Aggregator
Top takeaways from the latest IPCC report
By Ilissa Ocko
(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices)
Yesterday, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its last report in a three-part series that makes up the fifth assessment report (AR5) on the latest data and research on climate change. The reports have been issued approximately every five years since 1990.
This latest round of reports began in September 2013 with anupdate on the latest science behind climate change (known as Working Group I). Last month, the second report was released and discussed climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability already observed and projected in the future (known as Working Group II).
The new report released yesterday (known as Working Group III) discusses actions to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change, termed mitigation. Over 400 experts from over 50 countries were involved in the development of the report, which was accepted by representatives from 195 nations.
Here are 5 key findings from the new lPCC report:
1. Global emissions of heat-trapping gases from human activities have continued to rise. Emissions are dominated by carbon dioxide (mainly from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes), which account for 78% of total greenhouse gas emissions from 1970 to 2010 (when other gas emissions are weighted to incorporate warming capability relative to CO2). Greenhouse gas emissions have grown more rapidly between 2000 and 2010 than in previous decades despite a recent push to limit emissions; economic and population growth are driving these increases and continue to outgrow emission savings from energy improvements.
2. Action to limit the magnitude and rate of climate change is needed immediately. Climate conditions are changing rapidly as shown in Working Group I, and the impacts to society and ecosystems are unequivocal, consequential, and increasing as shown in Working Group II. Scenarios to limit warming to 2ºC (3.6ºF) relative to preindustrial levels require drastic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century through large-scale changes in energy systems and land-use practices. The longer we delay action, the more expensive it will be.
3. It is key to reduce energy demand, deploy low-carbon technologies, and better conserve and manage forestry and agriculture. There is a range of technological and behavioral options for sustainable climate actions; nearly one thousand scenarios were analyzed in the report.
- Near-term reductions in energy demand through efficiency enhancements in transport, buildings, and industry sectors are cost-effective, provide flexibility for decarbonizing in the energy supply sector, reduce risks in energy supply, and prevent future lock-in to carbon-intensive infrastructures.
- Behavioral and lifestyle changes—such as lower energy use in households, buying longer-lasting products, changing dietary habits, and reducing food waste—can considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions alongside technological and structural changes. Further development and implementation of low-carbon energy and/or carbon removal technologies is important.
- Renewable energy technologies—such as wind, hydro, and solar power—have finally achieved a level of maturity to enable large-scale deployment. However, steep challenges exist, including varying costs, regional circumstances, and the existing background energy system.
- The best climate actions for forestry include afforestation, sustainable forest management, and reducing deforestation. For agriculture, best practices include cropland and grazing land management, and restoration of organic soil. Sustainable agriculture practices can also promote resilience to climate change impacts.
4. Effective actions will only be achieved by international cooperation. Climate change is a global problem because most heat-trapping gases accumulate over time and mix globally. Therefore, emissions by an individual, community, company, or country, affect the globe. The number of institutions for international cooperation is increasing, and sharing knowledge and technologies with other nations speeds up finding solutions. The issue is complicated by the fact that different countries’ past and future contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are different, as is their capacities to implement actions to limit climate change and build resilience.
5. Co-benefits strengthen the basis for undertaking climate action. Measures to limit energy demand (efficiency, conservation, and behavioral changes) and renewable alternatives can reduce the risk of energy supply, improve public health and the environment by limiting pollution, induce local and sectoral employment gains, support good business practices, improve security of energy supply at the national level, and eradicate poverty. Adverse side effects, such as reduced revenue from coal and oil exporters, can be to a certain extent avoided by the development of carbon capture and storage technologies.
The IPCC will conclude the AR5 in October 2014 with a final report that summarizes the three-part series, recapping the major findings of the physical science of climate change, its effects on society and ecosystems, and actions to avert catastrophic climate change.
There are many ways YOU can help promote climate actions, such as supporting the U.S. to continue its emission-reducing efforts like the EPA’s power plant standards.
