessment score among the 756 suppliers was 91 out of 100, and the average health and safety assessment score was 90.

Apple is minimizing its impact on the planet while improving the bottom line and reducing risks. They are also earning excellent reputational benefits and reinforcing the ties with their half billion loyal patrons.

Apple may be a latecomer to the sustainability table but this makes an important point with a message for businesses both large and small. Apple's corporate turnaround proves that it is not yet too late to let go of the past and embrace the future of commerce.

Related
Apple Proves its Never too Late to Go Green
Sustainability Pioneers that have Earned a Place in History
The Wave of Corporate Goodness
US Corporate Climate Efforts in 2017 Offer Hope for 2018
Business Action on Climate Change
10 Things Corporations Can Do to Combat Climate Change
Criticisms of Sustainability Offset by Tangible Results
Responsible Business: The Rapid Growth of the B Corps
Business Benefits from Science-Based Climate Action
Sustainability is an Economic Boon not a Liability

Obama Administration's Oil and Gas Initiatives

December 27, 2016 Add Comment Edit

In their final year, the Obama administration has moved forward with some important actions to curtail extraction and reduce pollution from the oil and gas industry. Fossil fuels are responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gases and deadly air pollution.

To help address these concerns President Obama has previously a raft of fossil fuel related actions. This includes, the Clean Power Plan, stopping the KXL, cuting Shell's Arctic drilling in half and halting the building of the Dakota Access pipeline. In 2016 President Obama went even further and banned offshore Arctic oil drilling, changed the methane rules for the fossil fuel industry and canceled gas leases on Native lands.

Obama's initiatives are designed to protect the health of Americans, combat climate change, and decrease risks to ecosystems. In the context of a hostile and obstructionist Republican controlled Congress Obama has done what he could to advance climate action. Unsurprisingly, these actions have been vociferously opposed by the fossil fuel industry and their GOP minions in the House and the Senate.

The fossil fuel industry has used its considerable clout to challenge Obama's efforts. A recent Senate report, explained, "state officials, trade associations, front groups, and industry-funded scientists participating in the challenge actually represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry."

Moratorium on Arctic drilling

In 2015 Obama pledged leadership in Alaska and Just ahead of leaving office Obama found a creative way to deliver. Obama's actions ensure that there will be no oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic until at least 2022. The move kills any hope of extracting fossil fuels from the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The move also stymies new drilling in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (New England to the Chesapeake Bay). This means that the Gulf of Mexico is the only place in the US where new offshore extraction will be permitted for the foreseeable future. Obama's action was part of a joint announcement that included Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to prevent new drilling operations in the Canadian Arctic.

In a statement published by the Washington Post, President Obama said: "These actions, and Canada’s parallel actions, protect a sensitive and unique ecosystem that is unlike any other region on earth. They reflect the scientific assessment that, even with the high safety standards that both our countries have put in place, the risks of an oil spill in this region are significant and our ability to clean up from a spill in the region’s harsh conditions is limited...By contrast, it would take decades to fully develop the production infrastructure necessary for any large-scale oil and gas leasing production in the region – at a time when we need to continue to move decisively away from fossil fuels."

While the amount of water being protected is unprecedented, it should not be surprising as it makes both environmental and economic sense. The decision bodes well for animals that make up the Arctic's fragile ecosystem, this includes the bowhead whale, fin whale, Pacific walrus and polar bear. It will also protect what the White House has called biodiversity "hotspots" critical to fisheries.

Obama used Section 12-A of a 1953 law called "Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act" to prevent the sale of new offshore drilling and mining rights. The real genius of invoking this law is that it will take years for the next president to reverse the decision.

These moves bode well for the future of tourism, fishing and other less harmful forms of economic development in the Arctic. According to the White House, the president has protected 125 million acres in the region in the last two years.

Conservation groups hailed the decision. League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski called it "an incredible holiday gift," saying that "an oil spill in these pristine waters would be devastating to the wildlife and people who live in the region."

