Posts

Congressional climate strategy includes microgrids and climate justice

Last week, Democrats on the US House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis issued a report, “Solving the Climate Crisis, “ which provides an emissions reduction policy framework which seeks to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Here’s a link to a summary article from Vox about the report. 

One of the recommendations in the report is to “Invest in disproportionately exposed communities to cut pollution and advance environmental justice.” This matches Climate Center policy priorities related to climate justice as noted in a recent letter sent by The Climate Center and Partners to the Steyer Committee (here’s a link to a summary article from Microgrid Knowledge).  One of the principles of The Climate Center-backed Community Energy Resilience Act, SB 1314, was the prioritization of state support for low-income and disadvantaged communities.

The new report also spotlights microgrid development as a key resilience strategy, particularly for critical infrastructure — similar to recommendations from The Climate Center’s Community Energy Resilience program and associated media efforts.

Microgrid-related recommendations in the new congressional report include the following:

  • Establishing a new program at the Departments of Health and Human Services to support pre-disaster hospital and health facility resilience projects, including retrofits and maintenance to reduce flood and wildfire risk, harden facilities against extreme weather, and integrate redundant water and power supplies, including microgrids and community renewable energy grids;
  • Directing the Department of Energy to create a grant, technical assistance, and demonstration programs for microgrids, especially in isolated areas and vulnerable communities;
  • Providing technical assistance and funding through the US Department of Agriculture to deploy resilient renewable energy and microgrid systems;
  • Creating a new program within the Department of Transportation to assess and deploy resilient solutions for public transit electrification, including advanced microgrids.

To learn more community energy resilience policy, register here for The Climate Center’s August 5th Community Energy Resilience Policy Summit.

Congressional climate action plan

Congressional Climate Crisis Action Plan would decarbonize U.S., add $8 trillion in benefits by 2050

by Megan Mahajan, Forbes


Highlights

  • The U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has released their climate policy report titled Solving the Climate Crisis: The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient and Just America 
  • Climate policy firm Energy Innovation modeled a subset of the Select Committee’s recommendations using a simulator and found it will hit net zero carbon dioxide emissions before 2050 and slash net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 88% from 2010 levels by 2050
  • This policy could prevent 62,000 premature deaths annually from pollution, while generating nearly $8 trillion in cumulative monetized health and climate benefits by 2050
  • Under this model, the electricity sector could reach 90% clean electricity by 2035 and 100% clean energy by 2040
  • Electrifying buildings with clean energy can deliver much-needed emissions reductions within that sector
  • 100% zero-emission vehicle sales for light-duty vehicles by 2035 and for heavy-duty vehicles by 2040 would help the transportation sector meet 2050 net-zero targets
  • More than 70% of voters support legislation targeting a 100% clean economy according to new polling

The Climate Center’s Climate-Safe California Platform advocates for a formal California State commitment by 2022 to 80% below 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions and net negative emissions by 2030 for a climate-safe future.


Read More: https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2020/06/30/congressional-climate-crisis-action-plan-would-decarbonize-us-add-8-trillion-in-benefits-by-2050/#56af4e331381

House Democrats’ climate plan is ambitious, but is it enough?

On Tuesday House Democrats unveiled a package of more than 120 pieces of legislation that seek to drive a transition to net zero carbon emissions by 2050, and the plan ties climate action to racial justice. Some pundits are saying that the plan shows just how far progressives have pushed the climate conversation. Vox reporter David Roberts called it, “The most detailed and well-thought-out plan for addressing climate change that has ever been a part of US politics.”

The plan is very similar to the Green New Deal, but lacks a ban on fracking and other rapid fossil fuel phase-out measures that will be required to avoid already looming climate catastrophe.

The plan comes just as Ohio University has released a study revealing that the South Pole has been warming at more than three times the global average over the past 30 years. For climate scientists, the alarm bells are ringing on global tippings points that are beginning to unleash potentially irreversible damage.

