Last November, voters came to the polls in America and voted to change the House of Representatives from a republican majority to a democratic majority. Over the last two years, the erosion of the federal agencies oversight to enforce regulations to protect Americans from harm by corporate entities has ensued without major obstacles. Which is problematic for important issues such as climate change -- which spans over decades not just one election cycle. Although, action needs to be continuously optimized by encouraging our elected leaders in Congress to have our best interest in mind and keep steering toward sustainable goals which have a positive effect on our planet looking into the future.
One such plan that has emerged with the change of the majority on Capitol Hill is the Green New Deal. Over 600 environmental groups have written to express support for the Green New Deal and work toward finding solutions in general by forming committees along with passing legislation. Negotiations are starting to happen which is encouraging to say the least. Whenever I read about a large number of organizations sending letter to elected officials, I am alway curious about the content of such letters. What do elected officials receive in letters in the form of information/persuasion toward their argument? That is what this short blog post is about - persuasive content.
Re: Legislation to Address the Urgent Threat of Climate Change
Dear Representative:
On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, we are writing today to urge you to consider the following principles as the 116th Congress debates climate change legislation and momentum around the country builds for a Green New Deal. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned, if we are to keep global warming below 1.5°C, we must act aggressively and quickly. At a minimum, reaching that target requires visionary and affirmative legislative action in the following areas:
Halt all fossil fuel leasing, phase out all fossil fuel extraction, and end fossil fuel and other dirty energy subsidies.
The science is clear that fossil fuels must be kept in the ground. Pursuing new fossil fuel projects at this moment in history is folly. Most immediately, the federal government must stop selling off or leasing publicly owned lands, water, and mineral rights for development to fossil fuel producers. The government must also stop approving fossil fuel power plants and infrastructure projects. We must reverse recent legislation that ended the 40-year ban on the export of crude oil, end the export of all other fossil fuels, and overhaul relevant statutes that govern fossil fuel extraction in order to pursue a managed decline of fossil fuel production. Further, the federal government must immediately end the massive, irrational subsidies and other financial support that fossil fuel, and other dirty energy companies (such as nuclear, waste incineration and biomass energy) continue to receive both domestically and overseas.
Transition power generation to 100% renewable energy.
As the United States shifts away from fossil fuels, we must simultaneously ramp up energy efficiency and transition to clean, renewable energy to power the nation’s economy where, in addition to excluding fossil fuels, any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies. To achieve this, the United States must shift to 100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier. This shift will necessitate upgrading our electricity grid to be smart, efficient, and decentralized, with the ability to incorporate battery storage and distributed energy systems that are democratically governed. In addition, Congress must bring the outdated regulation of electricity into the twenty-first century, encouraging public and community ownership over power infrastructure and electricity choice, as well as permitting distributed energy sources, including rooftop and community solar programs to supply the grid.
Expand public transportation and phase out fossil fuel vehicles.
As the transition away from fossil fuels occurs, our transportation system must also undergo 100 percent decarbonization. To accomplish a fossil-fuel-free reality, Congress must require and fund greater investment in renewable-energy-powered public transportation that serves the people who need it most. The United States must also phase out the sale of automobiles and trucks with internal fossil fuel combustion engines as quickly as possible and phase out all existing fossil fuel mobile sources by 2040 or earlier. Federal credits for electric vehicles must be expanded.
Harness the full power of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act provides powerful tools that have proven successful in protecting the air we breathe and reducing greenhouse pollution. It can also serve as an important backstop to ensure climate targets are met. Congress should harness the full power of the statute by setting strict deadlines and providing adequate funding for EPA to carry out all its duties under all applicable sections of the Act, including implementing greenhouse pollution reduction requirements for cars, trucks, aircraft, ships, smokestacks and other sources, as well as a science-based national pollution cap. The Act has successfully reduced many air pollutants and can do the same for greenhouse pollution.
Ensure a Just Transition led by impacted communities and workers.
In effectuating this energy transformation, it is critical to prioritize support for communities who have historically been harmed first and most by the dirty energy economy and workers in the energy sector and related industries. We support a comprehensive economic plan to drive job growth and invest in a new green economy that is designed, built and governed by communities and workers. Building new energy, waste, transportation and housing infrastructure, designed to serve climate resilience and human needs; retrofitting millions of buildings to conserve energy and other resources; and, actively restoring natural ecosystems to protect communities from climate change, are but a few ways to build a sustainable, low carbon economy where no one is left behind during this change.
Uphold Indigenous Rights
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) must be upheld and implemented, along with treaties, instruments and decisions of international law that recognize that Indigenous Peoples have the right to give or withhold “free, prior and informed consent” to legislation and development of their lands, territories and/or natural resources, cultural properties and heritage, and other interests, and to receive remedies of losses and damages of property taken without consent.
Further, we will vigorously oppose any legislation that: (1) rolls back existing environmental, health, and other protections, (2) protects fossil fuel and other dirty energy polluters from liability, or (3) promotes corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits, including market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy. Fossil fuel companies should pay their fair share for damages caused by climate change, rather than shifting those costs to taxpayers.
We look forward to working with you to address the gravest environmental crisis humanity has ever faced, to protect all present and future generations around the world, while centering the rights of those communities and workers most impacted.
Sincerely,
The above letter was signed by over 600 environmental groups. The names of which can be found at the end of the letter hyperlinked -- here. There is no question that if various elected officials on both sides consider climate change to be a threat to our national security (to our planet on a much larger scale), then negotiation needs to start happening soon if change is going to follow in the future.
There are people who do not think that climate change is real or a major threat. As a scientist, I can just defer to a non-scientist's reasoning. Recently, I was listening to a podcast titled "Mike Drop" which was an interview between two former Navy Seals about all aspects of life. Mike Ritland interviews Andy Stumpf about all aspects of life spanning from gun control to climate change. When the topic of climate change came up, here is what was agreed upon (at 3:02:16 into podcast):
". . . I'm trying to close the loop on that yeah ... I mean I would say I'm probably similarly ignorant to it other than the fact that to me common sense would tell you you know basically what you said but then also just ... just take automobiles as an example is that you know if you can shut your garage door, turn your car on and be dead in a matter of minutes like chances are with (Andy Stumpf breaks in with "you know I think you need a hose for that too") ... but you know ... ya I got your fucking hose ... yeah you know chances are that having ... you know hundreds of millions of vehicles billions you know driving ... or if you know is probably not that great for us you know and that's one example"
That was a great example offered up from interviewer Mike Ritland. Common sense would tell you that if you can close the door of your garage with the car still running, eventually, the fumes will kill you. Therefore, having billions of tons of CO, CO2 spewing into your environment are probably not that good.
