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

White House Arctic Strategy Is Clear in Drilling Goals but Not Conservation Goals

Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC, New York City

As Secretary of State John Kerry headed to the Arctic Council meetings in Kiruna, Sweden this week, he described the way melting ice is altering life in the Arctic. "Our warming planet means the Arctic's ecosystem is experiencing significant, rapid shifts with far-reaching consequences," he wrote. "All of the changes in the Arctic must change the way we approach the region."

The Arctic most definitely needs a new approach to stewardship-one that can protect its natural wonders and ensure it remains resilient in the face of global warming. Yet the National Strategy for the Arctic Region that the White House released last week in advance of the Arctic Council meetings does not deliver what the region requires right now.

Despite Shell Oil's recent drilling fiascoes in the Arctic Ocean and mounting scientific evidence that ecosystems are under stress, the administration has outlined a plan that could open the Arctic to even more harm.

The new strategy emphasizes U.S. security interests in the Arctic. That makes sense in the light of the Arctic's international significance. But then the administration's plan makes the mistake of equating security with drilling for oil in the region. In fact, the Arctic Ocean may be the least secure place on Earth to drill for oil-as Shell confirmed when its effort to drill there resulted in one failure after another last summer. Moreover, America won't ever achieve energy security by increasing our dependence on a commodity that is traded on a volatile international market. True energy security means beating our oil addiction and investing in renewable energy and efficiency measures.

Shell's drill rig, the Kulluk, ran aground near Alaska's Kodiak Island on New Year's Eve.

Instead of looking to the Arctic for more oil, the administration should freeze drilling approvals and undertake a thorough, clear-eyed review of whether offshore drilling can ever be done safely in the region. The environment is known for twenty-foot seas, gale-force winds, dense fog, and sub-freezing temperatures much of the year. Arctic waters are also packed with ice for up to eight months each year, and no technology has proven capable of cleaning up an oil spill in ice.

The disastrous BP oil spill occurred in the ice-free waters of the Gulf of Mexico-a much more accessible location with industry infrastructure readily at hand. Now imagine a similar spill in the Arctic lease sites where the closest Coast Guard base is 1,000 miles away.

A sober, factual re-evaluation of offshore drilling should lead to the conclusion that, for both environmental and security reasons, the Arctic Ocean has no place in the United States energy future.

The administration should take clear steps to protect the region's rich and vulnerable ecosystems from the full suite of development threats they face. Though Arctic Strategy mentions important conservation goals including Arctic stewardship and integrated management, it discusses them at the broadest level. The Arctic Strategy released by the Bush Administration offered more details about how the U.S. could strengthen environmental protection and address challenges like the impact of marine noise on whales. The Obama Administration's strategy on the environment, however, is remarkably devoid of substance-a marked contrast with the unambiguous call for more oil development.

It puts a welcome if ill-defined emphasis on scientific research and integrated management, but we need action to protect this most vulnerable part of our planet. We need an affirmative plan to identify biological hotspots, create protected areas in the ocean, and preserve landscapes that help wildlife become resilient in the face of climate change.

Secretary Kerry was committed to making progress this week at the Arctic Council meetings-a gathering of foreign ministers from the eight Arctic nations and several indigenous groups. As someone concerned about climate change, the oceans, and the Arctic region, Secretary Kerry is poised to help the U.S. become a leader in sound Arctic management. But the U.S. cannot urge other countries to protect the region's environment if we are not making concrete commitments to do the same in our own Arctic waters and landscapes.

Now is not the time to ignore the hazards of unbridled energy development and unchecked climate change. There is simply too much at stake in the Arctic. It is home to the world's last wild ocean, some of America's most breathtaking natural treasures, and an indigenous culture thousands of years old. The Arctic is also the air conditioner for the world-as it warms our communities suffer more extreme weather events.

If we fail to protect the Arctic in this time of rapid change, we risk losing one of the crowning jewels of America's natural heritage. We have a responsibility to preserve this spectacular and fragile region.

Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Jonathan Klingenberg

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/white_house_arctic_strateg

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

Lessons Learned in the Wake of Sandy: Saving Transit Means Taking the High Ground--Literally

Theo Spencer, Senior Advocate, Climate Center, New York

As the six month anniversary of Hurricane Sandy rolls by, the passage of time is giving us a clearer picture of what preventive measures really worked. Thanks to an excellent series running this week on WNYC, we can see that New York did a good job of protecting its trains and subways cars while New Jersey didn't.

The stories, part of WNYC's Life After Sandy series, detail among other things how New Jersey used incorrect data and maps to determine a safe place to store it's trains during the coming storm.

As WNYC's Kate Hinds and Andrea Bernstein note:

If officials had entered the right numbers, they would have predicted what actually happened: a storm surge that engulfed hundreds of rail cars, some of them brand new, costing over $120 million in damage and thrusting the system's passengers into months of frustrating delays.

But the fate of NJ Transit's trains - over a quarter of the agency's fleet - didn't just hang on one set of wrong inputs. It followed years of missed warnings, failures to plan, and lack of coordination under Governor Chris Christie, who has expressed ambivalence about preparing for climate change while repeatedly warning New Jerseyans not to underestimate the dangers of severe storms.

The reporters found a tale of two agencies: one in New York that planned well in advance for extreme weather events, and on in New Jersey that didn't.

The stories are part of a lengthy investigation in partnership with The Record newspaper (Bergen, NJ), and New Jersey Public Radio. Reporters looked at hours of testimony by the (greater New York) Metropolitan Transit Authority and NJ Transit officials, as well as hundreds of pages of internal documents. They also interviewed transit officials and climate and weather experts.

When reporters for WNYC and The Record asked NJ Transit officials for their official extreme weather planning documents, they both received the same thing-a three page memo. That memo appeared to be the extent of NJ Transit's plan, and all but the first page had been blacked out.

NJ Transit's basic response was that the yard where their trains were stored had never flooded before, and that no one could have predicted the severity of Sandy. That's not sitting too well with New Jersey Transit riders who endured months of delays in the wake of the storm, and have seen little evidence of a more enlightened approach to extreme weather preparedness.

New York's MTA, on the other hand, developed detailed plans to prepare for an extreme flooding and storm surges. The plans involved moving trains to higher ground, and pulling electrical signals from tunnels prone to flooding. Thanks to such measures, the MTA was able to get its systems up and running soon after the storm, and only 19 of its 8,000 rail cars were flooded.

Back in 2008, the agency prepared a forward-looking report and plan: MTA Adaptations to Climate Change--A Categorical Imperative. Among the actions recommended in the plan:

Identify MTA facilities and programs subject to climate risk; Identify main climate change impacts to MTA facilities and programs; Apply future climate change scenarios by time slice; Develop implementation plans, including timeframes for implementation; Monitor and reassess adaptation strategies according to unfolding of climate change and developments in climate science...

You get the point. The MTA's assessment was part of the PlaNYC which represents probably the single best climate preparedness initiative in the United States. Post-Sandy MTA and New York officials are looking to future impacts and how best to prepare for them.

New Jersey, and other states and cities, should take note.

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

Taxpayers Get Nearly $100 Billion Bill for 2012 Extreme Weather, Equivalent to One-Sixth of Non-Defense Discretionary Spending

Dan Lashof, Program Director, Climate & Clean Air, Washington, D.C.

With all the debate on the federal budget in Congress, climate change rarely gets mentioned as a deficit driver. Yet dealing with climate disruption was one of the largest non-defense discretionary budget items in 2012. Indeed, as NRDC shows in Who Pays for Climate Change?, when all federal spending on last year's droughts, storms, floods, and forest fires are added up, the U.S. Climate Disruption Budget was nearly $100 billion, equivalent to 16% of total non-defense discretionary spending in the federal budget-larger than any official spending category.

