Climate disruption: the 10 percent doctrine?

Laurie Johnson, Chief Economist, Climate Center, Washington, DC

What do the odds of a catastrophe have to be for insurance to be a wise investment? Apparently extremely low for a father or mother buying life insurance. For example, the probability of dying at age 35 is 0.1 percent. The odds of both parents dying are exponentially smaller. Yet, against these probabilities, parents routinely spend thousands of dollars on this insurance.

Why, then, haven't we made aggressive investments in climate protection, when the odds of a catastrophe and the number of lives at stake appear to be far larger? One prominent climate economics model (more below) estimates a 10 percent chance of catastrophe if global temperatures increase more than 2°C above preindustrial levels, yet the world's lack of serious mitigation efforts is putting the world on track for 3.6°C to 5.3°C (p. 9).

In a recent PBS column, reporter Paul Solman asked one very prominent economist to speculate on this dilemma. Martin Weitzman, economics professor at Harvard (and formerly Yale and MIT), presented the economics of uncertainty in no uncertain terms:

• [W]e are undertaking a colossal planet-wide experiment of injecting CO2 into the atmosphere that goes extraordinarily further and faster than anything within the range of natural CO2 fluctuations for tens of millions of years...[I]n this kind of situation, for an economist, abating CO2 emissions is like buying insurance against a catastrophe...The bottom line is that if we continue on a business-as-usual trajectory, then there is some non-trivial probability of a catastrophic climate outcome materializing at some future time.... If we don't start buying into this insurance policy soon, the human race could end up being very sorry should a future climate catastrophe rear its ugly head.

These are strong words for an economist: the famous joke about economists is that you will never find a one-handed one (on the one hand...).

The model I referred to above is one of the most popular ones used in the economics literature and by policy makers: PAGE (Policy Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect, developed by Chris Hope at the University of Cambridge and used by, among others, the UK and the US to estimate the benefits of emissions reduction policies).

PAGE's assumptions are based upon the overwhelming scientific consensus that an increase above 2°C puts the climate at risk of reaching a "tipping point," where irreversible catastrophic damages could unfold. Corresponding to the 2°C mark is an atmospheric CO2 concentration level of 450 ppm. PAGE assumes an increasingly higher chance of a catastrophic event the larger the temperature increase and, associated with these rises, increasingly higher economic damages.

Of course, passing 450 ppm doesn't mean there will be a catastrophe. We can only know that the risk increases the more CO2 exceeds that level. But the business-as-usual scenario is of no comfort. In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change presented a range of approximately 550 to 1000 ppm by 2100; by 2010, CO2 emissions reached levels consistent with the higher end projections. To put this in context, consider the projections relative to historical fluctuations:

FIGURE DESCRIPTION: The horizontal axis goes back in time starting at 0 at the right end, which is the present, going back 600,000 years, from two different ice core records (EPICA and Vostok). The small red bar at the side on the right vertical axis indicates the increase in CO2 concentrations between 1958 and 2007. On this time scale, the 50 years of measurements span less than the thickness of the line, so it appears vertical, as do projections to 2100 (the six arrows above the 2007 mark).

Any rational person should find this graph alarming: pre-industrial levels were around 300 ppm or less, and the natural range between ice ages and warm periods like ours is about 100 ppm. This year, we blew past a milestone of 400 ppm and, if we do nothing, risk reaching 1,000 ppm. For Weitzman, the huge uncertainties associated with this experiment don't preclude a certain policy choice:

• Admittedly, almost all of the relevant probabilities in this kind of rough analysis are uncomfortably indeterminate. But that is the nature of the beast here and shouldn't be an excuse for inaction...Prudence would seem to dictate taking action to cut back greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

Weitzman's reasoning is not unlike the famous wager proposed by the 16th century Catholic French philosopher Blaise Pascal, which goes something like this: "Given the possibility that God actually does exist, and the infinite loss associated with non-belief (eternal damnation), a rational person should live as though God exists. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.). An infinite cost times even a tiny probability is still ... an infinite cost."[1]

Replace "God" with "catastrophic climate risk" in the previous paragraph.

Another analogy is the famous "One Percent Doctrine," coined from Dick Cheney's assessment of the risks of terrorism:

"If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response."