With that being said, the new change to the House of Representatives seems to be on the right track with the emerging Green New Deal in discussion. A discussion is where change starts to happen. And as has been highlighted in the last couple of years, changes are greatly needed in the direction toward sustainable energy while steering us clear of our dependence on fossil fuels. Keep asking your elected officials to consider clean energy along with the environment when a vote is under consideration on capitol hill.
Climate scientists often discuss the alarming amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic. According to an article in the 'Associated Press' titled "Climate change is more extensive and worse than once thought" an enormous amount of ice has melted since 1992 alone:
Antarctica has lost nearly 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992, enough to cover Texas nearly 13 feet (4 meters) deep, scientists reported in June. Greenland has lost more than 5 trillion tons in the same period.
Wow. Really? The author extends help in visualizing the enormous amount of ice melting by providing a metric -- namely the amount would cover the state of Texas in a depth of 13 feet of ice. My goodness. I wanted to follow up with that statement and check to see how the numbers checked out. Below is the analysis.
With the area of Texas in hand, the only remaining parameter needed to find the total volume of water is the 'height'. Although, in our case, we are verifying the statement above regarding the 'height' of ice over a given area (Texas). The expression for the total volume of ice being considered in the article is shown below:
The area of Texas has already been determined by a Google search (as shown above) along with the stated value of 'height' equal to 4 meters. Also, the total volume of ice which has melted is given too. In this blog post, we are verifying the stated values contained in the excerpt. Namely, that the total volume of ice -- 3 trillion tons of ice -- would spread a layer of ice over the entire state of Texas with an height equal to 4 meters.
In order to verify the values in the statement above, we need to do unit conversions of a couple of values above to end up in uniform units. The uniform units of choice is 'meter'. Therefore, to start with, a quick search of the number of square meters in a square mile would yield the following shown below:
For every 1 square mile, there are 2,590,000 square meters. Now we have the area in units of square meters along with a height in units of square meters. The only remaining parameter is volume to convert into units of 'meters' -- for a volume -- cubic meters. The volume of ice is stated in the excerpt above in units of 'tons' - which is a unit of 'mass'. In order to convert from a mass to a volume, the conversion factor used is the substance's density -- the amount of mass in a given volume.
In order to determine the density of ice, we simply type into a search engine: What is the density of ice? The following appears as shown below:
The density of ice is 0.92 grams/cubic centimeter. Since there are 100 centimeters in a meter, then there are 100 meter x 100 meter x 100 meter (volume = length x width x height). Therefore, the density of ice is equal to (0.92 gram/ cubic centimeter) x (1,000,000 cubic centimeter/cubic meter) = 920,000 gram/cubic meter.
To convert the mass in units of 'ton' to mass in units of 'gram' the conversion factor needs to be known. Consulting a search engine with the following question: How many grams are in a ton? The answer is shown below:
The answer indicates that in a ton of ice, there are 907,185 grams of ice. An expression for the density of a given substance is shown below:
The density as indicated by the expression above is the amount of mass in a given volume. In our case, the density of ice gives us a conversion factor to use to convert a 'mass' of ice into a 'volume' of ice -- which is part of our intention in verifying the above statement from the news. Given that information (values) and expression for density, the volume can be obtained by dividing the 'mass' of ice by the 'density' of ice (conversion factor) as shown below:
A total of 3 trillion tons of ice was reported to have melted in a given time. But wait, where did the number in the expression above -- 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams -- in the numerator (number above the line in the fraction) come from? That is the converted mass of ice - 3 trillion tons - expressed in units of 'gram' rather than 'ton'. In order to use the number in the expression above, a unit conversion was needed. The conversion is shown below:
Using the determined conversion factor above of 907,185 grams to every single ton, the total amount of grams in 3 trillion tons of ice is equal to 2,720,000,000,000,000,000 grams. This is the mass which was used in the equation to determine the volume above.
Next, in order to determine the height of spreading this enormous amount of ice over the entire state of Texas, an expression from above needs to be brought up -- the height -- as shown below:
Using the area calculated above which is equal to the total size of the state of Texas, the height of the total volume of ice spread over the entire state can be determined as follows:
The answer indicates that if 3 trillion tons of ice were spread over the total state of Texas, the height of the ice sheet would be just over 4 meters -- 4.25 meter. This is in accordance with the answer above -- reported in the news!
Conclusion....
Wow. The above analysis is proof that the author is correct in their assertion of the magnitude of the terrible amount of ice which is melting in the antarctic. Furthermore, the above analysis gives us the ability to reason through the reported numbers to convince ourselves of the magnitude of the situation. Given that some readers might find this analysis mundane, for me, I reason through the content of an article by proving to myself (with my own analysis), that the number is justified to be reported. Nevertheless, the amount of ice is enormous and worth considering thinking about our own unique contribution to the scale of the issue. Eventually, the problem will have to be dealt with in the near future.
Regardless of your view on climate change, the idea that change is not occurring around us as a result of actions over time is a far reaching concept. Government officials (elected officials) -- senate and congressional leaders are in agreement. Although, constituents may influence their ability to relay their position in a public forum. Why? Furthermore, why does our President of the United States feel such a compelling force to step in front of a camera and take a stance counter to what scientific evidence points to as being true? To counter the misinformation spread by the President on an interview, the Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) stepped up and wrote a letter in opposition to his actions. Lets take a small step back before showing the letter written in opposition to the President. What is the AMS?
The American Meteorological Society advances the atmospheric and related sciences, technologies, applications, and services for the benefit of society.
With a historical context as follows:
Founded in 1919, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the nation’s premier scientific and professional organization promoting and disseminating information about the atmospheric, oceanic, and hydrologic sciences. Our more than 13,000 members include researchers, educators, students, enthusiasts, broadcasters and other professionals in weather, water, and climate.
The interview with Lesley Stahl on “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday, 14 October, included several questions related to climate change, reflecting the fact that this is an issue of vital importance to the nation. You raised several points in your replies that provide an opportunity for input from the scientific and science policy communities.
There is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence that shows that the warming global climate we have been experiencing in recent decades is primarily caused by human activity and that current long-term warming trends cannot be expected to reverse if no action is taken. These conclusions come from multiple independent lines of evidence. As is standard for the scientific process, each of these lines of evidence has undergone rigorous testing and has overcome all credible challenges. They reinforce one another and there are no contradictory lines of evidence that withstand scientific scrutiny. As a result, the basic scientific conclusions about climate change are extremely robust.
There are highly promising risk management options — ones that can reduce the risks of climate change, strengthen the U.S. economy, and promote job creation. Nevertheless, choices about whether and how to respond are complex, as you noted in your interview. People can welcome and accept the basic scientific assessments and still reach different conclusions about what to do. Many options would be consistent with your policy priorities.
You also said that scientists are making this political, which is misleading and very damaging. The scientific community welcomes all who commit to the pursuit of understanding through science irrespective of their political views, religious beliefs, and ethical values. As an institution, the American Meteorological Society takes no political positions and we proudly count among our members both individuals who strongly support you and those who routinely disagree. We are stronger for the breadth of our membership.
