Whenever the transition toward renewable energy is brought up in discussions, people typically tighten up showing a large amount of uncertainty about the topic. Regardless of their knowledge of the process or the timeline, one certainty exists in today's world: A large number of countries, local governments, states along with industries are starting to make the transition toward a renewable energy-based system in the future. Each might possess an individual pace. But ultimately, each are headed in the correct direction: away from a fossil fuel dependent economy (and world).
Renewable Energy Not Fossil Fuels
The transition toward renewable energy has been under fire to different degrees in different nations. In the European countries, renewable energy is becoming more favorable with the political will emerging. Just recently, an article in 'The Ecologist' stated that Lithuania received the European Commission's support to transition toward renewable energy:
International renewable energy industry experts predict that within the next two decades, traditional energy sources such as gas, coal, and oil due will be replaced 100 percent by renewables as a result of their current slow-to-non existent growth rates.
In light of these findings, Lithuanian energy experts believe that by continually meeting EU energy directives, incentivising electricity production, and pursuing corporate responsibility targets where companies aim to be powered 100 percent by renewables, then Lithuania can set an example to policy makers and solar energy suppliers in neighbouring Latvia and Estonia on how to reduce the entire Baltic region’s need for Russian energy and pursue its own energy autonomy.
European investors have been increasingly committing more over time as banks are reassured by technologists and policy makers along with industry analysts that the transition is not only going to happen -- but that the transition will have ample funding with more on the way. Not to mention that political will is increasing slowly but surely.
Now, Germany recently announced a major change (Big News!!!) to take place by 2038. The organization 'Climate Action' presented the news as follows:
The Federal Government in Germany has announced plans to phase out coal by 2038.
The Commission on Growth, Employment and Structural Change released a 20-year report which has agreed to cancel out coal by 2038.
With only one vote against, the commission agreed on a total of 40 billion euros in aid for the states affected by the coalition exit. The federal Government will now turn the commission report into a reliable energy concept.
Olaf ScholzIf, Federal Finance Minister, said: “If we do not lose sight of the common goal, we can develop Germany into an exemplary state of energy policy."
In the years 2023, 2026 and 2029, the Commission will undertake a review by an independent panel of experts.
In response to this review, the power plant capacity will be reduced to 17 gigawatts of brown coal and hard coal in 2030, more than halving it. Depending on the report, the withdrawal of coal could take place, according to the recommendation of the commission, by 2035.
Greenpeace have called for this target to be brought forward to 2030 to ensure that carbon emissions are reduced sooner.
It was reported that, in 2018, the production of coal accounted for 38 per cent of Germany’s energy generation. This move away from fossil fuel generation will put Germany back on track to meet the targets set at the Paris Agreement.
This news follows a report that found that the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels is crucial to meet important climate targets.
The report found that if carbon intensive technologies were replaced by carbon-free alternatives, carbon emissions would steadily decline, dropping to near zero in 40 years. This would result in a 64 per cent chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Great. Everything stated above is encouraging. Germany is taking the lead in changing the entire system of nations. The rest of Europe are on board too as reported in the article before the above statement. The European Commission must continue to offer assurance (i.e. support). From the news reports over the last couple of years, the support not only seems to be building, but nations are actually taking action in the European Union.
Although, the size of Germany has always been brought up in discussions here in the United States. The argument is that a smaller nation is able to make sweeping changes more easily than larger ones can. Alright. I can see that. But that is no excuse for not making changes here -- especially on a state by state basis -- which is comparable to the size of Germany.
Size -- California vs. Germany??
Right after the article above was published (and I read the article), I was talking with my colleague who holds German citizenship. She was born in Germany. In a prior discussion about Germany moving toward the use of natural gas, she warned that the move could be potentially dangerous considering the main source of gas presently -- Gazprom -- from Russia. This would put Germany at the hands of Russian gas giants (effectively Russia) for a stable and steady gas supply.
Although, since that discussion, the natural gas industry has started to boom (in the sense of shipping). Technology has improved the ability to ship liquified natural gas all around the world. Now, back to the discussion at hand. This massive shift in dependence on fossil fuels in a reasonable amount of time makes other countries uneasy. Some here in the United States view this transition as 'short sighted' since the infrastructure and change is occuring on such a short time scale.
But is the timescale that short? What kind of transition plan is reasonable? How long should the U.S. or Germany rely on coal/fossil fuels?
