The Clean Power Plan

August 12, 2015

Washington, D.C.

Wayne Pan

Yesterday, for the first time since President Obama announced the Clean Power Plan at a White House press conference last week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stepped out into the public to discuss the new regulations and their potential impacts on the US economy, public health, and global climate change.

After a sober update on the on-going problems in the Animas River in Colorado, McCarthy launched into a spirited and enthusiastic talk about the long road the EPA has taken to arrive at the Clean Power Plan. In particular, she lauded the process, which she described as one of “unprecedented engagement” with stakeholders from across the spectrum. Many years of work went into the drafting of this plan, and it was clear from her remarks that she was confident that the regulations would both be challenged in court, and upheld in court – at one point slyly noting that the lawyers in the room could happily begin to sift through the EPAs responses to the thousands of public comments received during the review period.

The Plan puts in place carbon emission limits on power plants for the first time in US history. The EPA has determined target reduction rates for each state based on their own energy mix, and each state will have the flexibility to determine their own path to achieving those reductions. When all is said and done though, the Plan puts the country on a path to reducing carbon emissions by 32% in 2035, using 2005 as a baseline.

While these reductions fall well short of what many scientists see as necessary, is still clearly a major step forward for the US. Not only does it finally set down a line in the sand that says the country is serious about tackling climate change, it also returns legitimacy to the US’ role in international negotiations. The path forward in Paris is looking increasingly clear and the outlook is positive, although if history serves as any guide, getting an agreement that truly moves the needle on global greenhouse gases will still surely prove to be a mighty struggle.

Ironically, the staunchest environmentalists are only giving the Clean Power Plan a tentative and rather unenthusiastic thumbs-up. Naomi Klein, in an interview on resilience.org says, “there is a huge gap between what Obama is saying about this threat, about it being the greatest threat of our time… but the measures that have been unveiled are simply inadequate.” She goes on to note that limiting global warming to less than two degrees will require America to reduce annual carbon output by 8-10 percent a year, but that this plan maxes out at 6 percent. It is a “carbon gap” and it’s “huge.”

That has not stopped the opposition from coming out in full force against the Clean Power plan. Much of the initial opposition has come, without surprise, from the right and, more understandably, from coal-dependent states. States where coal still plays a large role in the energy mix, or where coal extraction plays a major role in the local economy, like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Indiana, have all announced they will challenge the law in court and not submit plans to meet the new mandates.

For many, the Clean Power Plan is an all-out assault on coal, and while this is not technically true – McCarthy pointed out that many means exist for states to determine how best to cut their emissions, including credit trading or energy efficiency – it is true that any low-carbon energy plan that can address climate change will necessarily be made up of much less coal electricity. This is precisely because coal is an extremely polluting source of energy – one that still accounts for nearly 40% of America’s electricity.

When asked pointedly what people living in coal dependent communities could expect, McCarthy referenced the President’s hopes that coal communities will receive injections of aid in order to transition away from coal. Her answer revealed as much in what she didn’t say as what she did. The truth is that coal is not an industry of the future. Across the world, countries are moving away from coal and towards less polluting sources of energy. BP’s Energy Outlook notes that coal will be the slowest growing source of energy by 2035, growing at under 1% per year. While the coal industry will most certainly not disappear overnight – China’s energy mix is still projected to contain at least 50-60% coal twenty years from now – it is an industry that will inevitably go away.

Contrary to critics, this will not happen because of the Clean Power Plan. Michael Bloomberg points out in a recent op-ed that Big Coal has been steadily declining for over a decade, due largely to a general public aversion to the highly polluting industry and the fact that the transition away from coal has not caused energy prices to spike or a net loss of jobs.  

McCarthy mentioned a number of times that the EPA had developed the Plan in light of ongoing changes in the industry. She said that states and utilities knew the mandates were doable because many of them were already in the process of shifting away from the most polluting forms of power. Indeed, McCarthy and the EPA sees the new regulations as a form of common currency for industry, providing a long term signal for where the country (and industry) is moving in terms of energy. Some may kick and scream, but there are already some who are already successfully embracing change.

Far from what detractors say about government regulation, this type of national clarity is exactly what drives innovation and growth. Opportunities are created when new parameters for an industry are developed and disseminated. Businesses with the greatest foresight have been demanding more clarity on carbon and the economy for years now because they understand that knowing where the goalposts are will allow them to best position themselves for the future.

Changing a complex system with entrenched interests is never easy, but good regulations with sufficient market freedom can jump-start systemic change. There will no doubt need to be modifications to the Plan as feedback loops adjust to the new conditions, but in light of America’s tenacious unwillingness to make any meaningful federal-level changes to our carbon economy, the Clean Power Plan is a welcome step in the right direction.

Accor takes a huge step...

