By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Jack Newton

It may seem like only yesterday that Texans were asked to conserve water after another scorching summer, but in reality it was four, dry years ago. The drought, which began in 2010 after La Niña altered sea level temperatures in the Pacific, continues to persist in the Lone Star State and promises to surpass the state’s record-setting multi-year drought from the 1950s. Ranchers have been forced to sell off cattle, town water supplies continue to go dry, and power plants struggle to provide a reliable supply of electricity due to water scarcity and long stretches of hot weather. Given these bleak conditions, it should not come as a surprise that 70 percent of Texans believe global warming is happening—and 52 percent said they have personally experienced the effects of global warming.

An all-star team of producers, including James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger, intends to bring the Texas drought home to millions of televisions across the nation in the Years of Living Dangerously series premiering Sunday. Through this series, a host of celebrities, activists and journalists share the stories of those impacted most by our changing climate and what’s being done to save our planet. What is clear right now, in Texas and beyond, is that as climate change intensifies, we must adapt to more extreme weather conditions and make resilient changes that mitigate further stress.

Adapting to a hotter, drier climate

But don’t take my word for it. Texas State Climatologist and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Texas A&M University, John Nielsen-Gammon, has confirmed that the high temperatures experienced in 2011, which greatly exacerbated the drought, are, in fact, linked to a changing climate. The La Niña-related heat wave that prompted Texas’ extreme temperatures was made 20 times more likely by climate change. In his words: “We would have broken the record with this drought in terms of high temperatures even without climate change, but we ended up breaking it by quite a comfortable margin with climate change.” According to his estimates, Texans may expect a reprieve this year, to the benefit of ranchers and farmers, but nothing is certain, especially given extreme weather patterns are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future.

Arguably, the state’s agricultural sector was hit hardest during 2011, but water touches all of our lives and Texans across the state felt the environmental, societal, and economic costs. Ranchers and farmers lost nearly $8 million during 2011, as crops wilted, cattle were sold off, and utilities shut off water to farms, which inevitably sent food prices across the nation soaring. The state’s water supplies either evaporated completely or shrank to alarming levels, and they have yet to be fully replenished. But the most tragic consequence came in the form of wildfires, which swept across densely-populated Central Texas and burned over 1,000 homes in its wake. As ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ will aptly depict, Texans are already adapting to a hotter, drier climate.

Years of Living Dangerously

Don Cheadle will kick off the new series this Sunday, as he travels to Plainview and Lubbock, Texas to meet with ranchers, Texas Tech Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe and others as they share how their lives are impacted by the drought. EDF’s own leadership, Fred Krupp and Eric Pooley, participated on the advisory board for this film, along with several other thought-leading experts and environmental advocates. For a sneak peak, watch here.  For my fellow Texans and me, the drought has been at the top of our minds for the past four years and will be for many more. And as climate change intensifies, many other Americans will also face the water scarcity issues we Texans are too familiar with. Most of the western-half of the United States is currently in the midst of a drought and California, in particular, is reeling from the effects. In fact, California’s conditions are very similar to those in Texas back in 2011, which means rising food prices and devastating wildfires are soon to follow, and the impacts will be felt far beyond its borders.

At EDF, we are seeking solutions that reduce our dependence on fossil fuel generation, which emits extreme amounts of climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions and requires an abundant amount of water. The U.S. has the potential to adopt technologies and policies that will significantly cut down on water use, reduce the need for dirty fossil fuel power plants, and help Americans save money. By lining up the incentives to enable novel energy and water savings – such as implementing the widespread use of wind and solar energy, which consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions – we can ensure America’s faucets remain flowing during the next record-setting drought and beyond.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

By Kate Zerrenner

Source: Jack Newton

It may seem like only yesterday that Texans were asked to conserve water after another scorching summer, but in reality it was four, dry years ago. The drought, which began in 2010 after La Niña altered sea level temperatures in the Pacific, continues to persist in the Lone Star State and promises to surpass the state’s record-setting multi-year drought from the 1950s. Ranchers have been forced to sell off cattle, town water supplies continue to go dry, and power plants struggle to provide a reliable supply of electricity due to water scarcity and long stretches of hot weather. Given these bleak conditions, it should not come as a surprise that 70 percent of Texans believe global warming is happening—and 52 percent said they have personally experienced the effects of global warming.

An all-star team of producers, including James Cameron, Jerry Weintraub and Arnold Schwarzenegger, intends to bring the Texas drought home to millions of televisions across the nation in the Years of Living Dangerously series premiering Sunday. Through this series, a host of celebrities, activists and journalists share the stories of those impacted most by our changing climate and what’s being done to save our planet. What is clear right now, in Texas and beyond, is that as climate change intensifies, we must adapt to more extreme weather conditions and make resilient changes that mitigate further stress.

Adapting to a hotter, drier climate

But don’t take my word for it. Texas State Climatologist and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Texas A&M University, John Nielsen-Gammon, has confirmed that the high temperatures experienced in 2011, which greatly exacerbated the drought, are, in fact, linked to a changing climate. The La Niña-related heat wave that prompted Texas’ extreme temperatures was made 20 times more likely by climate change. In his words: “We would have broken the record with this drought in terms of high temperatures even without climate change, but we ended up breaking it by quite a comfortable margin with climate change.” According to his estimates, Texans may expect a reprieve this year, to the benefit of ranchers and farmers, but nothing is certain, especially given extreme weather patterns are expected to increase in frequency and intensity in the future.