Remember that California's economy is the fifth largest in the world. Which may cause someone to immediately draw parallels between Germany's transition and California's transition. Let's look at the size (landmass) difference between the two for a closer comparison. First, Germany's landmass is shown below:
Next, California's landmass is shown below:
As you can see, California has a larger landmass than Germany. With Governor Jerry Brown signing into law the transition to a carbon neutral economy by 2045, the current announcement above for Germany by 2038 is not too far fetched. Especially given the size of the two landmasses. Additionally, Germany is probably better suited to the transition toward renewable energy -- which is why the date is set for a complete transition earlier.
Regardless, the news above is exciting to those who are big fans for the transition toward a greater dependence on renewable energy. As this post is published (Wednesday morning), a subcommittee is gathering in the U.S. Congress --House Committee on Energy & Commerce -- is meeting to discuss action for the United States of America. I will write a follow up post on the hearing in the near future. We should watch and note these commitments of transitioning toward renewable energy. Further, these commitments should serve as a motivation to build momentum toward change. The future of transitioning toward renewable energy is turning into a reality and is really exciting.
President Trump vowed to pull the United States out the the Paris Climate Agreement as then 'candidate Trump' - then followed his with the words 6 months into his presidency. The only problem as I have noted in a previous blog is that there is no way (technically) to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. As the Paris Climate Agreement stands of right now, every few years, each country (nation) will evaluate the goals which are self imposed and self-regulated to serve as a check point to see where their respective nation is headed into the next few years.
With the shocking news of President Trump's attempt to convince the United States of his intention to withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, came news (in the form of tweets and press releases - written about here) from various states that they would remain committed to sticking with the Paris Climate Agreement. Specifically, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a 'Memorandum of Understanding' with China stating that California would remain committed to the Paris Climate Agreement. Furthermore, Governor Brown committed to hosting a 'Climate Convention' in California less than two years later. That date has arrived and the convention is convening in San Francisco (California, United States of America).
Great News From California Early!
Right before -- as of Monday -- the conference (summit) was to begin, Governor Brown announced and signed into law SB100 -- to transition California to 100% renewable energy by 2045 as shown below:
With the following excerpts regarding SB100 and Governor Brown's intentions for sustainable energy and California provided by authors of 'Politico California Playbook' via e-mail as shown below:
Via POLITICO'S Jeremy B. White in Sacramento: "California's Brown signs renewable energy bill in another rebuke to Trump" -- "California will aim to derive all its retail electricity from renewable sources by 2045 under a bill Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law on Monday, with backers framing the measure as the state’s latest rebuke to environmental backsliding by the Trump administration.
-- "The bill 'is sending a message to California and the world that we are going to meet the Paris agreement and we are going to continue down that path to transition our economy,' Brown said, referencing the climate accord from which President Donald Trump withdrew the United States last year."
-- "Trump has made himself an outlaw on the matter of climate change," Brown said in a follow-up interview with POLITICO’s David Siders on Monday. "And since climate change is [an] existential threat, I would say that doing what he’s doing to undermine efforts that will save lives and prevent catastrophe for California, for America and the world, is about as reprehensible as any act that any American president has ever been guilty of.”
MORE BROWN: “The clash has intensified because Trump, more than anybody else in the whole world in terms of national leaders, is going in the opposite direction. He’s trying to subsidize coal, undermine vehicle emission standards, sabotage clean electricity, make it harder to buy electric vehicles and on and on. So, yes, we’re going on a certain course.”
More celebratory tweets such as those shown below are contagious with wonderful news from Governor Brown on the eve of the Climate Summit in San Francisco. And as one observer notes in a tweet video that every place around the world should have California politicians who are super ambitious for a change toward renewable energy to better the environment:
For the energy transition to happen, the challenge is much more psychological than technological. The goal is to get rid of old beliefs that keep us prisoners of the past and prevents us from seeing better solutions. #1000solutions#GCAS2018pic.twitter.com/ubb1NoZH4q
The news on Monday was a good start to the beginning of the Climate Summit in San Francisco with a warm welcome to Mayors by Mayor London Breed of San Francisco as shown below:
In her tweet, a thread is shown with a few exciting statistics which display the reality that a city (or region) can invest in renewable energy (i.e. implement environmental policy) and have a thriving economy:
Which Mayor London Breed closed the thread with the following message on behalf of all Mayors present in San Francisco for the Climate Summit shown below:
Signaling that there is a large amount of support for the Climate Summit. Further, that there is a large support for the United States to stay with the Paris Climate Agreement. This should be no surprise to those who follow this blog and read newspapers regularly. The world is shifting continuously and dynamically (reshaping the investment landscape) to move away from fossil fuels and invest in renewable (sustainable) energy. Remember the list of corporations along with the tremendous amount of capital (money) available for renewable energy last year? Read here.