Accor Hotels, one of the largest hotel groups in the world, takes a huge step with the adoption of their new "PLANET 21" program for sustainable hotel development. While concrete conservation goals remain relatively unambitious it seems (due to structural reasons based on the realities of hotel economics - large up front investments coupled with low per guest costs and a focus on occupancy rates, issues that I researched for my Master's thesis) one part of the initiative stuck out in my mind as very promising. Namely, utilizing the high visibility of hotels to enlist the participation of guests and also to educate them. Incidentally, this is the idea that I originally wanted to write my thesis on, but during the course of my research, I found that the industry was very far from considering this. How Accor goes about implementing this part of their plan has me very curious. I'll keep you posted.

Find the original re-published article here on Greenbiz.

In defense of socialism?

This interview with Naomi Klein over at Solutions is great food for thought. Below are some of her main points, which are all rational and interesting:

1. The numbers of people who "believe in" climate change in the US are actually falling. These numbers are correlated with ideology (which isn't surprising) but the way she describes the groupings might be. What we traditionally think of as "left" leaning people, she calls communitarian - those who believe we live together and share resources on a global scale, and who are upset by disparities and disadvantaged populations. These people obviously believe in climate change. Those on the "right" hold a more individualistic view or hierarchical view will tend to not believe in climate change. She essentially boils the debate down to an ideological one, with climate change serving as a proxy for the battle between two competing ways of looking at human, nation-state, and global relations.

This is a slightly different way of looking at it, not entirely new, but an intriguing perspective that can change a LOT of how we approach the issue.

2. The market will never solve the problem. She suggests that contrary to what we've been led to believe by our high-profile environmental groups, markets will never be able to undertake everything that needs to be done to really combat climate change.

Although she doesn't out and out say this, I think this is because markets are inherently individualistic. Cap and trade is great, but what we need is interventions to move our systems away from what they look like now - mass-transit infrastructure, changes in our perspectives on housing, and I would add, food production, manufacturing, and industrial design to just name a few.

3. "Who is demanding growth year after year?"

I've begun to really incorporate this line of logic into my thinking and debates in the past few years, as I think this is one of the key structural issues with our current system. As long as we demand unreasonable, indefinite growth, we're going to continue making short-term, damaging decisions. While I agree that corporations are not people, I think they generally make decisions like people do - in common sense and practical ways. Given their circumstances, they will undertake a set of choices and behaviors where long-term consequences are never even factored into the process. This must change.

A case in point - my parents' microwave recently broke - or at least started sounding like it was going to. When I called to find out if it was possible to fix it, they quoted prices to me that made it nearly impossible for a rational person to choose to repair over new. The cost to have someone come out to LOOK at the thing would be about 50% of a new microwave, and there was no guarantees on how much parts and labor would then cost, much less any guarantee that the microwave would then last much longer anyway. So, a normal person would just replace the microwave, despite the fact that it likely needs just one small part changed. Even worse, the microwave is a "hood" version, which combines microwave plus exhaust system for the stove. Thus, I'm forced to throw out a LOT of good stuff because of one small problem that they've priced unreasonably. Further, the company has no responsibility, incentive, or interest in taking the existing piece back and making use of it's component parts. So we essentially have to landfill it? How is this at all rational?

For those who will point out other disposal options that require ME to do hours of homework and then drive 20 miles to take care of it, I say - really? In our convenience-oriented society, can we really expect most regular folks to do this? This is where EPR (extended producer responsibility) really needs to happen, but in our country that's considered more regulation, stifling competition, and anti-jobs/anti-growth. See the problem?

Ms. Klein's answer is to push for a wholly changed system, utilizing the recent groundswell movements and popular demonstration to place pressure on current power structures. It's a very interesting message and one that I think I can get behind. Read the interview here, then tell me what you think!

Hope for tigers?

"Over the past century, tiger numbers have dropped from about 100,000 to about 4,000 tigers in the wild today. And over the past decade, there has been a 40% decline, with conservationists warning that some populations were expected to disappear completely within 20 years unless urgent action was taken."

This isn't the first time that I've written about tigers, a conservation failure story that makes my heart break every time I read anything about it. Our international systems have clearly failed the tigers, from conservation to enforcement to eliminating demand. Do the meetings since the end of 2010 represent a corner that we've turned as an international community? Or is it more talk that will lead nowhere? Only time will tell, but unfortunately the 4000 wild tigers left don't have much time left. Will we let these majestic animals disappear? Will we be responsible for their extinction? Full BBC article here.

A great PSA print ad from Surfrider

A friend of mine shared this great PSA print ad from Surfrider today on Facebook, and I thought I'd share it here also. Well done, high impact advertisement that really gets people thinking.

Mr. Coffee Meet Mr. Mushroom

Apparently these guys have been getting a lot of press ever since they started their company, but it's a refreshing and heartening story. They've managed to create a whole business out of trash as they say.

'The two speak in terms of value, the value in things that otherwise go to waste. In Back To The Roots’ warehouse, even the racks where they store their mushroom kits come from somebody else’s waste. Diverting all that has built the business. Says Arora with the pride of a true scavenger, “Our whole company is literally built on trash.” '

Basically, they get paid to take used coffee grounds away from cafes, use the coffee grounds to grow mushrooms which they then sell to high-end supermarkets or to make DIY mushroom growing kits they sell to bored or green-thumbed homeowners, and then make the now twice-used coffee grounds into a high quality fertilizer mixed with fungus roots. They're expecting $5 million in sales this coming year, just a few years into the business.