Latest Mississippi River Delta News: April 16, 2014
Barataria Bay, 4 Years After The Deepwater Horizon Disaster
By Eileen Fleming, WWNO. April 16, 2014.
“As Sunday’s four-year anniversary of the BP oil spill approaches, environmental groups headed out…” (read more)
Final stretch of Gulf coast removed from active cleanup status
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 16, 2014.
“The active search for Deepwater Horizon oil along the Gulf Coast ended Tuesday…” (read more)
Coast Guard, BP end 'active cleanup' of Louisiana's coast, nearly four years after 2010 spill
By Manuel Torres, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“BP on Tuesday said it has ended its "active cleanup" of Louisiana's coast, nearly four years…” (read more)
3 Louisiana congressmen say Obama administration too slow to release BP oil spill recovery funds
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“Three Louisiana Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of taking too much time…” (read more)
West Bank levee authority to turn to private contractor for help with feral hog problem
By Andrew Shaw, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“Feral hogs that have been rooting up West Bank levees will be targeted by a private contractor…” (read more)
Latest Mississippi River Delta News: April 16, 2014
Barataria Bay, 4 Years After The Deepwater Horizon Disaster
By Eileen Fleming, WWNO. April 16, 2014.
“As Sunday’s four-year anniversary of the BP oil spill approaches, environmental groups headed out…” (read more)
Final stretch of Gulf coast removed from active cleanup status
By Amy Wold, The Advocate. April 16, 2014.
“The active search for Deepwater Horizon oil along the Gulf Coast ended Tuesday…” (read more)
Coast Guard, BP end 'active cleanup' of Louisiana's coast, nearly four years after 2010 spill
By Manuel Torres, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“BP on Tuesday said it has ended its "active cleanup" of Louisiana's coast, nearly four years…” (read more)
3 Louisiana congressmen say Obama administration too slow to release BP oil spill recovery funds
By Bruce Alpert, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“Three Louisiana Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of taking too much time…” (read more)
West Bank levee authority to turn to private contractor for help with feral hog problem
By Andrew Shaw, The Times-Picayune. April 15, 2014.
“Feral hogs that have been rooting up West Bank levees will be targeted by a private contractor…” (read more)
European Parliament adopts final piece of CFP reform to fund sustainable fisheries
European Parliament adopts final piece of CFP reform to fund sustainable fisheries
European Parliament adopts European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)
When it comes to carbon, pay now or pay more later
This post also appears on ensia.com.
Economics is largely just organized common sense, and it doesn’t get much more common sense than benefit-cost analysis. Want to decide whether to buy that apple, make that investment or pass that clean air rule? Tally up the benefits. Tally up the costs. If benefits outweigh costs, do it.
Although in many ways climate change is a problem in its own league, the same principles apply. Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, “The costs of inaction are catastrophic,” and they most likely would be. While climate change ought to be a risk management problem — an existential risk management problem on a planetary scale — that realization alone may not always be good enough. Despite the inherent risks and uncertainties, sometimes we need a specific number that we can plug into a benefit-cost analysis.
The U.S. government makes lots of regulatory decisions that have important implications for the climate. Any benefit-cost analysis of these decisions ought to include their climate impact. If a particular decision will lead to more greenhouse gas emissions — building the Keystone XL pipeline, for example — that figure ought to go on the cost side of the ledger. If the decision will lead to fewer greenhouse gas emissions — such as carbon pollution standards for power plants — that figure adds to the benefits side.
Such benefit-cost analyses require a dollar figure for the social cost of carbon pollution. The best we currently have is around $40 for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, calculated by averaging results from the three of the most prominent and well-established climate-economic models. Uncertainties around the $40 value notwithstanding, putting in $0 is not an option. That, sadly, is what some with clear stakes in the outcome are arguing, however weak the ground they stand on.