For those readers interested in the full press release, I have provided the release below from Governor Brown's web site:
Governor Brown Signs 100 Percent Clean Electricity Bill, Issues Order Setting New Carbon Neutrality Goal
Published: Sep 10, 2018
SACRAMENTO – Reaffirming California’s global climate leadership, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed Senate Bill 100, authored by Senate President pro Tempore Emeritus Kevin de León, setting a 100 percent clean electricity goal for the state, and issued an executive order establishing a new target to achieve carbon neutrality – both by 2045.
“This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond. It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done,” said Governor Brown.
“In California, Democrats and Republicans know climate change is real, it’s affecting our lives right now, and unless we take action immediately – it may become irreversible,” said Senator de León. “Today, with Governor Brown’s support, California sent a message to the rest of the world that we are taking the future into our own hands; refusing to be the victims of its uncertainty. Transitioning to an entirely carbon-free energy grid will create good-paying jobs, ensure our children breathe cleaner air and mitigate the devastating impacts of climate change on our communities and economy.”
SB 100 advances the state’s existing Renewables Portfolio Standard, which establishes how much of the electricity system should be powered from renewable energy resources, to 50 percent by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030. It also puts California on the bold path to implement a zero-carbon electricity grid by 2045.
“California is committed to doing whatever is necessary to meet the existential threat of climate change,” said Governor Brown in his SB 100 signing message. “This bill, and others I will sign this week, help us go in that direction. But have no illusions, California and the rest of the world have miles to go before we achieve zero-carbon emissions.”
To further ensure California is combatting global warming beyond the electric sector, which represents 16 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Governor issued an executive order directing the state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and net negative greenhouse gas emissions after that. This will ensure California removes as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits – the first step to reversing the potentially disastrous impacts of climate change.
The state will reach its goals with continued significant reductions of carbon pollution and increased carbon sequestration in forests, soils and other natural landscapes and programs focused on improving air quality and public health, especially in California’s most impacted communities.
With Governor Brown’s order, California establishes the most ambitious carbon neutrality commitment of any major economic jurisdiction in the world – of more than 20 countries and at least 40 cities, states and provinces planning to go carbon neutral by mid-century or sooner.
This action comes days before grassroots activists, mayors, governors, heads of industry and international leaders convene in San Francisco for the express purpose of mobilizing climate action at the Global Climate Action Summit. Late last week, Governor Brown also signed legislation to block new federal offshore oil drilling along California’s coast and announced the state’s opposition to the federal government’s plan to expand oil drilling on public lands in California. The entirety of the state’s coast has been off-limits to new oil and gas leases for more than 30 years, and the state has not issued a lease for offshore oil or gas production since 1968.
The Governor’s signing message for SB 100 can be found here.
The text of the executive order can be found here.
California’s Leadership on Climate Change
California continues to lead the world in adopting innovative policies to fight climate change. Last week, the Governor issued an executive order to safeguard California’s unique plants, animals and ecosystems that are threatened by climate change. Last month, the state also issued its Fourth Climate Change Assessment, which details new science on the devastating impacts of irreversible climate change in California and provides planning tools to support the state’s response.
Earlier this year Governor Brown issued executive orders to improve the health of the state’s forests and help mitigate the threat and impacts of deadly and destructive wildfires, and get 5 million zero-emission vehicles onto California’s roads by 2030. Last year, the Governor signed landmark legislation to extend and strengthen the state’s cap-and-trade program and create a groundbreaking program to measure and combat air pollution at the neighborhood level.
Under Governor Brown, California has established the most ambitious greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in North America; set the nation’s toughest restrictions on destructive super pollutants; and will reduce fossil fuel consumption up to 50 percent and double the rate of energy efficiency savings in buildings by 2030.
The state has met its 2020 target four years early, reducing emissions 13 percent while growing the economy 26 percent. From 2015 to 2016 alone, emissions reductions were roughly equal to taking 2.4 million cars off the road, saving 1.5 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel.