2012 U.S. Federal Non-Defense Discretionary Budget (in Billions)
Source CRS, BEA, OMB (Table 8.7), NRDC estimates
Education, training, employment and social services	$95
Transportation	$91
Housing assistance and other income security	$65
Health	$60
Veterans benefits and services	$57
Administration of Justice	$54
International Affairs	$50
Natural Resources and Environment	$40
Science, Space and Technology	$29
Energy	$13
Other Non-Defense Discretionary	$61
Total FY2012 Non-Defense Discretionary Spending	$616
Federal Climate Disruption Costs, CY2012 Impacts	$96

That means that federal spending to deal with extreme weather made worse by climate change far exceeded total spending aimed at solving the problem. In fact, it was eight times EPA's total budget and eight times total spending on energy.

Overall the insurance industry estimates that 2012 was the second costliest year in U.S. history for climate-related disasters, with over $139 billion in damages. But private insurers themselves only covered about 25% of these costs ($33 billion), leaving the federal government and its public insurance enterprises to pay for the majority of the remaining claims. As a result, the U.S. government paid more than three times as much as private insurers did for climate-related disasters in 2012.

That reflects a major shift in liabilities with respect to climate change away from private insurers to public alternatives that began in earnest following the $72 billion hit the industry took in 2005 from hurricane Katrina.

Federal spending related to climate disruption falls into two major categories: Storms and droughts.

Spending related to storms includes appropriated funds for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as well as emergency supplemental appropriations following major disasters, such as Superstorm Sandy. It also includes the National Flood Insurance Program, which is supposed to be self-supporting, but is increasingly under water.

Drought-related spending includes the federal crop insurance program as well as the government's share of higher food costs (see this post for more details).

The figure below shows how the federal climate disruption budget breaks down.

While some of these federal programs-such as forest fire prevention, crop insurance, flood coverage, and disaster preparedness-offer wider benefits to the country, it should be noted that these liabilities have largely been assumed by the public sector due to a lack of private sector alternatives. The true scorekeepers of climate risk-the insurance industry-realizes it can't win when the dice are increasingly loaded with carbon pollution, so it's walking away from the table, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. Last year that cost amounted to over $1100 per taxpayer, and we can expect to see even higher costs in future as CO2 concentrations continue to soar past 400 parts per million.

Even as the budget to clean up climate disruptions hit a record high in 2012 and is expected to continue to grow, the budget for programs to fight climate disruption-such as environmental enforcement, energy efficiency, clean energy vehicle research, and ARPA-E-suffered cuts of more than $100 million the "sequester" that went into effect in March and remain under continued pressure from the budget-cutting process.

Our climate plan is, in effect, to cut critical investments now for the sake of small short-term deficit reductions and send our children the tax bills to clean up the mess.

That's colossally short-sighted, even by Washington standards.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/post.htm

President Obama's Budget Request for International Climate Action Strong But Short of the Need

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Under the Obama Administration, the United States has invested internationally in addressing climate change. These investments have helped developing countries speed up the deployment of clean energy reduce the loss of forests around the world, and assist the most vulnerable in adapting to the impacts of climate change. They are smart investments that benefit American citizens in many ways. President Obama's budget request for this upcoming year continues to support these international climate investments, but unfortunately his request is short of what is needed.

In the last fiscal year, Congress dedicated $858 million towards international climate action. Unfortunately, the President's request comes in 2.5 percent below that amount (at $837 million). In an era of growing clean energy deployment opportunities, extreme weather events leaving devastation around the world, and significant progress on deforestation reductions, now is not the time to scale-back our efforts.

Now is the time to strengthen our investments and help secure a livable planet for our children and grandchildren. Secretary Kerry understands the need for climate action as he has repeatedly stressed that:

"If we waste this opportunity, it may be the only thing our generation - generations - are remembered for. We need to find the courage to leave a far different legacy."

Here are details on the President's budget request for international climate action.* [Thanks to Michael Wolosin of Climate Advisors for this detailed breakout.]