One might dismiss Cheney's assessment on grounds that they disagree with his anti-terrorism policies, but his statement reflects the nation's longstanding approach to national security-we spend a huge amount of resources against unknown risks. Every year, the US military budget is well over $600 billion dollars.

One percent is a small number, but if that is the risk of a catastrophe it makes sense to invest a great deal to prevent it. A ten percent risk of catastrophe is unacceptable. Yet, by one estimate, the Federal government spent only $25 billion on low-emission technologies in 2010 (excluding short-term stimulus).

Instead, we should be taking aggressive actions, like those outlined by the International Energy Agency, to prevent CO2 from exceeding 450 ppm. Time is running out fast: anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, producing a "lock-in" effect that will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change. If we don't stop locking in high carbon emissions within the next five years the results are likely to be disastrous.

---

[1] This paraphrase is adapted from Solman's piece and Wikipedia's description.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ljohnson/climate_disruption_the_10_p

Experts Affirm the Benefits and Importance of California's Clean Energy and Climate Leadership

Stefanie Tanenhaus, MAP Energy Fellow, San Francisco

In the face of daunting challenges, California stands strong as a national leader on climate action, according to experts who testified today at a state Senate committee hearing on climate change and implementation of the state's clean energy law, AB 32.

Also known as the Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32 is California's groundbreaking effort to mitigate climate risks and lower statewide greenhouse gas emissions. Since its passage in 2006, AB 32 has kept California on course to build a robust, clean energy economy with the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

Source: Air Resources Board Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Forecast

Protecting Californians from Climate Risks

The Select Committee on Climate Change and AB 32 Implementation hearing today covered both the mounting risks of climate change in California and our progress toward mitigating them. Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird explained that while the impacts of global warming are already being felt in California -- with droughts, loss of snowpack and an extended wildfire season-- if we don't prepare and adapt, climate-related costs will continue to mount. Fortunately, California has the policy measures in place to curb emissions and help lower the costs associated with extreme weather and climate change.

Experts also testified on the link between greenhouse gas emissions and negative health impacts. Although carbon dioxide is the largest contributor to climate change, other greenhouse gases like black carbon and methane threaten both the climate as well as the quality of the air we breathe. Poor air quality puts communities at risk for asthma and other respiratory problems, low birth weights, heart attacks, and lung cancer. Many of the greenhouse gas reduction measures in AB 32 that target vehicle, power plant, and other industrial emissions sources simultaneously address both climate and health impacts for the state.

A National Perspective

To put California's progress in context, the hearing highlighted action beyond our borders. While California has led the charge on climate policies, other states have been moving forward as well.

For example:

• Half of the nation's states now require utilities to invest in energy efficiency programs that help customers use less energy and lower their utility bills. California has been a leader on energy efficiency for decades.
• Twenty-nine states have adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards requiring a minimum percentage of power from clean energy like wind and solar. California has the most aggressive standard in the nation, but other states are quickly catching up. In the Midwest, Iowa's largest energy company, MidAmerican Energy, just announced plans to invest $1.9 billion to build an additional 1 gigawatt of wind power by 2015, which will produce electricity to power roughly 250,000 homes.

In the Northwest, Washington recently ratcheted down its Emissions Performance Standard (EPS), which limits the amount of pollution from power plants. Washington's EPS is now 12 percent tighter than the current California standard, making it the most ambitious in the nation.

Carbon Trading Beyond California

Cap-and-trade, a policy tool that gradually decreases the number of carbon pollution permits that are available to large emitters, is an important element of achieving AB 32's goals. California's program launched in January and continues to gain momentum, holding its third auction earlier today. Today's Senate committee looked at developments in carbon markets beyond California's borders. The nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states within the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) recently affirmed their commitment to cleaner power by voting to reduce their carbon emissions cap on the power sector by 45%. Across the globe, China is poised to launch seven regional pilot emissions trading programs it plans to link together in 2020 In total, China's programs will surpass California's as the world's second-largest carbon market, after the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme.

Progress on Reducing Emissions

Mary Nichols, chairman of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) that oversees implementation of AB 32, closed the hearing by providing a summary of California's progress toward reaching its 2020 emissions reduction goals. As the chart below shows, there has already been a steady decline in emissions between 2008 and 2011 from the facilities that release the highest levels of pollution in the state, with the added benefit of improving air quality and public health.