Arguably, the state’s agricultural sector was hit hardest during 2011, but water touches all of our lives and Texans across the state felt the environmental, societal, and economic costs. Ranchers and farmers lost nearly $8 million during 2011, as crops wilted, cattle were sold off, and utilities shut off water to farms, which inevitably sent food prices across the nation soaring. The state’s water supplies either evaporated completely or shrank to alarming levels, and they have yet to be fully replenished. But the most tragic consequence came in the form of wildfires, which swept across densely-populated Central Texas and burned over 1,000 homes in its wake. As ‘Years of Living Dangerously’ will aptly depict, Texans are already adapting to a hotter, drier climate.

Years of Living Dangerously

Don Cheadle will kick off the new series this Sunday, as he travels to Plainview and Lubbock, Texas to meet with ranchers, Texas Tech Climate Scientist Katharine Hayhoe and others as they share how their lives are impacted by the drought. EDF’s own leadership, Fred Krupp and Eric Pooley, participated on the advisory board for this film, along with several other thought-leading experts and environmental advocates. For a sneak peak, watch here.  For my fellow Texans and me, the drought has been at the top of our minds for the past four years and will be for many more. And as climate change intensifies, many other Americans will also face the water scarcity issues we Texans are too familiar with. Most of the western-half of the United States is currently in the midst of a drought and California, in particular, is reeling from the effects. In fact, California’s conditions are very similar to those in Texas back in 2011, which means rising food prices and devastating wildfires are soon to follow, and the impacts will be felt far beyond its borders.

At EDF, we are seeking solutions that reduce our dependence on fossil fuel generation, which emits extreme amounts of climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions and requires an abundant amount of water. The U.S. has the potential to adopt technologies and policies that will significantly cut down on water use, reduce the need for dirty fossil fuel power plants, and help Americans save money. By lining up the incentives to enable novel energy and water savings – such as implementing the widespread use of wind and solar energy, which consume little to no water and generate negligible carbon emissions – we can ensure America’s faucets remain flowing during the next record-setting drought and beyond.

This commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

Written by Molly Rauch

After my visit to the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas to see fracking close up, I got to talk with community members who have been impacted by the frack-fueled increase in natural gas development.

Here’s a quiz based on what I learned. The answers might surprise you.

True or False: What Is Fracking Doing To Arkansas?

1. You are a tax paying landowner in Arkansas. A natural gas company wants to come onto your land, build a well pad, hydraulically fracture the shale gas under your land, extract the gas, and sell it for profit. You fiercely oppose, but the company can build their well on your land without your permission. True or False?
2. You are a rancher raising cattle for beef near Greenbrier, Arkansas. Your cattle graze on land on which there is a natural gas well pad, which requires the use of industrial chemicals for pump maintenance and which emits volatile organic compounds into the air. There is no fence around the well pad and your cattle therefore walks freely over the packed gravel pad, potentially exposed to any industrial chemicals that may leak onto the well pad. True or False?
3. You are a landowner in Arkansas who has managed to prevent well pads from being installed on your land, though there are dozens within a mile of your house. Your cat dies of kidney failure, and the vet determines that the kidney failure was caused by an excess of 2 butoxyethanol, a chemical widely known to be used in fracking. You ask your doctor to test you for that same chemical, but he says he won’t do it, and won’t discuss the chemical with you. True or False?
4. You grew up in a proudly rural, quiet area of Arkansas in the Fayetteville Shale. You notice an influx of out of state natural gas workers, and an increase in heavy truck traffic to service the new wells. With this boom in gas production, the quiet fields, clean roadsides, and fresh air that you remember from your childhood have been replaced with a constant stream of beer cans, plastic bags, and other litter along even the dirt roads in the county. True or False?
5. You live in Faulkner County, Arkansas, and see the heavy truck traffic that builds and services fracked natural gas wells. The increased truck traffic kicks up a lot of dust, so even more big trucks come in to spray the roads and keep dust down. Those spray trucks use “produced water” to spray the roads – the water that comes up out of the fracked gas wells, laced with a mix of known and unknown industrial and hydrocarbon chemicals, and possibly radioactive material as well. These chemicals are now being aerosolized and spread on miles of roads in your Faulkner County community. True or False?

Answers: 1. True. 2. True. 3. True. 4. True. 5. True.

Let us know in the comments what you learned. Do you think that sharing these stories will drive meaningful regulations of natural gas development?

TELL EPA WE NEED NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR NATURAL GAS POLLUTION

April 10, 2014

By John Finnigan

Source: American Insurance Association Flickr

Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President and leader of EDF’s Clean Energy Program, recently testified before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee against S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at current levels. Sen. William Seitz, the Committee Chair, described her testimony as “passionate,” “very persuasive” and “thought provoking.”

Roberto described how the electric grid has changed. The old model, in effect for the past hundred years, relies on one-way power flows from large, centralized utility power plants, with limited customer service options and limited information available to customers on their energy usage. The new model involves two-way power flows between the utility and customers who own small, on-site solar, wind, and combined heat and power units. Customers receive detailed, real-time energy usage and price information.

New energy and communications technologies offer many more options for providing electricity service to customers. In states without retail electric competition, utilities can use renewable energy and energy efficiency to serve customers, and the regulators can develop innovative rate plans which incentivize utilities for doing so. Roberto cited the example of MidAmerican Energy Company in Iowa, which serves 30% of its customers’ energy needs with wind power and has made massive investments in energy efficiency programs.

This is more challenging in states with retail electric competition, like Ohio. Without clean energy laws, utilities may not be able to recover their costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Roberto explained that these companies should sell their generating plants to avoid the inherent conflicts between their generating business versus their energy delivery business. The energy delivery companies would then function as “procurement officers” to obtain the optimal balance of resources for their customers, including renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Roberto informed the Senators of a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period. The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Ohio’s clean energy standards have only been in effect for five years and have been highly successful to date. Roberto urged the Senators not to curb these programs, which have flourished in a short time frame.