It is critical that we continue to significantly invest in these actions as 60 leading environmental, conservation, development, and faith-based organizations urged Secretary Kerry to invest in international climate action. Financing for international climate action serves vital U.S. interests by promoting global stability and human security, creating economic opportunities for U.S. businesses and workers, helping to alleviate global poverty, protecting past U.S. development investments, complementing global health and food security efforts, protecting critical forest areas and biodiversity, and ensuring significant cost-savings through disaster preparedness measures.

U.S. investments in international global clean energy deployment help spur demand for renewable energy around the world. These investments benefit American workers and companies who are already tapping into the global clean energy market. As John Doerr, partner in the venture capital firm Kleiner

Perkins Caufield & Byers, and Jeff Immelt, chairman and chief executive of General Electric, pointed out:

"America confronts three interrelated crises: an economic crisis, a climate crisis and an energy security crisis. We believe there's a fourth: a competitiveness crisis. This crisis is particularly evident in America's worldwide standing in the next great global industry, green technology...The question is whether the United States will lead or lag in tomorrow's global energy markets. And the difference between these two futures is dramatic."

Targeted and well-planned U.S. climate change investments in climate resilience and adaptation are helping communities in developing countries build capacity to adapt to and prepare for impacts from climate change. The consequences of a changing climate are already fast pushing communities, particularly the poorest and most marginalized around the world, beyond their capacity to respond. Data on efforts to reduce disaster risk show that investments in pre-disaster risk management in developing countries result in a savings of $7 for every $1 spent. As Admiral Mullen, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated:

"...climate change's potential impacts are sobering and far-reaching. Glaciers are melting at a faster rate, causing water supplies to diminish in Asia. Rising sea levels could lead to a mass migration and displacement similar to what we saw in Pakistan's floods last year. And other shifts could reduce the arable land needed to feed a growing population in Africa, for example. Scarcity of water, food and space could create not only a humanitarian crisis, but create conditions that could lead to failed states, instability and, potentially, radicalization."

Halting forest loss is a vital part of the fight against climate change. Sustainably managing forests to support local communities has been a key component of international development for decades. As Lynn Scarlett, former Deputy Secretary of the Interior under George W. Bush stated:

"Seeing firsthand the devastating effects of tropical deforestation is humbling. Many local communities, through conservation partnerships, are conserving tropical forests, but only U.S. policy leadership can galvanize global action with the speed, scope, and scale necessary to prevent catastrophic forest losses."

Now is the time to ensure robust investments in international climate action. The President's budget request for this upcoming year continues to support these international climate investments, but unfortunately his request is short of what is needed. We strongly urge that Congress continue to significantly investing in international climate action.

-------------------

* Note that these amounts are the core budget as appropriated by Congress. The U.S. also makes investments in international climate action through programs that don't require annual appropriations from Congress, such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation which has significantly invested in clean energy deployment support.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/president_obamas_budget_req

Secretary Kerry: Secure a Global Agreement to Reduce Aviation's Carbon Pollution

Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Washington, DC

Aviation is a major contributor to global warming with its pollution projected to grow significantly if left uncontrolled. With devastating droughts, floods, fires, and storms devastating communities around the world, we need all the global warming reductions we can get. The aviation sector shouldn't be left off the hook to help address global warming. Next week Secretary Kerry has the chance to help advance an international agreement to cut aviation's global warming pollution. It is time for his leadership on this issue.

Key countries will meet - on March 25-27 - in Montreal for a "High-Level Group" meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) - the U.N. body established in 1944 to regulate international aviation. This High-Level Group-which includes representatives from the U.S., Europe, China, India, Brazil, Japan, and Mexico - are tasked with developing a global agreement to reduce aviation's carbon pollution. Unfortunately the negotiations aren't going well as the U.S. has been resisting proposals that put in place a global approach. Instead the U.S. has been favoring an approach that would leave the vast majority of emissions uncontrolled - those over the high-seas. This is a position that John Kerry dismissed when he was Senator. The U.S. is a major player in global aviation, so other countries like China and India aren't feeling the heat to shift their position as the U.S. isn't pressuring them to secure a real global solution.

