By Paolo Padova, Science Intern
Last week the presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, released his climate and energy plan. Biden’s plan puts an emphasis on environmental justice and its intersection with racial inequality. The plan commits to creating a new Environmental and Climate Justice Division within the Department of Justice to hold contaminating corporations accountable. Building on the EPA’s EJSCREEN tool, Biden will “create a data-driven Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool to identify communities threatened by the cumulative impacts of the multiple stresses of climate change, economic and racial inequality, and multi-source environmental pollution.” The plan includes several aggressive targets such as achieving an emissions-free power sector by 2035. Biden also set a goal for disadvantaged communities to receive 40 percent of all clean energy and infrastructure benefits he was proposing.
The plan is clearly an attempt to appeal to younger and more progressive voters who have, thus far, been a challenge for Biden. Many progressives have been uneasy about a Biden presidency because of his refusal to adopt a range of progressive priorities such as medicare for all, defunding the police, and the legalization of marijuana. His record on issues like criminal justice has drawn significant criticism from the left. Some view a Biden presidency as “harm reduction” while others are even less optimistic. Nonetheless, the appeal seems to be working, at least with some. Governor Jay Inslee of Washington, a prominent environmentalist called the plan “visionary.” In response to the plan Sunrise Movement executive director, Varshini Prakash said “It’s no secret that we’ve been critical of Vice President Biden’s plans and commitments in the past. Today, he’s responded to many of those criticisms.” This progressive shift in Biden’s environmental policy is a direct result of the progressive voters who have conditioned their vote on policy concessions from the former vice-president.
Biden’s plan also makes several references to Native American communities. Elizabeth Kronk Warner, the dean of the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and a citizen of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, said she was pleasantly surprised by Mr. Biden’s plan.
On the other hand, some have been critical of the fact that the plan does not include the use of a carbon tax, which many see as the most effective and socially equitable way to decrease carbon emissions. This may be a result of an effort to altogether avoid the word ‘tax’ out of fear of alienating moderate voters. Trump’s allies have been quick to attack the plan, depicting it as a threat to jobs in the energy sector and some have attempted to link the plan with the significantly more progressive Green New Deal. According to Trump, Biden’s “agenda is the most extreme platform of any major party nominee, by far, in American history.” While Biden’s plan is less progressive than the Green New Deal and Biden has not fully endorsed the Green New Deal, his plan does follow a similar strategy of emphasizing how aggressive climate action could create jobs. Specifically, the plan presents itself as a response to the economic crisis brought on by COVID-19. Biden foresees one million new jobs will be created making electric vehicles and charging stations and perhaps millions more union jobs could come from building greener infrastructure.
Photo Credit: Matt Slocum/AP
Tag: energy
By: Sophie Weinberg, Intern
Money is the driving force behind many industries in the United States, and those that pollute are no exception. It is a common perception that those industries, such as coal mining, are vital to the economy, when in reality pollution that results from those industries is detrimental to economic success. Particularly, the burden of disease that comes from pollution has an immense price tag. Despite the real reason, the costs of these diseases are not typically attributed to pollution and are instead lumped in with general health expenditures. Beyond the direct costs of caring for patients who are battling life-threatening pollution-related diseases, there are also the indirect costs of decreased productivity associated with those employees missing work which then lowers the GDP of a country. This loss of GDP is estimated at $53 billion in higher income countries. That is an incredible sum of money that could be used in a wide variety of programs to build up vulnerable communities. Currently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EPA has decided to not enforce environmental regulations in order to give polluting industries an economic break. This decision will not only add more pollution to the air, but more people will suffer the effects of coronavirus as it is a respiratory illness. The economy will ultimately become more damaged as all industry remains closed to respond to the large amount of sick people.
Beyond the cost of disease, governments also must contribute large sums of money to mitigate environmental threats that could have been prevented originally. The Michigan government, for example, settled on setting aside $97 million in order to replace corroding lead pipes in Flint, when the decision to switch water sources in the first place would only save the city about $5 million. That estimate does not include the nearly $400 million lost to the city in social costs, since so many children will suffer for the rest of their lives due to lead exposure.
Despite public belief about rolling back environmental protections in order to boost the economy, the enormous economic benefits of environmental regulations and sustainable technology are rarely discussed. Renewable energy, for example, creates jobs and also utilizes resources already found in the United States. This boosts the economy by bringing in revenue rather than relying on fuel imports. Regardless of these positives, society is not willing to uproot their livelihood to make changes, even if those changes are for the good of everyone involved. Overall, the price of sustainability may seem high at first glance but will always be worth it in the end when the environment is protected, human health is promoted, and the economy is thriving.