In fact, $40 is very likely on the low end of the true cost of CO2. By definition, it only includes what is known and currently quantifiable. It doesn’t include many things we know are linked to a changing climate that aren’t so easily quantified, such as respiratory illness from increased ozone pollution, the costs of oceans turning ever more acidic and impacts on labor productivity from extreme heat. If these were factored in, the $40 figure would certainly be higher.
And the list of what’s missing in the current calculation goes on, as a recent commentary in Nature points out. For example, the models used to calculate the $40 figure are based on costs associated with higher average temperatures rather than costs of increased weather extremes. Taking extreme events seriously in the social cost calculation would increase the $40 figure further still.
We know climate change is and will be costly. How costly exactly is up for discussion, but it’s clear that we should at the very least use the $40 per ton figure in any benefit-cost analysis that involves climate impacts. That’s common sense, too.
dupham April 16, 2014 - 01:19 Add new commentWant to Market the Realities of Climate Change? Get a Handsome Vampire
…and the Terminator, and Indiana Jones, and a Titanically popular director and more. If you don’t get where I’m going with this thread, you may have been under a rock for the past week, because when Hollywood talks about climate change, all kinds of new audiences listen.
Years of Living Dangerously is an incredibly ambitious documentary on climate change airing on Showtime. It is also a fascinating case study in how to market a scary, complicated concept to mass audiences and stimulate new conversations across both virtual and physical communities.
Al Gore – Won the Nobel Peace Prize
Ian Somerhalder - has 4.85 million followers on Twitter
Al Gore, with 2.71m followers, is no slouch in social media – I’m just illustrating that perhaps Mr. Somerhalder has a bit more active fan base.
There are many different ways to tell a story and start a conversation. At EDF we focus on science, economics, partnerships and bipartisan outreach to find solutions to climate change. Our stories stem from the results we drive, and yes, we love talking about science and statistics.
The teams behind both the making and the marketing of the YEARS documentary are focusing on the human element. The series uses celebrities as the lens to educate the audience through human stories and simple language. They find the real value in communicating climate change at an emotional level.
There’s also a human component in experiencing the documentary. There's no need to watch YEARS alone from your couch. The YEARS team is promoting human interaction: from social sharing through millions of celebrity followers, to spurring community action , to providing tools to host your own “viewing party” and find groups to watch with in your neighborhood.
In order to get climate change into the mainstream conversation, we need to lean on people who have high visibility in the mainstream. The bold names extending their environmental passion to this documentary include: Jessica Alba, Matt Damon, Michael C. Hall, Don Cheadle, Olivia Munn, America Ferrera, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lesley Stahl, Thomas Friedman, Harrison Ford, Ian Somerhalder and Chris Hayes.
Because EDF is chock full of scientists and economists, I’d be shunned in the break room if I didn’t provide you with some statistics:
Take over 16 million followers x thousands of tweets, favorites and shares, and YEARS just gathered a massive mainstream audience around an important issue.
At EDF, we are especially proud to be featured in the Years of Living Dangerously documentary. Our flagship fellowship program, EDF Climate Corps, is featured in the May 26th episode, as Jessica Alba follows three of our Climate Corps fellows through their summer internships working with Caesars, Office Depot and Texas Southern University to help those organizations find energy efficiencies and become more sustainable.
In the coming weeks, we’ll be introducing you to our Climate Corps fellows and the important work they do every year in hundreds of organizations. And yes, we’ll also be inserting ourselves into the mainstream conversation, so please feel free to tweet and share (#YEARSProject, @EDFBiz). Especially if you’re Jessica Alba …
Additional reading:
Craig K. Comstock of HuffPo says YEARS could be the 2014 version of The Day After – http://huff.to/1eqyw0S
How YEARS came to EDF’s Eric Pooley with a great idea – http://bit.ly/1g3ujPm
Want to Market the Realities of Climate Change? Get a Handsome Vampire
…and the Terminator, and Indiana Jones, and a Titanically popular director and more. If you don’t get where I’m going with this thread, you may have been under a rock for the past week, because when Hollywood talks about climate change, all kinds of new audiences listen.