The 547-page report calls for setting a price on carbon dioxide pollution, eliminating pollution from cars by 2035 and from power plants by 2040, and achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The roadmap draws on information gathered in more than 100 hearings by Castor’s panel and other House committees. The plan also calls for massive jobs programs, investments in infrastructure, and tax credits to encourage more manufacturing of clean energy components domestically.

The plan is ambitious, and hopefully this agenda will also soon include a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels that is more in line with the current climate reality and the need for net-negative emissions by 2030

California can help by setting our own targets in line with the latest science. Our Climate-Safe California platform outlines these targets and the bold policies needed to meet them. Endorse it today.

As Congress launches month of climate hearings, GOP bashes Green New Deal

by Nicholas Kusnetz and John H. Cushman Jr., InsideClimate News

With Democrats now in charge, two key committees in the U.S. House of Representatives used their first hearings of the year on Wednesday to press for more vigorous action on climate change, despite the political and practical hurdles.

Democrats and their witnesses, including governors, policy experts and scientists, argued that time is alarmingly short. But it became clear over the hours that if the stakes are high, the odds are long.

In the simultaneous hearings, the minority Republicans seized the moment to bash the so-called Green New Deal, a legislative platform that has been embraced by brash new Congress members as well as seasoned climate hawks. It seeks a rapid, wholesale transformation to a zero-carbon economy that would also be prosperous and equitable.

Read more: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06022019/house-climate-change-hearings-democrats-green-new-deal-infrastructure-bill

Climate voters could swing congress, but they might not be who you think they are

by Nathaniel Stinnett, Huffington Post

The catastrophic hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires of 2017 brought climate change home to Americans like never before. And, while Mother Nature may not have planned it this way, the extreme weather hit 2018 political battleground states especially hard, with Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and California facing unprecedented damage.

In each of these states, 2018 will bring both a U.S. Senate and a gubernatorial election; combined, they also have 20 competitive U.S. House races. Voters anxious about climate change could thus hold the key to both the Senate and House this November, but only if campaigns can properly target them. Right now, that’s a big “if.”

The public’s image of environmentalists is so far from the reality that it’s the stuff of political satire: “Close your eyes and picture an environmentalist, and you’re likely to summon up a white guy in a Patagonia jacket, standing proudly next to his Prius with camping equipment loaded in the back,” scoff commentators at Quartz. This stereotype would be funny if it weren’t so often swallowed hook, line, and sinker by political consultants and the media, leaving many true environmentalists to be ignored by candidates and campaigns alike.

A more accurate and nuanced picture reveals that environmentalists aren’t nearly as white, rich, or uniformly young as we’re often led to believe. In fact, nearly every racial minority group tends to care more about environmental issues than white people do. A growing body of research, most notably from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communications, shows that Latinos are particularly concerned about climate change, and that they’re also more likely to get involved in climate-related campaigns.

These findings align with our research at the Environmental Voter Project, where we typically poll over 10,000 people per state. We ask about voters’ political priorities, and then cross-reference their responses with consumer and behavioral data to build predictive models that individually identify “environmental voters,” similar to how insurance companies build actuarial tables.

In every state where we’ve measured voter priorities, we’ve found that Latinos, Asians, and African-Americans are significantly more likely than Caucasians to prioritize climate change and the environment. In Florida, African-Americans make up nearly 14% of the electorate and are 18.4% more likely than white voters to list climate change/environment as a top priority. In Nevada, where almost 1 in 5 voters is Latino, they are 10.3% more likely than white voters to care about the environment.

The “wealthy environmentalist” stereotype also breaks down under scrutiny. A 2015 Pew Research Center Study found that 49% of Americans making less than $50,000 believed that climate change was a “very serious problem,” whereas only 41% of those making more than $50,000 agreed. This difference likely reflects the very real concern that climate change disproportionately impacts poorer communities. The same survey found that Americans earning less than $50,000 were almost twice as likely as their wealthier counterparts to think that climate change would harm them personally.

Finally, young people do tend to care deeply about climate change and the environment; here, the stereotype holds true. Yet a closer look reveals a more interesting picture. Environmental Voter Project research shows that 18-34 year olds are twice as likely to care deeply about climate change/environment as older age groups. But within the 18-34 year-old age group, those over 25 are twice as likely to prioritize climate change/environment as their 18 to 24-year-old peers.