Roberto and her EDF team are doing everything they can to save Ohio’s clean energy standards.  But we can’t do it without you.  We urge you to contact Governor Kasich and your state representatives directly via EDF’s action alert to let them know where you stand on this important issue. Join the majority who support clean energy by adding your name and telling the Governor, state senators and state representatives to put Ohioan’s health, economy, and environment first. Don’t let Ohio lose out on these crucial clean energy standards.

By John Finnigan

Source: American Insurance Association Flickr

Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President and leader of EDF’s Clean Energy Program, recently testified before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee against S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at current levels. Sen. William Seitz, the Committee Chair, described her testimony as “passionate,” “very persuasive” and “thought provoking.”

Roberto described how the electric grid has changed. The old model, in effect for the past hundred years, relies on one-way power flows from large, centralized utility power plants, with limited customer service options and limited information available to customers on their energy usage. The new model involves two-way power flows between the utility and customers who own small, on-site solar, wind, and combined heat and power units. Customers receive detailed, real-time energy usage and price information.

New energy and communications technologies offer many more options for providing electricity service to customers. In states without retail electric competition, utilities can use renewable energy and energy efficiency to serve customers, and the regulators can develop innovative rate plans which incentivize utilities for doing so. Roberto cited the example of MidAmerican Energy Company in Iowa, which serves 30% of its customers’ energy needs with wind power and has made massive investments in energy efficiency programs.

This is more challenging in states with retail electric competition, like Ohio. Without clean energy laws, utilities may not be able to recover their costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Roberto explained that these companies should sell their generating plants to avoid the inherent conflicts between their generating business versus their energy delivery business. The energy delivery companies would then function as “procurement officers” to obtain the optimal balance of resources for their customers, including renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Roberto informed the Senators of a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period. The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Ohio’s clean energy standards have only been in effect for five years and have been highly successful to date. Roberto urged the Senators not to curb these programs, which have flourished in a short time frame.

Roberto and her EDF team are doing everything they can to save Ohio’s clean energy standards.  But we can’t do it without you.  We urge you to contact Governor Kasich and your state representatives directly via EDF’s action alert to let them know where you stand on this important issue. Join the majority who support clean energy by adding your name and telling the Governor, state senators and state representatives to put Ohioan’s health, economy, and environment first. Don’t let Ohio lose out on these crucial clean energy standards.

By John Finnigan

Source: American Insurance Association Flickr

Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President and leader of EDF’s Clean Energy Program, recently testified before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee against S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at current levels. Sen. William Seitz, the Committee Chair, described her testimony as “passionate,” “very persuasive” and “thought provoking.”

Roberto described how the electric grid has changed. The old model, in effect for the past hundred years, relies on one-way power flows from large, centralized utility power plants, with limited customer service options and limited information available to customers on their energy usage. The new model involves two-way power flows between the utility and customers who own small, on-site solar, wind, and combined heat and power units. Customers receive detailed, real-time energy usage and price information.

New energy and communications technologies offer many more options for providing electricity service to customers. In states without retail electric competition, utilities can use renewable energy and energy efficiency to serve customers, and the regulators can develop innovative rate plans which incentivize utilities for doing so. Roberto cited the example of MidAmerican Energy Company in Iowa, which serves 30% of its customers’ energy needs with wind power and has made massive investments in energy efficiency programs.

This is more challenging in states with retail electric competition, like Ohio. Without clean energy laws, utilities may not be able to recover their costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Roberto explained that these companies should sell their generating plants to avoid the inherent conflicts between their generating business versus their energy delivery business. The energy delivery companies would then function as “procurement officers” to obtain the optimal balance of resources for their customers, including renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Roberto informed the Senators of a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period. The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Ohio’s clean energy standards have only been in effect for five years and have been highly successful to date. Roberto urged the Senators not to curb these programs, which have flourished in a short time frame.

Roberto and her EDF team are doing everything they can to save Ohio’s clean energy standards.  But we can’t do it without you.  We urge you to contact Governor Kasich and your state representatives directly via EDF’s action alert to let them know where you stand on this important issue. Join the majority who support clean energy by adding your name and telling the Governor, state senators and state representatives to put Ohioan’s health, economy, and environment first. Don’t let Ohio lose out on these crucial clean energy standards.

By John Finnigan

Source: American Insurance Association Flickr

Cheryl Roberto, Associate Vice President and leader of EDF’s Clean Energy Program, recently testified before the Ohio Senate Public Utilities Committee against S.B. 310, which would freeze Ohio’s energy efficiency and renewable energy standards at current levels. Sen. William Seitz, the Committee Chair, described her testimony as “passionate,” “very persuasive” and “thought provoking.”

Roberto described how the electric grid has changed. The old model, in effect for the past hundred years, relies on one-way power flows from large, centralized utility power plants, with limited customer service options and limited information available to customers on their energy usage. The new model involves two-way power flows between the utility and customers who own small, on-site solar, wind, and combined heat and power units. Customers receive detailed, real-time energy usage and price information.

New energy and communications technologies offer many more options for providing electricity service to customers. In states without retail electric competition, utilities can use renewable energy and energy efficiency to serve customers, and the regulators can develop innovative rate plans which incentivize utilities for doing so. Roberto cited the example of MidAmerican Energy Company in Iowa, which serves 30% of its customers’ energy needs with wind power and has made massive investments in energy efficiency programs.

This is more challenging in states with retail electric competition, like Ohio. Without clean energy laws, utilities may not be able to recover their costs for energy efficiency and renewable energy. Roberto explained that these companies should sell their generating plants to avoid the inherent conflicts between their generating business versus their energy delivery business. The energy delivery companies would then function as “procurement officers” to obtain the optimal balance of resources for their customers, including renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Roberto informed the Senators of a March 2014 study by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which reviewed 1,700 energy efficiency programs in 31 states over a three-year period. The researchers found that the average cost for procuring the energy efficiency savings was 2.1¢ per kilowatt-hour – five times less expensive than the 10.13¢ per kilowatt-hour customers pay for electricity.