After 15 years of waiting for international action, Europe put in place a law to control the carbon pollution from flights using European airports. But that law was challenged by U.S. airlines - like United and American airlines - and other countries. Now the European program has been put on hold for one year to allow for ICAO to put together an agreement to reduce aviation's carbon pollution. Failure to act on a global solution will automatically lead the European's to reinstate their program as the European Parliament recently reinforced.

The aviation sector should not be exempt from standards to combat global warming. Aviation is a significant contributor to global warming - it would be the 7th largest emitter in the world if it were a country. Left uncontrolled its emissions are projected to almost double by 2030. More efficient airplanes, technologies to fly smarter, and sustainable biofuels are already available. Implementation of these measures will help decrease carbon and other air pollution, while also saving costs on fuel.

But a recent study by a preeminent aviation researcher found that even the most aggressive deployment of technical, operational, and biofuels measures would still result in a growth in aviation's pollution (see figure).

A global agreement will help spur airlines to quickly introduce these technologies into their fleet and ensure that the carbon pollution from aviation doesn't grow unchecked. We don't have the luxury of waiting for the industry to implement these measures on their own - they need a policy that encourages them to speed up the deployment of these technologies.

As a senator, John Kerry was a leading advocate for action on global warming. Now, as the new Secretary of State, he has the opportunity to help reduce aviation's growing global warming pollution. As he said as a Senator regarding aviation: "We've got to have an international agreement." We couldn't agree more.

Please tell Secretary Kerry to act now to help reduce aviation's growing carbon pollution and secure an international agreement.

-------------

Photo: Courtesy of Vox Efx under Creative Commons License.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/secretary_kerry_secure_a_gl

Hiding the Impacts of Climate Change in South Carolina

Ben Chou, Water Policy Analyst, Washington, D.C.

As a near native of the Palmetto State, I often find myself reminiscing about the many years I lived there. From my childhood in Mauldin (near Greenville), to high school in Hartsville (near Florence), undergrad in Columbia (Go Gamecocks!), and a few months post-college in Charleston, I have lived in many areas of the state. I even return a few times a year to visit my in-laws in Myrtle Beach.

• Sunset on Hilton Head Island (photo by Lee Edwin Coursey)

One of my favorite things about the state is a slogan that used to grace the license plate: Smiling Faces. Beautiful Places. I think it nicely sums up the warm and friendly disposition of the people and amazing natural beauty found in South Carolina. Unfortunately, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has kept under wraps a report that spells trouble for the state's beautiful places and could turn those smiles into frowns.

The DNR completed a climate change vulnerability assessment a few years ago but decided against releasing it for public review. The report was leaked to a major state newspaper and then published on their website. It seems like a waste of taxpayer money for a public agency to invest so much time and many resources into developing a study only to leave it collecting dust on a shelf somewhere, especially when it comes to an incredibly important topic that will impact all South Carolinians-climate change.

According to the report, there have been several observed changes in the state's climate and across the Southeast region:

• Since 1970, a general warming trend has been observed in the state's three major geographic divisions.
• Water temperatures in Charleston Harbor have shown a steady warming trend since 1985.
• Across the Southeast, there have been observed increases in heavy downpours in many areas even though moderate to severe drought conditions also were widespread.

Over the next 70 years, average temperatures are projected to rise 4.5°F to 9°F depending on future greenhouse gas emissions. And as if summers were not already hot enough (and extremely humid might I add), the greatest temperature increases are projected to occur during the summer months. By the 2080s, summers are projected to be about 11°F hotter. Just imagine summer highs well into the triple digits being the norm instead of the exception. Drought conditions also are expected to become longer, more frequent, and more intense as temperatures and rates of evapotranspiration rise.

The report only focuses on direct impacts to natural resources, which also will affect natural resource-dependent industries like tourism and recreational fishing and hunting-tourism alone contributes approximately $17 billion annually to the state economy. There are also untold impacts to people, homes, businesses, communities, and the economy that are not included in this assessment.