We have also found surprisingly large populations of older Americans focused on climate change and the environment. Parents with 13-15 year-old children are just as likely as 18 to 24-year-olds to care about climate change, and grandmothers between the ages of 55-65 aren’t too far behind.

So what does all of this mean? Candidates who want to win in many 2018 battleground states should get real about who environmentalists are, find them, and get them to the polls.

Moreover, the environmental movement can no longer afford to treat inclusivity and intersectional organizing as convenient tactics or talking points. They are now absolutely necessary. Make no mistake: the environmental voters who could decide the 2018 midterms are just as likely to be Latina grandmothers as white college students. Candidates ignore them at their peril.

source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-voters-could-swing-congress-but-they-might_us_5a56720be4b024fa0543b650?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003

Will Harvey’s damage shift how Congress sees climate change and budget cuts?

by Marianne Lavelle , John H. Cushman Jr., Georgina Gustin, InsideClimate News

Even as the floodwaters continued to rise in East Texas, it was clear that Hurricane Harvey would force a new reckoning over major energy and climate policy questions.

The immediate priorities—rescue operations, disaster assistance, flood insurance, and the like—will be followed by broader questions involving the vulnerability of infrastructure, the energy industry and communities to extreme weather, and the need to balance mitigation of the pollution that causes climate change with adaptation to global warming’s inescapable impacts.

In this region, some of these issues have been pushed to the side as the Gulf Coast served as handmaiden to the North American oil and gas boom. Now, the oil and gas industry’s prime processing and export center is partially under water.

Also running through the debate is the question whether this storm, beyond even the experiences of Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, will lead to broader acceptance of the scientific consensus surrounding climate change, a crisis that offers no convenient escape route.

Harvey’s rainfall was on track to break national records, the Texas state climatologist said. By midday Tuesday, parts of the Houston area were reporting more than 49 inches of rain had fallen, and the storm wasn’t finished. The National Weather Service said another 10 to 20 inches was expected over parts of the upper Texas coast and into Louisiana. Thousands of people had to be rescued from the flooding.

Trump’s Budget Ignored the Risks of a Disaster Like Harvey

The widespread damage from Hurricane Harvey, and months of recovery ahead, compels Congress to rethink its priorities as it faces a deadline in just a month to pass a new federal budget and raise the debt limit.

Among the urgent issues: approving emergency relief for Harvey that surely will run into billions of dollars; deciding whether to strengthen the federal flood insurance program’s dwindling finances; and considering the deep budget cuts the Trump Administration has proposed for several agencies playing a prominent role in hurricane-related operations.

At a news conference on Monday, President Trump promised swift Congressional action but gave no details. “I think that you’re going to see very rapid action from Congress, certainly from the president,” he said. “You’re going to get your funding.”

But Congress at the same time is grappling with a package of White House spending priorities that seem out of step in a post-Harvey era.

Under Trump’s budget, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), home of the National Weather Service, would face a 16 percent overall cut, with a heavy ax falling on programs like advanced modeling to make weather and storm forecasts more accurate and reliable, a project to upgrade flood prediction, and a tornado warning program for the Southeast. The White House plan is to have the agency’s climate research arm—the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research—bear the largest percentage cut, 32 percent.

Trump also proposed to cut $667 million from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s state and local grant funding, which aids disaster preparedness and emergency response, and to squeeze the budget of the U.S. Coast Guard, which is coordinating water rescues in East Texas from its Houston Command Center.

The storm could impel Congress to bolster, rather than slash, federal funding for disaster preparedness and emergency response. In addition, Congress undoubtedly will face a debate over federal funding to help the nation’s fourth largest city recover. In the wake of Superstorm Sandy in 2012, Congress ultimately passed a $51 billion relief package to help the Northeast states that were affected, but only after conservative House Republicans held the relief package hostage for three months as they waged a larger battle over federal spending.