In addition, Governor Brown has helped establish and expand coalitions of partners across the nation and globe committed to curbing carbon pollution. The Under2 Coalition, which originated from a partnership between California and the German state of Baden-Württemberg, now includes 206 jurisdictions on 6 continents that collectively represent 1.3 billion people and $30 trillion in GDP – equivalent to 17 percent of the global population and 40 percent of the global economy. Members of the coalition make a number of key commitments, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels or to less than 2 annual metric tons per capita by 2050.
Last year, California joined Washington and New York to form the U.S. Climate Alliance, which now includes 17 U.S. states – led by both Democrats and Republicans representing 40 percent of the U.S. population – committed to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement and meeting or exceeding the targets of the federal Clean Power Plan. Governor Brown also partnered with Michael Bloomberg to launch America’s Pledge on climate change, an initiative to compile and quantify the actions of U.S. states, cities and businesses to drive down their greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Earlier this year, California and 17 other states collectively representing more than 40 percent of the U.S. car market sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to preserve the nation’s uniform vehicle emission standards that save drivers money at the pump, cut oil consumption, reduce air pollution and curb greenhouse gases.
Who can argue with the need for cleaner air (i.e. less air pollution)? How about environmental justice? How about jobs? Who does not want to create more jobs? The renewable energy sector has been growing tremendously over the last two years. Just ask Google about the growth of renewable energy jobs and see if I am wrong. The investment into a sustainable future makes sense on multiple fronts. As a nation, we will not be traveling back in time. Governor Brown correctly points out that President Trump is an isolationist and stands alone in regards to bringing back the coal industry to power the nation. Whether we (as a nation) like the change or not, the transition is becoming a reality to keep in line with other developing nations towards a cleaner future. A more prosperous future.
Skeptics Weigh In...
All is not sunny with the emerging news of ambitious targets set for California. One major reason is that skeptics are concerned that California will not be able to meet the targets even with all other sources reduced dramatically. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times titled "Until California curbs its oil refineries, it won't meet its climate goals" - the state has obstacles (refineries) which are paramount:
Concentrated in Los Angeles’ South Bay and the San Francisco Bay Area, the state’s 17 refineries comprise the largest oil processing center in western North America. Unless emissions from those refineries are curbed, the state has no chance of meeting its long-range climate change goals.
The cumulative greenhouse gas output from these 17 refineries will overshadow the tremendous progress made over the next 27 years. I will disagree with this notion. Tell anyone that refineries will be going out of business in the new few years and undoubtedly, the response will involve the word "cars" and "California" and "dependent" and "Oil and Gas". Although, to mitigate the continuous use of oil and gas, the transition toward cleaner energy will lead naturally to less demand for oil.
Conclusion...
Therefore, skeptics may weigh in and laugh at the thought of refineries shutting down over the next few decades. But the reality is that as demand for oil and gas continues to decline over the next few decades with a corresponding rise in use of renewable energy, the refineries will be looking to close their doors. Of course, large refineries are owned by gigantic corporations such as Shell Oil Company. Which has already started transitioning (and investing) in renewable energy. That path puts them at an advantage rather than an expected disadvantage. I expect others will follow -- that is, if their respective corporations have not already entertained the transition (in discussion) already.
Regardless, the news that has been breaking regarding emission reduction along with increase investments in renewable energy is very exciting. I am excited to hear about more exciting news coming out of the Climate Summit this week in San Francisco. I will write more as more develops.
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.
In contrast, President Trump has made clear that he does not intend to tackle climate change. He left the G7 summit before the discussion about climate change, and indicated that he would not sign that part of the communiqué. This was the latest signal by President Trump that the United States Government will not contribute to international efforts to manage the substantial risks caused by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
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.
I woke up yesterday morning and checked my e-mail to find the following summary regarding a conference which spanned the last couple of days hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron called 'One Planet' -- by Politico Energy:
MAKE OUR PLANET GREAT AGAIN? Leaders, moguls, celebrities, activists and more descend on the French capital today to mark the second anniversary of the Paris climate agreement. There will be plenty of photo ops and inspirational rhetoric, but French President Emmanuel Macron hopes the One Planet Summit will add financial meat to the bones of the landmark accord. Expect new and expanding coalitions and initiatives, particularly aimed at shoring up financial aid, peaking emissions, ditching coal and helping countries already coping with the effects of climate change.
In a Monday interview with CBS News, Macron said Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris accord actually boosted momentum for climate action and slammed the U.S. withdrawal. "It's extremely aggressive to decide on its own just to leave, and no way to push the others to renegotiate because one decided to leave the floor," the French president said. "I'm sorry to say that. It doesn't fly."
