Experts Hail New Carbon Pollution Standards at EPA Hearing
Three Natural Resources Defense Council experts are scheduled to testify today at a public hearing here convened by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on its proposed rule to limit to industrial carbon pollution from new power plants.
Below are statements by Dan Lashof and David Doniger in the Natural Resource Defense Council's (NRDC) Climate and Clean Air Program, and Kim Knowlton in NRDC’s Global Warming and Health Project:
“Power plants are America’s largest source of carbon pollution, so there is simply no question that carbon dioxide from power plants endangers public health and welfare. Given that, EPA is simply doing its job by moving forward with common-sense standards to limit carbon pollution standards from power plants. These standards are long overdue.
“Improving and finalizing this proposal is a critical step toward creating an electricity system we can all live with. After all, electricity customers are also breathers. We need a reliable electric system—but a system that destabilizes our climate is not something we can rely on.”
—Dan Lashof, program director of NRDC’s Climate & Clean Air program
“Climate change is an urgent public health concern. Many Americans have had personal experiences with extreme weather in recent years that brought home some of the damaging effects and high costs of a changing climate. Many of these extreme events are influenced by climate change, which is loading the weather dice and contributing to some of the most harmful health conditions we face—including increased ozone pollution, lethal, extreme heat, floods and droughts.
“To avoid the unmanageable effects of climate change, limiting carbon pollution is critical. Supporting the New Source Performance Standard places national limits on industrial carbon pollution and is a significant milestone to prevent more potentially disastrous health effects of climate change.”
—Kim Knowlton, senior scientist, Global Warming and Health Project
“The carbon pollution standard is another important step that EPA has taken under President Obama to clean up and modernize the nation’s most polluting sector: the power plants that provide our electricity.
“Carbon pollution imposes staggering health costs by worsening dangerous air pollution and driving increasingly extreme weather. Power plants have long topped the list of industrial sources whose pollution endangers public health and welfare.
“Market realities have already driven decisions on new power plants away from coal. Power companies simply aren’t planning to build new coal plants due to the availability of low-cost natural gas, strong growth in wind and solar power, and big opportunities to improve energy efficiency.
“The new standard only reinforces what most power company executives and investors already understand—that carbon pollution and climate change are serious concerns, and that if and when underlying market economics support a comeback for new coal-fired power plants, they will need to be designed to capture their carbon and keep it out of the air.”
—David Doniger, policy director, Climate and Clean Air program
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker vetoed a sweeping climate bill on Thursday that would have put the commonwealth on a path to eliminating carbon emissions by 2050.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Ajit Niranjan
World leaders and businesses are not putting enough money into adapting to dangerous changes in the climate and must "urgently step up action," according to a report published Thursday by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
Adaptation Has a Long Way to Go<p>The Adaptation Gap Report, now in its 5th year, finds "huge gaps" between what world leaders agreed to do under the 2015 <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/5-years-paris-climate-agreement/a-55901139" target="_blank">Paris Agreement</a> and what they need to do to keep their citizens safe from climate change.</p><p>A review by the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative of almost 1,700 examples of climate adaptation found that a third were in the early stages of implementation — and only 3% had reached the point of reducing risks.</p><p>Disasters like storms and droughts have grown stronger than they should be because people have warmed the planet by burning fossil fuels and chopping down rainforests. The world has heated by more than 1.1 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution and is on track to warm by about 3°C by the end of the century.</p><p>If world leaders <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-performance-index-how-far-have-we-come/a-55846406" target="_blank">deliver on recent pledges</a> to bring emissions to <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/joe-bidens-climate-pledges-are-they-realistic/a-56173821" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">net-zero</a> by the middle of the century, they could almost limit warming to 2°C. The target of the Paris Agreement, however, is to reach a target well below that — ideally 1.5°C. </p><p>There are two ways, scientists say, to lessen the pain that warming will bring: mitigating climate change by cutting carbon pollution and adapting to the hotter, less stable world it brings.</p>