Source: ARB Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting (MRR) Data for In-State Facilities

As we move closer to meeting AB 32's emissions targets, California is upholding its position as a national leader in climate policies. In fact, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) - the federal government's energy statistics agency - just this week ranked California in the Top 5 both for lowest emissions per capita and carbon intensity.

To stay ahead of the curve, California must continue to move forward and build on its strong foundation of clean energy and climate leadership.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/stanenhaus/international_experts_aff

You Don't Have to Take Our Word For it: Americans Want Action on Climate Change

Pete Altman, Climate and Clean Air Campaign Director, Washington, D.C.

For years now, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental/health groups have known that Americans want tough action to curb carbon pollution, based on a long record of polls. Just last week, we released another poll showing just that, measuring reaction to President Obama's State of the Union speech.

Among other things, our latest survey found: "Sixty-five percent of Americans think that climate change is a serious problem and a substantial majority support Presidents Obama using his authority to reduce its main cause, dangerous carbon pollution."

Of course, it's easy to dismiss any poll as being "self-serving" in some way. And some people are very quick to make that kind of objection - since it's much easier than explaining away the actual findings.

That's why we were so interested to see the results out today from the Pew Center for the People and the Press. There's a big write-up on the survey in USA Today that explains the Pew poll's findings on what Americans think about key issues such as the budget deficit, gun policies, immigration ... and climate change.

Americans Support Action this Year

Here are the key Pew poll findings on climate:

• Fully 62% favor setting stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change while 28% oppose this, and nearly half (46%) of those who support emissions limits say that new climate policies are essential this year.

• 73% say action on climate is essential this year or in the next few years; 34% say essential this year.

Young Adults and Independents Care About Climate

The Pew poll examined support for climate action by age group, and found something that should make our nation's political parties perk up and pay attention:

Young Americans between 18 and 29 are the most supportive of climate action: fully 70% of them support cleaning up power plants.

Nearly as many independents - 64% - favor stricter emission limits on power plants in order to address climate change, while only 26% oppose such limits - a margin of more than two-to-one in support of carbon limits on power plants. Consistent with what we've seen before, republicans are divided, with 42% favoring stricter emission standards while 48% are opposed.

On Climate, Advantage Obama

The Pew survey is also notable because it thoroughly debunks the notion that climate is a "loser" issue in terms of politics.

In fact, President Obama's strongest political advantage over republicans is on climate change. Asked whether Obama or Congressional Republicans have the best approach on climate, nearly half of Americans said Obama while just over a quarter said republicans. The gap - 21 points in Obama's favor - is the largest margin out of the issues examined.

So, there you have it. The highly respected independent research team at Pew is finding what NRDC has been finding: Americans want action on climate change and they want to tackle the nation's biggest source of carbon pollution, our nation's power plants.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/paltman/you_dont_have_to_take_our_wo

More than 35,000 Rally to Protect Our Climate

Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director International Program, Washington, D.C.

On February 17, more than 35,000 braved the icy temperatures to take a message of hope for our climate to the President's doorstep. Marching in a human pipeline around the White House, people from across America and Canada also showed what real solidarity and neighborliness looks like.

Good neighbors don't push dirty energy projects such as the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that hurt communities, water and climate. Good neighbors and allies work together to bring leadership to tackle climate change and build a clean energy future. Good neighbors build solidarity around a common vision of the world we want for ourselves and our children: one without the threats of ever worsening climate change causing droughts, wildfires, floods and violent storms. That solidarity exists with the people of Canada and yet is overshadowed in the press by the latest attempt to push the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is not in our national interest for many reasons and should not be built. This is something that both Canadians and Americans are saying. At the rally today, Crystal Lameman from the Beaver Lake Cree Nation in Alberta put it very well: "We can't eat money and we can't drink oil." And Chief Jacqueline Thomas of the Yinka Dene Alliance in British Columbia said, "We have faith that people will do the right thing to protect Mother Earth."