That's what I call a pretty decent idea - although it's not a new one. Industrial eco-systems have been explored and used all over the world. This is just a rather innovative urban one, based on our changing middle-class trends of proliferating cafes, eating local, and eating gourmet. At it's heart though, it's moving from "managing" waste to thinking about waste as "resources." If only more people could do this.

As one of the founders says: “This whole country revolves around use and just throwing things away,” Arora adds. “Everything’s just one-time use. That’s not going to last. It’s not sustainable.”

He's both wrong and he's right. It's not just "this whole country" (America) that revolves around a disposable culture... it's essentially the whole world now. And it is most certainly not sustainable.

Read a full article about Back to the Roots here.

New Seafood Watch Guides are Out!

Know more about the seafood you're eating and what you should avoid. Get the new 2012 updated Seafood Watch guides from the Monterey Bay Aquarium here. They have an Android version too! :)

Kudos to Shangri-la

Well it looks like the Shangri-la hotel group is joining the Peninsula in being on the cutting edge of sustainable seafood by cutting out shark's fin and other big-name, big-impact fish like bluefin tuna and chilean sea bass. (Note, who is still serving chilean sea bass?!?! I thought we won that fight 7 years ago! The world-wide popularity of chilean sea bass wreaked havoc on the slow-growing, deep-sea Patagonian toothfish - the real name - fisheries last decade.)

In any case, while it may be a bit late, it is certainly better than never, and I applaud the Shangri-la for taking this step. I think it is ALWAYS important for aspirational brands to take high-profile stands on important issues, as they can help change what we all "expect" the good life to include. In this case, the Shang (and the Penninsula) have definitely sent the message - you don't have to fin to be in.

"Shangri-La Hotels and Resorts today announced its ‘Sustainable Seafood Policy’ including the commitment to cease serving shark fin in all of its operated restaurants as well as accepting new orders for shark fin products in banqueting with immediate effect." Read the full press release here.

Green, mean, Seville!

I was a huge fan of Seville when I went there during the winter of 2008. It was just such a sunny, happy, walkable city, with some gorgeous historical buildings, a wonderful old city, great food, vibrant modern interiors in gorgeous old buildings, and of course, flamenco. The Plaza de Espana, although little used now, was a stunning piece of architecture that I couldn't take my eyes off of.

Now, I find this article on BBC, talking about how Seville is now one of the greenest cities around, and I can't help but say... "just one more huge reason to visit one of the coolest cities in Spain."

From the article: Kick-started by proactive city mayor, Alfredo Sánchez Monteseirín in 2007, the lightning pace of Seville’s “greening” defies its laidback fiesta and siesta image. In the span of just five years, the Sevillanos have instituted a community bike-sharing scheme, a surface tram, an underground metro, two high-speed train links, a pilot electric car programme and -- 20km away in Sanlúcar la Mayor -- the first commercial solar power plant in Europe.

Eat healthier, but how?

Tis the season to make resolutions. No doubt many of you are resolving to get healthier, to exercise more and eat better and take better care of yourself. There are likely even some of you who are going to make it a quest to eat more organic, stay out of the middle of the supermarket, and hit up Whole Foods more.

Before you do though, read this article from the New York Times and learn a bit more about the effects of what you might be buying. Not all organic produce is created equally, and unfortunately the mass market acceptance of organic being better has resulted in globalized organic production systems that are likely much less "better" for the earth than the evil industrial agriculture complex that it is replacing.

“People are now buying from a global commodity market, and they have to be skeptical even when the label says ‘organic’ — that doesn’t tell people all they need to know,” said Frederick L. Kirschenmann, a distinguished fellow at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University. He said some large farms that have qualified as organic employed environmentally damaging practices, like planting only one crop, which is bad for soil health, or overtaxing local freshwater supplies.

Yet, far from discouraging people from resolving to make their food footprints smaller by buying organic, I'm going to press in the other direction. Organic production, even global organic production on an industrial scale is bound to be better than traditional industrial agriculture with its high dependence on petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides. Yet it doesn't make organic foods the end all be all. While some people may be purchasing organic products just for the perceived health benefits, the truth is we must examine not only how produce affects us, but how the produce we choose affects others.

Organic is fine, but I agree with my good friend Anthony that the real solution is to reconnect ourselves to our food systems. We need to take a more local, seasonal approach to our food. If you live somewhere that doesn't produce tomatoes in December, then start acquainting yourself with the wonders of kale or winter squashes. Far from being something limiting, eating locally and seasonally can actually expand your horizons and provide you with incredible opportunities to try new things. Check out Anthony's blog for more resources and discussion on the benefits of eating local. And this year, when you resolve to eat better, resolve to eat more local and seasonal too. Just try it.

Finally, on a separate note... to everyone who has been reading my posts this year, thanks so much for the support! Have a happy new year, and hoping to hear more from everyone in 2012!