Ohio’s clean energy standards have only been in effect for five years and have been highly successful to date. Roberto urged the Senators not to curb these programs, which have flourished in a short time frame.

Roberto and her EDF team are doing everything they can to save Ohio’s clean energy standards.  But we can’t do it without you.  We urge you to contact Governor Kasich and your state representatives directly via EDF’s action alert to let them know where you stand on this important issue. Join the majority who support clean energy by adding your name and telling the Governor, state senators and state representatives to put Ohioan’s health, economy, and environment first. Don’t let Ohio lose out on these crucial clean energy standards.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Source: KXXV

Good news for clean energy in Texas!

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Texas’ power grid operator, presented a report to its Board of Directors this week confirming what we already knew: demand response is a worthwhile investment that strengthens Texas' power grid.

Demand response is an innovative tool used by utilities to reward people who use less electricity during times of peak, or high, energy demand. In effect, demand response relies on people, not power plants, to meet the demand for energy. And on January 6th when the Polar Vortex hit Texas, it did just that.

Demand response kept the lights on in Texas by providing more than 600 megawatts of power to the electric grid within 45 minutes. Again on January 18th, demand response came to the power grid’s rescue, when a malfunctioning power plant failed to provide electricity despite mild temperatures and fairly low power demand. As noted before, this report highlights events that occurred during the winter of this year, at a time when Texans do not typically expect the power grid to be strained, unlike the summer. This means that a reduction in energy use – or negawatts – was able to stabilize the electric grid such that blackouts were avoided.

As shown in the report, ERCOT's Emergency Response Service is a reliability mechanism used during extreme events when the power grid is at risk of rolling blackouts. Part of the program is the procurement of demand response, which was only in the pilot phase last year, but has now been formally adopted. This program was utilized during the extreme weather events this winter and relied on the participation of hundreds of Texas businesses, schools, local governments and individuals.

Having this performance data gives us proof that demand response is an integral tool for the electric grid.  Plus, this technology doesn’t require water, doesn’t pollute, and gives individuals power over their energy use in a refined and personalized way. As this innovative technology continues to be a verified market force, we will see reliance on it increase and the consequences of our dirty energy infrastructure decrease.

This content originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

By Marita Mirzatuny

Source: KXXV

Good news for clean energy in Texas!

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Texas’ power grid operator, presented a report to its Board of Directors this week confirming what we already knew: demand response is a worthwhile investment that strengthens Texas' power grid.

Demand response is an innovative tool used by utilities to reward people who use less electricity during times of peak, or high, energy demand. In effect, demand response relies on people, not power plants, to meet the demand for energy. And on January 6th when the Polar Vortex hit Texas, it did just that.

Demand response kept the lights on in Texas by providing more than 600 megawatts of power to the electric grid within 45 minutes. Again on January 18th, demand response came to the power grid’s rescue, when a malfunctioning power plant failed to provide electricity despite mild temperatures and fairly low power demand. As noted before, this report highlights events that occurred during the winter of this year, at a time when Texans do not typically expect the power grid to be strained, unlike the summer. This means that a reduction in energy use – or negawatts – was able to stabilize the electric grid such that blackouts were avoided.

As shown in the report, ERCOT's Emergency Response Service is a reliability mechanism used during extreme events when the power grid is at risk of rolling blackouts. Part of the program is the procurement of demand response, which was only in the pilot phase last year, but has now been formally adopted. This program was utilized during the extreme weather events this winter and relied on the participation of hundreds of Texas businesses, schools, local governments and individuals.

Having this performance data gives us proof that demand response is an integral tool for the electric grid.  Plus, this technology doesn’t require water, doesn’t pollute, and gives individuals power over their energy use in a refined and personalized way. As this innovative technology continues to be a verified market force, we will see reliance on it increase and the consequences of our dirty energy infrastructure decrease.

This content originally appeared on our Texas Clean Air Matters blog.

Good news for clean energy in Texas! The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Texas’ power grid operator, presented a report recently confirming what we already knew: demand response is a worthwhile investment that strengthens Texas’ power grid. Demand response is an innovative tool used by utilities to reward people who use less electricity during […]

By Marita Mirzatuny

Good news for clean energy in Texas!

Source: KXXV

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Texas’ power grid operator, presented a report to its Board of Directors this week confirming what we already knew: demand response is a worthwhile investment that strengthens Texas' power grid.

Demand response is an innovative tool used by utilities to reward people who use less electricity during times of peak, or high, energy demand. In effect, demand response relies on people, not power plants, to meet the demand for energy. And on January 6th when the Polar Vortex hit Texas, it did just that.

Demand response kept the lights on in Texas by providing more than 600 megawatts of power to the electric grid within 45 minutes. Again on January 18th, demand response came to the power grid’s rescue, when a malfunctioning power plant failed to provide electricity despite mild temperatures and fairly low power demand. As noted before, this report highlights events that occurred during the winter of this year, at a time when Texans do not typically expect the power grid to be strained, unlike the summer. This means that a reduction in energy use – or negawatts – was able to stabilize the electric grid such that blackouts were avoided.

As shown in the report, ERCOT's Emergency Response Service is a reliability mechanism used during extreme events when the power grid is at risk of rolling blackouts. Part of the program is the procurement of demand response, which was only in the pilot phase last year, but has now been formally adopted. This program was utilized during the extreme weather events this winter and relied on the participation of hundreds of Texas businesses, schools, local governments and individuals.

