ICYMI: The Weather Channel’s "The Climate 25"

Despite the consensus among climate scientists that human activity causes global warming, some people insist that the jury is still out.  

In response, The Weather Channel has weighed in with its position on climate change: “We report the science, and the science consistently says climate change is real, humans are causing it, and we must prepare for its effects.”

As a follow up to its position statement, they produced a series featuring “The Climate 25,” a diverse group of thought leaders who discuss their perspectives on global climate change and solutions for mitigating it. 

The presentation is simple – participants speak for less than two minutes and the footage is in black and white – but their commentary is illuminating. Their reflections are a stark reminder that inaction on climate change will have wide-reaching and interconnected effects on resource availability, national security, and the global economy. 

Below are just a few quotes that indicate the range of perspectives included in the Weather Channel’s series: 

“You can’t say that environmental regulation automatically causes the economy to stop. It doesn’t. It’s the wrong way to frame the issue.”
--Christine Todd Whitman, Former New Jersey Governor, EPA Administrator (2001-03)

 “Many conflicts throughout our history have been based on resource competition. Increasingly, in the future, we’ll be defining some of our national security interests in those resource contests. And so, availability of energy [is] at the top of the list; availability of fresh water, [is] right up there with energy. You can predict that that drives human activity in a way that can create conflict.”
--General Charles H. Jacoby (Ret.), Commander, U.S. North Command

“Let us change our ways of living because we depend on agriculture and agriculture is now not dependable. Everyone will suffer if it continues like this.”
--Constance Okollet, Community Leader, Uganda

As an organization, we’re excited to advocate for the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan -- the first ever standard on carbon pollution – along with grassroots leaders in Pennsylvania who want to facilitate the transition to a clean energy economy. Like the Climate 25, we know that we don’t have time to debate the facts – we must act. 

Katie Bartolotta is PennFuture's southeastern Pennsylvania outreach coordinator and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @KatieBartolotta.

More good news from President Obama on climate

As we've been reporting, President Obama took a big step forward toward shrinking our national carbon footprint in November when he committed to China that we will cut our global warming pollution by up to 28 percent (compared to 2005) by 2025.

And now, on March 31, more good news from the White House:  The Administration made the November agreement more formal by submitting the terms to the United Nations. Major emitting countries were required to formally submit their plans in March, indicating how they intend to meet reductions that we hope will be formally negotiated and agreed upon in Paris in December at the next international climate conference.

Again, we urge Congress to act and put a price on carbon pollution—we know that's the best solution. But until that happy day occurs, we continue to praise President Obama for taking strong executive actions, showing the world that the White House means business, even as Congress fiddles.

Read what Politico had to say about the announcement.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director, based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Encouraging news on climate action by the President

President Obama put smiles on the faces of climate activists across the country last week when he announced his executive order to limit global warming emissions from the federal government.

The President announced on March 19 that the federal government must cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent over the next decade from 2008 levels. Here's why this is significant: The federal government is the largest consumer of energy in the nation. The federal portfolio of 360,000 buildings, 650,000 fleet vehicles, and $445 billion spent annually on goods and services provides abundant opportunities for energy conservation and efficiency.

The feds will avoid emitting 26 million metric tons of GHGs—the equivalent of taking 5.5 million cars off the road.

For those of us extremely concerned about climate change, this in itself is great news. But for those somehow less concerned about the problem, an important co-benefit of this action is that it will save taxpayers up to $18 billion in avoided energy costs. 

PennFuture sees this important action by the President as the latest indicator that he views climate change as a legacy issue. He announced his Clean Power Plan last June, and then his important agreement with the Chinese in November in which both the U.S. and China will significantly reduce emissions in the next ten to fifteen years.

The President's executive order last week is just his latest important step in the right direction.

Now, if Congress would just do the right thing and legislate a price on carbon, we could all rest a bit easier.

Until then, hail to the chief for his leadership.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director, based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey .

Even the grand old guys know we have to cut carbon

Those of us who have been adults for several decades remember the sway that big accounting firms used to have in the business world. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is one of those well-respected names that can still turn heads when they speak.

PwC just issued its 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index.

Not good news. To quote the report, "For the sixth year running, the global economy has missed the decarbonization target needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees C."

To stay on track for the two-degree-max target, we would have had to cut our carbon emissions by 6 percent in 2013. How did the world do? A miserable 1.2 percent decrease.

Last year's lapse means we now need to speed up even more to achieve the goal, specifically cutting carbon by 6.2 percent in 2014—five times last year's rate. Doesn't seem likely, does it?

To be sure, these are global measurements and projections. But is Pennsylvania doing its part? This is an especially painful question at the moment, given the horrendous step backward that the our General Assembly has just taken: They passed H.B. 2354, which throws a monkey wrench into the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to limit CO2 from coal-burning power plants in Pennsylvania, the major source of carbon pollution in this country.

Read what Mother Jones has to say about PwC's bad news.


Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Birds fly into the latter half of the 21st century on a wing and a prayer

“The greatest threat our birds face today is global warming."