Over time, the oil industry has found many ways to push the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. We have seen wildly exaggerated jobs numbers that falsely raised hope in areas that need work. We have seen arguments about energy security which were unbelievable considering this is a pipeline meant mostly for export. We have seen claims that if the US didn't take the tar sands it would go to Asia even though Canadians were saying "no" to pipelines to their west coast. And the latest? Today, a New York Times article focused on the foreign relations dynamic of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline decision. Posing the decision on this dirty energy project as something that is a choice between the environmental community and Canada is a false way of looking at it. Several points are worth considering:

• Canada and the United States have been friends and allies for a long time and will continue to be friends and allies long into the future. A single project that is in the interest of the oil industry, but not of Americans or Canadians, will not damage that relationship.
• Canada is already our largest supplier of oil. And Canada is our number one trade partner. A rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will not erase the massive trade connections that we already enjoy.
• The current Canadian federal government unapologetically speaks for the tar sands oil industry. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is from Alberta and has moved Canada and the province of Alberta away from earlier Canadian goals of fighting climate change to developing the economy based on oil.
• Many provinces in Canada are concerned about expansion of tar sands and are working hard to diversify their energy sources with clean energy, as well as with energy efficiency and conservation.
• The general public in Canada is very concerned about climate change and many people and First Nations in British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec who have experienced tar sands extraction, refining and the threat of tar sands pipelines are raising concerns in the same way that we in the United States are.

A rejection of the tar sands pipelines and of tar sands expansion is in the best interest of both Americans and Canadians. It will show tremendous leadership on the part of both of our countries to move together to tackle the climate change challenge by rejecting dirty fuels and moving forward with clean energy.

So let me come back to the wise words of Chief Jacqueline Thomas, immediate past Chief of the Saik'uz First Nation in British Columbia and co-founder Yinka Dene Alliance ("People of the Earth"): The Yinka Dene Alliance of British Columbia is seeing the harm from climate change to our peoples and our waters. We see the threat of taking tar sands out of the Earth and bringing it through our territories and over our rivers. The harm being done to people in the tar sands region can no longer be Canada's dirty secret. We don't have the billions of dollars that industry has. But we do have our faith that people will do the right thing to protect Mother Earth. The Forward on Climate Rally shows that we are not alone in the fight to stop tar sands expansion and tackle climate change.

Chief Jacqueline Thomas, Saik'uz First Nation, British Columbia

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/more_than_35000_canadian

President Obama, Did You Hear Us?: Let's Move #ForwardOnClimate!

Elizabeth Shope, Advocate, Washington, D.C.

Today, I joined a crowd of more than 35,000 people including thousands of NRDC members and activists at the #ForwardOnClimate rally calling on President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, set carbon standards for dirty power plants, and move forward with clean energy solutions.

Photo credit: Sung Hwang, NRDC.

Hip Hop Caucus President & CEO Reverend Lennox Yearwood MCed the speaker program, and kept the crowd pumped up despite the frigid temperatures and strong, icy winds. Before setting out on our march around the White House, we heard from inspiring speakers including NRDC Trustee and Green for All Founder Van Jones; Chief Jacqueline Thomas, Immediate past Chief of the Saik'uz First Nation in British Columbia and co-founder of the Yinka Dene Alliance; Crystal Lameman of the Beaver Lake Cree First Nation; Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse; Latinovations Founder and Dewey Squre Group Principal Maria Cardona; Tom Steyer, Investor and founder of the Center for the Next Generation; Mike Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director; and 350.org President Bill McKibben.

Van Jones reminded us why all 35,000 of us were here at this rally: "You elected this President," he told us. "You made history... he needs to give you a chance to have a future. Stop being chumps." In addition to calling on us to continue fighting for our future, he called on President Obama to make the right decision, saying "all the good work you've done will be wiped away if you approve Keystone XL," and that approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would be like jabbing a dirty needle into the U.S.

Crystal Lameman shared with us how tar sands development is affecting her community, and how industry is attempting to greenwash their dirty business. "Don't be fooled by their idea of what reclamation is," she said. "We can't eat money and we can't drink oil."