Having this performance data gives us proof that demand response is an integral tool for the electric grid.  Plus, this technology doesn’t require water, doesn’t pollute, and gives individuals power over their energy use in a refined and personalized way. As this innovative technology continues to be a verified market force, we will see reliance on it increase and the consequences of our dirty energy infrastructure decrease.

Originally published on Ensia.com.

By Gernot Wagner

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 ascarbon 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 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, as a recent commentary in Nature points out. 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. 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.

By Matt Watson

You see something once, and it might just be an anomaly. See it twice, maybe coincidence. But when you see it a third time – that’s a pattern. A trend.

With Ohio’s move last week to control “fugitive” emissions from oil and gas operations, that’s what we’re seeing – a rapid trend from leading states to control this major source of air and climate pollution. The Ohio rules come on heels of similar actions in Wyoming and Colorado. Together, these rules signal a fast-growing recognition that fugitive emissions are a problem that has to be dealt with, and that there are cost-effective ways we can slash these emissions today.

Through the cracks

Fugitive emissions are unintentional leaks (as opposed to combustion emissions or intentional releases, which have their own set of solutions). Leaks can happen across the natural gas supply chain when valves, connectors and other equipment wear out and fail or when maintenance and operations aren’t up to snuff.

Even though individual leaks might be small, when you add them up, fugitives can be an enormous source of smog-forming VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. In fact, emerging data point to the likelihood that fugitive emissions are an even bigger problem than previously thought. Last year EDF and nine of the nation’s biggest oil and gas operators participated in a University of Texas study that measured methane emissions at oil and gas well sites. One of the study’s key findings is that fugitive emissions are 38 times higher than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

And yet, until recently, fugitive emissions have been pretty much ignored in state and federal regulations. When EPA overhauled its rules for oil and gas air pollution in 2012, huge strides were taken to reduce pollution coming from a number of key sources. But the agency punted on well-site fugitives.

States step up

Now, states are stepping into the breach. Wyoming – long a leader in taking on oil and gas air pollution issues – was first out of the gate. Last fall Governor Mead’s administration adopted new rules requiring oil and gas operators to implement leak detection and repair programs (LDAR) in the Upper Green River Basin – an area where intensive oil and gas development has led to unhealthy spikes in ozone pollution.  Under the program, operators will scan their well-sites on a quarterly basis with infrared cameras or other hydrocarbon detection instruments and make timely repairs.

Colorado came next – in February adopting the nation’s first, and still only, regulations that directly target methane pollution from oil and gas operations (so far, other state and federal rules have targeted VOCs and other air pollutants, with methane reductions coming as a corollary benefit). Real credit goes to Governor Hickenlooper for putting methane regulation on the agenda and not backing off in the face of opposition from the just-say-no crowd.

The new Colorado rules represent the boldest, most comprehensive oil and gas air regulations in the country – addressing a wide range of pollution sources from both new and existing wells statewide. Colorado’s LDAR program is tough but pragmatic. Well sites with the greatest pollution potential have to scan for leaks on a monthly basis. The largest tranche of wells – those in the middle range – must do quarterly inspections. The smallest wells have annual inspection requirements.

Ohio joined the ranks last week with a policy that will require operators to find and fix leaks at new unconventional oil and gas wells on a quarterly basis. This comes as part of a rapid string of new rules and legislative efforts Governor Kasich has advanced to get ahead of the game, so Ohio is prepared for development of the still-nascent Utica Shale.

Unusual suspects

One of the first things you notice is that these groundbreaking rules aren’t coming from the Birkenstock states. Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio are all major oil-and-gas producers with long histories of depending on energy production as a cornerstone of their state economies. And these governors, two Republicans and one Democrat, are anything but anti-industry. They welcome oil and gas development and what it can mean for jobs and their state economies.

These governors also know that development can’t come at the expense of communities, public health and the environment. So, they’ve been leaders in charting a path forward – and they’ve been rewarded for their efforts by support not only from environmental organizations and local communities, but from leaders within industry too.

The Wyoming rules were supported by a multi-stakeholder task force that included key operators in the state. In Colorado, the framework for the rules was developed through negotiations between EDF and three of the state’s most important oil and gas companies – Noble, Anadarko and Encana. And the recently adopted Ohio rules have been met with a positive response from the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

Onward and upward

No doubt, there are some who will always fight progress on oil and gas oversight – just as there are those who will always throw rocks, content to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That’s just how the game is played. But the Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio examples show that when officials step up and show true leadership, the majority in the middle will come with them.

There are lessons here for the White House, which just two weeks ago announced a strategy for addressing methane from oil and gas operations and other major sources. The Obama Administration took an important step with this announcement and rightly noted that, for the effort to be successful, federal officials need to flesh out their strategy in cooperation with the states. We couldn’t agree more – and we can think of three states that would be pretty good places for that dialogue to start.

 

By Matt Watson

You see something once, and it might just be an anomaly. See it twice, maybe coincidence. But when you see it a third time – that’s a pattern. A trend.

With Ohio’s move last week to control “fugitive” emissions from oil and gas operations, that’s what we’re seeing – a rapid trend from leading states to control this major source of air and climate pollution. The Ohio rules come on heels of similar actions in Wyoming and Colorado. Together, these rules signal a fast-growing recognition that fugitive emissions are a problem that has to be dealt with, and that there are cost-effective ways we can slash these emissions today.

Through the cracks

Fugitive emissions are unintentional leaks (as opposed to combustion emissions or intentional releases, which have their own set of solutions). Leaks can happen across the natural gas supply chain when valves, connectors and other equipment wear out and fail or when maintenance and operations aren’t up to snuff.

