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.

A Critical Juncture for Alternative Energy

A recent New York Times article highlights the critical battle we're facing as citizens who want to see a more sustainable future. A ballot measure in November will essentially kill off a bill passed four years ago in the State Assembly that calls for greenhouse gas reductions to 1990 levels, going into effect in 2012. Not only does this impending change bode well for our overall emissions and the environment, it has also been key in promoting the development of alternative energies.

Now however, according to the article: "A ballot initiative to suspend a milestone California law curbing greenhouse gas emissions is drawing a wave of contributions from out-of-state oil companies, raising concerns among conservationists as it emerges as a test of public support for potentially costly environmental measures during tough economic times."

The Koch family (including David Koch and Charles Koch - written about in a piece in the New Yorker recently) have been large contributors to the ballot initiative. As seen in the New Yorker article, essentially anything outside of the arts that the Koch brothers support is something all citizens who care about a better, more equal, sustainable future should oppose. Unlike many things in the progressive world, this is pretty cut and dried; if the Kochs support it, oppose it with your life. It can't be good for you.

Back in the New York Times article, northern California assemblyman Dan Logue from the 3rd District (in Humboldt) is quoted as saying: “What we’re saying is, this is not the time for political correctness. This is a time for putting America back to work; let the experiments happen later.”

Last I checked, reducing greenhouse gases to attempt to limit atmospheric concentration was not "political correctness" but a rather critical matter of trying to preserve a semblance of normalcy in our climatic patterns - patterns that essentially drive everything from rainfall to growing seasons to fresh water availability. Ask Mr. Logue about these things though, and I'm sure he'll give you either a blank look or blather on about how "nothing has been proven."

While I'm in a skewering mood - I now feel good about having boycotted Valero for the past 5 years or so. I never trusted them, and now that I know they have contributed $4 MILLION dollars to stopping any limits from being placed on emissions, I have proof that Valero is a crappy corporate citizen. (Thankfully, Chevron, one of two oil companies I am willing to buy gas from - Shell being the other - has NOT supported this ballot initiative.)

Moreover, I always find the economic damage argument (used by Mr. Logue above) and also cited in the Times article: "Some oil industry leaders said it would force them to invest millions of dollars to comply, and asserted that it would force companies to cut jobs and raise the price of gas at the pumps." The article goes on to say that the anti-emissions limit forces have raised over $8 million dollars, while the pro-limit forces seem to have a similar amount. So, let's do some arithmetic. Let's say $20 million (at least) gets spent on THIS campaign to determine whether or not we should implement regulations on carbon emissions that, admittedly, WILL cost money to comply with.

(Now, that money should be seen as an INVESTMENT, not a cost, since when done right, it can lead to better research, greater competitiveness, and potentially new markets opening up - which can also lead to more jobs. But I digress.)

$20 million dollars on ONE campaign, not including the countless millions spent already trying to sway public opinion about the issue. Now, maybe I'm just naive, but wouldn't all that money be better spent just improving our industries instead of trying to get people to believe that it costs too much? Isn't it a bit ridiculous to spend millions of dollars to tell the public that you don't have millions of dollars to spend? When are we all going to wake up and see that these companies (and the Kochs of the world) are playing on our everyday fears so THEY can make more and more money? It isn't a coincidence that in the past 30 years, the income of the top 1% of the nation has grown 176% while those at the bottom? Well, at least they're getting more than inflation: 6%.

Action:
1. Californians, vote NO on Prop 23 this Nov.
2. Boycott Valero and send letters to their Board telling them to stop supporting bad legislation and start investing in a cleaner energy future
3. Boycott all Koch Industries subsidiaries, including Georgia Pacific Paper
4. Spread the word!

Climate targets

Both the US and China have announced their own climate change carbon reduction targets this past week, in preparation for the upcoming global climate conference in Copenhagen. The US has committed to hard reduction targets finally (although, because of how our system is set up here, this may actually amount to nothing - just like the Kyoto Protocol was never in effect due to Congress' disapproval.) Likewise, China has committed to a reduction of sorts, although it is a reduction in "energy intensity" as opposed to the more traditional absolute figures used by developed nations.

You can find more details on these developments both at the BBC and at the New York Times.

I'll try to provide some more opinion on this in the run-up to Copenhagen, but for now, I'll leave it at this and say Happy Thanksgiving to anyone reading!

Roads through the Amazon

It always saddens me when I hear of potentially destructive acts in the Amazon. The fight for the rainforests have been going on for literally my entire life, and are some of the earliest memories I have of wanting to be environmentally active. Unfortunately, the fight continues today, and in many ways the Amazon is much worse now than it was before. Deforestation continues on a large scale, economic interests outweigh environmental concerns, and thousands of species have no doubt been lost to us without even our discovery of them.

