The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Flood Tide for the Climate Movement: How India and California Are Leading the Way
There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune.
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
—Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Washington headlines bickering about the Keystone XL pipeline, and acrimonious Republican sniping at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed initiatives to clean up U.S. power plant carbon pollution shouldn't obscure the exhilarating new reality: the climate battle has moved to a new phase, one in which the scale of the solutions being debated is, for the first time, approaching the scale of the problem.
Look at two events 12,000 miles and two days apart. On Jan. 3, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who had already pledged rooftop solar for 40 million off-grid houses in five years, and quintupled India’s renewable energy program, tripled those goals again. By 2022 India intends to construct 100 GW of solar generating capacity, the largest fleet in the world.
Two days later, here in Sacramento, California Governor Jerry Brown committed the world’s seventh largest economy to the world’s boldest clean energy goals yet: going from 25 precent to 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030, and—stunningly in the state which birthed the freeway culture—cutting oil consumption by 50 percent by the same date.
So shocked was the oil industry that all they commented was that they would work with the governor for “solutions that will sustain today’s energy and economic realities while protecting both our environment and future energy needs.” (Don’t hold your breath.)
Brown’s and Modi’s electricity goals are bold, ambitious and exciting. They will be attacked as expensive and unwise. But they cannot be dismissed as impossible—California has already reached 25 percent renewable electricity, India is producing the world’s cheapest solar power, and other countries like Portugal and Denmark have demonstrated that renewable electricity is ready to carry more than half of their power load.
California’s oil target is breathtaking. It is what is needed—the latest report on the how much oil we can afford to burn and stay on a 2 degree pathway says that a third of existing global oil reserves must remain underground, including all of such unconventional sources as the deep oceans, the Arctic and tar sands. It is consistent with goals articulated by climate advocates and organizations.
But California—and the world—are starting almost from scratch in seeking fuel diversity in the transportation sector—oil powers more than 90 percent of the world’s transport. Both India and the U.S. have enacted tough fuel efficiency standards to reduce petroleum waste. But California State’s low-carbon fuel standard and ZEV mandates are only beginning to kick in, and transportation fuels have just been placed under the state’s AB32 cap. (Oregon joined California a few days after Brown’s speech putting in place requirements the fuels sold in the state have 10 percent less carbon by 2020). Ramping up to a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use by 2030 will require a massive replacement of the state’s existing vehicle fleets, engine technologies, transportation infrastructure and fuel networks.
But if California can realize this vision, the odds that the rest of the world moves beyond oil dependency go up staggeringly. Big oil gets this. Houston, Wichita, Calgary and Riyadh have no doubt seen dozens of meetings in the last week about how to crush Brown’s vision before the public realizes just how practical it is.
“Mission Impossible” will be the war-cry. “They’re going to take your car away” the Koch Brother ads and sound bites will babble. “Renewable power isn't reliable” the coal companies will croak.
The reality is they are losing. Their campaign strategy—which worked for decades—was to mire the public debate down in climate science and risk, and thereby keep action on climate solutions at the “too small to really matter” scale. But they got greedy, and allowed the price of oil and coal to steadily soar. That opened up a market for clean energy that wasn't based on climate protection, although climate security is its most important benefit. No, Tesla and Solar City – and their Indian counterparts—are powered by the fact that they offered better energy products with cheaper fuels.
Renewable energy investment demonstrated this again in 2014. Even as coal, oil and natural gas prices fell, global investment in renewable energy jumped by 16 percent, and with steadily dropping costs for renewable energy, the volume of new clean energy increased by more than 25 percent.
Now that clean energy technologies have moved to a scale that anyone whose eyes are open can see that we don’t necessarily need fossil fuels for much longer, leaders like Modi and Brown—and others around the world—can offer programs that both capture the popular imagination and confront the scale of the energy revolution we need. And as these technologies get bigger, they get cheaper—unlike coal and oil for whom demand growth means ever higher and higher costs.
And things are going badly with on Big Carbon’s delaying strategy. The President has announced he will veto a bill that jams Keystone down his throat. The delay in approving pipelines has forced oil producers to use railroads—and that in turn has slowed the delivery by rail of coal for power plants reducing coal’s market share, and pitting coal and oil producers against each other for rail access. Duke and Dominion Power tried to slow the growth of clean electricity in North Carolina by weakening the requirement that they pay full value for such electrons—the Utility Commission rejected their appeal. China has reduced not only imports of coal, but total consumption. India’s biggest private coal developers, including Tata, Adani and Jindal, all refused to bid on two new government mega-imported coal plants, forcing India to cancel the bidding process. Clearly the companies were worried that the economics of importing coal to India no longer work. (Meanwhile Modi is paying for much of his solar initiative with the carbon tax India has levied on coal).