Even though individual leaks might be small, when you add them up, fugitives can be an enormous source of smog-forming VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. In fact, emerging data point to the likelihood that fugitive emissions are an even bigger problem than previously thought. Last year EDF and nine of the nation’s biggest oil and gas operators participated in a University of Texas study that measured methane emissions at oil and gas well sites. One of the study’s key findings is that fugitive emissions are 38 times higher than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

And yet, until recently, fugitive emissions have been pretty much ignored in state and federal regulations. When EPA overhauled its rules for oil and gas air pollution in 2012, huge strides were taken to reduce pollution coming from a number of key sources. But the agency punted on well-site fugitives.

States step up

Now, states are stepping into the breach. Wyoming – long a leader in taking on oil and gas air pollution issues – was first out of the gate. Last fall Governor Mead’s administration adopted new rules requiring oil and gas operators to implement leak detection and repair programs (LDAR) in the Upper Green River Basin – an area where intensive oil and gas development has led to unhealthy spikes in ozone pollution.  Under the program, operators will scan their well-sites on a quarterly basis with infrared cameras or other hydrocarbon detection instruments and make timely repairs.

Colorado came next – in February adopting the nation’s first, and still only, regulations that directly target methane pollution from oil and gas operations (so far, other state and federal rules have targeted VOCs and other air pollutants, with methane reductions coming as a corollary benefit). Real credit goes to Governor Hickenlooper for putting methane regulation on the agenda and not backing off in the face of opposition from the just-say-no crowd.

The new Colorado rules represent the boldest, most comprehensive oil and gas air regulations in the country – addressing a wide range of pollution sources from both new and existing wells statewide. Colorado’s LDAR program is tough but pragmatic. Well sites with the greatest pollution potential have to scan for leaks on a monthly basis. The largest tranche of wells – those in the middle range – must do quarterly inspections. The smallest wells have annual inspection requirements.

Ohio joined the ranks last week with a policy that will require operators to find and fix leaks at new unconventional oil and gas wells on a quarterly basis. This comes as part of a rapid string of new rules and legislative efforts Governor Kasich has advanced to get ahead of the game, so Ohio is prepared for development of the still-nascent Utica Shale.

Unusual suspects

One of the first things you notice is that these groundbreaking rules aren’t coming from the Birkenstock states. Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio are all major oil-and-gas producers with long histories of depending on energy production as a cornerstone of their state economies. And these governors, two Republicans and one Democrat, are anything but anti-industry. They welcome oil and gas development and what it can mean for jobs and their state economies.

These governors also know that development can’t come at the expense of communities, public health and the environment. So, they’ve been leaders in charting a path forward – and they’ve been rewarded for their efforts by support not only from environmental organizations and local communities, but from leaders within industry too.

The Wyoming rules were supported by a multi-stakeholder task force that included key operators in the state. In Colorado, the framework for the rules was developed through negotiations between EDF and three of the state’s most important oil and gas companies – Noble, Anadarko and Encana. And the recently adopted Ohio rules have been met with a positive response from the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

Onward and upward

No doubt, there are some who will always fight progress on oil and gas oversight – just as there are those who will always throw rocks, content to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That’s just how the game is played. But the Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio examples show that when officials step up and show true leadership, the majority in the middle will come with them.

There are lessons here for the White House, which just two weeks ago announced a strategy for addressing methane from oil and gas operations and other major sources. The Obama Administration took an important step with this announcement and rightly noted that, for the effort to be successful, federal officials need to flesh out their strategy in cooperation with the states. We couldn’t agree more – and we can think of three states that would be pretty good places for that dialogue to start.

 

By Matt Watson

You see something once, and it might just be an anomaly. See it twice, maybe coincidence. But when you see it a third time – that’s a pattern. A trend.

With Ohio’s move last week to control “fugitive” emissions from oil and gas operations, that’s what we’re seeing – a rapid trend from leading states to control this major source of air and climate pollution. The Ohio rules come on heels of similar actions in Wyoming and Colorado. Together, these rules signal a fast-growing recognition that fugitive emissions are a problem that has to be dealt with, and that there are cost-effective ways we can slash these emissions today.

Through the cracks

Fugitive emissions are unintentional leaks (as opposed to combustion emissions or intentional releases, which have their own set of solutions). Leaks can happen across the natural gas supply chain when valves, connectors and other equipment wear out and fail or when maintenance and operations aren’t up to snuff.

Even though individual leaks might be small, when you add them up, fugitives can be an enormous source of smog-forming VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and methane, a highly potent greenhouse gas. In fact, emerging data point to the likelihood that fugitive emissions are an even bigger problem than previously thought. Last year EDF and nine of the nation’s biggest oil and gas operators participated in a University of Texas study that measured methane emissions at oil and gas well sites. One of the study’s key findings is that fugitive emissions are 38 times higher than U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

And yet, until recently, fugitive emissions have been pretty much ignored in state and federal regulations. When EPA overhauled its rules for oil and gas air pollution in 2012, huge strides were taken to reduce pollution coming from a number of key sources. But the agency punted on well-site fugitives.

States step up

Now, states are stepping into the breach. Wyoming – long a leader in taking on oil and gas air pollution issues – was first out of the gate. Last fall Governor Mead’s administration adopted new rules requiring oil and gas operators to implement leak detection and repair programs (LDAR) in the Upper Green River Basin – an area where intensive oil and gas development has led to unhealthy spikes in ozone pollution.  Under the program, operators will scan their well-sites on a quarterly basis with infrared cameras or other hydrocarbon detection instruments and make timely repairs.

Colorado came next – in February adopting the nation’s first, and still only, regulations that directly target methane pollution from oil and gas operations (so far, other state and federal rules have targeted VOCs and other air pollutants, with methane reductions coming as a corollary benefit). Real credit goes to Governor Hickenlooper for putting methane regulation on the agenda and not backing off in the face of opposition from the just-say-no crowd.