Now, in the name of economic development, the governments of Peru and Brazil have agreed to stretch a length of road across pristine forest to connect the two countries and provide access to Pacific Ocean ports in Peru to Brazil. You can read information on this proposal here in a WorldWatch blog.

The traditional debate comes down to the environment versus economic development. Unfortunately, given our current systems and institutions, the environment most often comes out on the losing end. There is, I believe, no doubt to the truth that building a road connecting these two cities will bring short-term economic benefits to the people in the region, as well as open up new "development" to people coming from outside the region. My personal doubt is to the value of these economic benefits, and how we determine what is truly valuable.

Governments are pressured into making decisions like these for numerous reasons, but one of the largest is that they must show "economic growth." I've already posted once about the need to escape from GDP as a measure of economic growth and health, so I won't bother doing it here again. Suffice it to say that if governments did not feel the need to demonstrate X percentage of GDP growth each year, we'd have better decision-making and policies.

No, instead, what I will state in this particular post is probably a bit more damning to governments engaged in this type of growth. That is, they have failed their peoples elsewhere. From everything I have read and seen, life in the Amazon is not easy. Clear-cutting of rain-forests for things like agriculture is a short-term game. Farmers are forced to constantly pick up and move every few years once the soil becomes unproductive. Yet, there is no doubt in my mind that as the road opens, more and more farmers will come streaming into the area to continue their lives in perpetual nomadic poverty. Is this the fault of the farmers, or the fault of a government that has not come up with creative, innovative, and positive impact programs elsewhere in the country to provide for healthy and meaningful lives?

De-emphasizing growth

A recent article in the New York Times references a new economic study published by world renowned economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen that calls for nations to stop focusing so much on ideas of growth and GDP and instead take a more holistic approach to analyzing the health of nations.

While this is not new, it is a good reminder of the inadequacies (some would call them incorrect period) of our current economic indicators and the need to revise them, because, as Stiglitz and Sen point out, "what you measure affects what you do."

The importance of this notion reverberates throughout our economic, social, and political systems. I want to concentrate briefly however, on how this will impact our environment. Many practitioners of business methodologies like the triple bottom line and continuous improvement have long recognized the necessity to have better, more frequent, and more granular data about their organizations and their processes. If you know how much energy is being wasted in a particular step of the process, you have a much better chance of convincing people that an up-front investment needs to be made to solve it. Likewise, if all we care about is "growth" then business decisions like pillaging our natural resources for short term gain actually end up making sense.

A quick example of how something this small can play out in our daily lives. My parents drink a lot of tea and hot water, and recently their always-on hot-drinking-water heater broke. In the market for a new one, we were faced with tons of choices that ranged in cost from 50 dollars to 200 dollars. They would all get the job done (not a very technically advanced job at that... boil water) so there was little way at first glance to differentiate them. We like the notion of quality though and disliked having to go through the trouble of replacing one every 6 months, so we immediately ruled out many of the cheaply built, disposable 50 dollar models (unfortunately, environmental waste - while being a concern - was still a secondary one.)

Then we were left with what seemed like fairly identical models from one Japanese company known for its quality. The cheaper model was 120 dollars, the more expensive one was 170. The only notable difference was some sort of vaguely more energy efficient feature on the 170 dollar version. Even I was hard pressed to justify 50 dollars more for what seemed to be questionable benefits, and some added risk of investing more up-front for something that could break within 2 years.

However, I wanted to put my money where my mouth was and buy what was advertised as a more environmentally friendly model. Determined to figure out the cost difference, I did a little more digging and finally figured out that the more expensive version used only 17W of electricity on average per hour versus something like 44W for the cheaper version. Some quick calculations with our energy prices showed that the energy efficient model would likely take between 18 months to two years to recoup the original investment (ROI in business terms). With an extended warranty covered by my credit card, we would also be covered for our additional investment should the thing break before two years. It was a win win win win win situation for me.

Obviously a minor example, but one that I think shows the truth in what Stiglitz and Sen are advocating. The more information we have, the better decisions and actions we can take, and the more likely our actions are going to benefit multiple arenas rather than just one. (In this case, our pocketbook in the short term.)

Further, getting back to growth, the single-minded desire for growth can be seen as one of the root causes for much of our current societal and economic woes - perhaps not the only one, but a fairly significant one. In order to continue to grow, companies mortgage their futures for today, people mortgage their family time for an immediate promotion, companies mortgage their long-term strategies for spectacular quarterly figures. In the past fifteen years, if you weren't in "growth markets" you pretty much weren't even playing in the stock market. Yet all of this emphasis on growth has led us down dangerous paths where not just our communities and nations are being hurt, but our environment and global systems as well.

Why exactly then, do we have this singular emphasis on growth? Do we really have to constantly grow? Is it not okay for a company with a good, stable, profitable business to just continue providing the service or product that customers obviously want and need with no pressure to "grow" their business?