Rhea Suh, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, called it "a historic victory in our fight to save our Arctic and Atlantic waters, marine life, coastal communities and all they support." Carter Roberts, president and chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund, applauded what he called "a bold decision” that “signals some places are just too important not to protect."

New methane rules

Also in November the Obama administration released the final version of a new oil and gas rule for public and Native lands. Federal lands generate 11 percent of US natural gas production and 5 percent of domestic oil production. The new regulations are intended to capture flared natural gas and so-called "fugitive" emissions of methane from drilling operations. Large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas are emitted during drilling and fracking operations.

The Interior Department and its Bureau of Land Management, which will implement the rule, says the move will reduce methane emissions by 175,000 to 180,000 tons annually. This translates to enough gas to serve the needs of 6.2 million American homes each year.

"We are proving that we can cut harmful methane emissions that contribute to climate change while putting in place standards that make good economic sense for the nation," said Interior department secretary Sally Jewell in a statement. "Not only will we save more natural gas to power our nation, but we will modernize decades-old standards to keep pace with industry and to ensure a fair return to the American taxpayers for use of a valuable resource that belongs to all of us."

The new rules are part of the president’s goal of reducing US methane emissions from the oil and gas sector 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025.

"Natural gas is a valuable American resource, but when wasted into the air it causes dangerous pollution," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. "Reducing the amount of gas that oil and gas operators release will conserve an important domestic resource, improve air quality, lower asthma attacks, and slow climate change."

Leases canceled on Native lands

In November, Obama administration cancels oil and gas leases on Blackfeet tribe’s sacred grounds

"This is the right action to take on behalf of current and future generations,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said on the department’s Web site. She said it would protect the region’s “rich cultural and natural resources and recognizes the irreparable impacts that oil and gas development would have on them."

Another Washington Post article quotes Harry Barnes, chairman of the Blackfeet Nation Tribal Business Council as follows:

"A lot of our creation stories emanate from this area. It’s a significant area, it always has been for thousands of years...While we’re not opposed to oil and gas exploration, we are opposed to oil and gas exploration in that area." Barnes called the settlement, a "victory for not only the Blackfeet people, but for all of America. It’s such a beautiful area. It’s Mother Earth, and it needs to be enjoyed by everybody."

Related
EPA's Carbon Limits for Power Plants
The US Environmental Protection Agency and Fracking
Too Dirty to Fail: The GOP's Ongoing War with EPA Standards
Taking Stock of President Obama's Environmental Efforts in His First Term
President Obama Climate Action Plan (Full Document)
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the GOP

Sustainability Comparisons Between Rio 2016, the Sochi Winter Olympics and the Brazilian World Cup in 2014

August 06, 2016 Add Comment Edit

The Rio Summer Olympics do not compare favorably to the Sochi Winter Olympics and the Brazilian World Cup in 2014. This is a damning indictment given that Russia's Sochi games were colossally corrupt. Sochi clearly illustrated that Putin's promise of green games was little more than a farce and an Olympic sized example of greenwashing.

There have been protests against the Rio games across Brazil but they are much smaller than the protests against the World Cup in 2014. At that time there was a popular outcry against an expensive sporting event while the country struggled with widespread poverty and inequality. The same criticisms are warranted in the case of the Rio games.

In 2014 the FIFA World Cup was held in Brazil. Critics asked how the country can stage such events when the people of Brazil see none of the multi-million dollar benefits. FIFA alone netted as much as $5 billion from the World Cup in 2014. The city of Porto Alegre saw tax exemptions connected to World Cup construction amounting to more than $12 million US. Many companies also profited handsomely from the even but the average citizen, particularly the poor got nothing.

Despite these criticisms the 2014 World Cup was arguably a greener event than the Rio Olympics. Environmental problems associated with the 2014 World Cup included things like massive energy use and unsustainable road transportation. However, the event also included a raft of sustainability focused efforts including carbon credits, green stadiums, and sustainability training for stadium staff.