Keystone XL isn't the only tar sands pipeline currently under consideration that would facilitate an expansion of the tar sands - it is one of several. Chief Jacqueline Thomas spoke to us about Enbridge's Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline to British Columbia and the associated tanker traffic that would put the lands and waters of many First Nations at risk. More than 100 First Nations along the pipeline and tanker route have said their lands and waters are not for sale-that they will not allow the Enbridge Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline or similar tar sands projects to cross their lands, territories and watersheds, or the ocean migration routes of Fraser River salmon. Chief Jacqueline Thomas's speech highlighted the importance of protecting our lands and waters: "If we destroy the Earth, we destroy ourselves."

Maria Cardona's speech brought home the urgency of not just rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and curbing tar sands extraction, but of regulating our dirty power plants: "For millions of Americans, particularly minorities, clean air regulations are life-saving regulations."

We're going to have to keep fighting, though, and keep urging Congress and President Obama to stand up to polluters. As Senator Whitehouse told us, "Congress is sleepwalking through this crisis, and it's time to wake up... We're going to have the president's back and he's going to have our back... Let us be unshakeable."

Today, we were not just unshakeable but unified - young people and old people, Nebraska ranchers, members of First Nations and Native American tribes, environmental groups, labor activists, doctors and nurses, entrepreneurs, investors, and many more.

We marched. We danced to the marching bands that mixed themselves in with the crowds. We chanted. (And I have a favorite new chant from today: "Hey Obama don't be silly, we don't want no oil spilly.") And we have hope.

The way Tom Steyer put it in his remarks at the rally, it may not be easy, but there really is no choice: "The Keystone [XL] pipeline is not a good investment. We can't afford 40 more years of dirty energy. Today we have to dare to say no to the Keystone [XL] pipeline and create a clean energy future."

So President Obama, I hope you're listening- because it's time to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, set carbon standards for dirty power plants, and move #ForwardOnClimate.

Photo credit: Josh Mogerman, NRDC.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/president_obama_did_you_hear_

Watch out for the Watch Dog: Climate Threat to the Federal Government.

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

Earlier this week the Government Accountability Office (GAO) added Climate Change to its "High Risk" list. The agency biennially updates its list of programs and operations at "high" risk for waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement or needing broad-based transformations.

The agency noted:

Climate change poses significant financial risks to the federal government, which owns extensive infrastructure, such as defense installations; insures property through the National Flood Insurance Program; and provides emergency aid in response to natural disasters. GAO added this area because the federal government is not well positioned to address the fiscal exposure presented by climate change and needs a government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership to manage related risks.

The GAO acknowledged that policymakers see climate adaptations measures as a risk management strategy to protect people and businesses, "but, as we reported in 2009, the federal government's emerging adaptation activities were carried out in an ad hoc manner and were not well coordinated across federal agencies, let alone with state and local governments."

The GAO is the federal government's non-partisan watchdog agency, and its investigations are taken very seriously. Thus it was sobering to read in the GAO release this week that:

In May 2011, we found no coherent strategic government-wide approach to climate change funding and that federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic government-wide priorities At that time, we recommended that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of the President clearly establish federal strategic climate change priorities, including the roles and responsibilities of the key federal entities, taking into consideration the full range of climate-related activities within the federal government. The relevant federal entities have not directly addressed this recommendation.

So what does the GAO say is at stake here?

The federal government as property owner/manager-- The federal government manages about 650 million acres-29 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of U.S. land- for a wide variety of purposes, such as recreation, grazing, timber, and fish and wildlife.

Agriculture and housing-- The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation don't factor climate change into their planning and decision making. GAO in its release this week noted that they had warned as far back as 2007 these two massive insurance programs were at much greater financial risk due to climate impacts like increased extreme weather events, and that the agencies responsible for them had done next to nothing to better understand these risks. Those agencies have said little about their increased financial exposure since then.

Increased risk to states and localities-They don't have enough local data on things like temperature and precipitation projections to justify spending money to prepare for a changed future, the GAO reported in 2009. The GAO called on the White House to develop plans to help states and towns get this much needed data. Very little of that data is currently available.

Appropriate Disaster Response-Disaster relief money comes from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but Congress woefully underfunds the agency's relief budget, leaving the government with vast financial exposure. To wit, the GAO reported in September of 2012 that disaster declarations have increased to a record of 98 in fiscal year 2011 compared with 65 in 2004. Over that period, FEMA obligated more than $80 billion in federal assistance for disasters. FEMA currently does not require states to consider climate change in the emergency management plans they must file to be eligible for federal funding. NRDC has petitioned FEMA to change that, and we are still waiting for a response.