With little imagination, it is easy to see how different our societies could be without the emphasis on growth. More stable, more communal, more sustainable. I think we have to rediscover the notion that growth is not the only way to measure progress - indeed, it may not be a measure of progress at all. There are times where progress is simply standing still. Perhaps in order to move forward as a society, we have to stop trying so hard to move at all, and instead be content to sit and let nature and our society run its own course in its own due time.

The wrong solutions...

It is distressing to read some of the new media coverage about how we can deal with the prospect of climate change on the planet. There is a small but growing cadre of people who believe that we should begin to put attention to "geo-engineering" to counter the effects of increased carbon concentrations in the atmosphere. The BBC recently had an article discussing a new Royal Society report about the feasibility of some of these solutions, in which the Royal Society concludes that some of the most sci-fi-like engineering solutions are "technically feasible."

There are many proposals out there, ranging from what has become "accepted" like carbon capture and storage to more "out-there" ones like shooting reflective ions into the atmosphere to bounce sunlight back off the planet to having mirrors in space to injecting sea salt into the atmosphere.

Yes, you read all of those options correctly.

All I can say is... "what!?!?"

This is a classic case of human hubris, where we feel like we can outsmart nature and create these fantastic technological solutions to man-made problems. Yet, the truth of the matter is that nature's complexity is well-beyond our capacity for understanding or technical abilities. We simply have no idea about what would work or not, and more dangerously, we have no idea of what impacts these "solutions" would actually have. We cannot model these things, because we not only do not know the values of the variables in the model, we don't even know which variables there are. There is no doubt in my mind that we will end up creating greater problems than carbon and climate change with any of these proposed technological solutions.

A growing number of people though are embracing these ideas, and even the Royal Society - although pushing for reductions in carbon first - has jumped on the bandwagon and advocates for funding and further research in this area. Laughable really, when the real solution to the problem is actually so simple and "easy" compared to the technological solutions; stop emitting greenhouse gases and change the way that we live. The reality is that we are not faced with an unsolvable scientific problem. We are faced with an immensely embedded political problem. If the nations of the world could just come to an agreement on how to cut greenhouse gases, we wouldn't need any of these other outlandish proposals. However, as is often the case, it is easier for governments to throw tons of money into new technologies than it is for them to make the common sense choice that may require general sacrifices from everyone on the globe.

I'm all for thinking about climate change adaptation, but please, let's be real here. The answer to reversing climate change is simple - stop emitting greenhouse gases. Figuring out how to cool the planet down while continuing to dump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is not just the easy way out, it is ridiculous and a sad commentary on our current societies.

Speaking Up

For the first time tonight, I spoke at a city council meeting.  As a volunteer/member of Greenbelt Alliance, a local land conservation / smart growth advocacy organization, I spoke in favor of a proposed high-density, infill, mixed-use transit-oriented development that would be a more environmentally sustainable than more single family home suburban sprawl.  

I spoke my piece in front of the 7 Mountain View city council members - regular people that are my neighbors with normal jobs like being a professor, engineer, business owner.  And it was enlightening to realize that for all the grand policies and efforts on the macro level (federal or global), this is where the rubber hits the road.  Right now, local cities (and really the city council members elected by the public) decide what developments get built or not (and if they are high-density, transit-oriented and environmentally sustainable); whether or not to adopt green building policies that apply to all development; if local government fleets run on biodiesel or favor green procurement procedures; etc. 

These people get elected by the community - and take public comment about all of their business.  It doesn't happen behind closed doors, or in a far away, unknown place.  For me, it literally happens down the street with decisions made by neighbors and other people in my community.  And I can choose to participate - I can express my opinion and have some influence (or not).  And if I don't participate in the democratic process, my voice will not be heard.  If I want to make the world a better place, I need to step up. No more excuses. It's time to speak up. 

Earth Hour

Earth Hour is coming up again. For those of you who don't know, Earth Hour is one hour each year where people around the world band together, turn off all their electricity for one hour, and voice their solidarity for creating a more thoughtful global society that understands the impacts of their lifestyles. This year, it is 8:30pm (20:30 for those Europeans out there!) on March 28.

You can find more information at this website: http://www.earthhour.org This year they are hoping to get people in 1000 cities across the world to participate. I highly encourage everyone to do so.

Although the act of turning off all your electricity for 1 hour (unplug stuff!!!) admittedly doesn't in and of itself do much for the world, you'll be surprised at how it can affect you. Every facet of our lives today revolves around the convenient usage of energy. Without electricity, there's almost nothing we can do. Yet at the same time, without electricity, sitting in the darkness, you somehow reconnect with something much more primitive, somehow glimpsing how life must have felt 200 years ago. Or perhaps, how life feels today for people not privileged or lucky enough to have the luxuries of modern electricity that the rest of us enjoy.