These are a few of the likely consequences of climate change for natural resources in the state from the report:

• Rising sea levels will impact beaches, wetlands, and other coastal habitat, threatening sea turtles, birds, and commercially-important fisheries like shrimp and blue crab.
• Increasing salinity in river systems due to sea level rise will force freshwater and diadromous fish (fish that spend portions of their life cycles in freshwater and saltwater) to move upstream, where possible, to find better habitat.
• Warmer water temperatures could cause a shift in the distribution of anadromous species (fish that live in saltwater but return to freshwater to spawn) like striped bass and sturgeon and cause coldwater fishes like brook trout and smallmouth bass to become locally extinct.

While this report is a critical first step towards planning for climate change impacts, the state still has much work to do. Given that the places and wildlife that people love so much are at great risk, the DNR should formally release this report for public review. The state also should take immediate steps to examine what the likely impacts of climate change are for other sector areas as part of the development of a statewide climate preparedness plan. Approximately 20 percent of states in the U.S. have developed such a plan. The state can and should join these ranks to preserve its beautiful places and keep the smiles on the faces of future generations of South Carolinians.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bchou/hiding_the_impacts_of_climate.

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

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

Top Three Things We Urge Obama to Do to Curb Climate Change--And Without Waiting for Congress

Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC, New York City

Most people don't think chocolate factories or hardware stores have much to do with climate change. Yet residents of Queens, New York have discovered that extreme weather can devastate local businesses. Hurricane Sandy swamped the Madelaine Chocolate Company, for instance, and two months later, owners were still clearing out mud and suspending pay for 450 employees. A nearby hardware store won't reopen until February and other businesses don't know if they will reopen at all.

Neighborhood residents are left reeling. "It's like anyone who didn't lose his home lost his job," Juan Colon told the New York Times.

When I first started working on climate change a decade ago, we spoke in terms of distant forecasts and long-range impacts. Now we simply look out the window to see what climate change can do to our communities. As demonstrated by the drought that gripped more than half the nation last summer or the intense storms that pummeled towns from Duluth to Queens, climate change is upending lives and costing billions of dollars.

We no longer have the luxury of time. We must act now to prevent more Americans from feeling the pain of lost jobs, destroyed homes, and shuttered businesses.

That is why NRDC and 68 other civic, healthcare, labor, and environmental groups are calling on President Obama to use his second term to take bold and decisive action on climate change.

This week we sent a letter outlining the top three things the president can do to defuse the climate threat. Right now. Using existing authority. And without movement in Congress.

First, we urge President Obama to elevate the issue of climate change in the public discourse. As my colleague Dan Lashof explains on his blog, the way the president talks about climate change has the ability to rally public support and build political will for climate solutions.

Hurricane Sandy debris in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Photo Credit: Sunset Parkerpix.

Second, we urge President Obama to use the Environmental Protection Agency's existing authority to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants-our nation's largest source of global warming pollution. NRDC has proposed a flexible, cost-effective plan for how the EPA can set standards that will reduce carbon pollution by 34 percent by 2026 compared to 2005 levels and generate between $25 and $60 billion in benefits by 2020.

Third, we urge President Obama to reject the use of the dirtiest fuels. Producing tar sands oil, for instance, generates three times as much greenhouse gas emissions as conventional crude-and that's even before we burn it in cars and trucks. As my colleague Susan Casey-Lefkowitz writes in her latest post, we can't rely on dirty tar sands oil without threatening our health and communities. That's why the president must reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

These three steps put America on a path toward climate stability. They will shield more Americans from devastating drought, heat waves, and storms. And they will unleash more investment in clean energy resources that generate jobs and make our air safer to breathe.

But we have to act now to reap the most benefits, because climate change isn't waiting. According to a NOAA report released on Tuesday, 2012 was the hottest year on record for the continental United States. Our climate is mutating before our eyes, and we must arrest its destructive changes.

President Obama recognizes this reality. He has already acted to cut carbon pollution from cars and new power plants and he recently said he would make climate change a top priority for his new term. He can begin by taking these three steps.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/fbeinecke/top_three_things_we_urge_o