The American Meteorological Society would welcome the opportunity to work with your staff to ensure that they have full access to credible and scientifically validated information as you navigate the many difficult policy areas impacted by the Earth’s changing climate. We are confident that viable solutions exist and that they can be fruitfully developed if the best available knowledge and understanding is applied to the issues at hand.
Sincerely,
Keith L. Seitter
As stated so clearly by Director Keith Seitter in the letter above, the evidence for climate change and the human component is overwhelming and robust. The letter above is provided to the reader (you) to observe the evidence (support) that is sent to the President of the United States -- which he is obviously ignoring. Scientific evidence is ignored? Amazing.
The science is clear along with the growing support for the reality of change - which is greatly needed. How to get that change implemented is unknown at the moment. I will suggest though that part of the solution lies within each of us -- which is to say -- each of us should educate ourselves on the issue at hand and the scientific evidence which is being presented. That education does not necessarily rely upon a college education, just looking at the world around us. As an example of this point, an article from 'The Scientist' titled "Sports Videos Give Clues to Climate Change" reports a new method used by scientists to observe the effects of climate change:
Over the course of five weeks, Van Langenhove identified 46 individual trees and shrubs that had been caught on film from multiple angles, giving the team 523 images to use to track when the plants leafed and flowered each year, and to measure the size of the leaves. When analyzing the data, the team found that during races that took place in the 1980s, almost no trees or shrubs on the course had begun to flower, and only 26 percent showed any leaves. But from 2006 onward, 45 percent of the same woody plants had started to leaf and 67 percent had started flowering by the time the cyclists hit the road in early April. And when the team correlated the plant data with local climate data—which have logged a temperature increase of 1.5 °C since 1980—the researchers found a solid link between warmer winter temperatures and earlier leafing and flowering (MEE, 9:1874–82, 2018).
The realization that video taken by an international sports organization could serve as a 'standard' for qualitatively observing the ecological changes associated with differing climates over time was ingenious. This work shows that a person does not have to be educated (a formal education) to contribute to the evidence associated with climate research. Each of us are scientists at heart as I have stated before.
Europe has been on the forefront (proactive) of environmental/health measures with regard to regulation. Reporting from 'Politico Energy' suggests that the proactive measures extend to advising/challenging President Trump of the United States of America on his harsh stance against participating in reducing climate change:
U.K. SCIENTISTS TO MAY: CHALLENGE TRUMP ON CLIMATE: Ahead of Trump's trip to the United Kingdom this week, 135 of its climate scientists wrote to Prime Minister Theresa May urging her to challenge the president on climate change. "As the United States is the world's second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump's policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the U.K.'s national security and its interests overseas," they wrote in the letter.
Any reasonable person would and should challenge President Trump on his ignorant position of withdrawing from the Paris Accord (or planning to). His stance goes against evidence provided by science and political backing from a whole host of U.S. politicians - not to mention - a large portion of the population. With this being said, hopefully, Prime Minister Theresa May does follow the advice of scientists below (in the letter) and challenge President Trump during his visit overseas.
Without further ado, here is the letter from 135 climate researchers shown below along with the authors of the letter (and their respective professional affiliations) listed at the end:
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing as 135 members of the UK’s climate change research community to urge you to challenge President Trump about his policy of inaction on climate change when he visits on 13 and 14 July 2018.
The UK has a strong track record on climate change. Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to warn of the risks of rising greenhouse gas levels at the United Nations General Assembly in 1989, and the UK became the first country in the world in 2008 to lay down in law, with strong support across the political spectrum, targets for reducing its emissions.
You have also demonstrated leadership on this issue domestically through your continued commitment to implementation of the Climate Change Act and your personal endorsement of the Clean Growth Strategy. Additionally you have shown international leadership through your personal involvement in discussions at, for instance, the One Planet Summit in Paris in December 2017, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in April 2018, and most recently at the summit of G7 leaders in Charlevoix, Canada, in June 2018.
President Trump announced in June 2017 that he is withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement and he has attempted to stop all financial support for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With the help of the United States Congress, President Trump has also halted contributions to the Green Climate Fund which supports poor countries in their efforts to cut emissions and to make themselves more resilient to the impacts of climate change, including shifts in extreme weather events and sea level rise.
In addition, President Trump’s administration has attempted to weaken or remove many federal curbs on greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, the latest projections by the United States Energy Information Administration suggest that its annual energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will rise in 2018 and 2019.
In refusing to take action on climate change, President Trump is ignoring the advice both of international experts and of experts in the United States, such as the Global Change Research Program and the National Academy of Sciences. Since his inauguration as President in January 2017, Mr. Trump has overseen a number of actions to undermine climate researchers in the United States whose findings are used by policy-makers around the world.
As the United States is the world’s second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, President Trump’s policy of inaction on climate change is putting at risk the UK’s national security and its interests overseas. The Government’s ‘National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review’, published in November 2015, identified climate change as a major driver of global risk which threatens stability overseas and the UK’s long-term security. The UK is already being directly affected by the impacts of climate change: from 2000 onwards, it has experienced its nine warmest years and six of its seven wettest years since records began in 1910.
We believe that the UK Government should challenge President Trump about this policy of inaction on climate change. President Macron of France has publicly criticised President Trump’s stance and we believe that the UK should take advantage of its special relationship with the United States to show similar leadership. We do not believe that the best interests of the UK, or the rest of the world, would be best served by attempting to appease President Trump on this issue.
The UK Government is well-placed to draw the attention of President Trump to the case for urgently recognising and managing the risks of climate change. It can demonstrate, for instance, that economic growth does not have to be sacrificed in order to tackle climate change. According to the latest figures, the United States increased its real GDP per capita by 44 per cent between 1990 and 2016, while its annual emissions of greenhouse gases rose by 2.4 per cent. Over the same period, the UK’s real GDP per capita climbed by 46 per cent, while its annual emissions fell by 41 per cent. Hence the UK has shown that it is possible to achieve economic growth while strongly reducing annual emissions of greenhouse gases.
Above all, the UK government should make the argument that policy-making about climate change should be based on the best available evidence. Policy-makers should draw on the findings of the global climate research community, and take account of the risks it poses across the world and to future generations. Climate change should not be treated as if it were just as an issue of partisan domestic politics.
We are signing as individuals, rather than as representatives of our employers, but we list our affiliations as evidence of our membership of the climate change research community.