Join in Earth Hour, spread the word, show support for a more aware society, and learn something about yourself while doing so. 8:30pm, March 28. Looking forward to NOT seeing you online.

Right Whale Right Again?

A heartening story from the IHT about how right whales seem poised for a comeback. Once hunted to near extinction, apparently only 100 or so remained off the coasts of North America by 1900. This article provides a good history and overview of what the situation is like today, with conservation efforts having pushed the population back up towards 400 or so.

"Actually, it's one of so many good signs that researchers are beginning to hope that for the first time in centuries things are looking up for the right whale. They say the species offers proof that simple conservation steps can have a big impact, even for species driven to the edge of oblivion." (full article here.)

It also touches on the difficultly when we try to evaluate conservation programs through strictly economic terms. As mentioned in the article, the conservation efforts cost a lot of money. Is it worth it? I would argue that considering we benefited so greatly from the harvesting of these animals in the 1800s, it's only right that we put money into protecting them now. But, in a less guilt-ridden way of looking at things, what is the cost of losing one of nature's creatures forever? And an amazingly majestic, awe-inspiring one at that?

Food From The Hood

Totally random, but saw a mention in the Green America's Winter 2009 Newsletter and thought it is worth a mention under here's-a-creative-way-to-get-to-an-economy-that-supports-a-triple-bottom-line (people, planet and profits) category:

Food From the Hood is a student-managed business that started out of an unused garden at Crenshaw High in LA that sells salad dressings (in leading SoCal grocery stores, and even on amazon.com) and where profits provide scholarships for kids going to college ($140K to date).

High-speed rail?

Having spent a lot of time in the past decade living outside of the country and traveling by many means other than car, it's always been interesting attempting to have conversations with backpackers and travelers from other countries about how best to get around the US. Invariably, someone asks, "well can't you just take a train?" My response is usually a hearty laugh and then a sad shake of the head accompanied by a wry grin.

The truth is, you could (I wouldn't even know where to start), but the experience would be far from what these travelers are expecting. Indeed, I had to go to China to take my first ever, honest-to-goodness, real-life train ride. At 21. Since then, I've discovered the beauty of trains and find it sad that we don't have more here in the US. The LA-SF corridor would be ideal for a high-speed train, something that averages 180mph would take just over 2 hours to go point to point, making it highly competitive with air travel. Averaging 150mph, it would be just under three hours, still worthy of consideration when you factor in all the wait times connected with flying. For those of you thinking (flying is so fast though..) let me just quickly remind you of how much "cleaner" rail travel is than air travel. :)

So, it's really good to hear that the new stimulus package has set-aside $8 billion for the development of high-speed rail in the US. Now, as you can see from reading this particular article in the IHT (Slice of U.S. stimulus package will go to faster trains) don't expect to be riding the rails at 180 or even 150mph anytime soon. $8 billion is, unfortunately, close to nothing when it comes to making a dent in a system that has been neglected for probably 60 years. But, it is VERY heartening to know that this debate is once again a debate, and that we are finally beginning to consider alternatives to automobile and airplane travel again.

I am looking forward to the day when I can look up from my plugged in laptop with wireless internet to see the California coast zipping by outside my window at 200+mph.

China's New Environmental Ministry

I haven't been following the Chinese environmental scene as much since I got to Europe and started my program there, so I was very pleasantly surprised to hear that China recently created a ministerial-level environment department - the Ministry of Environmental Protection. It's headed by the outspoken Pan Yue, former head of the precursor, the State Environmental Protection Agency or SEPA as it was known. Even there, at what many considered a fairly toothless government agency that took a backseat to just about every other arm of the central government, Pan Yue was outspoken and a real crusader about environmental issues, who would even rebuke higher ranking officials in public for failing to do this or that in regards to the environment.

Thus, there's a small amount of hope that China is headed in the right direction, especially if Pan Yue can keep himself out of trouble and out of the cross-hairs of other, more powerful politicos. Already, as this opinion article states, China has made some real progress on instituting regulations and targets. Now it's just a matter of this new ministry having the resources and the ability to implement these regulations down to the regional and local levels. Let's keep our fingers crossed.


From the IHT Opinion pages....
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/11/opinion/edgardner.php

So looking at China's pollution mess, we in the West have been quick to denounce the bad guys in Beijing, blaming them for doing nothing to protect their air, water and people.

But Chinese indifference to the environment is a myth. In the last few years China has begun to take aggressive action to bring its air and water pollution under control.

Here are a few examples:

-China's fuel-efficiency standard for cars is currently pegged at 43 miles per gallon, which means that when America's 2020 standards of 35 mpg go into effect they'll be lower than China's minimum standard of today.