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

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

CalOSHA Investigation: Chevron Intentionally and Knowingly Failed to Comply with Safety Standards that Lead to Richmond Refinery Fire

Diane Bailey, Senior Scientist, San Francisco

The fifteen thousand people who streamed into Bay-Area hospitals knew there was something terribly wrong with Chevron's Richmond refinery when it caught on fire on August 6th, 2012. What they did not now is that, according to a CalOSHA investigation released today, Chevron USA "intentionally and knowingly failed to comply with state safety standards" leading to a catastrophic fire that put workers and the surrounding community at serious risk.

What happened on August 6th? A severely corroded pipe in one of the crude units (where they begin processing crude oil into gas and diesel) began leaking. Chevron chose not to shut down the leaking unit and instead ordered workers to remove insulation. The pipe then ruptured, igniting a massive fire. Luckily but narrowly, the workers escaped without serious injuries.

CalOSHA's investigation of the incident has resulted in a total of 25 citations, many of them with the highest classification of "willful serious" and totaling roughly $1 million in penalties, the highest fine of its kind in California history. Of most concern, CalOSHA found that:

• Chevron did not follow the recommendations of its own experts and inspectors who first began warning back in 2002 that the piping that ruptured should have been replaced.
• When that pipe began leaking, Chevron failed to follow its own emergency shutdown procedures, putting workers at the site and thousands of area residents at extreme risk.

The Chevron Richmond plant is the largest polluter in all of California, making the health and safety standards that much more important. In addition to all the pollution from this facility, there is a cloud of fear and anxiety hanging over the workers and the community of Richmond. When will the next accident happen? Will it be deadly? Is it safe for me and my family to live near the refinery?

While Chevron claims that it intends to compensate community members with "valid claims" (what does that mean?), monetary compensation will not address the ongoing health and safety concerns among workers and the community. As Chevron continues to use dirtier, higher sulfur and more corrosive grades of crude oil at the refinery, we can expect similar incidents and higher pollution levels.

As an engineer, it's shocking to see the photos and reports from CalOSHA and other agencies, showing pieces of piping that were corroded by 80 percent with little more than a shell of the original pipe holding things together. This kind of shoddy and seriously negligent maintenance is not what you expect to see from one of the largest companies in the world (Chevron Corporation earned more than $200 billion in revenue last year). It poses a deadly safety risk to workers and residents alike.

The Chevron Richmond refinery urgently needs a safety face-lift. Every recommendation from CalOSHA must be implemented immediately, and the use of dirtier, more corrosive and dangerous heavy crude oils must cease. Chevron needs to live up to its claims of caring about the environment and safeguarding its employees. The Richmond facility needs to be upgraded to meet modern safety and environmental standards to remove that cloud of pollution and fear hanging over workers and the community.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/calosha_investigation_chevro

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