Yours sincerely (in alphabetical order),
Dr. George Adamson (Lecturer in Geography and Convenor of Climate Research Hub, King’sCollege London)
Professor Richard Allan (Joint Head of the Department of Meteorology, University of Reading)
Professor Chris Armstrong (Professor of Political Theory, University of Southampton)
Professor John Barrett (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Leeds)
Professor Paul Bates (University of Bristol)
Dr. Anna Belcher (Ecological Biogeochemist, British Antarctic Survey)
Professor Mike Bentley (Department of Geography, Durham University)
Sam Bickersteth (Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford)
Dr. Stephen Blenkinsop (Senior Research Associate, Newcastle University)
Professor Martin Blunt (Shell Professor of Reservoir Engineering, Imperial College London)
Dr. Christian Brand (Co-Director, UK Energy Research Centre and Associate Professor in Transport and Climate Change, University of Oxford)
Dr. Chris Brierley (Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, University College London)
Dr. Stuart Capstick (Research Fellow, Cardiff University)
Professor Andy Challinor (Professor of Climate Impacts, University of Leeds)
Dr. Steven Chan (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)
Professor Peter Clarke FRAS FHEA (Professor of Geophysical Geodesy, Newcastle University)
Professor Mat Collins FRMetS (Exeter Climate Systems, University of Exeter)
Professor Peter Convey (British Antarctic Survey)
Dr. Kevin Cowtan FHEA (Research Fellow, University of York)
Professor Peter Cox (Professor of Climate System Dynamics, University of Exeter)
Dr. Christina Demski (Lecturer, School of Psychology, Cardiff University)
Professor Simon Dietz (Co-Director, ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Dr. Alix Dietzel (Lecturer in Global Ethics, School of Sociology, Politics and International Relations, University of Bristol)
Dr. Paul Dodds (Senior Lecturer in Energy Systems, University College London)
Professor Andy Dougill (Executive Dean of Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds)
Dr. Gareth Edwards FRGS (School of International Development, University of East Anglia)
Professor Paul Ekins FEI OBE (Professor of Resources and Environmental Policy and Director of the Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)
Dr. Marie Ekström (Research Fellow in Climate Change Impacts, Cardiff University)
Professor Nick Eyre (Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, University of Oxford)
Dr. Robert Falkner (Research Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Professor Sam Fankhauser (Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Professor Paul Fennell FIChemE (Professor of Clean Energy, Imperial College London)
Professor Piers Forster FRMetS (Director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate, University of Leeds)
Dr. Nathan Forsythe (Newcastle University Research Fellow, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)
Professor Gavin Foster (Professor of Isotope Geochemistry, University of Southampton.
Professor Hayley Fowler (Professor of Climate Change Impacts and Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellow, Newcastle University)
Professor Pierre Friedlingstein (Professor of Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems, University of Exeter)
Professor Alberto Naveira Garabato (Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)
Dr. Antonio Gasparrini (Associate Professor of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)
Alyssa Gilbert (Director of Policy and Translation of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)
Dr. Philip Goodwin (Lecturer in Oceanography and Climate, University of Southampton)
Professor Andrew Gouldson (Professor of Environmental Policy and Deputy Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)
Professor Ben Groom (Department of Geography and Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Dr. Robert Gross (Director, Centre for Energy Policy and Technology, Imperial College London)
Professor Michael Grubb (Professor of Energy and Climate Change, Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)
Professor Dabo Guan (Director of the Water Security Research Centre, University of East Anglia)
Dr. Selma Guerreiro (Researcher in Hydrology and Climate Change, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)
Prof. G. Hilmar Gudmundsson (Professor of Glaciology and Extreme Environments, Northumbria University)
Professor Joanna Haigh CBE FRS (Co-Director of the Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)
Professor Sir Andy Haines FMedSci (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)
Dr. Thomas Hale (Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford)
Professor Ian Hall FLSW (Head of School and Research Professor, School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)
Professor Jim Hall FREng (Director of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)
Dr. Catherine Happer (Lecturer, Media and Communications, University of Glasgow)
Professor Barbara Harriss-White FAcSS (Emeritus Professor of Development Studies, Oxford University of Oxford)
Professor Ed Hawkins FRMetS (Professor of Climate Science, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, University of Reading)
Professor Gabriele Hegerl FRS FRSE (Professor of Climate System Science, University of Edinburgh)
Dr. William Homoky FCMS (Independent Research Fellow of the Natural Environment Research Council and Junior Research Fellow, St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford)
Dr. Scott Hosking (Climate Scientist, British Antarctic Survey)
Professor Sir Brian Hoskins CBE FRS (Chair, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)
Professor John Huthnance FRMetS MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)
Dr. Keith Hyams (Associate Professor, University of Warwick)
Dr. Ruza Ivanovic (Lecturer in Climate Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)
Professor Tahseen Jafry (Director of The Centre for Climate Justice, Glasgow Caledonian University)
Dr. Helen Johnson (Associate Professor in Climate and Ocean Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford)
Dr. Dan Jones (Physical Oceanographer, British Antarctic Survey)
Professor Philip Jones HonFRMetS (University of East Anglia)
Dr. Sam Krevor (Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth Science & Engineering, Imperial College London)
Professor Christine Lane (University of Cambridge)
Professor Caroline Lear (Head of The Centre for Resilience and Environmental Change, Cardiff University)
Dr. Alicia Ledo (Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Aberdeen)
Dr. Elizabeth Lewis (Research Associate, School of Engineering, Newcastle University)
Professor Simon Lewis (Professor of Global Change Science, University College London and University of Leeds)
Dr. Xiaofeng Li (Research Scientist, School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Newcastle University)
Dr. Lorenzo Lotti (Energy Institute and Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London)
Dr. Niall Mac Dowell FIChemE (Imperial College London)
Professor Georgina Mace DBE FRS (Professor of Biodiversity & Ecosystems, University College London)
Professor Anson Mackay (Professor of Environmental Change, University College London)
Professor Geoffrey Maitland FREng FIChemE FRSC FEI (Professor of Energy Engineering, Imperial College London)
Professor Yadvinder Malhi FRS (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)
Professor David Marshall FRMetS FInstP (Head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, University of Oxford)
Dr. John Marsham (Associate Professor, University of Leeds)
Professor Mark Maslin FRGS FRSA (Department of Geography, University College London)
Dr. Juerg Matter (Associate Professor in Geoengineering, Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)
Dr. Amanda Maycock (Associate Professor, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)
Professor Catriona McKinnon (Director of the Centre for Climate and Justice, University of Reading)
Dr. Jim McQuaid FRMetS CChem (School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds)
Dr. Dann Mitchell (Lecturer in Climate Physics, University of Bristol)
Professor Hugh Montgomery FRCP MD FRSB FRI FFICM (Professor of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London and Co-Chair of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change)
Professor Stephen de Mora FRSA FRSB FRSC CChem (Chief Executive, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)
Professor Richard Morris (Professor in Medical Statistics, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol)
Professor Benito Müller (Convener of International Climate Policy Research, Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford)
Professor David Newbery FBA CBE (Director, Cambridge Energy Policy Research Group)
Professor Dan Osborn (Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)
Professor Tim Osborn FRMetS (Director of Research, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia)
Professor Jouni Paavola (Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds)
Dr. James Painter (Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford)
Professor Richard Pancost (Director of the Cabot Institute, University of Bristol)
Professor Douglas Parker FRMetS (Met Office Professor of Meteorology, University of Leeds)