All this means the politics is changing—in both India and the U.S.—Big Carbon rhetoric notwithstanding. For decades the Southern Company—by some measures the biggest U.S. utility—generated 70 percent of its power from coal, ensuring that the politics of Georgia, Florida, Alabama and Mississippi tilted strongly pro-coal. Now, thanks to EPA pollution clean up requirements, Southern is getting only 38 percent of its power from coal, and struggling to keep that level. And American Electric Power, the other biggest coal dinosaur, is considering selling its Ohio coal plants because they no longer make money. As clean power grows, and fossils shrink, the political calculus tilts green.
But when the tide comes, Shakespeare is right—you must seize it. This is time for boldness, a time for vision, and a time above all to concentrate our strength and effort where we can move big ideas and game changing projects. Slow and steady won’t win this race.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
A new multiyear study found that people living or working within 2,000 feet, or nearly half a mile, of a hydraulic fracturing (fracking) drill site may be at a heightened risk of exposure to benzene and other toxic chemicals, according to research released Thursday by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)
The crowd appears to attack a protestor in a video shared on Twitter by ITV journalist Mahatir Pasha. VOA News / Youtube screenshot
Some London commuters had a violent reaction Thursday morning when Extinction Rebellion protestors attempted to disrupt train service during rush hour.
By Kristen Fischer
Though the science has shown sugary drinks are not healthy for children, fruit drinks and similar beverages accounted for more than half of all children's drink sales in 2018, according to a new report.
Farms with just one or a handful of different crops encourage fewer species of pollinating and pest-controlling insects to linger, ultimately winnowing away crop yields, according to a new study.
Up to half of the detrimental impacts of the "landscape simplification" that monocropping entails come as a result of a diminished mix of ecosystem service-providing insects, a team of scientists reported Oct. 16 in the journal Science Advances.
Monocrop palm oil plantation Honduras.
SHARE Foundation / Flickr / CC BY-NC 2.0
"Our study shows that biodiversity is essential to ensure the provision of ecosystem services and to maintain a high and stable agricultural production," Matteo Dainese, the study's lead author and a biologist at Eurac Research in Bolzano, Italy, said in a statement.
It stands to reason that, with declines in the sheer numbers of insects that ferry pollen from plant to plant and keep crop-eating pests under control, these services will wane as well. But until now, it hasn't been clear how monocultures affect the number and mix of these species or how crop yields might change as a result.
Aiming to solve these questions, Dainese and his colleagues pulled together data from 89 studies cutting across a variety of landscapes, from the tropics of Asia and Africa to the higher latitudes of northern Europe. They tabulated the number of pollinating and pest-controlling insects at these sites — both the absolute number of individuals and the number of species — along with an assessment of the ecosystem services the insects provided.
In almost all of the studies they looked at, the team found that a more diverse pool of these species translated into more pollination and greater pest control. They also showed that simplified landscapes supported fewer species of service-providing insects, which ultimately led to lower crop yields.
The researchers also looked at a third measure of the makeup of insect populations — what they called "evenness." In natural ecosystems, a handful of dominant species with many more individuals typically live alongside a higher number of rarer species. The team found as landscapes became less diverse, dominant species numbers dwindled and rare species gained ground. This resulting, more equitable mix led to less pollination (though it didn't end up affecting pest control).
"Our study provides strong empirical support for the potential benefits of new pathways to sustainable agriculture that aim to reconcile the protection of biodiversity and the production of food for increasing human populations," Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, one of the study's authors and an animal ecologist at the University of Würzburg in Germany, said in the statement.
The scientists figure that the richness of pollinator species explains around a third of the harmful impacts of less diverse landscapes, while the richness of pest-controlling species accounts for about half of the same measure. In their view, the results of their research point to the need to protect biodiversity on and around crops in an uncertain future.
"Under future conditions with ongoing global change and more frequent extreme climate events, the value of farmland biodiversity ensuring resilience against environmental disturbances will become even more important," Steffan-Dewenter said.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Mongabay.
Ivory Coast's rainforests have been decimated by cocoa production and what is left is put in peril by a new law that will remove legal protections for thousands of square miles of forests, according to The Guardian.
By Karin Kirk
Greenland had quite the summer. It rose from peaceful obscurity to global headliner as ice melted so swiftly and massively that many were left grasping for adjectives. Then, Greenland's profile was further boosted, albeit not to its delight, when President Trump expressed interest in buying it, only to be summarily dismissed by the Danish prime minister.
During that time I happened to be in East Greenland, both as an observer of the stark effects of climate change and as a witness to local dialogue about presidential real estate aspirations, polar bear migrations and Greenland's sudden emergence as a trending topic.