Dangerous Disorganization-In 2009 GAO recommended the White House produce a over-arching climate adaptation plan, "including the establishment of clear roles, responsibilities, and working relationships among federal, state, and local governments." Yet in 2011 the watchdog agency found "no coherent strategic government-wide approach to climate change funding and that federal officials do not have a shared understanding of strategic government-wide priorities." Not much has changed since then.

So what does GAO recommend the feds do to limit the financial exposure of the government to climate impacts? More of the same, but some items are worth repeating:

• A government-wide strategic approach with strong leadership and the authority to manage climate change risks that encompasses the entire range of related federal activities and addresses all key elements of strategic planning.
• More information to understand and manage federal insurance programs' long-term exposure to climate change and analyze the potential impacts of an increase in the frequency or severity of weather-related events on their operations.
• A government-wide approach for providing (1) the best available climate-related data for making decisions at the state and local level and (2) assistance for translating available climate-related data into information that officials need to make decisions.
• Improved criteria for assessing a jurisdiction's capability to respond and recover from a disaster without federal assistance and to better apply lessons from past experience when developing disaster cost estimates.

We'll see what happens.

There is some good news coming from some parts of the government, though. On Tuesday President Obama in his State of the Union speech said:

I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago

But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct -- (applause) -- I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take now and in the future to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

That means the Environmental Protection Agency continuing to protect the air we breathe and the environment we live in by limiting climate pollution from the number one single source: power plants.

As my colleague Dan Lashof recently wrote:

There are many, many actions the executive branch can take in the near term to help fight global warming. The most important of them is limiting pollution from the nation's existing fossil-fuel power plants. They're responsible for almost 40 percent of our country's carbon pollution. And an NRDC proposal released in December shows how, using its existing authority under the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency can cut power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 26 percent by 2020 and 34 percent by 2025 compared to 2005 levels.

Let's hope we see some action soon. The risks are very clear.

Thanks to Kelly Henderson for her assistance in preparing this blog entry.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/tspencer/watch_out_for_the_watch_dog

Groundswell of Support Continues for Cleaning Up Gasoline and Car-caused Smog

Luke Tonachel, Vehicles Analyst, New York City

New polling demonstrates strong public support for tighter standards on gasoline and car tailpipes to reduce smog and other pollutants. The poll results bolster the calls from a diverse set of interests in business, health and environmental communities for the federal government to move forward with Tier 3 sulfur and pollution standards.

According to a poll released today by the American Lung Association, Americans want more protection for air quality. Of the 800 surveyed voters (across parties), "[a] 2-to-1 majority (62 to 32 percent) support EPA setting stricter standards on gasoline and tightening limits on tailpipe emissions from new vehicles."

Some federal leaders have already heard the call from their constituents. As I described in an earlier post, a group of thirteen Senators urged that new standards be set. Echoing the call for action on Tier 3 was a recent joint letter from businesses, labor leaders and environmental groups.

State governors and public health advocates have also weighed in with letters, available here and here.

The automakers support Tier 3 standards too.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration is taking notice. Yesterday, the long overdue Tier 3 proposal from U.S. EPA to cut gasoline sulfur levels and strengthen new vehicle tailpipe standards for smog-forming pollutants like nitrogen oxides was sent for review at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Once the rule clears OMB-which has been targeted for March-it will be made available for public comment. This will be another important opportunity to lend your voice in support-and I'll keep you posted on how to do it.

I won't be surprised to see the oil industry ramp-up its efforts to kill these important standards that will clean our air. They will claim that the standards will cause a large jump in gasoline prices but analysis Navigant Economics has shown that the impact is likely less than a penny a gallon, if perceptible at all at the pump.

On the other hand, the pollution reductions achieved by the standard result in huge health benefits, estimated at over $5 billion per year by 2020 and over $10 billion per year by 2030. Note, also, that as soon as the gasoline sulfur is lowered, existing vehicles on the road will run cleaner. The instant pollution reduction will be equivalent to taking 33 million of today's automobiles off the road.