The new Colorado rules represent the boldest, most comprehensive oil and gas air regulations in the country – addressing a wide range of pollution sources from both new and existing wells statewide. Colorado’s LDAR program is tough but pragmatic. Well sites with the greatest pollution potential have to scan for leaks on a monthly basis. The largest tranche of wells – those in the middle range – must do quarterly inspections. The smallest wells have annual inspection requirements.

Ohio joined the ranks last week with a policy that will require operators to find and fix leaks at new unconventional oil and gas wells on a quarterly basis. This comes as part of a rapid string of new rules and legislative efforts Governor Kasich has advanced to get ahead of the game, so Ohio is prepared for development of the still-nascent Utica Shale.

Unusual suspects

One of the first things you notice is that these groundbreaking rules aren’t coming from the Birkenstock states. Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio are all major oil-and-gas producers with long histories of depending on energy production as a cornerstone of their state economies. And these governors, two Republicans and one Democrat, are anything but anti-industry. They welcome oil and gas development and what it can mean for jobs and their state economies.

These governors also know that development can’t come at the expense of communities, public health and the environment. So, they’ve been leaders in charting a path forward – and they’ve been rewarded for their efforts by support not only from environmental organizations and local communities, but from leaders within industry too.

The Wyoming rules were supported by a multi-stakeholder task force that included key operators in the state. In Colorado, the framework for the rules was developed through negotiations between EDF and three of the state’s most important oil and gas companies – Noble, Anadarko and Encana. And the recently adopted Ohio rules have been met with a positive response from the Ohio Oil and Gas Association.

Onward and upward

No doubt, there are some who will always fight progress on oil and gas oversight – just as there are those who will always throw rocks, content to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That’s just how the game is played. But the Wyoming, Colorado and Ohio examples show that when officials step up and show true leadership, the majority in the middle will come with them.

There are lessons here for the White House, which just two weeks ago announced a strategy for addressing methane from oil and gas operations and other major sources. The Obama Administration took an important step with this announcement and rightly noted that, for the effort to be successful, federal officials need to flesh out their strategy in cooperation with the states. We couldn’t agree more – and we can think of three states that would be pretty good places for that dialogue to start.

 

You see something once, and it might just be an anomaly. See it twice, maybe coincidence. But when you see it a third time – that’s a pattern. A trend. With Ohio’s move last week to control “fugitive” emissions from oil and gas operations, that’s what we’re seeing – a rapid trend from leading states […]

Written by Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Dr. David Suzuki for EcoWatch:

I have a cabin on Quadra Island off the British Columbia coast that’s as close to my heart as you can imagine. From my porch you can see clear across the waters of Georgia Strait to the snowy peaks of the rugged Coast Mountains. It’s one of the most beautiful views I have seen. And I would gladly share it with a wind farm.

Sometimes it seems I’m in the minority. Across Europe and North America, environmentalists and others are locking horns with the wind industry over farm locations. In Canada, opposition to wind installations has sprung up from Nova Scotia to Ontario to Alberta to B.C. In the U.K., more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of the country’s most prominent environmentalists, have argued wind power is inefficient, destroys the ambience of the countryside and makes little difference to carbon emissions. And in the U.S., the Cape Wind Project, which would site 130 turbines off the coast of affluent Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has come under fire from famous liberals, including John Kerry and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

It’s time for some perspective. With the growing urgency of climate change, we can’t have it both ways. We can’t shout about the dangers of global warming and then turn around and shout even louder about the “dangers” of windmills. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges humanity will face this century. Confronting it will take a radical change in the way we produce and consume energy—another industrial revolution, this time for clean energy, conservation and efficiency.

We’ve undergone such transformations before and we can again. But we must accept that all forms of energy have associated costs. Fossil fuels are limited in quantity, create vast amounts of pollution and contribute to climate change. Large-scale hydroelectric power floods valleys and destroys habitat. Nuclear power plants are expensive, create radioactive waste and take a long time to build.

Wind power also has its downsides. It’s highly visible and can kill birds. But any man-made structure (not to mention cars and house cats) can kill birds—houses, radio towers, skyscrapers. In Toronto alone, an estimated one million birds collide with the city’s buildings every year. In comparison, the risk to birds from well-sited wind farms is low. Even the U.K.’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says scientific evidence shows wind farms “have negligible impacts” on birds when they are appropriately located.

Improved technologies and more attention to wind farm placement can clearly reduce harm to birds, bats and other wildlife. Indeed, the real risk to flying creatures comes not from windmills but from a changing climate, which threatens the very existence of species and their habitats. Wind farms should always be subject to environmental-impact assessments, but a blanket “not in my backyard” approach is hypocritical and counterproductive.

Pursuing wind power as part of our move toward clean energy makes sense. Wind power has become the fastest-growing source of energy in the world, employing hundreds of thousands of workers. That’s in part because larger turbines and greater knowledge of how to build, install and operate them has dramatically reduced costs over the past two decades. Prices are now comparable to other forms of power generation and will likely decrease further as technology improves.

But, are windmills ugly? Mostafa Tolba, executive director of the UN Environment Programme from 1976 to 1992, told me belching smokestacks were considered signs of progress when he was growing up in Egypt. Even as an adult concerned about pollution, it took him a long time to get over the pride he felt when he saw a tower pouring clouds of smoke.

Our perception of beauty is shaped by our values and beliefs. Some people think wind turbines are ugly. I think smokestacks, smog, acid rain, coal-fired power plants and climate change are ugly. I think windmills are beautiful. They harness the wind’s power to supply us with heat and light. They provide local jobs. They help clean air and reduce climate change.