One of the leaders of the effort to derail Superstorm Sandy funding was former South Carolina Congressman Mick Mulvaney—who now heads the White House budget office for Trump. Almost all of the Texas Republican Congressional delegation, except for Rep. John Culberson of Houston, voted against the Sandy recovery bill.

Will Congress Save the Flood Insurance Program?

The National Flood Insurance Program, the primary flood insurance for American homeowners, expires at the end of September. It is already in debt by nearly $25 billion after payouts following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Superstorm Sandy in 2012 and severe flooding last year, and it likely will take on yet more debt as the Gulf Coast rebuilds from Harvey.

Lawmakers are negotiating legislative proposals to extend the program. Among the sticking points are whether—and by how much—to raise insurance premiums, which help pay for the program. (Increasing the rates has been hugely unpopular with coastal lawmakers and their constituents.) A House committee passed a reauthorization bill in July, and a Senate committee has introduced legislation intended to update flood-mapping procedures and encourage private insurers to re-enter the market.

On Monday, leaders in Congress began urging lawmakers to extend the program. The Trump administration’s budget proposal, meanwhile, calls for cutting $190 million from FEMA’s Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program.

Some environmental and free-market advocates have long criticized the insurance program, saying it encourages building in flood-prone and environmentally sensitive areas—including wetlands, which play a major role in absorbing floodwaters—and that it rewards excessive claims on properties that are damaged repeatedly by flooding. According to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, FEMA has insured 30,000 of these “severe repetitive loss” properties. In an extreme example, one of those properties has had $1 million in claims, despite being worth about $72,000.

While the insurance industry says it’s too early to estimate the full extent of the damage from Harvey, an official with the Insurance Information Institute told Reuters the costs could outpace the damage from Katrina — which racked up $15 billion in National Flood Insurance Program claims and caused as much as $150 billion in total damage.

The National Flood Insurance Program, as its name implies, only covers flooding and handles about 5 million policies. According to Bloomberg Intelligence, the program’s value in the region hit by Harvey exceeds $105 billion. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America, estimates that only 10 percent of homeowners affected by Harvey have insurance. According to Pew Research, American taxpayers have spent $260 billion since 1980 repairing flood-related damage.

“All these people taken out in boats, they have a second problem: They have no insurance,” Hunter told the Associated Press.

Heart of the U.S. Oil Industry Takes Another Hit

Hurricane Harvey struck right at the heart of the nation’s oil and gas infrastructure, long known to be vulnerable.

The Texas Gulf Coast is home to nearly one-third of U.S. refining capacity and is the epicenter of a web of pipelines that drink in crude from as far away as Canada and from around the Gulf of Mexico, where 20 percent of U.S. oil is produced. Consumers far from the wind and rain will feel the storm’s impact at the gas pump in the coming weeks, the futures markets indicate. Gas price gouging complaints and federal investigations are a post-hurricane ritual; so are the findings that soaring prices are the inevitable result of supply disruptions for a nation that depends on oil. Ironically, even as consumers get hit with higher prices, crude oil prices are expected to fall with so many refineries closed and unable to buy new supplies.

In preparation for the hurricane, the oil and gas industry evacuated more than 100 production platforms, shutting down 20 percent of the Gulf’s oil production and 25 percent of its natural gas production. Exxon, Shell and other oil companies also shut down sprawling refineries, several of which are at the edge of the rising water in the 52-mile Houston Ship Channel, one of the busiest port areas in the world.

Still unknown is the full impact of the flooding and torrential rain on more than 800 petrochemical and other industrial facilities and more than 3,400 above-ground storage tanks that line the ship channel. Exxon reported that its Baytown refinery, the nation’s second largest, and its Beaumont petrochemical refinery had both been damaged, causing the release of pollutants. Chevron Phillips Chemical informed the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality that it expects to exceed permitted limits for several hazardous pollutants including benzene, a known carcinogen, during shutdown procedures. Meanwhile, the agency temporarily shut down all of its air monitoring devices to avoid wind and water damage during the storm.