As the polling released today shows, we value our health and know that it depends on clean air. It's time to move quickly to adopt common-sense Tier 3 standards and make breathing easier for us and for future generations.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ltonachel/groundswell_of_support_con

Fight Keystone XL Tar Sands Pollution and Protect the Climate

Rocky Kistner, Communications Associate, Washington, DC

Up in the pristine Canadian boreal forests and freshwater deltas of Alberta, home to caribou, whooping crane and native communities settled long before Europeans arrived, a poisonous sore is being gouged out of the carbon-rich soil, a massive tar sands oil mining operation that could have huge climate impacts for people across the globe.

New information shows that oil industry plans to more than triple production of tar sands oil in the coming decades will include additional dirty petroleum byproducts, making it even harder for Canada to meet its planned greenhouse gas emission targets. Right now there is one major project standing in the way of tar sands expansion-a roadblock that Canadian oil interests are desperate to crash through.

That roadblock is the Obama Administration's decision whether to grant a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion project that would pump more than 800,000 barrels of toxic tar sands crude each day from Alberta's forests through America's agricultural heartland to refineries in the Gulf, where much of the oil would be processed and exported. The administration is expected to release a supplemental Environmental impact Statement soon, with the final Keystone decision expected in coming months.

You can help stop the tar sands devastation and protect the climate. Watch this video about climate threats posed by the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and find out how to join the February 17 Forward on Climate Rally in Washington, DC.

Climate scientists warn that further development of fossil fuel energy sources like tar sands oil will spell disaster for the planet's climate, a point made clear in the release of the draft study of the National Climate Assessment this month. "If we fully develop the tar sands resources we will certainly lose control of the climate, we will get to a point where we can no walk back from the cliff," says University of St. Thomas energy expert John Abraham, who has studied the climate impacts of tar sands oil emissions.

That's because tar sands oil is particularly dirty--at least three times as carbon intensive as conventional oil--resulting in a refining process that includes carbon-intensive byproducts like petroleum coke-or petcoke-that can be burned like coal in refineries at the receiving end of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline in Texas. According to a new report released by Oil Change International, petcoke burned from tar sands oil would equal the climate pollution of five additional coal fired power plants, boosting overall carbon emissions from the Keystone XL pipeline by 13 percent. Oil Change International research director Lorne Stockman describes it this way:

"The refineries at the end of the Keystone XL pipeline are some of the biggest petcoke factories in the world today. By supplying them with tar sands bitumen, the petcoke embedded in the tar sands would find its way to the world market...petcoke from the tar sands is making coal fired generation dirtier and cheaper and this puts another nail in the coffin of any rational argument for further exploitation of the tar sands."

Oil industry supporters claim that if the Keystone XL pipeline is not built, tar sands oil will find its way to other markets through future North American pipelines built to the east or west coasts. But many researchers say those projects are mere pipedreams, since the tar sands industry faces major opposition from local communities on the east and west coasts, where residents are worried about tar sands oil spills and other environmental impacts. The Pembina Institute's Nathan Lemphers worked on a new comprehensive report that lays out the facts surrounding tar sands expansion and the Keystone XL pipeline, which he says is a crucial lynchpin in the development of the tar sands:

The Keystone XL pipeline is critical for further expansion of the oil sands. Major financial institutions in Canada have said that the lack of pipeline capacity is a rate limiting step for the oil sands...if it's (Keystone XL) not build, it'll start to moderate the growth of the oil sands and it will send a clear signal to the financial community and the oil sands community that they need to address the carbon emissions that come from the oil sands.

Tar sands processing plant in Alberta Photo: David Dodge, The Pembina Institute

But growing opposition to the Canadian tar sands is not just a not-in-my-backyard concern--everyone is hurt by higher emissions from the dirtiest oil on the planet. The scientific community is especially concerned about rapidly melting Arctic ice, rising sea levels and extreme weather events associated with climate change that we are already witnessing. In December, some of the country's top climate scientists sent President Obama a letter urging his administration to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, citing last year's recent record-setting temperatures and storms as evidence that we need bold action to cut global fossil fuel emissions.

Earlier in January, 70 groups wrote President Obama urging him to take bold and decisive action to help protect the nation against climate change's ravages. Danny Harvey, an energy and climate expert at the University of Toronto, said it best in our video: "Right now President Obama faces a critical choice. There's no better time to say no to further expansion, say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around."