The Cost of Climate Adaptation<p>About three-quarters of the world's countries have national plans to adapt to climate change, according to the report, but most lack the regulations, incentives and funding to make them work.</p><p>More than a decade ago, rich countries most responsible for climate change pledged to mobilize $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance for poorer countries. UNEP says it is "impossible to answer" whether that goal has been met, while an OECD study published in November found that between 2013 and 2018, the target sum had not once been achieved. Even in 2018, which recorded the highest level of contributions, rich countries were still $20 billion short.</p><p>The yearly adaptation costs for developing countries alone are estimated at $70 billion. This figure is expected to at least double by the end of the decade as temperatures rise, and will hit $280-500 billion by 2050, according to the report.</p><p>But failing to adapt is even more expensive.</p><p>When powerful storms like cyclones Fani and Bulbul struck South Asia, early-warning systems allowed governments to move millions of people out of danger at short notice. Storms of similar strength that have hit East Africa, like <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/zimbabwe-after-cyclone-idai-building-climate-friendly-practices/a-54251885" target="_blank">cyclones Idai</a> and Kenneth, have proved more deadly because fewer people were evacuated before disaster struck.</p><p>The Global Commission on Adaptation estimated in 2019 that a $1.8 trillion investment in early warning systems, buildings, agriculture, mangroves and water resources could reap $7.1 trillion in benefits from economic activity and avoided costs when disasters strike.</p>
Exploring Nature-Based Solutions<p>The report also highlights how restoring nature can protect people from climate change while benefiting local communities and ecology.</p><p><a href="https://www.dw.com/en/climate-fires-risk-climate-change-bushfires-australia-california-extreme-weather-firefighters/a-54817927" target="_blank">Wildfires</a>, for instance, could be made less punishing by restoring grasslands and regularly burning the land in controlled settings. Indigenous communities from Australia to Canada have done this for millennia in a way that encourages plant growth while reducing the risk of uncontrolled wildfires. Reforestation, meanwhile, can stop soil erosion and flooding during heavy rainfall while trapping carbon and protecting wildlife.</p><p>In countries like Brazil and Malaysia, governments could better protect coastal homes from floods and storms by restoring <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/mudflats-mangroves-and-marshes-the-great-coastal-protectors/a-50628747" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mangroves</a> — tangled trees that grow in tropical swamps. As well as anchoring sediments and absorbing the crash of waves, mangroves can store carbon, help fish populations grow and boost local economies through tourism. </p><p>While nature-based solutions are often cheaper than building hard infrastructure, their funding makes up a "tiny fraction" of adaptation finance, the report authors wrote. An analysis of four global climate funds that spent $94 billion on adaptation projects found that just $12 billion went to nature-based solutions and little of this was spent implementing projects on the ground.</p><p>But little is known about their long-term effectiveness. At higher temperatures, the effects of climate change may be so great that they overwhelm natural defenses like mangroves.</p><p>By 2050, <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/rising-sea-levels-should-we-let-the-ocean-in-a-50704953/a-50704953" target="_blank">coastal floods</a> that used to hit once a century will strike many cities every year, according to a 2019 report on oceans by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the gold standard on climate science. This could force dense cities on low-lying coasts to build higher sea walls, like in Indonesia and South Korea, or evacuate entire communities from sinking islands, like in Fiji.</p><p>It's not a case of replacing infrastructure, said Matthias Garschagen, a geographer at Ludwig Maximilian University in Germany and IPCC author, who was not involved in the UNEP report. "The case for nature-based solutions is often misinterpreted as a battle... but they're part of a toolkit that we've ignored for too long."</p>
- Beavers Could Help in Adapting to Climate Change - EcoWatch ›
- Anishinaabe Tribes in the Northern U.S. Are Adapting to Climate ... ›
- Climate Adaptation Is Essential, Scientists Warn - EcoWatch ›
A Yellowstone National Park trail camera received a surprising visitor last month.
- Road to Nowhere: Highways Pose Existential Threat to Wolverines ... ›
- Court Ends Attempt to Mine for Gold Near Yellowstone - EcoWatch ›
For the first time, researchers have identified 100 transnational corporations that take home the majority of profits from the ocean's economy.
- 3 Innovations Leading the Fight to Save Our Ocean - EcoWatch ›
- 5 Ways to Curb the Power of Corporations and Billionaires - EcoWatch ›
Environmental groups and the foundations that fund them made incremental, if mixed, progress toward diversifying their staff and leadership in 2020 but remain overwhelmingly white, according to a report issued by Green 2.0 Wednesday.
- 15 EcoWatch Stories on Environmental and Racial Injustice ... ›
- A Look at Why Environmentalism Is So Homogeneous — and How ... ›
- The Power of Inclusive, Intergenerational Climate Activism - EcoWatch ›
- Decolonizing Environmentalism - EcoWatch ›