Professor Martin Parry OBE ( Imperial College London)
Professor Paul Pearson FGS (School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University)
Dr. Wouter Peeters (Lecturer in Global Ethics, Centre for the Study of Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)
Professor Arthur Petersen FIET FRSA (Professor of Science, Technology and Public Policy, University College London)
Professor Nick Pidgeon MBE (School of Psychology, Cardiff University)
Dr. Jeff Price (Senior Researcher, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)
Prof Chris Rapley CBE (Professor of Climate Science, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London)
Dr. Tim Rayner (Research Fellow, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia)
Professor Dave Reay (Assistant Principal, University of Edinburgh)
Dr. Merten Reglitz (Lecturer in Global Ethics, University of Birmingham)
Professor Judith Rees DBE (Vice-Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Professor Andrea Sella (Department of Chemistry, University College London)
Prof Daniela Schmidt FRSB FYAE (Professor in Palaeobiology, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)
Dr. Tim Schwanen (Director of the Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford)
Professor Nilay Shah (Director of the Centre for Process Systems Engineering, Imperial College London)
Professor John Shepherd CBE FRS (Emeritus Professor of Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Science, University of Southampton)
Dr. Emily Shuckburgh FRMetS OBE (Darwin College, University of Cambridge)
Professor Henry Shue (Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford)
Professor Martin Siegert FRSE (Co-Director, Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London)
Professor Pete Smith FRS FRSE (University of Aberdeen)
Dr. Thomas Smith FRGS (Assistant Professor in Environmental Geography, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Dr. Julia Steinberger (Associate Professor in Ecological Economics, University of Leeds)
Professor Philip Stier (Academic Convener of the Oxford Climate Research Network and Professor of Atmospheric Physics, University of Oxford)
Professor Lindsay Stringer (ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, University of Leeds
Dr. Carol Turley OBE (Senior Scientist, Plymouth Marine Laboratory)
Professor Paul Valdes (Director, NERC Great Western Four+ Doctoral Training Partnership, University of Bristol)
Professor Tina van de Flierdt (Professor of Past Climate and Oceans, Grantham Institute - Climate Change and the Environment and Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London)
Bob Ward FGS FRGS (Policy and Communications Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science)
Professor Rachel Warren (Professor of Global Change and Environmental Biology, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia)
Professor Jim Watson (Professor of Energy Policy, Institute of Sustainable Resources, University College London and Director of the UK Energy Research Centre)
Dr. Matthew Watson (Reader in Natural Hazards, School of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol)
Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh (School of Psychology and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Cardiff University)
Professor Ric Williams (Chair in Ocean Sciences and Associate Pro-Vice Chancellor for Research & Impact, University of Liverpool)
Dr. Judith Wolf (National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, School of Engineering, Liverpool University)
Professor Philip Woodworth MBE (Emeritus Fellow, National Oceanography Centre and Visiting Professor, University of Liverpool)
Professor Tim Woollings (Department of Physics, University of Oxford)
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are a contentious subject in the debate on climate change. Whenever calculations or models are created regarding the atmosphere and effects due to pollutants, different results appear depending on the parameters taken into account in the model itself. Recently, a report discussed in an article from the journal 'Nature' titled "Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates" states the issue as follows:
Methane leaks from the US oil and gas industry are 60% greater than official estimates, according to an analysis of previously reported data and new airborne measurements.
Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, scientists say that the unaccounted-for emissions could have significant impacts on the climate and the country’s economy. The lost gas alone is worth an estimated US$2 billion a year, scientists say.
The analysis1, published on 21 June in Science, is one of the most comprehensive looks yet at methane output from US oil and gas production, and reinforces previous studies that suggested emissions outpaced government estimates. That research prompted the US government to develop regulations that would restrict methane emissions from oil and gas production — rules that US President Donald Trump is now attempting to roll back.
The latest study shows that the US oil and gas supply chain emits about 13 million metric tons of methane, the main component of natural gas, every year. That's much higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) estimate of about 8 million metric tons.
This discrepancy probably stems from the fact that the EPA’s emissions surveys miss potential sources of methane leaks, such as faulty equipment at oil and gas facilities, says study leader Ramón Alvarez, an atmospheric chemist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group in Austin, Texas.
The author of the article goes onto state the obvious dangers of methane as a greenhouse gas compared to other offenders such as CO2 - carbon dioxide. Methane has roughly 80 times more warming power on the planet compared to carbon dioxide. How did two different studies conclude such a large difference in methane emissions? According to the article above, the scientist took into account information from oil and gas industry (local municipal data) which was absent in the EPA report. This naturally leads a person to wonder why the information was left out. The answer is uncovered below.
How was 60% of a methane estimate left out of a report?
The news journal 'Politico' sent out the following e-mail with news of the report's major difference as shown below:
DEMOCRATS: BRING BACK THE ICR: Democrats are rallying around a return of an EPA information collection request in the aftermath of reports last week that oil and gas methane emissions are much greater than previously thought. A group of Democrats sent a letter to Pruitt on Wednesday calling on him to reinstate a formal ICR — which would require companies to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations — after he withdrew the Final Methane ICR in March 2017. "With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters," the Democrats wrote.
On March 2, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA announced that it was withdrawing Information Collection Request (ICR) 2548.01, which would have required oil and gas companies to provide information on methane emissions from their operations. On March 8, 2017, two of us sent a letter asking that you reinstate the ICR given the urgent need to collect accurate data on methane emissions in order to set and enforce appropriate and cost-effective standards to reduce such emissions. In the extremely short response we received from the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation on May 23, 2017, we were informed that the rationale for withdrawing the ICR was to, "allow the Administrator time to assess the need for the requested information."
Since the date of our original letter, a number of events have occurred that highlight the urgent need to reissue the ICR and collect accurate methane emission data. First, the U.S. Senate rejected the Congressional Review Act effort to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) methane waste rule, the only such effort to fail in a vote, which demonstrated strong bipartisan support for reducing methane emissions. Second, both BLM and the EPA have moved to undo, weaken, or avoid promulgating methane regulations, policies that should be informed with the best available science, not vague notions of industry "burdens" and incomplete knowledge of the public benefit of cutting emissions. Third, the most recent release of EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks showed that methane emissions from oil and gas production operations increased 34% from 1990 to 2016, and the growth of methane emissions from natural gas production operations outpaced the growth of natural gas productions, 58% to 52%.
Even more concerning, a new report in the journal Science from 24 authors representing 12 universities, two government labs, and more, reported that methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain were roughly 60 percent higher than EPA inventory estimates, and that emissions from production operations were more than double the EPA estimates. According to a story in The New York Times about the study, the 13 million metric tons of methane lost by the oil and gas industry each year is worth approximately $2 billion and would be enough to fuel roughly 10 million homes.