Virginia has become the first southern state to establish carbon-free energy goals by the year 2045. Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed into action the Virginia Clean Economy Act that will require such utility powerhouses as Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to transition to carbon free operations. Read More.
The following article is reprinted on our webpage from the Washington Post written by Gregory S. Schneider.
Virginia becomes the first Southern state with a goal of carbon-free energy
By Gregory S. Schneider
April 13, 2020 at 9:26 p.m. EDT
RICHMOND — The coronavirus is scrambling Virginia’s budget and economy, but it didn’t prevent Gov. Ralph Northam (D) from signing legislation that makes it the first Southern state with a goal of going carbon-free by 2045.
Over the weekend, Northam authorized the omnibus Virginia Clean Economy Act, which mandates that the state’s biggest utility, Dominion Energy, switch to renewable energy by 2045. Appalachian Power, which serves far southwest Virginia, must go carbon-free by 2050.
Almost all the state’s coal plants will have to shut down by the end of 2024 under the new law. Virginia is the first state in the old Confederacy to embrace such clean-energy targets.
Under a separate measure, Virginia also becomes the most Southern state to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — a carbon cap-and-trade market among states in the Northeast.
The actions “will create thousands of clean energy jobs, make major progress on fighting climate change, and break Virginia’s reliance on fossil fuels,” state Sen. Jennifer L. McClellan (D-Richmond), a sponsor of the omnibus bill, said in an emailed statement.
Democrats promised to do more to protect the environment during elections last fall in which they won control of the state legislature for the first time in a generation.
They used their new power to pass a mountain of ambitious legislation in this year’s General Assembly session, and Northam had until midnight this past Saturday to sign bills into law, suggest amendments or veto them. He proposed delaying some actions — such as raising the state’s minimum wage — and freezing all new spending in anticipation of the impact of the pandemic, which is likely to cost the state about $3 billion over the next two years.
But Northam cast the energy legislation as an antidote, saying in a statement that it would prove “that a clean environment and a strong economy go hand-in-hand.”
In addition to the clean-energy goals, the legislation sets energy efficiency standards for the state’s electricity providers, mandates the development of offshore wind energy and opens the door to more rooftop solar.
Some consumer advocates have criticized the legislation for continuing to allow Dominion Energy to pass costs along to customers and insulating the giant utility from regulatory oversight of its rates. Dominion is the most influential corporation in Richmond, and many of the Democrats who won last year had promised to disrupt the utility’s special status.
Although Dominion participated in crafting the legislation, it was not the driving force. Instead, a coalition of alternative-energy companies and advocacy groups worked with lawmakers on the idea.
Many environmental groups praised Northam for signing it.
“This is undoubtedly the boldest climate action legislation ever to come out of the South,” Southern Environmental Law Center lawyer Will Cleveland said via email. “We look forward to continuing to work together to ensure the best possible implementation of this groundbreaking legislation and to ensure that this transformation of our energy landscape benefits all Virginians equally.”
Gary Moody, director of state and local climate strategy at the National Audubon Society, said that the legislation “shows the success of a pragmatic, market-based approach in achieving state economywide solutions.”
Plus, he said, it’s good for the birds. “Even in this time of uncertainty, both threatened communities and vulnerable birds like cerulean warblers and saltmarsh sparrows will have a fighting chance against climate change.”
The Virginia House and Senate passed sweeping energy legislation yesterday that would overhaul how Virginia’s utilities generate electricity and moves the state to the forefront of renewable energy policy in the United States.
The measure, called the Clean Economy Act, lays out a plan to get Virginia to 100% renewable generation. Read more.
The United Nations issued a report earlier this month that came to alarming conclusions about the unprecedented loss in worldwide ecosystems and the accelerating rate of species extinction occurring on the planet.
According to the UN press release, “Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history – and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating, with grave impacts on people around the world now likely.” The report found that around 1 million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.
“The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”
Th report describes a planet in which the human footprint has been devastating. Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human activity such as the dedication of one third of world’s land and three-quarters of water found in freshwater rivers and lakes to crop or livestock production.
The average number of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reef-forming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since the 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.
“The Report also tells us that it is not too late to make a difference, but only if we start now at every level from local to global,” said Sir Robert Watson. “Through ‘transformative change’, nature can still be conserved, restored and used sustainably – this is also key to meeting most other global goals. By transformative change, we mean a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values.”