-  Dr. Gary Langham, chief scientist, National Audubon Society

A new report by the National Audubon Society shows the potential effects of global warming on birds by the year 2080. Rising global temperatures will alter the traditional habitable ranges of a critical mass of bird species throughout North America, either shrinking them outright or forcing species into new territory where they would have to adapt to different temperatures and precipitation rates.

More than half of the 588 North American bird species in the report were considered climate endangered (projected to lose more than half of their current range by 2050) or climate threatened (projected to lose more than half of their current range by 2080).

To get a sense of the magnitude of the proglem, look no further than this statistic provided in a statement by Dr. Gary Langham, the report's lead author and the National Audubon Society's chief scientist:

“Since 1600, only about nine bird species have gone extinct in continental North America, but we’re looking at half of North American bird species at risk by the end of this century.” 

Some other worrisome news:

- The bald eagle could lose up to 75 percent of its traditional range by the year 2080.

- In Pennsylvania, our official state bird – the ruffed grouse – faces extinction if we do not change the course on climate change. 

The potential effects of climate change on bird populations are worrisome, but it’s not too late to act. The National Audubon Society suggests that policy makers adopt a comprehensive strategy: Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving efforts to adapt to climate change, and preserving key bird habitats and incorporating climate change into conservation planning. 

You can show policymakers that preserving bird species is not a partisan issue by supporting one step in the proscribed solution – support the EPA’s proposed standards to limit carbon pollution from existing power plants. 

Katie Bartolotta is PennFuture's Philadelphia outreach coordinator and is based in Philadelphia. 

A nasty circle: A warming atmosphere and diminished power reliability

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has issued its second important report within a month. "Power Failure: How climate change puts our electricity at risk—and what we can do about it" raises some important questions. As science has been telling us for years, extreme weather events due to climate disruption will increase over time. And "global weirding" (as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman refers to global warming) seems to already have visited too many of us in the Mid-Atlantic.

Concerns about climate change are not new. But the UCS report connects some dots in a way that spells big trouble ahead: The country's infrastructure for distributing electricity from power plants to homes and businesses (a.k.a. the grid) is aging. And its age increases its vulnerability to extreme weather events.

A few examples from the report:

• Power plants are vulnerable to water-related risks. Because fossil fuel and nuclear power plants rely on copious amounts of water for cooling, they are invariably located on rivers or bays. Many of these plants are ancient, relatively speaking, and were not engineered for warmer water.
• Sea level rise threatens coastal power facilities in particular. Climate Central reports that about 100 power plants and substations are within four feet of local high tide. And with science predicting likely sea level rises of 1.6 to 6.6 feet above 1992 levels by 2099, we'd better be making some new plans.
• Heat waves are a double whammy: reducing efficiency at power plants while simultaneously increasing demand ("Honey, it's too hot in here! Turn up the A/C.")

This is where it hits home for me, literally. I experienced days-long power outages from  Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 and again this past winter, the third snowiest on record for Philadelphia.

So what's to be done? We need to find the collective will to "harden" our electricity infrastructure—burying power lines and building sea walls, that type of thing. But it's expensive. So let's really fix the problem and move toward a cleaner energy future, where generating electricity doesn't make climate change worse, which further threatens our aging grid—a positive feedback loop we just can't accept.

See PennFuture's Clean Energy Wins report, just released in March, that offers a roadmap as to how Pennsylvania can displace fossil fuels with clean energy and energy efficiency.

Please help keep the lights on -- and the planet safer.

This offending branch that knocked out my neighborhood's power for 2+ days in February

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

More disturbing news on climate change

This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest assessment of global progress -- or lack thereof -- on tackling climate disruptions: "Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerabilities."

As noted in the New York Times, the report makes clear that climate change is already visibly changing our world: Arctic sea ice is melting precipitously -- and contributing to rising sea levels that threaten coastal populations (think Miami); mountain snowpack is melting earlier each year, leading to more frequent summer droughts (think western wildfires); and increased incidents of extreme weather are killing those least able to defend themselves (think everywhere).

The authors do a great job connecting the dots on the physical manifestations of climate change with likely impacts on geopolitics:

"Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger."

"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change," said Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, at the public release of the report on March 31.

The IPCC reports have huge academic credibility, representing the best scientific thinking from experts around the world, with the report this week representing the work of 243 lead authors and 436 additional experts.

So what does all this have to do with Pennsylvania? Our relatively small population of 12+ million people creates nearly one percent of the world's heat-trapping emissions -- a hugely disproportional ratio, given a global population of 7 billion.

So I would argue that Pennsylvanians bear extra responsibility to take action, since Congress won't. Here's an easy step you can take right now and it won't take more than a minute.Tell the EPA to move quickly and decisively to limit industrial climate pollution from power plants.

Future generations will thank you.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia.

EPA acts to limit industrial carbon pollution from new power plants

Since we last weighed in on this in November, we're delighted to report that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally proposed a standard to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from new power plants (the source of 40 percent of the country's global warming pollution).