Methane emissions exacerbate the worst impacts of climate change, result in significant air pollution through the concurrent release of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds, waste a valuable resource, and, when occurring on public lands, deprive American taxpayers and states of a valuable source of royalty payments. With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters. We believe that EPA needs to reissue the ICR as soon as possible, or provide a comprehensive explanation why it will not. Therefore, we ask that by July 31, 2018, you provide us with the results of your assessment of the need to require methane emission data, as mentioned in the May 23, 2017, response, including a full explanation of how those results were arrived at. If that assessment is not done, please confirm when you expect to complete it.//Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter.
Had EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requested the information on potential leaks and measurements around the facilities of the oil and gas industry, there would be no issue at hand -- presumably. Now, in the 'reactive state' or 'reactive mindset' Americans find themselves in, again, scientific data shows large differences in greenhouse gases which negatively impact our environment. The news regarding the large difference is extremely disappointing to say the least.
Furthermore, instead of 'draining the swamp,' President Trump has appeared to over fill the swamp further with even more corrupt minded politicians and administrators. See recent post with video here. The time has come to admit that the current administration does not have our best interest (the public's best interest) or safety in mind when making policy. Sadly enough, suppressing science (which I will touch on in an upcoming post) along with leaving science out of policy making seems to be high on the priority list of policy making. Which runs counter intuitive to consumer/public safety.
The EPA is a watchdog, not a barrier to protect corrupt business practices to fill the pockets of wealthy business stakeholders. We deserve to have en EPA which looks out for public safety by regulating the oil and gas industry to limit the pollutants which arrive in our neighborhoods and in the skies above us.
The news has been occupied by many stories regarding the changes that are being carried out by the current Trump Administration under Executive Order by the President himself. In the beginning, clearly the executive orders have been aimed at reversing any environmental regulation that his predecessor put into motion. One might think that these actions are fueled by partisan momentum with a Republican congress in place. If this were true, then our status in the Paris Climate Agreement would have already been reversed. Recently, large corporations have signed onto the idea of staying committed to that agreement.
Below is a letter written to President Trump which represents more than just sticking with an agreement. The letter also represents a shift to investments in a renewable energy based future -- a sustainable future. Additionally, international corporations and private entities also encourage the United States to stay in the Paris Climate Agreement for obvious reasons which will be briefly discussed below. Furthermore, in the paragraphs below, the argument will be introduced that staying in the Paris Climate Agreement is in line with future investments into a renewable (sustainable) energy future -- not just as a nation -- but as a world.
Big Oil Says "Stay In Paris?"
With congress passing the legislature for coal companies to resume blowing up (with explosives) the tops off mountains for search of coal without the fear of contamination of the water ways (rivers, streams, lakes, etc.), we find ourselves under an environmental assault from congress. You might be wondering the following right about now:
How do normal citizens let these decisions occur?
On a national level, an election just occurred in which a significant amount of Americans decided at the ballot box that Mr. Donald Trump (a candidate then) would be a good President. As a President, he has tried to undo any progress forward that his predecessor (President Obama) had made over the earlier 8 years. This is truly disappointing, but not expected given the rhetoric that he displayed during his campaign.
Congress has followed his lead by passing a couple of important pieces of legislation early on to undue environmental progress accomplished under the Obama administration. The first was to repeal the Clean Power Plan while the second was to reverse the Clean Water Act. Both of these pieces of legislation will have real world consequences (unfortunate consequences).
Additionally, I have written recently about a new piece of legislation that Congress has passed called the "HONEST ACT". At first sight, this appears to provide more transparency. But if you read my blog post on the subject, you will quickly realize that the opposite is true of the act. In fact, the HONEST Act will limit the amount of information (evidence) which is under consideration for future policy decisions.
After each passage of legislation, scientists started to worry about the reverse of climate change policy under this administration. I shared in a recent post a letter from a couple of hundred scientists which was sent to the president to persuade him to think critically about climate change decisions. Additionally, in a follow up post, the scientists share there thoughts about the importance of climate change policy at the university level in the form of quotes.
Based on the news coverage of the developments in the Trump Administration over the last couple of months, the validity of science (especially climate science) is not held high. In fact, after receiving these letters along with others, threats of removing our status (as a nation) from the Paris Climate Agreement is still being entertained. Even if President Trump wants to ignore the voices of science (e.g., letters, science march, etc.), it is surprising to see him disregard letters from other sectors with opposing interests. What letters do I speak of? For one, I was surprised that 'big oil' companies still want the United States to stick to the Paris Climate Accord. On April 26th (of 2017), a few HUGE companies sent President Trump a letter regarding the Paris Climate Change Agreement. Below is the letter:
Dear Mr. President,
We write to express our support for continued participation by the United States in the Paris climate change agreement.
Climate change presents U.S. companies with both business risks and business opportunities. U.S. business interests are best served by a stable and practical framework facilitating an effective and balanced global response. We believe the Paris Agreement provides such a framework.
Companies based or operating in the United States benefit from U.S. participation in the agreement in many ways:
• Strengthening competitiveness – By requiring action by all parties, developed and developing countries alike, the agreement ensures a more balanced global effort, reducing the risk of competitive imbalances for U.S. companies.
• Supporting sound investment – By setting clearer long-term objectives, and by improving transparency, the agreement provides greater clarity on policy direction, enabling better long-term planning and investment.
• Creating jobs, markets and growth – By committing all countries to action, the agreement expands markets for innovative clean technologies, generating jobs and economic growth. U.S. companies are well positioned to lead, and lack of U.S. participation could put their access to these growing markets at risk.
• Minimizing costs – By encouraging market-based implementation, the agreement helps companies innovate to achieve environmental objectives at the lowest possible cost.
• Reducing business risks – By strengthening global action over time, the agreement will reduce future climate damages, including physical harm to business facilities and operations, declining agricultural productivity and water supplies, and disruption of global supply chains.
As businesses concerned with the well-being of our customers, our investors, our communities, and our suppliers, we are strengthening our climate resilience, and we are investing in renewables, efficiency, nuclear, biofuels, carbon capture, sequestration, and other innovative technologies that can help achieve a clean energy transition. For this transition to succeed, however, governments must lead as well. We urge that the United States remain a party to the Paris Agreement, work constructively with other nations to implement the agreement, and work to strengthen international support for a broad range of innovative technologies.
We believe that as other countries invest in advanced technologies and move forward with the Paris Agreement, the United States can best exercise global leadership and advance U.S. interests by remaining a full partner in this vital global effort.
We appreciate the opportunity to share our views and would welcome the opportunity to provide further input as the Administration continues to shape its climate policies.