Years of Living Dangerously is an incredibly ambitious documentary on climate change airing on Showtime. It is also a fascinating case study in how to market a scary, complicated concept to mass audiences and stimulate new conversations across both virtual and physical communities.
Al Gore – Won the Nobel Peace Prize
Ian Somerhalder - has 4.85 million followers on Twitter
Al Gore, with 2.71m followers, is no slouch in social media – I’m just illustrating that perhaps Mr. Somerhalder has a bit more active fan base.
There are many different ways to tell a story and start a conversation. At EDF we focus on science, economics, partnerships and bipartisan outreach to find solutions to climate change. Our stories stem from the results we drive, and yes, we love talking about science and statistics.
The teams behind both the making and the marketing of the YEARS documentary are focusing on the human element. The series uses celebrities as the lens to educate the audience through human stories and simple language. They find the real value in communicating climate change at an emotional level.
There’s also a human component in experiencing the documentary. There's no need to watch YEARS alone from your couch. The YEARS team is promoting human interaction: from social sharing through millions of celebrity followers, to spurring community action , to providing tools to host your own “viewing party” and find groups to watch with in your neighborhood.
In order to get climate change into the mainstream conversation, we need to lean on people who have high visibility in the mainstream. The bold names extending their environmental passion to this documentary include: Jessica Alba, Matt Damon, Michael C. Hall, Don Cheadle, Olivia Munn, America Ferrera, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lesley Stahl, Thomas Friedman, Harrison Ford, Ian Somerhalder and Chris Hayes.
Because EDF is chock full of scientists and economists, I’d be shunned in the break room if I didn’t provide you with some statistics:
Take over 16 million followers x thousands of tweets, favorites and shares, and YEARS just gathered a massive mainstream audience around an important issue.
At EDF, we are especially proud to be featured in the Years of Living Dangerously documentary. Our flagship fellowship program, EDF Climate Corps, is featured in the May 26th episode, as Jessica Alba follows three of our Climate Corps fellows through their summer internships working with Caesars, Office Depot and Texas Southern University to help those organizations find energy efficiencies and become more sustainable.
In the coming weeks, we’ll be introducing you to our Climate Corps fellows and the important work they do every year in hundreds of organizations. And yes, we’ll also be inserting ourselves into the mainstream conversation, so please feel free to tweet and share (#YEARSProject, @EDFBiz). Especially if you’re Jessica Alba …
Additional reading:
Craig K. Comstock of HuffPo says YEARS could be the 2014 version of The Day After – http://huff.to/1eqyw0S
How YEARS came to EDF’s Eric Pooley with a great idea – http://bit.ly/1g3ujPm
Why America Needs Methane Policy
By Ben Ratner
Recently, the White House took a crucial stride to tackle methane pollution and natural gas waste. A key aspect of the strategy tasks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with enacting policy to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry. Yesterday, EPA formally initiated its process, issuing five white papers focused on the biggest opportunities to cut the industry’s methane emissions. A final decision for action is expected later this year.
The Administration’s strategy to reduce methane emissions is an urgently needed development to slow the rate of climate change in our lifetimes. That’s because methane is an incredibly powerful and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas. Whether you’re a concerned citizen who wants better protections from pollution, an individual compelled to see the U.S. do more to defend the people and places most vulnerable to global climate change, or an energy watchdog who wants to minimize needless waste—know that solutions are within our grasp.
Let’s look at a key piece of the process that the White House galvanized and that EPA has now started to carry forward. EPA’s white papers provide thorough, technical assessment of oil and gas methane emission sources and mitigation technologies, and they provide the factual basis to support policy action. The process requests feedback from the public and a range of expert stakeholders that will help EPA answer: Is now the time to create a real methane policy for oil and gas? I am optimistic the answer will be a resounding “YES.”