More recent protests in Brazil have focused on what is being called a right wing coup. For years Brazilians have been protesting corruption and calling for workers rights. Rio 2016 proves that the government is not listening to its people. It may be more accurate to say that the economic crisis, corruption and political dysfunction preclude sustainability in Brazil.

In an attempt to draw attention to an increase in Rio's fatal police shoots, the Brazil chapter of rights group Amnesty International displayed 40 body bags in front of the office of the local Olympic Organizing Committee.

In the lead up to the games Amnesty International raised concerns around the increased risk of human rights violations in the context of Rio 2016 Olympics. Amnesty points to the death toll before the 2014 World Cup and the 2007 PanAmerican games, saying that 2,600 people have been killed by police in Rio since the bid to host the games in 2009. In the month of May alone, the policed killed 40 people, more than double the number for the same period in 2015.

Defending the environment or drawing attention to health issues is especially dangerous in Brazil. In 2012 two environmentalists were murdered for defending the Amazon. These are but two of dozens of environmentalists who have been killed in the country. According to a Global Witness report titled, On Dangerous Ground, Brazil is the most lethal country in the world for environmental champions. The country has the highest murder rate for environmental activists in the world with 50 confirmed murders last year and more than 200 between 2010 and 2015.

In this context Rio's Olympics are even worse than the Sochi. Ahead of the Sochi games, Russia imprisoned environmental activists, in Brazil activists get two bullets in the chest and one in the head.

The Sochi Olympics were steeped in corruption and mired in greenwash. However this is to be expected from one of the most corrupt demagogues in one of the most unsustainable countries in the world. What makes the games in Brazil so disappointing is that the country appeared to be moving forward on environmental and social issues.

Related
Glory Eclipsed by Shame at the Rio Summer Games: A Social and Environmental Review of Brazil
Sustainability at the Rio Olympic Games: More Green Promises More Green Lies
Brazil's Corruption, Socioeconomic Woes, Political Intrigue have overshadow the Rio Olympics
Olympic Sized Greenwashing at the Sochi Olympics
The Farce of Putin's "Green" Olympics
Russia Imprisons Environmental Activists Ahead of the Sochi Olympics
The Future of the Winter Olympics is Being Threatened by Climate Change
Video - Greenwash at the Vancouver Winter Olympics of 2010
Declining Levels of Snow and the End of Winter
London 2012: The Greenest Olympics in Modern History

Sustainability at the Rio Olympics: More Green Promises More Green Lies

August 05, 2016 Add Comment Edit

Olympic games are becoming increasingly environmentally sustainable, at least on paper. Once again this year's Olympic games are touted as being the greenest games ever. In fairness, making such a massive event environmentally sustainable is a truly herculean undertaking.

Over the last twenty years there have been a number of efforts designed to make the games more green. In 1996, the Olympic Charter was amended to recognize the environment as the third pillar of Olympism. This was followed by clearly defined policies associated in the IOC's Olympic Movement's Agenda 21.

The Rio 2016 sustainability plan aspires to deliver on these lofty aspirations. The Sustainability Management Plan was released in August 2013 and it applies to both the Rio 2016 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The plan is premised on the pillars of planet, people and prosperity. It seeks to integrate the principles, actions and projects related to sustainability when hosting major global events. It was developed with input from federal, state and municipal governments.

The plan includes a technical cooperation agreement with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Denise Hamú, the UNEP’s representative in Brazil explained the plan this way:

“Our goal is to integrate sustainability in all organisational processes, reducing the impact of the Games and setting an example of good practice for society as a whole. Together, sports and environment are powerful tools for sustainable development. For this reason, the UNEP has worked in partnership with the Olympic Movement over the last two decades.”