The causes of these dramatic impacts were identified in descending order as: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.
The UN Report also presents steps that can be taken to address these issues in specific sectors such as agriculture, forestry, marine systems, freshwater systems, urban areas, energy, and finance. It highlights the importance of adopting integrated management and cross-sectoral approaches that take into account the trade-offs of food and energy production, infrastructure, freshwater and coastal management, and biodiversity conservation.
The report was prepared by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) with 145 expert authors from 50 countries, with inputs from another 310 contributing authors. The report included a systematic review of about 15,000 scientific and government sources to assess changes over the past five decades. The primary focus of this effort was to evaluate the impacts of economic development on nature and biodiversity.
Highlights of the 1,800 report can be found on the United Nations website <here>.
Nevada ranked first nationally in the release of toxic chemicals per square mile in 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, and the state’s mining industry was the reason why. read more here.
Categories
What’s Up with the Green New Deal?
By Maia Lehmann. The ever-tenacious Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveiled her Green New Deal (GND) on February 7th amidst great anticipation. The non-binding resolution, co-sponsored by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, sought to provide the United States with a comprehensive vision to combat climate change using a holistic approach. Excitement was widely felt by those who have been waiting decades to see public health, climate change, and environmental justice seriously addressed by federal legislation. But, what did Ocasio-Cortez’s plan actually lay out? And what’s happening to it now?
The goal of the Green New Deal (GND) was to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable power use by 2030. This objective was met by broad support from the American public, with 87.2% of citizens polled saying that they strongly agreed with the statement. Adapting the U.S. energy portfolio is an essential step, seeing as in 2017 petroleum, natural gas, and coal accounted for 77.6% of U.S. energy—a direct disconnect from what Americans say they want from their energy sector.
The 14-page GND begins with a preamble that describes the policy issues as seen by Ocasio-Cortez: one-part climate crisis, one-part economic crisis. The preamble is followed by five goals, 24 projects, and 15 requirements that intend to lay a framework for how to address these problems. Rather than laying out concrete steps however, the GND uses a broad brush to advocate for an energy efficient electrical grids, updating infrastructure, and overhauling the transportation sector. While critics say that it is ignoring the most integral questions, it is strategically opening a space for disagreement and discussion.
The GND faces plenty of hurdles, especially since it includes several social and economic oriented projects, such as, “Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and disability leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” Whether you agree with these issues or not, including them could make the reality of passing the bill even more difficult than climate legislation is already. And the difficulty of climate legislation is highlighted by the co-sponsorship of Senator Markey, who was a leader on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in 2009. The 2009 bill had a much narrower focus but still failed to pass even when both houses of Congress and the presidency was held by Democrats. However, rather than letting that cast a shadow upon the GND, perhaps it speaks to the need for radical changes to the status quo. In fact, 69.8% of Americans polled supported the intertwined social and environmental goals. And due to the inseparable nature of these policy issues it may be advantageous to craft a vision of how they could be developed in tandem. If previous incremental policy efforts have failed, and the opinions of the public are not being reflected by our lawmakers, then it is time to embrace an innovative comprehensive approach.
On March 26th the Senate voted the resolution down in a vote of 57-0, with the majority of Democrats voting “present” in protest to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell bringing the bill to the floor without hearings or debate. If anything, Senate Republican’s refusal to even discuss the most pressing issues of climate change demonstrate the necessity for dramatic policy change. The halt of the GND in the senate did not stall the zeal for the overall project of the GND. Representative Ocasio-Cortez is now refocusing her efforts by writing a series of small bills that will target both social and environmental issues in a more individualized method. The GND has successfully reinvigorated and rallied the efforts and public spirit for tackling the current climate crisis and provided a vision for what a sustainable and equitable America could look like. All of the Senate Democrats running for the presidency in 2020 have endorsed the GND, signaling that its vision will continue to permeate and inspire environmental legislation. This will not be the end of a green future that will support all of America.
Sources:
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/7/18211709/green-new-deal-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/flaws-with-a-green-new-deal-part-2-of-2/
https://www.investopedia.com/the-green-new-deal-explained-4588463
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home
https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-support-among-americans-poll-2019-2
https://www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal-support
Episcopalians in Virginia are joining a movement to block a proposed mid-Atlantic gas pipeline that they say will disrupt and pollute minority communities and increase American dependence on fossil fuels at a time when the church and others are pushing for greater reliance on renewable energy sources. Read more.