A problem worth addressing
The last six months have brought an improved scientific understanding of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain. A joint Purdue-Cornell regional study released this week adds to this growing list, reporting some of the highest methane emissions we’ve ever seen from drilling. To understand what all of this could look like, one of our experts explains it as the equivalent of losing 54 LNG tankers worth of natural gas to the atmosphere every year through venting, leaks, and flaring. That’s a tremendous amount of methane that if lost to our oceans would be seen as a major tragedy.
So far more than one-third of today’s human-caused global warming comes from highly potent, short-lived climate pollutants that include methane. Plus, methane can escape with compounds that contribute to smog and include carcinogens, which led the American Lung Association to urge the White House to issue policy to protect public health. Any way you slice it, methane emissions are a problem.
We can fix it
Available, proven technologies that can slash emissions are on the shelf waiting to be deployed. EDF released a report last month by the consultancy ICF International that found many proven technologies exist that can cost-effectively help cut onshore methane emissions by 40 percent in five years. At an annual cost of less than a penny per Mcf (thousand cubic feet of produced gas), this is hardly a dent in industry’s pocketbook. The ability to design practical regulations that make good use of such cost-effective measures is a big reason why Colorado, Wyoming, and Ohio have adopted policies in the last year to drive down oil and gas air emissions.
More than voluntary action needed
Now EDF is a strong supporter of industry taking voluntary steps to address challenges, and corporate use of leading practices is a big part of the answer on methane. But voluntary action alone is not enough. Consider this:
First, there are literally thousands of oil and gas producers in the United States (to say nothing of pipeline and processing companies). The only way to ensure higher standards of performance is to level the playing field through policy. Without that, the positive results from the proactive companies will be undermined by the rest of the field. We can do better.
Second, although a large chunk of methane solutions more than pay for themselves, not all those measures will be implemented voluntarily, as companies often bypass such investments for even more profitable ways to deploy capital. And for the additional chunk of methane controls with a positive but small cost to the operator, there remains a strong national interest in implementation, as doing so would result in enhanced U.S. energy security, cleaner air and a safer climate. But that interest would lose out in a policy vacuum because individual company financial incentives don’t fully encompass those key national objectives.
We’re confident the case will prove out
It isn’t easy to get things done in Washington, and the hardest work remains ahead for President Obama’s methane strategy. But, we are off to a strong start, and two things are apparent. One, reducing methane emissions is becoming a big tent issue, and there can be lots of winners if we get it right. Two, this is a tailor made opportunity for putting in place sound policy, developed collaboratively for the country.
Why America Needs Methane Policy
By Ben Ratner
Recently, the White House took a crucial stride to tackle methane pollution and natural gas waste. A key aspect of the strategy tasks the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with enacting policy to reduce emissions from the oil and gas industry. Yesterday, EPA formally initiated its process, issuing five white papers focused on the biggest opportunities to cut the industry’s methane emissions. A final decision for action is expected later this year.
The Administration’s strategy to reduce methane emissions is an urgently needed development to slow the rate of climate change in our lifetimes. That’s because methane is an incredibly powerful and climate-destabilizing greenhouse gas. Whether you’re a concerned citizen who wants better protections from pollution, an individual compelled to see the U.S. do more to defend the people and places most vulnerable to global climate change, or an energy watchdog who wants to minimize needless waste—know that solutions are within our grasp.
Let’s look at a key piece of the process that the White House galvanized and that EPA has now started to carry forward. EPA’s white papers provide thorough, technical assessment of oil and gas methane emission sources and mitigation technologies, and they provide the factual basis to support policy action. The process requests feedback from the public and a range of expert stakeholders that will help EPA answer: Is now the time to create a real methane policy for oil and gas? I am optimistic the answer will be a resounding “YES.”