In November 2015 the Organizing Committee released a document called Focus: Rio 2016 Sustainability

"The sustainability planning of the Games was built on three strategic pillars – people, planet and prosperity - whose actions unfold along nine specific themes. In the PEOPLE pillar, initiatives focus on the themes of (1) engagement and awareness-raising, (2) universal accessibility and (3) diversity and inclusion. In the PLANET pillar, focus lies on (4) transport and logistics, (5) sustainable building, (6) conservation and environmental recovery and (7) waste management. Finally, the PROSPERITY pillar, which guides the whole Rio 2016 operation regarding (8) the sustainable supply chain and (9) management and reporting."

The Rio 2016 are supposed to green, but like the Sochi Winter Olympics these promises fall far short.

The Olympics are a truly remarkable opportunity to communicate and embed sustainability in our world. This point was made by Rio 2016 President Carlos Nuzman. He said that sports plan an important role in promoting a more sustainable world. The Olympic Organizing Committee said:

"we have taken up the commitment to use the force of sports and sustainability in order to leverage transformations in people as well as the city."

After Volkswagen's epic greenwash, another round of promises that prove to be false will do more harm to sustainability. Such events not only hurt sports they cast aspirations on sustainability as a whole.
If the deeds don't live up to the words the Rio Games may end up being a lot like the Olympics in Vancouver and Sochi

Related
Glory Eclipsed by Shame at the Rio Summer Games: A Social and Environmental Review of Brazil
Brazil's Corruption, Socioeconomic Woes, Political Intrigue have overshadow the Rio Olympics Sustainability Comparisons Between Rio 2016, the Sochi Winter Olympics and the Brazilian World Cup
Olympic Sized Greenwashing at the Sochi Olympics
The Farce of Putin's "Green" Olympics
Russia Imprisons Environmental Activists Ahead of the Sochi Olympics
The Future of the Winter Olympics is Being Threatened by Climate Change
Video - Greenwash at the Vancouver Winter Olympics of 2010
Declining Levels of Snow and the End of Winter
London 2012: The Greenest Olympics in Modern History

Brazil's Corruption, Socioeconomic Woes and Political Intrigue Overshadow the Olympics

August 03, 2016 Add Comment Edit

The scourge of corruption has embroiled Brazil in a morass of complex political intrigue. Brazil's economy has contracted by 3 percent this year and although the country is in a deep recession, it is still the world's fifth largest economy. Brazil's difficulties extend far beyond serious fiscal hardships, the nation is also rife with sexism, racism and human rights abuses.

In May of this year Brazil's President was suspended after holding office for less than six years. Despite pulling millions of people out of poverty, a majority of Brazilian senators voted to launch an impeachment trial against President Dilma Rousseff. She is the country's first female President and her government swore in 15 female ministers. Rousseff is a 68-year-old economist and she was removed amid allegations that she broke budget rules and manipulated economic data.

Michel Temer the former "decorative" vice president assumed the role of interim president. Although he is facing charges of his own, he appointed an all male cabinet marking the first time that women have been excluded from the Brazilian cabinet since the 1970s. He also shut down the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Women, Racial Equality and Human Rights.

Many tens of thousands of women have protested what is being called the traitorous Terner coup in major cities across Brazil. They decried what they see as a war against women, minorities and social programs.

It is believed that a probe into kickbacks from state-run oil company Petrobras led to Rousseff's impeachment. Petrobras is one of several fossil fuel companies that has been linked to corruption. As a consequence Petrobras has recently been removed from the Nasdaq Sustainability Index. Petrobras has contributed R$3,500,000.00 towards the Rio Olympic games.

New national elections are scheduled for 2018. In the interim the acting president has the support of only 1 percent of the electorate and more than half of Brazilians have indicated that they want him impeached too.

A 440 page Senate report was released on August 2 and it finds Roussef guilty of violating the constitution by manipulating government accounts. The final phase of the impeachment will unfold at the end of August or Early September.

With the world's eyes on Brazil for the Olympic games this crisis could not be unfolding at a worse time.