Excitement is building among environmentalists as Washington prepares for the arrival of new lawmakers elected by the #PeoplesWave. Led by New York Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, these insurgents promise to infuse new energy into the movement for climate justice.
By Ben Ben Ishibashi, People’s Action Network
Ocasio-Cortez, through a series of high-profile public protests and statements, has focused the minds and hearts of activists, and laid down a gauntlet for the Democratic Party.
Now is the time, she says, for a Green New Deal that confronts climate change head-on with bold solutions that can fundamentally alter our nation’s course on both the environment and rising income inequality through a real commitment to renewable energy.
Last month, she led over a thousand young people in three simultaneous sit-ins at Democratic leadership offices on Capitol Hill to demand action on climate change.
“This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation,” she said.
36 members of Congress have already joined her call to action. On Friday, more than 300 local officials signed an open letter of support, adding to the thousands of young people from the Sunrise Movement who helped coordinate the Capitol Hill protests.
But what exactly is a Green New Deal? More importantly, what should it be?
At People’s Action, we often find ourselves at the front lines with those most affected by environmental injustice. We know that a new energy economy must go far beyond simply replacing fossil fuels.
We welcome this new influx of excitement and resources to the fight for environmental justice. We invite new lawmakers to join us in working to pass and implement policies that address our needs for a just and equitable energy transition – to an economy that is not only 100 percent renewable, but also 100 percent just: an economy that puts those most affected by our climate crisis, people of color and the working class, at the center of our new economy.
At present, the Green New Deal is a proposal – a statement of intent, really – to create a Select House Committee with House members who have never taken money from the fossil-fuels industry. This committee will draft legislative language for the Green New Deal by March 1, 2020.
Goals include a dramatic expansion of renewable power to meet 100 percent of national power demand through renewable sources, upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural transportation and other industries, and making the U.S. a global leader in the creation and export of “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services.
In order to be 100 Percent Just, any Green New Deal must include truly renewable fuels, democratizing the grid, and an end to “sacrifice zones” where Black and Brown communities disproportionately bear the human costs of dirty energy extraction.
Good green jobs must be created both for communities that have survived decades of disinvestment, as well as those communities that now depend on extraction.
We have an opportunity – indeed, an obligation – to transform our energy economy so we can not just meet the challenges of climate change, but also transform our economy overall to put people and planet before profits.
A 100 Percent Just Green New Deal goes far beyond good intentions: it frames justice and equity as necessary components that make this project strategically possible. It mandates that dirty energy pollution end by the earliest date, spelling out clearly and intentionally how this happens.
It must include a plan for investment and reparations for communities that have been sacrificed on the altar of polluter profits. And this commitment to equity must be part of the structure of the plan – from the very first resolution, establishing the first House Select Committee, all the way through to final bill language and commitment to follow through with jobs, training, accessibility and investment for working class people and communities of color.
This means a 100% Just Green New Deal not only mandates that we stop burning fossil fuel for energy by 2030, but that we fully end the extraction fossil fuels and other forms of dirty energy by 2025, and do so in a way that doesn’t leave extraction workers or their communities in the lurch.
A 100% Just Green New Deal will mandate that we phase out fossil fuel energy, but will also require that that this starts with the closure and reclamation of the dirtiest power plants, located in the communities most overburdened by pollution.
We must commit to and adopt the principle that the residents of sacrifice zones that have most borne and bear the burdens of dirty energy now become the first to receive benefits of the new, democratic and non-extractive economy.
A 100% Just Green New Deal doesn’t just offer a blanket promise of good green jobs and training for everyone, it will ensure that jobs training programs and investments in job creation are targeted and available first to the communities that need them most.
The Green New Deal, in its current form, aspires to some of these things, but not all of them. We know this is a work in progress, and welcome this influx of new energy, but we know there is much more work to be done.
For the United States is to position itself globally as a green technology leader, we must push for the kinds of broader restructuring of international trade and global economic structures that will lay the ground for a truly equitable, just and transformative global economy.
Finally, any 100% Just Green New Deal must include the voices of those who are directly impacted. The people who are closest to the problems of sacrifice zones, the consequences of extractive industries and the private monopoly control of energy, must be invited into the process of drafting and proposing solutions that flesh out this bold new framework.
Their voices must be heard, and it is up to our new lawmakers to put their vision, needs and priorities at the heart of this exciting new process from its beginning through to the end.