The companies listed above are big time players in the United States economy. Their monetary investment/profits in the United States annually combined alone is staggering. Not to mention the combined amount of employees that are employed throughout the world. This indicates a shift in the type of employee that is going to be hired in the future and present through a clean energy transition. No where in the letter above does there indicate that support exists to leave the Paris Climate Agreement to invest in coal. Wonder why?
Upon inspecting a few of the names, you should notice that a few of them are big oil corporations who are heavily invested into fossil fuels. You should ask yourself the following question:
What motivation do these oil corporations have in signing an agreement which would eventually put greater restrictions on their fossil fuel business interests?
The question is valid considering the letter above. To help explain (in an easy manner) the Paris Climate Agreement, I inserted a short (less than 2 minutes) video by the Council of the European Government shown below:
As you can see after viewing the explanation surrounding the agreement, the terms are quite broad. Furthermore, the terms are dependent (subjective) to each government. The ability to gather 195 nations into one building and agree on making changes (sustainable decisions) toward a more healthier environment is of paramount importance. The summary of the Paris Climate Agreement is as follows:
1) Each nation defines own objectives to work towards. 2) Every 5 years, a review of the goals and actions to meet goals will occur. 3) Global investment will help even (level) out the playing field for developing nations in need of support. 4) The agreement is a massive move toward a broad economic movement toward a more sustainable environment.
For a more in depth explanation of the emergence and importance of the Paris Climate Agreement, see the video below. The video is a 15 minute presentation of a TED talk by Christiana Figueres -- whose introduction from her "Wikipedia" page is shown below:
Karen Christiana Figueres Olsen (born 7 August 1956) is a Costa Rican diplomat with 35 years of experience in high level national and international policy and multilateral negotiations. She was appointed Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in July 2010,[1] six months after the failed COP15 in Copenhagen.[2] During the next six years she dedicated herself[3] to rebuilding the global climate change negotiating process based on fairness, transparency and collaboration, leading to the 2015 Paris Agreement, widely recognized as a historical achievement.[4] Over the years she has worked in the fields of climate change, sustainable development, energy, land use, technical and financial cooperation.
Without further ado, here is her TED talk below:
One cannot help wonder why any nation would not want to be part of such a global and exciting agreement. Getting 195 nations in one room is a task that is difficult in of itself. Now, getting each of them to work toward change by implementing sustainable measures is huge (unheard of).
In her talk shown above, she mentions that other nations are willing to invest in each others development or transition toward renewable energy sources. Meaning that measures which promote more sustainable measures will be received well and invested in. Further, economic opportunity exists from big players. The players I mention are not just those who sent the president a letter above, but global players -- from other nations. Below is a letter from those investors - 409 of them with $20 trillion dollars in assets. WOW!
Global Investor Statement On Climate Change
As if the businesses (in the U.S.) above do not carry enough weight to encourage President Trump to stay in the Paris Climate Change Agreement, investment companies from around the world released a statement on climate change. The statement is titled: Global Investor Statement on Climate Change is shown below:
GLOBAL INVESTOR STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Developed by the following groups Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change
This statement is signed by 409 investors representing more than US $24 trillion in assets.
We, the institutional investors that are signatories to this Statement, are acutely aware of the risks climate change presents to our investments. In addition, we recognize that significant capital will be needed to finance the transition to a low carbon economy and to enable society to adapt to the physical impacts of climate change.
We are particularly concerned that gaps, weaknesses and delays in climate change and clean energy policies will increase the risks to our investments as a result of the physical impacts of climate change, and will increase the likelihood that more radical policy measures will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In turn, this could jeopardize the investments and retirement savings of millions of citizens.
There is a significant gap between the amount of capital that will be required to finance the transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy and the amount currently being invested. For example, while current investments in clean energy alone are approximately $250 billion per year, the International Energy Agency has estimated that limiting the increase in global temperature to two degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels requires average additional investments in clean energy of at least $1 trillion per year between now and 2050.
This Statement sets out the contribution that we as investors can make to increasing low carbon and climate resilient investments. It offers practical proposals on how our contribution may be accelerated and increased through appropriate government action.
Stronger political leadership and more ambitious policies are needed in order for us to scale up our investments. We believe that well designed and implemented policies would encourage us to invest significantly more in areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable land use and climate resilient development, thereby benefitting our clients and beneficiaries, and society as a whole.
HOW WE CAN CONTRIBUTE
As institutional investors and consistent with our fiduciary duty to our beneficiaries, we will:
■ Work with policy makers to support and inform their efforts to develop and implement policy measures that encourage capital deployment at scale to finance the transition to a low carbon economy and encourage investment in climate change adaptation.
■ Identify and evaluate low carbon investment opportunities that meet our investment criteria and consider investment vehicles that invest in low carbon assets subject to our risk and return objectives.
■ Develop our capacity to assess the risks and opportunities presented by climate change and climate policy to our investment portfolios, and integrate, where appropriate, this information into our investment decisions.
■ Work with the companies in which we invest to ensure that they are minimizing and disclosing the risks and maximizing the opportunities presented by climate change and climate policy.
■ Continue to report on the actions we have taken and the progress we have made in addressing climate risk and investing in areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and climate change adaptation.
SCALING UP INVESTMENT: THE NEED FOR POLICY ACTION
We call on governments to develop an ambitious global agreement on climate change by the end of 2015. This would give investors the confidence to support and accelerate the investments in low carbon technologies, in energy efficiency and in climate change adaptation.
Ultimately, in order to deliver real changes in investment flows, international policy commitments need to be implemented into national laws and regulations. These policies must provide appropriate incentives to invest, be of adequate duration to improve certainty to investors in long-term infrastructure investments and avoid retroactive impact on existing investments. We, therefore, call on governments to:
■ Provide stable, reliable and economically meaningful carbon pricing that helps redirect investment commensurate with the scale of the climate change challenge.
■ Strengthen regulatory support for energy efficiency and renewable energy, where this is needed to facilitate deployment.
■ Support innovation in and deployment of low carbon technologies, including financing clean energy research and development.
■ Develop plans to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels.
■ Ensure that national adaptation strategies are structured to deliver investment.
■ Consider the effect of unintended constraints from financial regulations on investments in low carbon technologies and in climate resilience.
The signatories of the letter above can be found at the end of the attachment hyperlinked - here. The investor statement on global climate change came out of an organization -- investors on climate change. The names mentioned on the letter above represent a wide range of government agencies to private sector agencies spanning the globe (the world). Switching to a clean energy based future is occurring now, not in 50 years. Therefore, the investment and policy making decisions need to reflect this change in the present workings of various governments. Change will take a long time -- seeing the size of the problem. Therefore, jumping on the wagon sooner rather than later will ensure that the transition runs smoothly.