A problem worth addressing
The last six months have brought an improved scientific understanding of methane emissions from the natural gas supply chain. A joint Purdue-Cornell regional study released this week adds to this growing list, reporting some of the highest methane emissions we’ve ever seen from drilling. To understand what all of this could look like, one of our experts explains it as the equivalent of losing 54 LNG tankers worth of natural gas to the atmosphere every year through venting, leaks, and flaring. That’s a tremendous amount of methane that if lost to our oceans would be seen as a major tragedy.
So far more than one-third of today’s human-caused global warming comes from highly potent, short-lived climate pollutants that include methane. Plus, methane can escape with compounds that contribute to smog and include carcinogens, which led the American Lung Association to urge the White House to issue policy to protect public health. Any way you slice it, methane emissions are a problem.
We can fix it
Available, proven technologies that can slash emissions are on the shelf waiting to be deployed. EDF released a report last month by the consultancy ICF International that found many proven technologies exist that can cost-effectively help cut onshore methane emissions by 40 percent in five years. At an annual cost of less than a penny per Mcf (thousand cubic feet of produced gas), this is hardly a dent in industry’s pocketbook. The ability to design practical regulations that make good use of such cost-effective measures is a big reason why Colorado, Wyoming, and Ohio have adopted policies in the last year to drive down oil and gas air emissions.
More than voluntary action needed
Now EDF is a strong supporter of industry taking voluntary steps to address challenges, and corporate use of leading practices is a big part of the answer on methane. But voluntary action alone is not enough. Consider this:
First, there are literally thousands of oil and gas producers in the United States (to say nothing of pipeline and processing companies). The only way to ensure higher standards of performance is to level the playing field through policy. Without that, the positive results from the proactive companies will be undermined by the rest of the field. We can do better.
Second, although a large chunk of methane solutions more than pay for themselves, not all those measures will be implemented voluntarily, as companies often bypass such investments for even more profitable ways to deploy capital. And for the additional chunk of methane controls with a positive but small cost to the operator, there remains a strong national interest in implementation, as doing so would result in enhanced U.S. energy security, cleaner air and a safer climate. But that interest would lose out in a policy vacuum because individual company financial incentives don’t fully encompass those key national objectives.
We’re confident the case will prove out
It isn’t easy to get things done in Washington, and the hardest work remains ahead for President Obama’s methane strategy. But, we are off to a strong start, and two things are apparent. One, reducing methane emissions is becoming a big tent issue, and there can be lots of winners if we get it right. Two, this is a tailor made opportunity for putting in place sound policy, developed collaboratively for the country.
Four Ways the U.S. Military Can Adopt Clean Energy for National Security
By EDF Blogs
Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.
By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy
At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years. The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.
The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.
Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:
- Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled. Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.
- Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.
- Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.
- Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.
Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy. From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.
This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.
Four Ways the U.S. Military Can Adopt Clean Energy for National Security
By EDF Blogs
Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.
By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy
At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years. The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.
The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.
Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:
- Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled. Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.
- Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.
- Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.
- Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.
Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy. From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.
This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.
Four Ways the U.S. Military Can Adopt Clean Energy for National Security
By EDF Blogs
Ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fort Carson solar array. U.S. Army photo by Michael J. Pach.
By: Stephanie Kline, Program Associate, Clean Energy
At the U.S. Defense Department, the multiple national security threats created by sea level rise and severe weather command daily attention; climate change has been on its radar for years. The recently published Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR), an assessment of U.S. defense readiness, addresses the growing threat that climate change poses to military capabilities and global operations. Adding to that, the newly released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that extreme weather events will begin occurring more frequently across the globe. As first responders in the wake of extreme weather events, the U.S. military will be called upon to provide emergency support and services for a large portion of them.
The timing of these reports highlights a growing defense challenge but also provides an opportunity for the Defense Department to lead from the front in climate change mitigation and adaptation.
The military’s success in preparing for and mitigating climate change impacts will depend in large part on where it gets energy and how smartly it uses energy, especially amid budget constraints. Consider this: the Defense Department is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, despite accounting for less than one percent of total domestic use.