And if one day I look out from my cabin porch and see a row of windmills spinning in the distance, I won’t curse them. I will praise them. It will mean we’re finally getting somewhere.

 


TELL THE SENATE TO END TAX BREAKS FOR OIL, GAS AND COAL


By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices. Para leer in Espanol haga clic aquí)

In 2012 Latinos made up 1 in 10 voters and helped decide the Presidential election with record-setting voter margins. Last month in California, the most populous state in the nation, the Hispanic population surpassed that of non-Hispanic whites. The only other state to reach this benchmark is New Mexico, where the Latino population is almost 10% larger than that of non-Hispanic whites.

As the Latino population continues to grow across the country, so does its influence in key political arenas. In battleground states like Florida, Colorado, and Nevada, Latinos accounted for 17, 14, and 18 percent of voters in 2012, respectively, an increase from previous elections. The trend has reignited a lively discussion about the influence of the American Latino community, the “sleeping giant” of American politics.

There’s also a lesser-known political trend that is emerging among the country’s youngest and fastest-growing demographic: the demand among Latinos for action to address climate change. In a new national poll released last month by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Latino Decisions:

• 9 out of 10 Latino voters “want the government to take action against the dangers of global warming and climate change”
• 8 in 10 Latinos want the President to curb the carbon pollution that causes climate change
• 86% of Latinos support limits on carbon pollution from power plants

How is this demographic shift significant to environmental advocacy?

The implications of this demographic moving so clearly in favor of pro-environmental policies is significant. For one, environmental policy issues are likely to fast become determining issues for Latino voters on both sides of the aisle. According to Latino Decisions, a leader in Latino political opinion research, the only other policy issue that has received such high levels of support is immigration reform, an issue in the lead among the most significant deciding issues for Latino voters across the political spectrum.

This demographic shift is also significant as the impacts of climate change become more severe. In recent months, key electoral states with large Latino populations have felt the devastating effects of climate change, from the unprecedented flooding in Colorado to California’s historic drought. With 50,000 Latinos turning 18 every month, a solid stance on environmental policy may fast become a make or break issue for elected officials in these states and at the national level.

Combined, these trends paint a clear picture, one of a Latino population that disproportionately supports action on climate change and that is increasingly influential in key political states.

Environmentalists, take note: this is a major opportunityfor the environmental movement to move forward policy that has stalled in the past. Equally as urgent, it is a tremendous opportunity to elevate the voices of Latinos, among other communities of color, disproportionately affected by environmental issues. A few examples:

• It’s a chance to build support for green jobs initiatives, many of which will be undertaken by Latinos and Latinas
• It’s a call to arms to better address the environmental health impacts that disproportionately affect Latino communities

Perhaps most important, it’s an open door to create more space for diversity in a movement that needs broader support to succeed, and one that will be more effective by better engaging underrepresented communities. How well we do this will be a measure of how quickly and how equitably we hope to meaningfully address climate change, the defining issue of our time.

By Lucía Oliva Hennelly

(This post originally appeared on EDF Voices. Para leer in Espanol haga clic aquí)

In 2012 Latinos made up 1 in 10 voters and helped decide the Presidential election with record-setting voter margins. Last month in California, the most populous state in the nation, the Hispanic population surpassed that of non-Hispanic whites. The only other state to reach this benchmark is New Mexico, where the Latino population is almost 10% larger than that of non-Hispanic whites.

As the Latino population continues to grow across the country, so does its influence in key political arenas. In battleground states like Florida, Colorado, and Nevada, Latinos accounted for 17, 14, and 18 percent of voters in 2012, respectively, an increase from previous elections. The trend has reignited a lively discussion about the influence of the American Latino community, the “sleeping giant” of American politics.

There’s also a lesser-known political trend that is emerging among the country’s youngest and fastest-growing demographic: the demand among Latinos for action to address climate change. In a new national poll released last month by the Natural Resources Defense Council and Latino Decisions:

• 9 out of 10 Latino voters “want the government to take action against the dangers of global warming and climate change”
• 8 in 10 Latinos want the President to curb the carbon pollution that causes climate change
• 86% of Latinos support limits on carbon pollution from power plants

How is this demographic shift significant to environmental advocacy?

The implications of this demographic moving so clearly in favor of pro-environmental policies is significant. For one, environmental policy issues are likely to fast become determining issues for Latino voters on both sides of the aisle. According to Latino Decisions, a leader in Latino political opinion research, the only other policy issue that has received such high levels of support is immigration reform, an issue in the lead among the most significant deciding issues for Latino voters across the political spectrum.

This demographic shift is also significant as the impacts of climate change become more severe. In recent months, key electoral states with large Latino populations have felt the devastating effects of climate change, from the unprecedented flooding in Colorado to California’s historic drought. With 50,000 Latinos turning 18 every month, a solid stance on environmental policy may fast become a make or break issue for elected officials in these states and at the national level.

Combined, these trends paint a clear picture, one of a Latino population that disproportionately supports action on climate change and that is increasingly influential in key political states.

Environmentalists, take note: this is a major opportunityfor the environmental movement to move forward policy that has stalled in the past. Equally as urgent, it is a tremendous opportunity to elevate the voices of Latinos, among other communities of color, disproportionately affected by environmental issues. A few examples:

• It’s a chance to build support for green jobs initiatives, many of which will be undertaken by Latinos and Latinas
• It’s a call to arms to better address the environmental health impacts that disproportionately affect Latino communities

Perhaps most important, it’s an open door to create more space for diversity in a movement that needs broader support to succeed, and one that will be more effective by better engaging underrepresented communities. How well we do this will be a measure of how quickly and how equitably we hope to meaningfully address climate change, the defining issue of our time.