Related
Glory Eclipsed by Shame at the Rio Summer Games: A Social and Environmental Review of Brazil
Sustainability at the Rio Olympic Games: More Green Promises More Green Lies
Sustainability Comparisons Between Rio 2016, the Sochi Winter Olympics and the Brazilian World Cup
Olympic Sized Greenwashing at the Sochi Olympics
The Farce of Putin's "Green" Olympics
Russia Imprisons Environmental Activists Ahead of the Sochi Olympics
The Future of the Winter Olympics is Being Threatened by Climate Change
Video - Greenwash at the Vancouver Winter Olympics of 2010
Declining Levels of Snow and the End of Winter
London 2012: The Greenest Olympics in Modern History

Republican Senate Passes Legislation to Kill the Clean Power Plan

November 18, 2015 Add Comment Edit

The Republican's anti-environment witch hunt continues with yet another piece of legislation that seeks to dismantle the centerpiece of US climate action. On Tuesday November 17th the Republican controlled Senate passed legislation designed to kill the most important climate action ever taken in the US. As he had promised, Mitch McConnell is doing everything he can to stop the EPA from regulating power plants.

As explained by the President, the Clean Power Plan will reign in emissions in a way that is both effective and flexible. In addition to reducing the nation's greenhouse gas emissions, the plan will provide both economic and health benefits.

A comparison of the impacts of unregulated coal power versus the regulatory regime contained in the plan show the benefits far outweigh the costs. Nonetheless, Republicans have pushed forward with yet another attempt to prevent the US from acting on climate change. A similar effort was launched by Republican lawmakers in 2014.

Republican lawmakers are undeterred by the fact that they are at odds with American public opinion. Support for clean energy is at an all time high in the US. A Yale study found that almost two-thirds of Americans want strict carbon limits on existing power plants. Republican Senators are equally unmoved by the nearly 9 million comments that Americans sent into the EPA supporting pollution limits.

Republicans have once again sided with old energy. Although these lawmakers are paid by the public, it would appear that they do not take this to mean that they have to listen.

Although the legislation is expected to be vetoed by the President, it is a tragic reflection of just how disconnected Republicans are from reality.

The White House said:

“ [B]y nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J.Res. 24 seeks to block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.”

Here are the two resolutions that were approved by the Senate:

One of the two resolutions was advanced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). The resolution of disapproval says that Clean Power Plan “shall have no force or effect.” Although the resolution is sponsored almost entirely by Republicans of the 48 co-sponsors there are a couple of democrats.

The second resolution was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). This one both disapproves of the Clean Power Plan and repeals it.

These are the same Republicans that the President has to deal with as we head into climate talks at COP21. Democrats voiced their disapproval of the vote and the timing in particular.

"I think they’re trying to create confusion and uncertainty before the international climate agreement is finalized, and it’s not going to work,” said Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii of the votes. “They have had success in the past in muddying the waters, but we are in a different place now in terms of the international participation, in terms of domestic political support for clean energy, and in terms of having a real clean energy program in America.”

Republicans can be expected to continue to do everything in their power to undermine climate action as we head towards a hoped for climate agreement in Paris. As the rest of the world is pledging to reduce their emissions, Republicans are making good on their threats to fight While the world is coming together to find solutions to the climate crisis the Republicans it.

Related
Clean Power Plan Facing Lawsuits Despite Raft of Benefits
Hundreds of US Companies and Investors Support the Clean Power Plan
The EPA's Clean Power Plan and US Energy Efficiency
GOP Denial and President Obama's Climate Legacy
Republicans Declare War on the Environment and Surrender to Climate Change
Republican Ignorance and the Latest IPCC Report
Republican Law to Curtail (Environmental) Regulations
Republicans vs Democrats on Climate Change
Republican Climate Deniers are in Control
The Arsenal Republicans will use in their War on Climate
GOP Identifies Targets for their War Against Climate Protections
Big Oil's Influence on US Politicians
Environmental Politics: Obama Versus the Republicans
The Ignorant Anti-Environmental Views of the Republicans
Republicans Undermining Climate Legislation
The Stark Partisan Divide on Global Warming
Republican Assault on the Environment
House Republicans' Historic Anti-Environment Efforts in 2011 and 2012

Clean Power Plan Facing Lawsuits Despite Raft of Benefits

October 26, 2015 Add Comment Edit

Last week the Clean Power Plan officially became law and rather than being hailed as one of the greatest climate, environmental, innovation and economic accomplishments in US history, it has been met with a raft of lawsuits from state governors.