Each of the branches – Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Marine Corps – is making significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, but more must be done to meet energy goals and prepare for the global consequences of climate change. To do this, the Defense Department should:
- Play a larger role in creating a smarter, more resilient U.S. electricity grid. The security risks of an aging and inadequate power grid are direct threats to military capabilities. Case in point: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst in New Jersey served multiple logistical and emergency response functions during Superstorm Sandy – but parts of the base lost power during the storm. In fact, between 2010 and 2011, power outages on domestic Army bases alone more than doubled. Military bases that are proactive, rather than reactive, in their relationships to the electricity grid will be more resilient to extreme weather and grid attacks.
- Increase energy efficiency. According to the Pew Charitable Trust, 20 percent of the Defense Department's energy consumption occurs on domestic bases, where the annual energy bill tops $4 billion. The Navy recently conducted its inaugural Fleet Energy Training Event to highlight new conservation developments and train sailors in applying best energy practices. One of the goals is to shift sailors' attitudes from "saving energy if you can" to "saving energy unless you can't." All branches will be best served by instilling a similar mindset in each service member. Combined with service-wide efficiency programs, this will make a significant dent in reducing massive energy bills at domestic bases.
- Develop new partnerships. Collaboration with government, communities, universities and nonprofit organizations helps maintain readiness standards while enhancing environmental stewardship. Several years ago, the Defense Department collaborated with Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University, Environmental Defense Fund, and several other partners on a species conservation project at Fort Hood. This partnership enabled the Army to continue combat training operations, employed a market-based solution that benefitted nearby landowners, and facilitated the recovery of the Golden Cheeked Warbler. Similar, energy-based collaborations will link bases with groundbreaking research and help to spur clean energy innovation.
- Identify new ways to finance energy improvements. Tighter budgets mean less money to meet multi-level energy mandates. Private-public partnerships that incorporate third-party financing provide an opportunity to save billions of tax payer dollars, update and build critical military energy infrastructure, and boost the nation's clean energy market. Nearly 80 percent of future defense energy projects are expected to be financed by third-party providers, which will require changes in the way the military and government traditionally conduct business. For example, the military needs to streamline its energy project contracting processes. States, such as North Carolina, should encourage bases to take a more active role in energy management and remove any legislative barriers that prohibit such progress.
Ultimately, the military’s ability to mitigate climate change effects will rely heavily on strategic, diverse partnerships to navigate financing options, design new efficiency measures, and shape policy. From both a security and economic view, our military will be well served by relying on clean energy options.
This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.
Texans to benefit from vital clean air safeguards
Latest Mississippi River Delta News: April 15, 2014
Scientists fear BP blowout killed far more birds than officially reported
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. April 15, 2014.
“Almost from the start wildlife advocates described the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a war on the Gulf ecosystem…” (read more)
Louisiana House committee approves $725 million budget for 2015 coastal plan, over protests from St. Bernard, Plaquemines
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 14, 2014.
“A Louisiana legislative committee Monday approved $725 million for a fiscal year 2015 coastal plan…” (read more)
Coastal Restoration Spending Advances
By Sue Lincoln, WRKF Radio. April 15, 2014.
“Members of the House Transportation Committee put their stamp of approval…” (read more)
One of the Smartest Investments We Can Make
By Jane Lubchenco, Huffington Post Green. April 15, 2014.
“For the past 25 years, every U.S. president beginning with George H. W. Bush has upheld a straightforward…” (read more)
Continuing Impacts of BP Oil Spill (+video)
By Debbie Williams, WKRG TV (Mobile, Ala.). April 14, 2014.
“In February with the wind howling out of the north and a trip to the beach was less than appealing…” (read more)
Latest Mississippi River Delta News: April 15, 2014
Scientists fear BP blowout killed far more birds than officially reported
By Bob Marshall, The Lens. April 15, 2014.
“Almost from the start wildlife advocates described the Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a war on the Gulf ecosystem…” (read more)
Louisiana House committee approves $725 million budget for 2015 coastal plan, over protests from St. Bernard, Plaquemines
By Mark Schleifstein, The Times-Picayune. April 14, 2014.