Otherwise, the adverse environmental effects of not recognizing that climate change is real and there is a need to transition toward clean energy -- renewable energy, sustainable energy -- will drive up the cost dramatically in the future. Possibly to the point where the cost to change will exceed the money available and the time allotted. The mindset of relying on 'coal' is going out the door.
As an example, a recent document titled "CAN COAL MAKE A COMEBACK?" illustrates with statistics the current state of 'coal' in the current energy climate. Furthermore, there are explanations (reasonable ones) which highlight the decline of coal in the future decades to come. Here is an executive summary on the current state of coal in the energy consideration in the future:
Six years ago, the US coal industry was thriving, with demand recovering from the Great Recession, and global coal prices at record highs along with the stock prices of US coal companies. By the end of 2015, however, the industry had collapsed, with three of the four largest US miners filing for bankruptcy along with many other smaller companies. While coal mining employment has been on the decline for decades – from a peak of more than 800,000 in the 1920s to 130,000 in 2011 – the pace of job loss over the past six years has been particularly dramatic. After campaigning on a promise to end what he called his predecessor’s “War on Coal,” President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order in March 2017 ordering agencies to review or rescind a raft of Obama-era environmental regulations, telling coal miners they would be “going back to work.”
This paper offers an empirical diagnosis of what caused the coal collapse, and then examines the prospects for a recovery of US coal production and employment by modeling the impact of President Trump’s executive order and assessing the global coal market outlook. In short, the paper finds:
• US electricity demand contracted in the wake of the Great Recession, and has yet to recover due to energy efficiency improvements in buildings, lighting and appliances. A surge in US natural gas production due to the shale revolution has driven down prices and made coal increasingly uncompetitive in US electricity markets. Coal has also faced growing competition from renewable energy, with solar costs falling 85 percent between 2008 and 2016 and wind costs falling 36 percent.
• Increased competition from cheap natural gas is responsible for 49 percent of the decline in domestic US coal consumption. Lower-than-expected demand is responsible for 26 percent, and the growth in renewable energy is responsible for 18 percent. Environmental regulations have played a role in the switch from coal to natural gas and renewables in US electricity supply by accelerating coal plant retirements, but were a significantly smaller factor than recent natural gas and renewable energy cost reductions.
• Changes in the global coal market have played a far greater role in the collapse of the US coal industry than is generally understood. A slow-down in Chinese coal demand, especially for metallurgical coal, depressed coal prices around the world and reduced the market for US exports. More than half of the decline in US coal company revenue between 2011 and 2015 was due to international factors.
• Implementing all the actions in President Trump’s executive order to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations could stem the recent decline in US coal consumption, but only if natural gas prices increase going forward. If natural gas prices remain at or near current levels or renewable costs fall more quickly than expected, US coal consumption will continue its decline despite Trump’s aggressive rollback of Obama-era regulations.
•While global coal markets have recovered slightly over the past few months due to supply restrictions in China and flooding in Australia, we expect this rally to be short-lived. Slower economic growth and structural adjustment in China will continue to put downward pressure on global coal prices and limit the market opportunities for US exports. Indian coal demand will likely grow in the years ahead, but not enough to make up for the slow-down in China. The same is true for other emerging economies, many of whom are negatively impacted by decelerating Chinese commodities demand themselves.
• Under the best case scenario for US coal producers, our modeling projects a modest recovery to 2013 levels of just under 1 billion tons a year. Under the worst case scenario, output falls to 600 million tons a year. A plausible range of US coal mining employment in these scenarios ranges from 70,000 to 90,000 in 2020, and 64,000 to 94,000 in 2025 and 2030 -- lower than anything the US experienced before 2015.
These findings indicate that President Trump’s efforts to roll back environmental regulations will not materially improve economic conditions in America’s coal communities. As such, the paper concludes with recommendations for steps that the federal government can take to safeguard the pension and health security of current and retired miners and dependents and support economic diversification. Attracting new sources of economic activity and job creation will not be easy, and even at its most successful will not return coal country to peak levels of past prosperity. But responsible policymakers should be honest about what’s going on in the US coal sector—including the causes of coal’s decline and unlikeliness of its resurgence—rather than offer false hope that the glory days can be revived. And then support those in America’s coal communities working hard to build a new economic future.
The executive summary above highlights the reality that as more companies transition toward using renewable energy, the coal industry will see a reduced increase. Furthermore, the two letters drive home the point that investments are not being directed toward the fossil fuel industry. Natural gas is taking over the coal industry. Renewable energy is being developed in tandem which will off-set the use of natural gas as the percentages start to shift in the decades to come. President Trump should welcome the Paris Climate Agreement and send the coal miners to work in other sectors of the gas and oil industry.
Conclusion...
Over the last year, two large pipelines have been in production and vision in the United States. One which is running through North Dakota and has been the subject of controversy by the Trump Administration. I wrote an article about the absurdity about the project from the potential for accident (i.e. oil spill potential). Further, the project needs to use the most current technology to ensure that spills do not occur. This is of course taking into account the assumption that our demand for fossil fuels requires us to keep pumping them from the ground. That was the subject of another blog post.
Instead of having to write a blog post asking why there is another oil spill in our beautiful nation, we should be investing in renewable energy and profiting (building our economy) -- an idea promoted and implemented during the administration of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's time in office. Transitioning toward natural gas as a major source of energy is better than relying on fossil fuels. The second major pipeline being built involves the movement of large amounts of natural gas across the Eastern part of the United States and could provide a wealth of jobs for American fossil fuel workers. In a previous post, I suggested that part of the process of encouraging job growth could be accomplished by putting to work existing gas and oil workers to inspect/repair the millions of miles of pipeline which exist in the United States.
Our reliance on oil (94 million barrels a day) globally is astounding to say the least. Moving toward renewable energy sources will take a massive shift in mindset. Just read the dimensional analysis of 94 million barrels -- which will blow your mind. The investments mentioned above by the international community indicate a shift away from regions built on top of oil (like Los Angeles = 5,000 wells in region) to regions built around sustainability and promote renewable energy are presently being entertained. The beautiful shores of California have seen a dramatic (adverse - ill affects) shift in health as a result of the 'off-shore' drilling by big oil companies. Last year, I visited a beach and found a 'tar ball' which I was unaware of to be quite common to the residents of Santa Monica and Venice beach. This blew my mind. Furthermore, the realization drove home the point of needed action by the community and region through politics. The process is slow. Although, when the populations speak, policy decisions follow.
The time to change is now. The call to action is forming. Ask yourself, what are you doing to help the environment? If the answer is 'nothing', then read some of the links to my previous blog posts and revisit the question above. Additionally, read Republican Senator Susan Collins decision to vote "no" on President Trump's nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency sent a few months ago. The more education which is disseminated on the reasons why the Paris Climate Agreement is important, the more likely our government is to hear from the majority of the people their decision to stay in the important international agreement. More is at stake than just the United States. The world is shared by everyone on the planet. Until next time, have a great weekend.