The final version of the Clean Power Plan was released on August 3, 2015 and it sets even stricter emissions regulations than the proposal announced last year. The regulation, which aims to cut carbon pollution from power plants, cuts emissions 32 percent by 2030 from levels recorded in 2005. That is 2 percent more than the original draft rule that proposed a 30 percent reduction.

Although larger cuts are mandated by the final plan, this latest version give states even more flexibility to meet its requirements. States must now comply by 2022 instead of 2020 and reductions are to be phased in gradually over 8 years.

Many leading companies are behind the plan including 365 companies and investors that sent a letter of support in August. Those who signed the Ceres letter include General Mills, Mars, Nestle, Staples, Unilever and VF Corporation.

However, there are dissenters including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity and predictably, Republicans.

Lawsuits

The EPA published its Clean Power Plan in the federal register on October 25, 2015 and this opened the door to legal challenges. Even though Americans, including Republicans support the plan, almost half of US states are challenging the new law. Of the 24 states that are using the courts to try to stop the law, the vast majority (19 of 24) have Republican governors.

It should come as no surprise that coal rich West Virginia is leading the charge. The states and governors involved in lawsuits to kill the Clean Power Plan are:

West Virginia, Earl Ray Tomblin, Democrat
Texas, Gregory Wayne Abbott, Republican
Alabama, Robert Julian Bentley, Republican
Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, Republican
Colorado, John Wright Hickenlooper, Democrat
Florida, Richard Lynn Scott, Republican
Georgia, John Nathan Deal, Republican
Indiana, Michael Richard "Mike" Pence, Republican
Kansas, Samuel Dale "Sam" Brownback, Republican
Kentucky, Steven Lynn "Steve" Beshear, Democrat
Louisiana, Piyush "Bobby" Jindal, Republican
Michigan, Richard Dale "Rick" Snyder, Republican
Missouri, Jeremiah Wilson "Jay" Nixon, Democrat
Montana, Stephen Clark "Steve" Bullock, Democrat
Nebraska, John Peter "Pete" Ricketts, Republican
New Jersey, Christopher James "Chris" Christie, Republican
Ohio, John Richard Kasich, Republican
South Carolina, Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley, Republican
South Dakota, Dennis Martin Daugaard, Republican
Utah, Gary Richard Herbert, Republican
Wisconsin, Scott K Walker, Republican
Wyoming, Matthew Hansen "Matt" Mead, Republican
Arizona, Douglas Anthony "Doug" Ducey, Republican
North Carolina, Patrick Lloyd "Pat" McCrory, Republican

Economy

The irony is that the clean power plan is not only good for the planet and the health of Americans it is also good for the economy. According to many, and contrary to the spin emanating from its detractors, the plan will lower electric bills. The new law could result in $155 billion in electricity savings between 2020 and 2030. This will help American families save on average $85 a year on power bill.

As reported by EDF, the plan will drive more "investment, incentives and mechanisms that decarbonize our economy and usher in a new generation of industries." Investments in wind and solar are soaring and as these industries grow they are becoming increasingly price competitive with conventional fuel sources.

According to Morgan Stanley, the financing of utility-scale renewables will ramp up considerably once the Clean Power Plan is implemented. Investments in clean energy are also good investments with solid rates of return.

Jobs

The new law will also create jobs. One dollar invested today creates three times as many jobs as a dollar invested in fossil fuels.