“A Louisiana legislative committee Monday approved $725 million for a fiscal year 2015 coastal plan…” (read more)
Coastal Restoration Spending Advances
By Sue Lincoln, WRKF Radio. April 15, 2014.
“Members of the House Transportation Committee put their stamp of approval…” (read more)
One of the Smartest Investments We Can Make
By Jane Lubchenco, Huffington Post Green. April 15, 2014.
“For the past 25 years, every U.S. president beginning with George H. W. Bush has upheld a straightforward…” (read more)
Continuing Impacts of BP Oil Spill (+video)
By Debbie Williams, WKRG TV (Mobile, Ala.). April 14, 2014.
“In February with the wind howling out of the north and a trip to the beach was less than appealing…” (read more)
EDF Helps Standardize Energy Efficiency Projects in Texas
By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant
Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.
Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.
While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.
In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.
Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.
Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.
Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.
The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.
This commentary originally appeared on our Energy Exchange blog.
EDF Helps Standardize Energy Efficiency Projects in Texas
By EDF Blogs
By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant
Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.
Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.
While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.
In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.
Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.
Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.
Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.
The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.
EDF Helps Standardize Energy Efficiency Projects in Texas
By EDF Blogs
By: Matt Golden, Senior Energy Finance Consultant
Texas currently has the highest rate of energy consumption of any U.S. state and accounts for 10% of the country’s total energy consumption. Most of that energy goes to energy-intensive industries, such as aluminum, chemicals, forest products, glass, and petroleum refining, which consume 50% of the state’s energy, compared with a national average of 32%.
Last year, the Texas legislature passed statewide legislation enabling cities to use their property taxes as a way to finance clean energy and energy efficiency for industrial, agriculture, water, and commercial buildings. This innovative financing tool, generally referred to as property-assessed clean energy (PACE), has the potential to unlock a considerable amount of funding for both renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the state, while simultaneously offering building owners cheaper financing options and secure repayment through their property tax assessment.
While PACE holds great promise in Texas with its over 1,200 incorporated cities, stakeholders have expressed concern that each of these cities could develop its own program with unique requirements, leading to confusion and creating bottlenecks for a successful roll-out. A consistent approach to PACE implementation and program rules would, however, vastly increase the chances of success.
In order to get ahead of this potential issue and create the consistency desired by all, Keeping PACE in Texas, a non-profit devoted to bringing PACE programs to Texas, has been working with a wide array of stakeholders to develop a do-it-yourself toolkit, called “Pace in a Box.” This toolkit provides local Texas officials with a set of necessary steps, program rules, and technical requirements. Pace in a Box, released today, will facilitate a consistent statewide approach to implementing PACE financing as well as allow local Texas governments to establish effective PACE programs quickly and economically.
Pace in a Box will include energy efficiency protocols developed by EDF’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) as its recommended standard for developing projects, estimating energy and financial savings, and documenting and verifying results. By establishing a standardized process, the ICP Protocols will allow investors, building owners, and energy service companies to deploy PACE at scale in Texas. Input from stakeholders has shown that consistency and standardization are critical to growing the market and attracting investors.
Embedding ICP’s standards into the PACE in a Box toolkit not only creates consistency across the state of Texas, but also aligns the state with a growing number of national programs and investors. Ultimately, this could create an energy efficiency market on a national level.
Keeping PACE in Texas also avoided the costly and time-consuming process of developing proprietary program standards by using the ICP framework in its toolkit. Keeping PACE in Texas released the first version of its PACE in a Box toolkit this week to solicit feedback from stakeholders before launching a finalized version, scheduled for May 30, 2014.
The incorporation of ICP’s standards into the Pace in a Box toolkit reflects ICP’s growing momentum across the country as well as its rapidly-expanding Ally Network, which includes over 70 partners from both private industry and investors as well as an ever-expanding set of public programs.