Since Pennsylvania is the third worst state in the country in terms of global warming pollution -- and home to some of the dirtiest power plants in the country, to boot -- we have a special responsibility to act.

As Congress, apparently cowed by the many science deniers in their ranks, flat out refuses to limit carbon pollution from power plants, federal law requires the President to invoke his executive powers to act.

Requiring any new power plants to be cleaner

In April 2012, EPA first proposed a rule to limit CO2 from any new plants to be built. EPA later announced a delay to the finalizing of that rule.

Then, in September 2013, EPA released a modified version of its original proposal, opening the public comment period (Send a comment to the EPA), even though the rule hadn't been published in the federal register.

On January 8, EPA published the proposed rule in the register, which started the clock ticking on the final 60 days in which to comment on the rule -- the window will close on March 10.

The EPA will consider all comments and issue a final rule by June 2015, with states required to act (i.e., limit CO2 emissions from any new coal plants) by June 2016.

The authority to regulate CO2 from new power plants derives from Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS. (Here is some background for those of you who want to wade into the weeds on this.)

What about cleaning up the existing power plants?

There's another equally important front on this battle to slow climate change: limiting the CO2 that belches forth from existing coal plants. This will be an even tougher political battle than new plants. The EPA is scheduled to propose a standard aimed at existing plants this June.

Stay tuned.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture, based in Philadelphia.

Climate deniers in Congress. And yet, they like the money...

Thanks to the Center for American Progress for the insightful report it has just released titled

States of Denial: States with the Most Federal Disaster Aid Sent Climate-Science Deniers to Congress.  

The report shows all too well the actual cost of carbon pollution, as we reflect on extreme weather events of recent years. These weather disasters, fueled in part by climate change, are costing the country billions of dollars, even as more than 160 members of Congress continue to deny climate change.

To quote the Center, "Interestingly, many of the states that received the most federal recovery aid to cope with climate-linked extreme weather have federal legislators who are climate-science deniers. The ten states that received the most federal recovery aid in FY 2011 and 2012 elected 47 climate-science deniers to the Senate and the House. Nearly two-thirds of the senators from these top 10 recipient states voted against granting federal emergency aid to New Jersey and New York after Superstorm Sandy."

Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey voted to send aid to our neighbors in New Jersey and New York. However, Senator Pat Toomey voted not to help them. How is this compassionate, or even fair? These are fundamental American values in my perspective, so I simply don't understand how Sen. Toomey can vote this way.

I'm relieved to write that Pennsylvania is 20th on the list of states in terms of aid received, due in some part to the luck of our inland geography. And yet, Pennsylvania ranks as the third worst state in terms of producing global warming pollution. We're a big part of the problem, so a big part of the responsibility should fall on our shoulders.

We're hearing that the Obama Administration is set to publicly propose this Friday (September 20) a carbon pollution standard for new power plants, as authorized by the Clean Air Act. This regulation, if allowed to stand by Congress, will ensure that no new power plant built in this country will be permitted to release unlimited amounts of dangerous carbon pollution into the air, endangering public health and fueling the storms that are devastating communities and costing billions.

I'm only sorry that our country didn't have the foresight to do this a decade ago.

 

VICTORY: The Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, a critical first step

This post is one in a month-long series speaking to 15 of PennFuture's significant victories. It was 15 years ago this September that we began our work to protect the environment and champion a clean energy economy.

Pennsylvania is a big contributor to climate change.

Our state emits more global warming pollution than 105 developing countries combined. Nationally, Pennsylvania ranks third in carbon dioxide emissions.

So, we have a duty to be a big part of the climate change solution, too.

One of PennFuture's key victories, and one for which we’re still fighting today, is the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, which laid a foundation for Pennsylvania's response to global warming.

In July 2008, after years of behind-the-scenes efforts, the fruits of our labor were realized with landmark passage of the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, the first-ever state legislation on global warming. PennFuture worked with Representative Greg Vitali, the driving force behind the bill in the House; Senator Ted Erickson, the bill's prime sponsor in the Senate; and policy makers from both sides of the aisle to secure overwhelming passage in the General Assembly.

The Act requires Pennsylvania to conduct a climate change impact assessment to identify the physical impacts of climate change to the state, along with an action plan for lowering greenhouse gas emissions, both reports to be updated every three years. The Act also created a Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCAC) to advise the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on preparing these reports. PennFuture's Christina Simeone now chairs the CCAC.

In 2009, a year after its passage, the Act's first mandated impact assessment and action plan were published by the Rendell Administration's DEP, confirming that Pennsylvania contributes one percent of the world’s global warming pollution and recommending action steps to policy makers.

Now, four years later, Pennsylvanians are still waiting for the Corbett Administration's updated impact assessment and action plan. What's taking so long? Perhaps it has something to do with a Governor and other high ranking officials who still aren't willing to give straight answers on climate change.

In the meantime, we'll continue to fight for Pennsylvanians and demand that the Governor comply with the Pennsylvania Climate Change Act, an essential building block if Pennsylvania is to fulfill its responsibility on climate change.

PennFuture will celebrate 15 years of environmental victories on September 25. Please consider joining us!