On February 17, join people from all walks of life, from climate scientists to ranchers and farmers, who will gather in Washington, DC, to call for strong action to fight climate change. The Forward on Climate Rally will point the way for Obama to shape his climate legacy. One of the most important decisions he can make is to reject the Keystone pipeline and to tell the EPA to set carbon standards for power plants.

We the people have the power to demand action from our political leaders, to tell the lobbyists and oil industry fat cats that we're tired of their business-as-usual dirty energy campaigns. We want clean energy solutions that create new technologies and long-term job opportunities, including money-saving projects like NRDC's innovative plan to cut coal-fired power plant pollution.These are the kinds of investments that will build a more sustainable planet for all who inherit the Earth.

That's certainly worth fighting for. Because if we don't, who will?

For more information on how to sign up and participate in the February 17th march, check out the Forward on Climate Rally site.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rkistner/up_in_the_pristine_boreal.h

Governor Cuomo's New York Green Bank: a Triple Crown for the Clean Energy Economy

Doug Sims, Energy Project Finance Specialist, New York

Governor Cuomo's New York Green Bank: a Triple Crown for the Clean Energy Economy

Today, in his State of the State address, Governor Cuomo announced that New York State will be forming a Green Bank with $1 billion of initial capital. The bank will be spearheaded by Richard Kauffman, a veteran of Washington, Wall Street and the clean tech world who has unparalleled experience, vision and credibility in this area. This is a coup and, more broadly, the bank represents a major step forward in expanding New York's clean energy economy and decreasing global warming emissions. It solidifies New York's national leadership position in clean energy.

NRDC stands ready to assist the Governor's office, NYSERDA, other state agencies, banks, investors and other stakeholders to make the bank a reality and a success.

Simply put, the New York Green Bank (I'll call it the "NYGB") will use its funds to advance the clean energy economy, investing alongside private investors to make low cost financing available for renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

The NYGB will be the second of its kind in the United States, after that of neighboring Connecticut, which pioneered the concept in 2011. But because of the size of the New York market and New York's outsized influence as a state, the Empire State's green bank could stimulate a larger trend, transforming the national clean energy landscape.

In the printed version of his speech, the Governor notes that, "While the effects of climate change are sufficient reason to go forward on this front, the added promise of uniquely beneficial job creation and a diminished reliance on external energy sources make the pursuit of a clean economy a critically important goal."

With this statement, the Governor perfectly articulates the triple crown of improved energy, economy and environment that the Green Bank opportunity represents.

First, energy. As more clean energy technology gets deployed, it has been getting more cost competitive and efficient and will continue to do so. But there is still a cost gap with fossil energy technologies because they do not pay the costs of their carbon and other pollution. Low cost financing further reduces the cost of clean energy technologies today, accelerating the process of closing that gap. And more clean energy means more energy security, i.e., less exposure to the price volatility and supply insecurity of fossil energy.

Second, environment. The Governor notes in his speech that in spite of the over $1 billion New York spends on subsidies for renewables and energy efficiency annually, its deployment goals aren't being met. This means that climate change mitigation goals aren't being met, either. The Governor presciently says in his speech that subsidies are important but not enough. When the NYGB makes low cost financing available to a project that is receiving a subsidy from one of New York's existing programs, the size of the subsidy can be smaller. This allows New Yorkers to get more clean energy for the same dollar of subsidy, in a classic win-win. And since the NYGB will earn interest and fees and get the principal of any loans paid back, over time it can reinvest its funds into more clean energy projects at no additional cost to the public, and/or send the public dividends.

Third, economy. The Green Bank will increase activity in the clean tech sector in New York State. Increasing the availability of low cost financing means increasing the amount of clean energy projects and their related jobs and capital investments. The NYGB will act as a fulcrum for the maturation and transformation of the clean energy economy in New York State, helping to remove market barriers by collecting data on project performance, driving standardization of contracts and improving the flow of information to market participants. More efficiency and fewer transaction costs also mean more projects at a lower per unit cost.

We congratulate the Governor on his continued leadership and look forward to working with his team on this unprecedented opportunity.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dsims/governor_cuomos_new_york_green