During the floods that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the rupture of just one oil tank sent oil into more than 1,700 homes. And after the last major hurricane to hit the Texas Gulf Coast, Hurricane Ike in 2008, experts at Houston’s Rice University warned that the existing dikes and levees on the channel had been barely adequate and refineries were vulnerable in future hurricanes. Phil Bedient, co-director of the center for storm disaster studies that produced that research, last year told ProPublica that no steps had been taken to address the vulnerabilities.
“We’ve done nothing to shore up the coastline, to add resiliency … to do anything,” he said.

State regulators were urging citizens to call a 24-hour hotline with any reports of spills. In one incident, reported by the Houston Chronicle, a lightning strike in a storage tank farm sparked a fire that led to five barrels of crude oil and 20 barrels of wastewater spilling near a 25,000-acre coastal wetlands preserve. In another, an unknown amount of gasoline spilled into a containment dike when the large volume of rainwater caused a tank to tilt at the Kinder Morgan terminal in Pasadena.

Previous big storms have drawn policymakers’ attention to the risks created by the nation’s dependence on an oil and gas hub in the middle of a hurricane corridor. (In fact, the Houston Ship Channel originally was dredged in the early 1900s as a less vulnerable alternative oil transport hub than the barrier island of Galveston.) Some experts who have studied the risks believe that the unprecedented size of Hurricane Harvey’s impacts, and climate change’s role in stoking the storm’s intensity, will force a recovery effort that looks beyond rebuilding and fortifying the oil and gas infrastructure.

“Maybe Harvey is the event that will have the silver lining that gets the industry and politicians thinking as one that changes have to be made,” said Jim Blackburn, a professor of environmental engineering at Rice University.

Yes, Climate Change Exacerbated This Mess

As the inundation of Houston and other parts of the Texas Coast reached cataclysmic, probably unprecedented levels, it was clear that climate change played a role in worsening the storm. (There are other factors, too—notably decades of building in harm’s way.)

Sea level rise, warmer waters, and increased water loading in the atmosphere are all classic signals of climate change, and all have been present in the Gulf.

The storm arrived on a shoreline where sea level has been rising, in significant part because of manmade climate change, scientists say. The waters of the Gulf of Mexico have also been unusually warm all year, hitting records even in the winter and spring. A warming atmosphere also holds more moisture, leading to the kind of extreme heavy rainfall that quickly inundated neighborhoods across parts of East Texas. On top of all that, the storm stalled over the Houston area for days, which exacerbated its impact.

John Nielsen-Gammon, a professor at Texas A&M and the Texas state climatologist, has made a close study of the state’s rainfall patterns in extreme storms. Heavy rainfall days, he said, have increased in the state by about 30 percent in the past century. In absolute terms, that translates into 5 percent more rain. His analysis strongly suggests this storm is creating record rainfall for any location in the United States.

Houston rainfall, he has found, has “increased dramatically” even as the whole region’s rains have increased more moderately. But the local spike in Houston may simply be a matter of normal, random variability from place to place.

The warmer-than-normal water of the Gulf of Mexico, he said, was providing “a little extra kick” to the storm’s intensity.

Andrew Dessler, a water vapor specialist at Texas A&M, noted that the heavy rainfall is “not just because the atmosphere holds more water,” but also because of a feature of this storm that left it stalled for days in more or less a single location.

Michael Mann, another leading climate scientist, said the storm’s stalling was a “more tenuous, but possibly relevant” point in understanding climate change’s influence.

“Very persistent, nearly ‘stationary’ summer weather patterns of this sort, where weather anomalies (both high pressure dry hot regions and low-pressure stormy/rainy regions) stay locked in place for many days at a time, appears to be favored by human-caused climate change,” Mann wrote on his Facebook page. He and his colleagues have published a peer reviewed paper on the question.
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech, was one of several scientists who have been discussing the climate implications of the storm on social media and in the news this week. “The science is very certain that we are seeing more rain associated with hurricanes in a warmer world,” she said.

source: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/29082017/hurricane-harvey-rain-damage-climate-change-oil-industry-congress-budget-flood-insurance-science?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=cbebac9f48-Weekly+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-cbebac9f48-327824881