Opening the funding spigots: Nearly 1,200 companies aim to align their emissions reduction plans with the Paris agreement by 2019, and 118 have committed to get all of their electricity from renewables (enough demand to power Ukraine), the We Mean Business Coalition announced today. In addition, 54 global companies from different industries put out a joint call on Monday for framework conditions that lay the foundation for a pathway toward limiting the temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Domestically, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation said Monday that it will donate $600 million over a five-year period from 2018 to 2023 to nonprofits working on climate change solutions. And former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg will announce that 237 companies, with a combined market capitalization of over $6.3 trillion, have committed to voluntary recommendations on climate disclosures.
Naturally, this warmed my heart to hear the beautiful words of 'green investment' -- which entails incorporating 'climate risk' into their investment portfolios. Renewable energy is the best alternative to mitigate the risk of climate change. I clicked on the links provided in the e-mail and found former New York Billionaire Mayer Michael Bloomberg speaking on stage about the state of the world. One quote that stood out from Michael Bloomberg regarding climate change is as follows:
If we cannot measure it, then we cannot manage it...
Awesome. President Macron of France called on nations to ensure that large players (corporations and governments) call out entities who are not engaged in divestment toward 'green energy'. Over the last couple of days, the participants of the summit have come up with '12 commitments' -- which were unveiled on Dec. 12, 2017 -- representing the needed steps forward toward a renewable future.
Here is the video of the 4 hour Plenary Session filled with great commitments and needed actions on various parts of the world:
In attendance from the United States along with former Mayor Michael Bloomberg were innovators in philanthropy -- Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who are driving investment into the future of the renewable energy world. Major philanthropists such as Bill Gates and Arnold Schwarzenegger have the power and influence to get further momentum from large investors like Sir Richard Branson -- who already has an initiative aimed at reducing our carbon footprint called "Carbon War Room". The Carbon War Room is a nonprofit organization aimed at shifting future investments toward renewable energy or cleaner energy away from fossil fuels in hopes of reducing the worlds overall 'carbon footprint'. Here is an excerpt from the website 'Virgin Unite':
Carbon War Room was co-founded in 2009 by Richard Branson and a team of like-minded entrepreneurs wanting to speed up the adoption of market-based solutions to climate change.
In December 2014, Carbon War Room (CWR) merged with the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) – a US-based NGO, dedicated to transforming global energy use to create a clean, prosperous, and secure low-carbon future –and together, they work across all energy sectors to accelerate the energy transition and reduce carbon emissions.
RMI brought more than 30 years of thinking, analytical rigor and breakthrough insight, while CWR brought over five years of entrepreneurial action. Together RMI-CWR engages businesses, communities, institutions, and entrepreneurs to make a cost-effective shift from fossil fuels to renewables.
The initiatives and environmental areas spanned by the Carbon War Room are wide as stated on the 'Wikipedia' page:
CWR has various initiatives in operation including Shipping Efficiency, Green Capital, Renewable Jet Fuels and Smart Island Economies.[4]
The focus of CWR includes these major environmental areas: Agriculture, Energy Supply, Forestry, Industry, Buildings, Transport and Waste Management.
Success with all of these initiatives is already on the horizon.
The take home message from the conference in Paris was that money is being gathered in the form of momentum to fund a transition from fossil fuels to a green energy future in the years to come. The transition is already taking place by market forces as highlighted in a video from a recent article in 'CNN' titled "France's Macron announces first 'Make our Planet Great Again' winners" shown below (which is less than 2 minutes in length):
As stated in the video, the United States will have the opportunity to re-engage with the Paris Agreement at any time. Especially, since the levels of greenhouse gas emission reductions are completely arbitrary and chosen by the respective nation at any given time. What is important for the world given that the United States President has announced the U.S. withdrawal is to have these various conferences convene and hear commitments being voiced to reinforce the marketplace - i.e. investors both on Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
Earlier posts which can be found below highlight the reality that there exists real dollar investments for sustainable energy (green energy, clean energy, etc.). The reality just needs to percolate to the entire world over time. Given the resistance is diminishing over time, the market forces will undoubtedly continue (slowly) to drive our investments toward a cleaner energy future. Education is a key factor in spreading the word among the citizens of the world of this reality. Over time, each person will come to realize the transition toward cleaner energy as a friend rather than a threat. Change takes time.
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.
